Misplaced Pages

User talk:Celarnor

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TragedyStriker (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 8 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:30, 8 June 2008 by TragedyStriker (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2


This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Ziggy_Sawdust#Support

Support. Nothing to indicate that this user wouldn't be a better vandal fighter with the tools. Celarnor 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did you put this in the wrong section? ffm 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Going through the editor in question's recent edits, I didn't see anything to indicate that the tools would have a negative effect on what he did most. Thus, support. Celarnor 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I misread, I thought that you were saying the opposite. ffm 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Celarnor, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. You raised concern about my CSD tagging - I assure you that I am most definitely here to build an encyclopedia. I've taken steps to address your concern in a detailed analysis of my RFA here. Your further comments are welcome. some templated thank spam has also been left below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam
userpage | talk | dashboard | misc

RFA

Standards

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

  • Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
  • I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
  • An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Misplaced Pages could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
  • One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
  • As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

  1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
  2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
  3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
  4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
  5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
  6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
  7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
  8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
  9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
  10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
  11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)
    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)
  12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
  13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
  14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
  15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
  16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
  17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
  18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
  19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
  20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
  21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
  22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
  23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
  24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
  25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
  26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
  27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
  28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
  29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
  30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
  31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
  32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
  33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
  34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)
    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)
  35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
  36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
  37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
  38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
  39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
  40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
  41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
  42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
  43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
  44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
  45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Main page: User:Xenocidic/RFAQ

Thanks

Thank you for your support
So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)


Sincerely,


~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Main page: User talk:Xenocidic/RFA

email check

Re:preventing socks- Isn't it possible to check for duplicate emails when people register. Libro0 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You would have to write new software, but yes. The problem with that is that we don't require an email address to register for an account; it is entirely optional. Even if we were to do that, however, it would only be of limited usefulness unless we took extremely draconian steps (i.e, requiring an ISP email address, which I wouldn't be able to go along with for a multitude of reasons). People could simply create a number of gmail/yahoo/msn accounts and use those. Celarnor 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinfo

The Wikinfo article is back, but I don't really see much change in the way of third party referencing. Is there a reason this article didn't have to go through the standard deletion review process? coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's gone now; looks like it was a redirect to a userfied article. Celarnor 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mickey Mouse Club

I am having trouble with an editor removing information of mine that is sourced and cited very well. They are telling me that an "uninterested" editor needs to publish the information, which makes no sense to me as an "uninterested" editor would have no reason to do so. Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, and I have cited numerous Official, Reliable, Non-Secondary Disney Publications that provide this information clearly. The editor keeps removing the information without taking the time to check the sources, which can be done if a small amount of effort is put into it. I believe that this goes against Wiki policy as well as a major lack of the assumption of good faith. Removing unsourced information is one thing, but when an editor takes the time to make an article more informative and accurate, it's very discouraging. Please help!

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Celarnor Add topic