User talk:Celarnor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I agree with you

Wikipedia does need to make a review of its policies and role it wants to serve as a web 2.0 encyclopedia. Here was something I said in the talk page of the 'a more perfect union'.

(I believe that most of time the argument is about this main issue of 'Is Wikipedia is being used for publicity?' and NOT an argument about whether it is just an 'Encyclopedia of important events or topics occuring or occured'. I am sure once the presidential race is over, there would be no such argument of the deletion of this article whatsoever, and people discussing about this speech would be doing so solely because of its content, its linguistic delivery, and other reasons solely for historical and educational reasons. Most of the times people are forgotten but what they have done or said makes them remembered. Today there are 350 million google hits for the 'I Have a Dream' speech [3] and 20 million for 'Martin Luther King' [4] but only 2.3 million hits for 'I Have a Dream Martin Luther King' search, [5], suggesting that many people especially in non-American countries perhaps would know the speech but not even knowing who said it in the first place. By contrast there are only 1 million hits for 'A More Perfect Union Barack Obama' [6] 722 thousand hits for 'Barack Obama Speech on Race' [7], but 30 million hits for 'Barack Obama' [8]. My argument is that I implore Wikipedia users to please let go of this dilemna and constant debate of trying to keep Wikipedia non publicity and solely information, because by deleting articles some Wikipedia editors find is adding publicty to one person named Barack Obama, they are also deleting something which is so much potentially informational for many other billions of people who just want information on this particular speech. I say let the people decide how they filter their information, because the election only objectively affects 300 million Americans [9], but the race-issue affects everybody on the planet, and this speech IS a key speech on that matter.Msethisuwan (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

People that make ipusers look bad

Hi. I'm just curious why someone with an "unhealthy love" of wikipedia has only 17 mainspace edits in over a year.[1] With zero in most of the 5 "writing interests" listed on your page. Are you an alternate account of Bramlet's or something? Please respond here as my ip changes pretty randomly -- multiple proxies on campus here. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's rude and uncalled for. Have a look at WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Most of my interests are already quite well-documented here and don't receive a lot of controversy, so I don't bother making needless minor edits where they aren't required and could be fixed by an RC patroller with a lot more time on their hands than I have. Celarnor (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Your neophyte mastery of wikipolicy answered my question nicely. Glad to be wrong ;) And sorry you found it rude. Sometimes it's better to just ask, rather than to assume the worst. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FG42

Hi. In case you did not know, I have reverted your most recent vandalism revert on FG42 (please see this: [2]). Looks like it's Twinkle's fault. Cheers on fighting the vandals :-) E Wing (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting ... I've certainly never seen that happen before. :P Celarnor (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Dude you are so fast! I'm going to have to get a faster internet connection or I'll always be behind you :P --General Jazza (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for catching and reverting the recent vandalism to my user page while I was on vacation! It's much appreciated. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto, thanks for cleaning the vandalism on my talk page, I've been getting a fair bit lately, as thanks, I will watch your talk page for vandalism. You've looked out for me, so I'll do the same for you. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the confirmation on the would be deletor. --Norcobash (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)--Norcobash (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Whiting

Are you implying that I am in some way putting up a frivolous AfD or that I don't know what I am doing? Paste (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, merely that there isn't a review process prior to AfD. It isn't anything personal; I just have a deep ideological problem with the fact that it is so easy to get something deleted. This is also the reason that I usually only cast keep votes; things delete by default unless someone does something about it. I don't mean anything bad about you, or people who do what you do; you saw something that you didn't believe was notable, so you tagged it for the regular process that occurs here for dealing with such things. The problem is with the process itself, not with the people that participate in it. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Court Theatre (Chicago)

I added some references to Court Theatre (Chicago) which should help to establish notability. Could you please take another look at the article? --Eastmain (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I hate to see god material disappear from Wikipedia for any reason. Cel ^{Talk to me} 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on the Yvonne K. Fulbright article. Fosnez (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD Inclusionist Policy

Heh, I just realized you were commenting on two of the AfD's that I have been watching, taking the direct opposite of my position. We've both also been on-and-off wiki users, posting in spurts. Scary o_O You're like my evil twin :D

It seems that the inclusionists win out this time (Fictional raccoons and list of states by formation date). Hope to edit/AfD with you again in the future (maybe we can agree on an article to delete/save? :D) Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS relax discussion at pump

Hey I took your advice and posted at the pump regarding what to do when the reliable sources get it wrong. Z00r (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Faith

I will thank you not to wander around Wikipedia assuming bad faith in my editing.

The vast majority of AfDs I have started are successful, and I stand by my original rationale in regards to A More Perfect Union.--RWR8189 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I will thank you to know that I always assume good faith; however, I see things detrimental to the project where I see them. As other people have said, your AfD history is extremely partisan and political. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If my AfD history is anything, it is by and large successful. The majority deal with WP:WEB issues that are not related to politics. When they are political, I tackled both sides of the political spectrum. If you are just playing follow the leader, I apologize, you were the first post I happened upon.--RWR8189 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, personally--again, I always assume--to me, deleting encyclopedic material from an encyclopedia is the very embodiment of bad faith. And I am not playing follow the leader; I just happen to agree with that poster that your AfD history is a tad suspicious. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squad

Celarnor, many thanks for bringing the article rescue squad to my attention. I was not aware of it before now. I certainly support this. Believe it or not, I tend to be an inclusionist when it comes to facts, but not opinions. Anyway, thanks again. Bardcom (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A More Perfect Union

Since you seem to care about this topic you may want to look at and deal with the concerns raised by Silence. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Raised by who? I didn't see anyone by the name, nor do I see the word at all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, never mind. Mr IP took care of it. See [3] and the last section on the talk page. Sections of the article were apparently copyvio. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on the page itself; I thought you meant the AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whois for determining static or dynamic ips.

Hi, I'm bringing this here since I don't want to sidetrack the discussion (of the A More Perfect Union afd) any more but I'm curious about this. You say the whois "would be listed only as a rangepool, not as an IP linked to a single room within a building" if the IP was dynamic, yet every single IP in the range (probably, I obviously didn't try it with them all) shows the same room as the whois result. How then can you tell static and dynamic ips apart based on a whois? Is there some way I've missed? As far as I know, the only way to tell them apart would be if it said 'portable' or 'non-portable' in the results, which isn't happening here. You also say "it's not regular practice for US government domains to rotate their internal IP", which doesn't sound very final either, and in which case the whois result in itself wouldn't be helpful. Thanks for the help. - Bobet 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that; whoever submitted the WHOIS information for them was ... off; the normal practice is to list the actual location of the IP (i.e, "North network closet, room 42-f" or some such") in that section). For example, if you were to do a whois on my IP, It would return "/fieldAddress 3090 Nathaniel Rochester Hall /break Computer Science House", followed by the technical and contact information In this case, it would seem like someone simply screwed up there. Still, I have serious doubts about it being dynamic; having done an internship at a government agency and a semester of co-op with a company that did network upgrades and maintenance for more than a few, I've never seen an instance where any of them rotated the contents of their pools in the domains; for one thing, many of the nodes have their own fileservers running on primitive, non-SMB-sensing *NIX systems. For another, there are usually servers on the domain, which can't be dynamic for obvious reasons, and it also makes technical and security auditing a great deal more difficult. For example, if someone on the domain was doing unauthorized file transfer, it is much easier to simply look up the IP than to find the log matching whatever date and then looking up the MAC address of the computer that had that IP, then looking up the computer that MAC address belongs to. Furthermore, running dig with a reverse lookup on the computer (which gives us bianca.psc.gov as the terminal in question), also tells us that the IP has been leased to that MAC since 10/22/07; it's unlikely that that a dynamic IP would be that way for long. Generally, the only uses for dynamic IPs are to keep internet subscribers from running services on their machines. Thus, while you could be right and this could be dynamic, it's extremely unlikely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Banishment in the Bible

Bless you :-). Shoessss |  Chat  09:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation

There's a citation on March 24, 2008 where Annie Duke was on Deal Or No Deal on NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.250.105 (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

well thank you but it flies over every year but oh well its good enough for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigeon33 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC) so weark lol

Tom Chilton

I just want to let you know that I was trying to revert the constant vandalism going on in that article and I may have reverted the article to a vadled state. I'm glad to see you there helping though. :) Fox McCloud MyU (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was just pressing Q as quick as something came up in huggle. One of them left a message here that "the masses had been notified of my treachery". Lulz. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, :) it seems to be protected now, thank goodness. I was reading the WoW Forums when somebody posted that this was going on, so I rushed on over. :) Fox McCloud MyU (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is: Do you change it because you like Tom Chilton, or do you change it simply to protect the original information regardless of whom it is about? Most of us who edited the page (about 100-200 or so) did so simply because the man has over an extended period of time crossed our community in what might be considered to be a little less than fairly. Recently this has reached a boiling point, and a few of us are blowing off steam. Vandalism it may be, but you only make it worse by trying to fix it immediately after the editing. Honestly you're better off leaving it as is since most of what you considered to be vandalism was actually fact. (for example it is a widely accepted belief that Tom Chilton did in fact ruin Ultima Online by changing the nature of the game.) -Anonymous (Please don't think this to be vandalism)

It's not a widely accepted belief if I don't know about it, or any of the other people trying to keep the article from becoming an innavigable mess. You are welcome to add the statement with a source per our policy regarding sources and statements that require verification. If I reverted a legitimate edit, I apologize; however, I don't see any in any of the edits that I saw. All I saw where duckrolls, copypasta and fail.

tl;dr: sauce or gtfo. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that you know all? You browse every forum for every game ever made and have read every thread within said forums? This is quite a boast my friend, and I highly doubt it to be true.

However, to site a source for what I and many others consider to be a widely accepted belief, one would need to cite sources that may not be considered to be acceptable to wiki simply due to their nature. Unless of course you consider old threads from the Ultima Online boards and current threads from the WoW boards to be acceptable sources that is. Confirm/deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.21.194 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim to know all. However, for something to be a "widely accepted belief", it has to be common sense or common knowledge to most people. The individual ranting and ravings of someone ruining some MMO is a far cry from common knowledge. And no, forum postings are not reliable sources. If a fact can not be proven via reliable, verifiable source, then it is a fact which can be disputed, and therefore a fact that does not belong in Wikipedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but to site changes done to the games in question along with reasons as to why they were bad for them would then be acceptable, no? For example: a change made to the game's class structure which took away said classes unique standing in the game and thus changed the way the game played in a way that was not beneficial to people who played that class, but rather it benefited a class that at the time, Mr. Chilton had been known to be sporting. Or perhaps the game's core mechanics and the way it played being changed by Mr. Chilton, in a way that destroyed what was one of the best player versus player features of the game. Would that sort of citation then be acceptable? (EDIT) Also, to add, most of the people who played Ultima Online did indeed feel that Tom Chilton ruined the game and the way it felt and the way it played. I personally knew about 50 or 60 people who played, and 20 of them quit the game right out because of it, 30 of them believed that the game was no longer playable in the fashion that they had gotten used to playing it, and the remainder of them (players generally who had not been playing for a long period of time) either did not care about the changes, or were loosely satisfied with them. Nobody I knew liked the changes, and very few people on the boards did either.

Creating a cascade of statements like "based on change in the game in patch x, most players believe y, thus this person ruined the game" would fall under original research, as well as synthesizing material which is something else that isn't allowed here. The objective of Wikipedia is to write articles on notable subjects whose contents can easily be verified by checking it against a verifiable, reliable source, not to be a soapbox for your position. Now, if someone were to get such an analysis published in a reputable gaming magazine, or you were able to find a poll published in USA Today that said most people didn't like patch x, then you'd probably be fine; however, sources other than the game itself need to be cited somewhere.

Your personal experiences don't really matter. It's an issue of reliability and verifiability, as I've already said. Something, some kind of reliable source has to be cited somewhere saying that the patch made a lot of people angry and that the subject is responsible for it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that simply because something is popular it isn't always right (religion anybody?) it is also true that when a community of players agree that somebody is the source reason as to why their game was ruined, and have evidence to back that up with then there must be some way of voicing that in a way that is viable here. Citing the ways that Ultima Online's game play was changed and then explaining what it was that frustrated customers about that change would be similar then to what is on the original edit for Tom Chilton's page. After all, he is indeed a controversial figure as the page says, this would simply bring further explanation to what is obviously considered to be a fact.

Religion has books published about it. Religion has proponents and critics that are regularly cited in reliable sources. The threshold of whether or not something is to be put on Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. I'm as die-hard an inclusionist as they come; if you put such an edit there, I'm not going to stop you, and I think ideologically you're correct in what you're doing, but I'm sure someone else will stick {{fact}} tags on it and eventually contest it's verifiability. If you have a look at our page on reliable sources, you'll see that's there's no category for "A band of people coming together and saying 'we think this'." The best way to get something like that noted would be to protest the changes and get press coverage, which is a reliable source. Anyway, at the moment, the article is currently a candidate for deletion due to the lack of sources that establish this person's notability; in 5 days, the article probably won't even be around for you to edit unless some sources can be found to establish his notability for inclusion within the encyclopedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks :) If the page survives I might put forth the effort to do something similar to what I've described. That is if I'm not wrapped up in work or leveling up my WoW character that is. Time to start digging up the old UO patch notes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.21.194 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated, I semi-protected. Do I need to up it to full? MBisanz ^talk 07:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Chilton (game developer)

An editor has nominated Tom Chilton (game developer), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Chilton (game developer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What did you do to your user profile?

Its realy funny.

...? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lamest of them all

Hi. You left a uw-v1 on Ktokarski's talk regarding an edit made on the above-noted page. In fact that user had just created this page and it has been speedily deleted as an attack page csd G10. Cheers. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the title as something else and figured it was vandalism. In any case, it's gone now. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

tech decks

tech decks are a great toy.i wolud reccomend them,to anyone who has some spare time.it is about 3.45$for1.it is a pretty good deal.i cloolect them all of the time.have fun with your tech decks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handboarding701 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Very Close to the Line

Your recent line in the AfD for list of fictional magic users cuts very close to the line of a personal attack. "Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines," is not very civil and is a sweeping generalization. I would appreciate if you didn't use that kind of language with me in the future as I haven't made any kind of assertions toward you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see no good faith in a sweeping comment like you made and I assert that you did not assume good faith toward me. There is no policy or guideline for the inclusion of non-inclusion of a particular list. Only a manual of style. All proposals I have seen to define such criteria for inclusion similar to WP:N have been rejected and items such as WP:LISTCRUFT are essays and not guidelines.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:LISTS, in particular, this section. If you don't feel that it is sufficient, that is a discussion for the talk page of the relevant guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read it several times and it does not in any way define the vast majority of arguments for why lists are brought to AfD or on what basis such AfD's are closed. By the letter of the policy, for which I commented in the AfD, there is no good reason to nominate any list for deletion unless it is made up. List such as the playmates birthdays and sampled songs also have clear verifiability and were still deleted and all efforts to further define criteria so that lists no longer clog up AfD have been rejected by the community. All facts.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a problem for you, why don't you go to the pump and push for consensus for getting LISTCRUFT as policy?

Furthermore, any editor is allowed to justify their AfD opinions by backing up their statements with commentary on why they feel a certain way. Anything less is censorship.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...okay? And I'm equally allowed to refute those opinions. Assertion is no better than rebuttal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said you weren't allowed to. I took exception to your tone in implying I had not read the policies you pointed out and your generalization that every other wikipedian who is performing any kind of diligence finds the current guideline applicable to an AfD argument. We're obviously in very different wave lengths and I don't think I want to continue discussing this with you because it only seems to be leading us both into further confusion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's really not what I meant. What I meant was that everyone else seemed to be operating fine under the existing texts (i.e, lists are subject to the same rules as the rest of the articles) without much confusion, but I'm sorry if you took it as an attack. Have some Wikilove. <3 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my addition to wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.250.100 (talk • contribs)

Um, because you replaced a page on a country with "BURN ALL THE FORESTS DOWN". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

i geuss the communist thing was a little too extream but he is selfish and unrealistic—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.247.30 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't matter. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

hey

i said i was sorry i just dont like paul! he just p***es me off! and he is selfish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.247.30 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

...the solution to that problem isn't "vandalize Wikipedia". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zachary Jaydon

I would say this on the talk page for the AfD on Zachary Jaydon, but it would only cause more drama there. Long story short, I really appreciate the help and defending. I have worked hard, and will continue to do so on this article and others, but some users make it really difficult. I am trying to be mature and civil. This has been the atmosphere for nearly EVERY article I edit or write on about this user. I have tried several times to work on things WITH her, but she refuses to acknowledge this subject in ANY light but the extreme negative. Thank you again. Skyler Morgan (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

but 'comment' is just so bo-ring!

don't want to clog the AfD. I refuse to be boring and normal :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heehee, that makes sense. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

of course it makes sense, fellow Rochester, New York student. Actually I lie, I'm no longer there but I'm a Naz alum. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually never been over to Naz. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)