User talk:Celeste

You said you fking hate captchas...
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki,  has been added to your user rights. If you have questions, bleat ask away. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate! Celeste (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And... it seems that someone stripped it away. I guess it's to be expected, considering I'm rather new here. Celeste (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you Cassie from Uncyclopedia? --Gale5050 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, and never heard of them either. I do however exist on a variety of other wikis as both Celeste and under different usernames. Celeste (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, mind if I ask why you are asking such a "precise" question? It feels kind of weird. Celeste (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That guy you cooped is already permabanned
No need to make one. 12:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's perfect. Is there an abuse filter here to prevent Unicode-abuse usernames? Celeste (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sysop
User:Kevlarstar (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate! Celeste (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question
Because that user is a habitual bully who has driven off multiple users and made it his mission to shred all their work out of spite. Charlotte was one of the last primary contributors standing in the trans rights topic area. Now she's gone too. Happy Pride Month, RW! Mermaid (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * charlottes contributions were libelous dogshit and her departure is no loss to this wiki AMassiveGay (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]She wrote a lot of inaccurate articles on living people, usually people with tenuous links to one obscure TERF group she was obsessed with to an unhealthy degree (the women’s human rights campaign). I was involved in the recent cleanup but it wasn’t some personal crusade (like most people on this site I had no problem with Charlotte until a few days ago), you only have to look at the overwhelming delete votes in all of the afds to see that. Christopher (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Are there any other native Norwegian speakers on this project? Then perhaps non-Norwegian users ought to have been more cautious before making judgments about Norwegian sources and Norwegian public figures. Instead the claims of an obvious TERF troll were taken at face value. The WHRC isn't obscure. They submitted "evidence" to the GRA reform inquiry in the UK making all sorts of pseudoscientific claims. (Isn't debunking pseudoscience part of RW's core mission?) Maybe they're not a large group, but TERF groups often seem to punch above their weight, especially in the UK where they are extremely well-funded and well-connected. Posie Parker is one of the most infamous TERFs around. She's in the news all the time for everything from telling gun nuts to open carry into the ladies toilets to shouting racist abuse at BLM marchers. Yet her article is gone now solely because Charlotte wrote it. And verifiable facts are being deleted as "insane" because Charlotte added them. So all in all yes this does look very much like personal crusade. Mermaid (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, the Magdalen Berns article is gone too. Scratch that. It unequivocally is a spite-driven crusade. Mermaid (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Terrible article on a living person" is the only rational given for the article's deletion. Did anyone even even read the first sentence? Mermaid (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yawn AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Magdalen Berns died two years ago so you can stop pretending this purge has anything to do with BLP concerns. Mermaid (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Going through your edit history, you've done fuck all to make a case for keeping these articles. In fact, the majority of your edits consist of "scolding" other users for doing something you disagree with and engaging in apparent drama fanning. Just a thought, but maybe you're lack of effort is what led to those articles being deleted? Maybe only have opposed camps in the room making a clear position led to the community choosing to delete the articles. Just some food for thought.  16:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What's happening on RW is attracting attention. Is it surprising someone might not be eager to dive headfirst into working on articles given what's happened to users who've tried? One thing I've noticed about the users eager to wipe out Charlotte's entire contribution history is how many of them seem to have rather scant histories of mainspace contributions themselves. An editor who's actually willing to do the hard work of making substantive contributions is worth ten who do little but natter on talk pages. Flawed contributions can be improved and bad habits can be reformed. But there's no luring a workhorse back into the stable once it's bolted. Just some food for thought. Mermaid (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * they produced nothing but dogshit, similar to you are producing nothing but dogshit. they were no loss to the wiki, and as will you be. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * where was your defence for this user or their contributions when mattered? no where? pathetic AMassiveGay (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for doubting unfavorable assessments of the quality of Charlotte's contributions when the same editors making them can't seem to discern dead article subjects from living ones when it's right there in the first sentence. And blaming me for not wanting to volunteer as the next target doesn't alter the fact that RW has a habitual bully in its ranks. Salt the earth and don't be surprised when nothing grows. Mermaid (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The main problem with Takveis' contributions is that they are extremely agressive essays that do not mesh with our style at all which means they easily attract the libel lawyers. I'll reiterate what I said on her userpage, the problem with most of her contributions is that she being so agressive that it attracts BLP problems. When it comes to living people, we prefer to not essayize but instead pothole to relevant other pages that explain the concept. It's generally easier to reference.
 * To cover a few specific cases of the ones you posted (although I'm sure you'll trot out more): The header edit for Rowling is excessive compared to what we cover on her page; her transphobia simply isn't the most notable thing on her page. You conveniently omit the fact that you edited the second thing back in, but under the proper heading, namely what's covered on transphobia. Information like that usually doesn't belong in the lede, the lede is merely a quick summary (otherwise you get a bloated lede very quickly).
 * The Kelly and Berns articles may have been an unintended casualty; at a glance both were fairly alright as far as pages go, but we agreed to a blanket removal of Takveis' pages out of concern for aforementioned possible legal trouble given we had removed over 5 articles of her in a few days for BLP reasons and notability problems. Those could be restored, but as far as undeletion attempts go this is probably not the best way to go about it.
 * I think it matters that we cover TERFs but we really don't need to re-enact the early days of RW where we tried covering every religious crank under the sun and quickly learned that there's so much shit to shovel if you do that. We tightened our approach a bit for that reason and we shouldn't regress to it because TERFs are being a problem in the UK. Signed, someone who voted Delete on all these articles, yet also hates TERFs for reasons that pertain to her own continued existence. Techpriest (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what the word "bully" means. Again, had you provided an actual reason to keep, things might have turned out differently. Instead you sat back and passive-aggressively tut tutted at users who bothered engaging with the matter. You really shouldn't be surprised when such behavior results in irritation and distaste. What reason does anyone have to agree with you? You call users "bullies", accusing them of a "personal crusade", and imply those with low mainspace edits are less valuable. Speaking as someone who's vote was up for grabs, I personally see no reason to align with you here. You stood by and did nothing, so I had no reason to vote against the competing positions. It's as simple as that. Don't like it? Then fucking do something about it! Don't be the millionth person to whine on a talkpage. Actually put effort in! Gods and godesses fucking above and below... 18:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Techpriest - Charlotte added one quote to the JKR article. The other two were there for several months before she made her first edit to the article. She added the sentence about the "I Love JKR" dogwhistle and the sentence about "90% of my fans agree with me" claim. I don't have a firm opinion about the quotes. They're kinda funny but I can also see how they might be viewed as distracting. What I have a problem with is easily verifiable information being removed out of spite. That's a pattern that needs to stop. The least that can be done right now is to restore the Magdalen Berns and Posie Parker articles. It's something RW can do to reverse the reputation it's earning.
 * ComradeGC - NorthWasNotTaken weighed in on one the early deletion discussions. Their vote was stricken on the basis of them being a newer user. I took that as an indication that my input wouldn't be welcome. And the gleeful cruelty that's been hurled at Charlotte since has done little to convince me greater engagement would've been constructive. It's easy to ask bystanders why they didn't stand up to bullies, and hard to ask bullies to account for their actions. Mermaid (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the Rowling edits were in the wrong location (don't belong in the lede) and were removed because of that. Posie Parker herself never had an article it was a redirect to the actual person. As for restoration, I am not versed enough in the subject matter to comment. Requesting the input of some more people on this would be nice, although both articles still suffer from basic problems that permeate throughout all of Takveis' writing style. I'll raise your concerns on the relevant ATIM thread because I can somewhat understand it for these two specific articles. Do you have any concrete reference points for RWs "reputation"? Frankly, I don't quite care about our reputation, but you've made implications a few times in this thread now and I'd rather you put up or shut up on examples for this.
 * Furthermore, votes are stricken based on account age; it does not make their input any less valuable. We simply have Eligibility guidelines. The input is still valuable, we just have rules on this to avoid brigading attempts. Stop calling editors on this site bullies when we have simple and clear policies and procedures to do things around here, all it does is hurt sympathy on what you're trying to accomplish. If you can't be arsed to familiarize yourself with our procedures or attempt to maybe understand where the conflict here stems from problems with tone, I don't know what to tell you. Yes I know you were responding to GC, but seriously calm the fuck down before you shoot your own attempts to accomplish things further in the foot (unless you're here to just complain... in which case we have not much to discuss since I've made my points). Techpriest (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pressed for time here, so this is a quick reply. Posie Parker is a pen name of Kellie-Jaye Keen-Minshull. RW had an article on her. It still shows up on Google Archive. Magdalen Berns was a proponent of George Soros conspiracy theories. Her notability extends beyond her TERF activism, and she's been made into something of a TERF saint posthumously. Mermaid (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can vote in afds, eligibility only applies to penalty and policy votes. That vote shouldn’t have been stricken. Christopher (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because Mermaid was wrong. The vote wasn't stricken. I would suggest taking the discussion of this to the relevant thread on the place where these sweeping deletions were done. Also still not hearing much on the "reputation" stuff. Techpriest (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The vote was briefly stricken, but was later restored. 20:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 minutes later to be precise, I find it hard to believe Mermaid thought their input would be unwelcome based on that. Christopher (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There are many corners of the internet that think we're a bunch of radical left-wing SJW loony bins, so if you could go inform them that we're actually bigoted anti-trans reactionaries, that'd be a huge favor. Thanks! 23:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re everything... woah, wasn't expecting my talk page to explode. Anyway, I do feel that, considering notability and BLP as the main arguments against keeping many of Charlotte's articles, I would argue that some pages (notably the WHRC one) should be rewritten. The main fear I have here is that RationalWiki somehow ends up promoting the trans-exclusionary movements we are attempting to properly document and steer people away from. Celeste (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Friednly question about Uncyclopedia
Hi, I remember you mentioning being a sysop on Uncyclopedia some time ago. According to your page, you're also transgender. So, I used to edit on Uncyclopedia between 2007-08 (mostly in the Portuguese version, about football and politics, but also I also edited a bit on the English version). What turned me off was the blantant bigotry and homophobia on the articles (even for 2008 standards). I don't know how it is right now, but it was awful back then. So, my question is, how are they dealing with it now? Did they change their policy on bigotry? If so, did they purge most of the homophobic jokes? GeeJayK (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We're actually pretty strict about bigotry now. Even though Uncyclopedia still has a paper trail of homophobic things, there has been an under-the-hood cleanup effort going on to reduce bad-faith homophobia, transphobia and other -phobias in the English Uncyclopedia! Most notably there, new bigotry is outright forbidden per "Don't be a dick", and some users have been blocked for quite long periods of time for making bigoted comments (especially against users). No specific policy concerning homophobia has been implemented, but one against transphobia, at UN:TRANS, does exist. However, I can't say much about the other Uncyclopedias... I don't even exist on the Portuguese Uncyclopedia. Hope this answers your questions! Celeste  ( scream at )  23:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For your contributions on Ovarit
Great work on the article, it's a fine day when the article is considered important enough for the hateful site in question to start hating on it. Added it to our list of people pissed at us. Keep up the good work! Techpriest (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'll make sure to keep it up. The article is literally the 2nd result when searching for Ovarit on RationalWiki, which might explain their dissatisfaction with us existing. Celeste  ( scream at )  19:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

anime quotes
Have you ever considered using "Men like this should not have so much power." Zechs Marquis quote/scene for truly awful people and the ¨Truth. Those who seek it become obsessed with the idea that they can control this world.¨ Schwarzwald (yes its german, no Nazi relation though, he buchers it so terribly that they´d probably (try) to kill him for that (can´t kill ghosts ye guilty)) quote/scene for conspiracy-mongers. 2603:7080:A203:1900:5D15:314E:75EF:CD71 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (brain is loading... sorry, I don't watch anime) Celeste  ( scream at )  02:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thought about it for a bit,zechs is out. Schwarzwald and his badass music stays tho, he repeatedly sums up conspiracy theorists.2603:7080:A203:1900:B101:A2C7:62E4:FB49 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)