User talk:Celarnor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

Template:Archive box/box-width/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/image/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/image-width/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/auto/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/1/defined

Contents 1 Question 2 Sock 3 Hockey 4 Ya Libnan 5 Diagonal intercept clipping 6 Wonderland Online 7 Lists 8 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination) 9 A barnstar for you 10 AfD is not for forced cleanup 11 Request for clarification at WT:AFD 12 Userfying an article 13 List_of_basic_tort_law_topics

[edit] Question

....What did I do? - The guy you warned

You made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Also, please sign your comments by placing four tildes at the end. I revert lots of vandalism, I don't necessarily know who did what. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. 66.234.222.52 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I had a question and don't know how to ask you. Why do I see a different version of the article about M. Jodi Rell than everyone else? The edits I made were not "unconstructive". According to the New York Times she was a homemaker. One cannot by law be a professional part-time legislator. It is not a profession and is not a career. Secondly, why is the link to an honorary degree not working. There is no way one can say that was an "unconstructive" edit. Give me a break. This makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartfordct (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You see the same version of the article that everyone else sees. You can view the history of the article here. Regarding your edits, that "profession" field is the profession for which they are most well known. She is not known for being a housewife. She is known for being a legislator. You seem to figured out how to link to honorary degree, however, the way in which you're doing it is incorrect; the concept of an honorary degree is quite common, it doesn't need to be linked to in this case; what she got a degree IN is more important and relevant. ^_^ Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. The page I saw when I logged in was different than the page I saw before I was logged in. I wouldn't agree that one's profession is what he/she is most well-known for. If that was the case, Ms. Rell's profession would have been "governor" not "legislator" because she is much more well-known for being governor. I'm glad to see that this was resolved with stating her "profession" with "public official." I'm glad to see that the link to "honorary degree" was left as well as the link to law school. Thank you for your assistance.Hartfordct (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock

Can you tell me what a "sock" is? Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A sock is an account created by someone who already has an account and is used disruptively. They then use that account to make edits that seem like they're from someone else, which is useful at AfDs and for skirting around the 3 revert rule. It's very much not allowed and people who are caught doing it get blocks for varying lengths of time. More information can be found on WP:SOCK. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the people I've looked up that are supporting my article have a reasonable history of edits and have been using Wiki for a while? Wouldn't this be a clear indication that a "Sock" isn't the case? Maybe I'm missing something. Do you have any idea how long this AfD will go on before it's decided one way or another? Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That statement was probably a reference to the ipuser who made the last comment. Since he/she only has a few edits, they're implying that it may be you editing logged out or logged out and via a proxy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have the 'authority' to delete that last keep then, but without it my article is still favored for 'keep' rather than 'delete.' I would be happy an unobjectioned to you removing the last 'keep' and would do it myself if I didn't think it would cause an uproar. I will not contest it. Thank you for deleting it if you are able. Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin will probably just ignore the vote anyway, since they don't have much of an edit history and may be a sock of someone else. Deleting it, however, would make the user feel left out, and if they aren't a sock, that's a good thing. This way, it doesn't really matter, but the person (assuming it's not you) still gets to feel included. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. You're the boss... haha. No but it makes sense. I never thought of it that way. How long does it take before they close these AfD's and make a decision one way or another? Do you know? Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the boss. I'm just another editor.  :P AfDs go on for five days unless it's very, very obvious (see WP:SNOW) that it's going to go on way or the other. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey

Hey, the speedy overturned was Djsasso via revert, as the original speedy was invalid. I requested the revert. DMighton (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This whole thing just seems ... sketchy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ya Libnan

I appreciate your concern, but clearly you have misunderstood who is at fault for continuing to vandalize the Ya Libnan wiki. The individual behind 70.80.188.30 has insisted on vandalizing the wiki on a daily basis by adding in lies and fabrications which have been clearly explained. 70.80.188.30 appears to have been banned for his trolling ways, yet he continues to be able to vandalize Ya Libnan. What can be done to rid us of this pest? 68.49.6.221 ^Talk 01:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it does not matter if his contributions are untrue or not. If the statements that he puts forth can be backed up with reliable sources, then they're fine to include. Simply because you don't like them or think they may be untrue does not matter. They are verifiable. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is that it is based on verifiability, not truth. You two shouldn't be fighting, you should have been trying to reach a neutral point of view with the article. As it stands now, the 'Media Coverage' and 'Criticism' sections are OBVIOUSLY written by two completely different people with opposing viewpoints, and this is not how Wikipedia articles are meant to look.

Also, you might want to note that the user was banned as a proxy, not for vandalism. Since it was an indidivudal modem, it could have been any one of a hundred users utilizing that ppol for their internet connection at the time of it being an open proxy; it wasn't necessarily THAT editor. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor, I appreciate your independent eye, but the fact of the matter is that the person behind 70.80.188.30 has been warned for vandalism of Ya Libnan on many previous occasions. Just visit his talk page and look at the comments made in the past month regarding Ya Libnan vandalism. The validity of information does matter, and baseless fiction should not be allowed to be propagated at free will. I am not opposed to having a criticism section, and have tried to previously write it in a constructive and professional manner. Unfortunately the troll will not let any version stand except his own. I made constructive edits to the wiki, let's see how long before it gets defaced yet again. 68.49.6.221 ^Talk 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagonal intercept clipping

You stated "Apart from the paper being just plain wrong about more than a few things ..". Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks --Weedrat (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderland Online

Thanks for that - must have had a complete aberration when I did my checks. Sorry to have wasted your time on that AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I got those from google news; you could probably find a few press releases or something with ProQuest, which you can use at pretty much any library. Anyway, thanks for being civil about it; a lot of people just get rude and obstinate at AfD.  :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would be the point, when I was clearly wrong? :) I managed to miss the google news step of my usual search, and just stuck to the first page of Google. Thanks a lot Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I noticed you edit here where you wrote "It is not a mechanism to assert notability of those included, as that must be done on the articles that are within the lists. This helps keeps references out of lists and in the articles where they belong. It's a list". Such things I've read before. You are saying that notability is inherited. Do you know what guideline(s) says that? I have searched and asked for it before, but not found it yet. ChessCreator (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying notability is inherited. I'm saying it's not inherited, and the assumption that anything that gets in this list is considered notable is probably the cause of trouble people have with these kinds of lists. Saying notability is inherited would be like saying anything that gets in the list is automatically notable. That's not true; the reverse seems to be consensus. That is, only notable New Zealand military people get in this list. Simply being someone from the New Zealand military doesn't automatically merit an entry. The subject has to be notable for something else. Usually, that means they have their own article. That is where the reference for "this person was in the New Zealand military goes, because that is the centralized repository of information on that person. In the case that they don't have their own article (yet) but consensus is that they're notable, then references should be supplied to demonstrate both their notability and their New Zealand military-ship-ness-whatever. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'm somewhat confused now. Where I said notability is inherited, I meant in the way that notability of the list is inherited from the military people that make up the list. Perhaps I am incorrect with that idea.

If there is no inheritance in some way then I don't understand your part "This helps keeps references out of lists". ChessCreator (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant notability is inherited FROM the list TO the articles like INHERITED. Yes, in a sense, you're right, but I don't think you quite understand it. Lists themselves aren't notable. There's no notability guidelines for lists because they're not an article like a biography, an article on a company, or a work of Shakespeare. Lists themselves are seldom if ever going to be the subject of discussion by reliable sources, just like categories won't be. You have to stop thinking of lists as articles and think of them as a navigational tool (see WP:CLN). They're a collection of notable information designed to make browsing Wikipedia easier. They're not "notable" or "not notable" because they aren't about any one thing. They just coalesce information available elsewhere in the articlespace. Obviously, some lists are simply ridiculous, but it's pretty much handled at AfD in a case by case basis. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we are thinking the same. So is there something in WP:CLN that says in some way that a list doesn't have to meet WP:N? I see many lists nominated for deletion via Afd and the main reason is they are not notable to WP:N. ChessCreator (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have this, which serves as a guide. When someone decides that a given list is likely to include mostly non-notable material, that's usually when it gets put up for deletion. But, again, the key is to stop thinking about lists as articles and group them with notability issues and deal only with notability issues of the content linked to within the list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if everyone would think of lists differently. Thanks for your help and assistance in clearing up my thoughts on this. ChessCreator (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy I could help. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the last part, the general practice of referencing in list only when necessary is for the benefit of the articles. Articles, as the primary focus of Wikipedia, should contain the reference that says "This person worked for this company", or "This person died in 1876". If it were the reverse, and references were supplied in the navigational system instead of the things they're designed to help people find, then we'd be left with references all over the articlespace but none on the article of the subject discussed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination)

The page on Xlibris has been totally rewritten. You might want to reconsider your !vote here, especially given that I've withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. ^_^ Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For great vandal fighting in the last month (and AfD participation as well).Tone 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD is not for forced cleanup

From your user page, "AfD is not for forced cleanup". What guideline says this please? SunCreator (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's derived from BEFORE and DEL. If something can be improved by editing, then it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I read it before but could NOT find it. Would appear to me that wording in WP:AFD could be changed slightly (see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Afd_failings), and then this problem would be reduced. SunCreator (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification at WT:AFD

In this edit, you said that "If they are hoaxes, then they should be speedily deleted." I was about to post the reply below but when I re-read your comment, I started to wonder if you'd simply omitted a word. Are you really advocating that hoaxes be speedied? Rossami (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One clarification only. Hoaxes are not speedy-deletable except in extremely rare and patently obvious cases (at which point, you're really applying WP:IAR, not WP:CSD). Far too many pages are initially tagged as hoaxes but turned out to be poorly written stubs about real though obscure topics. The AFD process reduces our problem with false positives. See Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes#Dealing with hoaxes for more. Hoaxes definitely should be deleted, just not speedily. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to re-read CSD G1. Obvious hoaxes, such as adding a new 12th President of the United States or a new signer of the constitution, are speedy deletion material, and are constantly deleted as such. Other things, which may just be obscure (see the current AfD for Thetis Lake Monster for a good example), are not hoaxes, and should be dealt with in the normal manner. Forcing CSD G1 material to go through AfD is a waste of resources better spent improving articles about potentially real things nominated for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. I was hear when we wrote it. You can find all the commentary about it in the Talk page archives. The problem of false positives is also quite well-documented. That clause is limited to only the most obvious and glaring examples and require some correlation such as a pattern of vandalism in the user's contribution history. The intent has always been very clear that even things like a new 12th President may be good-faith but incomplete entries (such as a notable fictional character which fails to properly note the in-universe context). But as long as you do feel that way, I'll go add the comment. That CSD criterion is frequently misused. It won't hurt to make the reminder more widely. Thanks for taking the time to answer. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userfying an article

I appreciate your comments on the discussion of the contest on the deletion of J3HaaD. Me, being the author, has strongly asked for its userfication but am facing stiff opposition. Could u please state the minimum requirements for userfication of an article? I have slim hopes of doing so but given a strong defence, I might "save" the article.--Sainik1 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_basic_tort_law_topics

Celanor, I see you are discussing "basic tort law concepts" with JeanLatore, and that you don't like the article, but want to improve it, and advocated against deleting it. Personally, I disagree that it should be kept. I think that as far as encyclopedia content, it duplicates Tort Law and all of the main articles therein referenced, in a manner informative only to law students. I mean, it's basically a mini-outline or glossary. WP policy is that wikipedia is not for law student guides. I don't think the article belongs in any way, and I don't see how it can be saved. I'm not gonna stop you from trying, but I think it's a waste of time. I think it should be renominated for deletion, and I'm curious if you'd reconsider your decision that it should be kept. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the process of rewriting the page very informative, and I'm a programmer. The "only law students would be interested statement" is essentially WHOCARES. You shouldn't think about this article like you probably are; this page isn't intended as an article like Tort law or Constitutional law. It's a list and is part of the List of law topics navigation system. I wouldn't consider changing my decision until either another navigation system is put into place that would render this list useless or until categories were improved to the degree where lists were no longer required. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you say that it is a mini-outline or glossary; it's good that you get that impression, because that's exactly the function that the list of basic topics lists perform; paper encyclopedias have indexes and glossaries. We have lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor: Thank you for your reply. I have read your position. However, I would like to point out a few things: I wouldn't be so quick to whocares my argument. If you look at WP:MOS(legal), it is a relevant criterion. Also, I don't think articles that are just *lists* or glossaries fit the wikipedia MOS in general. I will not renominate the article at this time, but please be aware that I am still concerned about it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing my mind, actually. There are a lot of lists. I don't like them, and I don't think this is even a good example, but I'm taking it off my personal deletion watch. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So we have a disagreement; I think my version of the list is better. Is there any way to get some community comment on it? Like let's take it to the people, man. JeanLatore (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already happened. Your list was unlinked, improperly titled, and doesn't adhere to the manual of style guidelines for list of basic topics lists, nor did the content adhere to the Tort Law template. It was nominated for deletion as such, and I improved it enough so that it could be kept. You may want to review the manual of style for Wikipedia. If, after doing that, you still feel that the previous, deletion-prone version of the article was better, you can seek a third opinion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)