User talk:Celarnor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 Talk to me 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] My Rfa

Thanks, Celarnor, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page.

I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements.
Thank you again.
AngelOfSadness talk 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for offering to help mediate

Thanks for this. That's really all anyone is asking, is for someone else to examine the source, and vouch that it supports what is being claimed. I understand why you feel like we are failing to assume good faith, but I hope that if you look over the edit history of the article and the two deletion discussions for Zachary Jaydon that you can see that most editors did assume good faith at first ... we just ran out of it. I would really encourage him to just e-mail the scans to all the editors that have reverted him in this latest round. I can understand if he doesn't want to communicate with User:Thegingerone. Kww (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary Jaydon

My article is being AfD again for a third time based on a supposed "hoax." I have sourced this article as well as I know how. I am researching, and submitting scans as I write this, but what I really need is some help. I find it insane that a single "user editable" blog based on an extreme hatred for Jaydon is causing such a ruckus. Please help!

Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the notice, it isn't considered good form to go around user pages asking for help at AfDs. This is called canvassing, and is generally frowned upon. Celarnor Talk to me 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)