User talk:CelticWonder

MFD of User talk page

I just deleted a subpage of yours at User:CelticWonder/Sean Kennedy (Author). Apparently no one notified you of the deletion nomination at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CelticWonder/Sean Kennedy (Author). The grounds for my WP:SPEEDY deletion were that the article clearly appeared to be a cut and paste copy of a deleted article. This violates the GFDL which requires us to keep a record of all of the contributors. If you believe the speedy deletion was not warranted, feel free to contact me. If you want to actually work on the article, as opposed to storing it long term in hopes you can someday get it back in, I can undelete and move the article to your userspace, thereby preserving the GFDL history. However, you should be aware that the page was not originally nominated for the GFDL violation but because a user thought you were not working on the article; this gives me pause and you will have to convince me that there is a point to giving you the GFDL compliant text. I apologize that you were not notified of the MFD nomination. I suggest you review it before contacting me so you are fully aware of the situation. If I do not respond within 48 hours, feel free to e-mail me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would've been nice to be notified AT ALL that it was even suggested for deletion and it's quite rude not to, but I guess it doesn't really matter now, does it? Maybe you can explain WHAT exactly violates GFDL and why anyway: --the act of deleting my page? --or the page's existence itself? And just FYI (and anyone else out there that appears to "have it in" for Sean/RantMedia, whether you mean to or not), I didn't create the user page AFTER the article was deleted, it was before (as a backup, since I created the article this time in the first place), and it's continued existence wasn't out of some devious plot by me to "sneak" it back into WP somehow; truly I didn't know there was some rule about what you can/cannot have in your user subspace. Seems weird for WP nazis to be hording over those too, but I guess I've come to expect this sort of thing now. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC) "

I am sorry you weren't notified but this was a speedy delete that didn't warrant discussion. The GFDL requires that the contributors and their contributions be preserved. We do this through the edit history. When you copy a page from one place to another without reference back to an edit history that others can see you violate the GFDL. The proper way to preserve a page for future use on Wikipedia is to ask the deleting admin to move it to your user space and delete the cross namespace wikilink. Then the entire edit history will be attached to the article in your userspace and if you work on the article and get it up to mainspace standards the entire edit history will be with it when it moves back to the mainspace. If you copy and paste the article in order to "back it up" (which isn't allowed by the way), then you destroy the edit history and unless you are the author of everything done to date on the article there is a GFDL (and thus a copyright) violation. GFDL violations, as with all copyright violations, are deleted on sight and I would have deleted this page without the MFD had I come across it otherwise. I know nothing about the topic and have no interest in it, if I did have a bias against this individual I would not have acted on the deletion request.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sean Kennedy books

They simply are not suitable for inclusion on the page about Rantmedia - it's straightforward coatracking. If you think an article about him could survive AFD put it up (it's unlikely) but we don't hide content about non-notable people in other articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with your insinuating WP:Coatrack, as the information included is (well, WAS) WP:NPOV and lends to accomplishments of one of the major contributors to the creative and performance aspects of RantMedia, but you're going to do what you're going to do anyway, right? I tire of this bullsh*t tugging back-and-forth on very minor things such as this. I *should* report this for admin intervention, but I just don't f*cking care that much now. Thanks a lot. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) "

No problem - have a nice day. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Thanks a lot." translation = "I think you're a douche, and I think you're wrong." Just making sure that's clear. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "

This needs to go as a GFDL violation, an admin can do it for you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)j

 Done Speedy Deleted per Speedy Deletion Criterion G-12. No request required.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Links on your userpage have been removed, as you added links to copyrighted material that was hosted on those sites without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but only if they are not themselves copyright violations. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. More specifically You have been creating cut and paste "back up" copies of articles in your userspace; you have also been creating external links to Google caches and other external sites which preserve these. Both are violations of the GFDL and are therefore copyright violations. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WOW, you're so "COOL"! Just remember, these aren't for your face. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "

Proposed deletion of RantMedia

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article RantMedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N in its current state. References don't establish notability and none of them are independent.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ɪntəsvɛnsk 14:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of RantMedia

I have nominated RantMedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

This comment is completely unacceptable. Any further incivility will result in a block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop canvassing, as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As required on WP:CANVAS, my requests are notifications of current issues regarding the article in question being addressed, was done in limited posting (only to members of previous AfD discussions), and in a neutral, nonpartisan, and open manner. By definition of the WP:CANVAS, I was not canvassing, and I promise not to do so according to WP:CANVAS. I suggest you take a step back. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

Regardless, AfD notifications should be made in a neutral tone; your messages, however, were clearly written to influence the outcome. Thus, it is inappropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's only your opinion, and I believe you are completely wrong. Revert your inappropriate "rv" undos. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

As someone who agrees with you on the article, you really should go back and make the message informational and not written so as to take a side. just saying. I do agree this looks very very strange and I'm unclear why this is at AfD or why anyone is !voting to delete given that it plainly meets our inclusion criteria. That said, being confrontational about it will only hurt. Ah well... Hobit (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

I second Hobit's sentiment about the notifications. While the bulk of your message was neutral (asking people to "think of improving the article or contributing to the current AfD" is perfectly acceptable), the section title "RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia" is not. Also, your initial round of notifications was only to editors who had !voted "keep" in the original AfD, the deletion review, or the MfD (see WP:CANVAS#Votestacking), but I see now that you are also notifying other participants ([1][2])... I urge you to retract your comments to Cameron Scott; if you are tired/frustrated and unable to communicate with him in a civil manner, then simply refrain from directly engaging him until you are able to do so. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive criticism and have complied. Thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

Oh, I should add though: saying "RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia" is not any more biased than the title "Articles for Deletion/RantMedia". ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

Thank you. I have commented in the discussion and am leaning toward keeping the article. In response to your question in the AfD about paper sources: they are perfectly acceptable; I actually copied into the AfD the list of sources you presented during the deletion review.

As for the question of bias, I see "Articles for deletion/RantMedia" as just indicating the location of the page (no different, in my opinion, from "Wikipedia:Main Page/Test"); however, I do not deny that I would like to see "AfD" become "Articles for discussion"—if for no other reason than to have a centralized forum for discussing article content without the backdrop of deletion. But I fear that's another topic altogether... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

article afd

thanks for the talk i replied on my talk page i got an edit conflict here but it sits there just wanted to let you know i am gonna look right now after i finish writing this SimonTrew (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars

Don't you think that this is a little mean spirited? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars

User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I've initiated a thread involving you at WP:ANI. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

S

Thanks for the heads up about Rantmedia. I'm not very involved in wikipedia anymore, and I no longer have the patience for much AFD. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but you really need to tone it down a bit. Present your case solidly, and you shouldn't have a problem. Don't be afraid to expand an article that others want deleted and you want kept. After all, I did rescue MENS from deletion, and lets face it, its mostly used as a kinky sex toy...  The Steve  09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd of Rantmedia

Look, when you write a Wikipedia article, its supposed to be supported by non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources. RantMedia has that. Wired Magazine, the Van Sun, Langley Times, Globe & Mail, Exclaim, Spin, and maybe if you stretch it the Computer Paper, all establish a basis for your article.

BUT YOU ARE NOT USING ANY OF THESE SOURCES IN YOUR ARTICLE. Your references section is a dead loss - all you've done is link to rantmedia's own propaganda.

Your article would be considered notable if you did the following:

1) extract all the information about RantMedia and all associated topics from the PROPER sources I've listed above, that you already have access to. 2) put all THAT information into an article. Use footnotes. Learn how to insert references into the article. You are only supposed to use information from reliable sources. 3) Use a proper "references" section at the end, along with a "notes" section, so that people can actually VERIFY your article.

THAT is how you're supposed to write an article for Wikipedia, because if you do THAT you'll never get into an argument about notability! Read WP:RS and WP:V. Also read WP:NPOV. For all the chatter about notability, THOSE THREE are the three main rules about Wikipedia, and you broke every single one of them. You have reliable sources, USE THEM. You have verifiable references, PROVIDE THEM. You can easily get enough reliable information from these sources to make a neutral article, DO IT.

In fact, I've got to change my vote. Sorry, these rules aren't meant to hard-ass you - they're only here so that we can avoid all this AfD bullshit in the first place! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: AGTTH Your comments are GREAT, but PLEASE before you assume I'm responsible for those links not being there, refer here and realize they WERE there before others decided to remove them simply because they were hosted on RantMedia.ca. The original articles were 6-9 years old and in print (not online), so they aren't available anywhere else ATM. The links provided were clearly obvious scans of the original articles, but not counted as "independent secondary sources" simply because the link had "rantmedia" in the url, nevermind the fact that the CONTENT was independent. This guy is the one that started reaching in and ripping all the cables out, btw. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

When a numbered IP starts screwing with your article, you revert him. End of story. Everyone will back you up on that. Esecially since nobody is ever supposed to delete sourcing from an article. Because people who do that put the article's author in the situation you're in now.

I'm just annoyed because Rant Media does quite obviously deserve an article by WP's guidelines. However, because the people who've made Rant articles and SK articles on Wikipedia over the past 5 years have sometimes done terrible jobs, writing articles that read like complete spam, not following Wikipedia's standard format, we've now ended up in a situation where the AfD can result in a salt - that's where they "salt the earth" so the article can never again be created.

And meanwhile, once this article is deleted, Sean Kennedy'll be spending another 6 months being all whiney and snitty about Wikipedia again. I won't be able to listen to him anymore.

Ultimately, to reach your goal, it doesn't matter what's right and wrong here. What matters is that the various Wikipedia editors in AfD see that you've followed the rules: that you write an article formatted like all the others and sourced as any others. If you've been watching and listening to Sean Kennedy you already know that. Why is it a bad idea to walk through town wearing camouflage with a big sword strapped across your back? Because people will see you don't fit in.

Go look at Order of Nine Angles. That's an article I rescued from AfD. The article used to, ages ago, be quite frankly stupid. It's about a supposed Satanic cult, of which there's only 1 confirmed member. But since it was mentioned in half a dozen scholarly books or more, I managed to get the article accepted - by following the rules, and completely rewriting it to look like a proper enyclopedic article. It's the only real article I've ever worked on, and I had to learn all the footnoting and formatting from scratch. If I can make that article acceptable, you can easily make a RantMedia article acceptable. The problem is you're almost out of time - you can completely repair an article during AfD, and that will give you a chance to avoid a delete vote. But you'd have to start now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to offer you a tremendous "thank you" for your suggestions, which I believe will be paramount to the successful inclusion of RantMedia. I've vastly improved the article since the AfD nomination as well as -- since yesterday afternoon. I wasn't clear to me what was necessary to be done with the article, and you were truly the first to really answer my question of "what is it going to take?". So from the bottom of my heart, thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

From my own experience, what I can offer is "It ain't over yet". Even when an article is vastly improved during an AfD, the decision can still go against it - if, for example, the AfD is closed by a rookie admin. Unfortunately, someone being an admin doesn't mean they're a good admin. I'll see what's up in the AfD again, but usually you have to nnounce loudly that the article's been improved before people are willing to reconsider their votes - and even then, many people don't. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RantMedia AfD and Non-Barnstar Comment

CelticWonder, I recognize I am likely amongst the last person you would like to hear from, but here goes. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, is a smart guy, and he's given you an awful lot of good advice; I'm pleased to see you're using it. Further to his, I add the observation that insults and name-calling will only work against you and your subject. Amongst the adverse effects, you run the risk of alienating those who might otherwise have provided help. This is, after all, a collaborative project. I think that there's justification for a RantRadio article (more than RantMedia), and have said as much. I understand AllGloryToTheHypnotoad's annoyance.

On that note: Look, I'm a big girl and I've have shrugged off more than my fair share of abuse, but this comment goes beyond the pale. I ask you to withdraw it. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, alright. I was nearly in "sweet fuck all" mode with WP and was about to just bow out for good until I finally got some good advice. And thank you. I'm actually working on the article per Hypnotoad's suggestions now. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

I'd strongly recommend you remove your posting and barnstar to ANI as soon as possible and perhaps throw in an apology for good measure. Up to you, but I see blocks coming your way otherwise (and maybe even so). Hobit (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of (already forgot, sorry). Started getting busy working on the RantMedia article. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks or harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Please refactor your signature; it is far too complex. (Including the date portion, it's 487 characters.) That is about four full lines of signature data each time your sign a post, which is a violation of Wikipedia's signature guidelines. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm thanks, but the response to your "request" was already taken care of nearly a day and a half ago. Raw signature lengths don't include the date, and as it is currently, it's 247 bytes, and afaik, that's less than 255 characters. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the color formatting on your signature, which quite frankly looks like a HUGE chunk of code, and in my opinion, it's not needed. There are lots of notable editors out there with NO color formatting, you know. Draconiator (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My sig used to be around 500 chars (by subst inclusion), and I had been forcibly "repremanded" before he made his suggestion. It's now 247 chars. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rantmedia

Nice work in saving the Rantmedia article, amigo! PKT(alk) 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi...

...to myself. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rantmedia revert re myspace

Hi, You reverted my Myspace link deletion. I think the policy we want to refer to is WP:ELNO, and its subsidiary (which I never read before but you've brought it up) WP:ELOFFICIAL - and not WP:MYSPACE.

As for Rantmedia's Myspace page, I think it fails the part of WP:ELOFFICIAL where it is required that "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable". The myspace page is mostly a bunch of people saying hi - it's social networking, basically. There's no important content - certainly nothing that's not already covered on the rantmedia site. (Heck, the third most recent blog post on the myspace page is from 2006.) I'd suggest that the rantmedia websites are good content, and worth linking, while their myspace page is completely extraneous and should be deleted - Wikipedia articles aren't meant to promote social networking sites, only to (if unavoidable) refer to primary content on them.

Anyway, I won't start a revert war over it. It's just that from what I've seen, rules aside, we generally don't link to a MySpace page off a Wikipedia article, since they usually have no content that's important for the article. And if they do have important content, it's sometimes proof that the subject has had no coverage anywhere else and is thus non-notable. (This usually comes up with indie-rock bands.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation note

There has been a request for Cabal mediation on a recent request for comment that you were involved in. If you would like to discuss, please see the case page. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 04:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day Edit Warring

I have asked you already a number of times to discuss the issue of wearing orange on the Saint Patrick's Day article on the talk page, before continuing to add material that is poorly cited. However, you seem set on edit warring about it rather than attempting to establish consensus. You are now in danger or breaching Wikipedia policy. Please stop this, remove what you have added and respond to my points on the talk page.

• there is no evidence at all that what you are claiming is "increasingly popular". What is this based on? Unfounded claims on blogs are not satisfactory cites for an encyclopaedia.
• Of your three cites; this one is a self published source which is not acceptable. This one is a blog, equally not acceptable, and this one is a local newspaper reporting on the afore mentioned blog. How can you say that these are reliable sources?
• Adding up a number of sources which you claim (but haven't produced) in order to argue that it indicates widespread significance is synthesis, which is not permissible. Do you have any single source that has actual real life examples of a significant number of significantly widespread people enacting this practice?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Good afternoon CelticWonder. I have removed some of your comments on the Clannad Mediation. Please remember to keep cool when editing. This is an informal note, and should not count against you at all in anyway. Thank you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Sure thing, thanks. That kitten looks delicious, btw. ;op ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Letterman relocations

I don't believe your changes can be based off the same discussions as at Talk:Leno, at least not reasonably, because the latter had a disambiguation page at the base name, rather than an article with a hatnote link to the dab. Also, the pageview stats indicate that very few users who accessed the Letterman sports article, at the primary topic, felt the need to click the hatnote to get to the dab page. It's a totally different situation than the former Leno set-up. That being said, I'm not going to lodge any objection if nobody else does (I had actually considered proposing such a move quite awhile ago, but I decided against it... because the page view stats didn't indicate David Letterman was the primary topic). Propaniac (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The page view stats (if you wanna check as I did) actually do clearly indicate David Letterman is the primary topic, in fact by roughly the same margins your argument about Jay Leno was. So the mere matter that the previous coincidental PT was essentially a dictionary article about a genre-specific word is moot, as opposed to a person who is much more likely to be PT compared with any of the other people/places (as in no historically established hierarchy) on the dab and is also colloquially known by his last name alone. I just don't care anymore to copy all the hit tallies over into discussion, since I've concluded that WP works like a chaotic, steaming pile of inconsistency sometimes. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the moves have been reverted, for several reasons. First off, there does not appear to have been any discussion directly relating to this matter. Second, the discussions regarding Roger Ebert and Jay Leno highlight points that need to be considered with respect to this move as well. Third, but perhaps most important, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of articles that rely on the "letterman" link pointing to the correct article. If you feel strongly about this move, you should consider opening a discussion on the related pages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm not going to do it; I don't care enough anymore to waste my time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The main question in determining the best thing to do with Letterman is probably whether "Letterman" is more likely to refer to the sports usage or to David. But because, unlike with Leno, the sports usage was at the base name, users who searched on "Letterman" intending to find ANY usage would view the sports usage first. So if the sports article received, say, 8,000 views, and the disambiguation page received 1,000 views, that indicates that out of 8,000 users who searched for "Letterman," 7,000 of them were probably looking for the sports usage. If a majority of users felt the need to continue on to the dab page instead of staying at the sports article, that would indicate the sports article was not the primary topic.

Leno was different because the disambiguation page was at the base name, so users who were looking for any usage of "Leno" would have to actively select which usage they were looking for. Propaniac (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Add to this the fact that even the page view comparison as you suggested could just as easily been skewed by the equal or even more likely possibility that someone typed "Letterman" in search, didn't see "David Letterman", and then typed "David Letterman" in the search box. Yet another reason why simple hit totals shouldn't be such a weighty factor in dab-related changes (like Talk:Johnson#Requested move, for example). This discussion should be taking place on the appropriate article's page, not my talk page. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello CelticWonder. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CelticWonder. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

On being added to list of singers with an extensive range

So it's been three years since you've asked about being added to the list of singers with a range of five octaves or more, but here is my response:

You should be signed into a record label, and should have a detailed wp page. Also, I think you should be older than 20 years. RSSP-2020 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If it took you three years to bring yourself to such a comment, and it required you to "think" in order to come to that last sentence there, I can only assume it must have been a painful experience for you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 11:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)