User talk:Chovain/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Balmain, New South Wales 3 CC: Loughlin's Caesarean Section / Biiliac Width edits 4 Balmain Pubs 5 Re: Balmain Pubs 6 Given names on disambiguation pages 7 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 8 Talk of AfD on pubs 9 Sandyvandy 10 Gadaffi POV 11 Compromise 12 Mindrap 13 Thanks....... 14 Thanks! 15 Balmain 16 WP:AIV 17 Health Wiki Research 18 re EB article - National centre vs right 19 Re: Your revert on Calypso (software) 20 Re: Little Britain 21 agencyPlus 22 Maintenance notices 23 Your edits to Ilan_Pappé 24 Sheep Tag 25 Gaddafi 26 Caesarean 27 Mooseguy 28 user talk:artlondon 29 Page Deletion 30 NPWatcher approval 31 Sure adopt me away 32 Meson Cannon 33 Little Britain 34 Hello 35 rehello! 36 WP:ADOPT 37 penchant for drama 38 Abu ali's racism warning 38.1 Break 39 Understanding at Afd 40 Sock puppets 41 Help me 42 WP:UW future?

Welcome

Hello, Chovain/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Emmett5 04:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Balmain, New South Wales

Your recent edit of Balmain removed (probably accidentally) a large portion of the article. I have reverted it back to the previous version and added in your changes to the median house value. Hope the end result is what you were planning! amitch 11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. It's this silly bug in Google Toolbar for Firefox at the moment (I've already had to self-revert a couple of changes. I think I need to be a little more careful about it). Thanks for cleaning up my mess! Chovain 14:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CC: Loughlin's Caesarean Section / Biiliac Width edits

Hi Loughlin. I'm just looking over the Caesarean Section article, and noticed your recent change, which links to Biiliac Width as a "See Also". It looks a lot like the link was put in for the sake of removing the {{linkless}} tag on Biiliac Width, so I'm probably going to revert it unless you speak up. It's not clear as it stands why the link is there - I assume you are suggesting that Pelvic Bone Width can lead to C-sections? (I personally know nothing of the topic). Perhaps you could somehow work the Pelvic Bone link into into the C-section article (with a suitable reference)? Chovain 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chovain, no please feal free to revert it. I haven't a clue what the heck he's on about either but I just think it's a shame to lose articles that somebody might know somthing about. I think that article is a lost cause though as he/she hasn't explained anything!!! --Loughlin 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the article will be fine. It just needs a little work, that's all. No-one seems to have suggested it be deleted; just improved and expanded. I'll see if I can kick it along a little. Chovain 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Balmain Pubs

You left a few wise words on the Balmain Pubs talk page a couple of days ago, all of which I agree with. I am going to do some work on this article in the next couple of days and at this stage am working towards splitting it into two (Balmain / Rozelle), cleaning up, adding links / references and xrefing each article to the other. I was just wondering if you had anything else to add into the mix beforehand? amitch 08:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Balmain Pubs

You left a few wise words on the Balmain Pubs talk page a couple of days ago, all of which I agree with. I am going to do some work on this article in the next couple of days and at this stage am working towards splitting it into two (Balmain / Rozelle), cleaning up, adding links / references and xrefing each article to the other. I was just wondering if you had anything else to add into the mix beforehand? amitch 08:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in my response - I have now responded in the list's talk page. I've been busy with a couple of other bits and pieces (mainly RL work-life). If there's anything I can do to help with the lists or the pub articles, let me know (Ahh - If only we were allowed to do original research ;)). Chovain 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(I moved the following off the Balmain Pubs talk page: amitch 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Regarding Called To The Bar - 150 Years of pubs in Balmain & Rozelle: I seem to remember seeing that book in a shopfront on Darling St. You don't happen to know where it is available, do you? I wouldn't mind doing a bit of work on related articles. Chovain 10:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I got my copy in Bray's Books, 268 Darling Street (tel 9810 5613), just up from Woollies. They have a number of local publications. Otherwise you can get a copy from the Balmain Association at the Watch House on Darling Street. They are always open on Saturday morning but I'm not sure about during the week. I do a significant amount of original research on this topic; my problem is that I often have trouble remembering it the next day! amitch 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Given names on disambiguation pages

Does anyone have any suggestions for where I should voice a proposal to remove disambiguation links for people based solely on their given name? Chovain 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#hndis has survived - now what? and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hndis needs its own Manual which might be of interest to you. CarolGray 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre United States Navy Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle Li Zhaoxing Lavender Bay, New South Wales Cremorne, New South Wales HMAS Inverell Sandy Point, New South Wales Pleasure Point, New South Wales South-western Sydney Waverton, New South Wales Milsons Point, New South Wales Metropolitan Police Authority Cammeray, New South Wales Shock sensitivity People's Party (Romania) Skate rock Dara Adamkhel Voyager Point, New South Wales HMAS Lismore

Cleanup Ettalong, New South Wales LucasArts Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Merge Anu Singh Preemptive war European Rapid Reaction Force Add Sources North-South divide Pater Patriae School of Traffic and Mobile Policing Wikify Dee Why ferry Hydrocolloids Son of Dork Expand Quantock Hills Red Rooster Reinhard Bonnke

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk of AfD on pubs

Not sure if you've already seen this, but there are questions being raised about the notability of many of the List of pubs in Balmain and List of pubs in Rozelle articles at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Corkman_Irish_Pub.2C_Carlton. I thought you might be interested in taking part in the discussion. Chovain 22:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It feels like it's all getting a bit political so to be honest, I'm not sure I can be bothered getting involved. I am slowly researching and working my way through all of the Balmain pub articles to add content. Articles like Dry Dock Hotel, Sir William Wallace, Royal Oak and Exchange Hotel would pass a notability test now so I am confident most of the other stubs will be notable enough once I have finished researching to have an article of their own in the future, even if they get AfD now. When I'm done, this would be the only online resource to document arguably the most historic pub area in the country and that in itself is notable. Bigger picture though, we probably need to resolve the issue of what makes an establishment notable AND how to assess if something is 'locally significant' or else this will keep coming up in the future. As in the Corkman Irish Pub example, I do struggle with inter-state and overseas editors determining if something is locally significant and I have a feeling the same will be true for Balmain pubs. As a fellow local, I'd value any input you have on this as well. amitch 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandyvandy

Yep, that counts for an indef block. As does the vandalism only account.... I'm suprised that one got to 3 vandalistic edits, normally those are indefed after 2. It's a sock account to... no way -- Tawker 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Gadaffi POV

Chovain, remove your preferred wording "involvement in terrorism" from the Gadaffi article. You have no basis for that. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Get off your pretentious high horse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.193.232.137 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording I keep reverting to is that which has been chosen by a large number of edits. Please see the IRA page for discussion of the IRA's categarisation as a terrorist organisation. I'd also like to remind you to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~), and avoid making personal attacks against editors (but feel free to openly discuss the edits) Chovain 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chovain: I respect your comments re. communication. New to this and took a bit to realize who was editing the edits. You must realize your insistence on using the word "terrorist" to marginalize and label the Republican Movement in Ireland during the 1980's is a naively generalist and ill-informed opinion. I encourage you to read up on the subject of Irish Nationalism and journey towards self-determination. I recommend you don't choose Wikipedia to educate yourself. Do not waste my and other reader's time to vainly suggest to me to "see Wikipedia for terrorist organizations" as your reason for ignorantly compartmentalizing the IRA. It is true that Gadaffi engaged in trade for procurement of military weapons with IRA leaders. During the 30 years between 1969-1999 a war was being waged between the British Army and the Irish Republican Army. According to your simplified definition, the British Army is clearly a terrorist organization. I don't see you writing that. It's funny how my last edit assuaged you, judging by your last comment. Please educate yourself and do not attempt to inflict your uneducated views through this forum. Good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.193.232.137 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed most of the points in my post:

1. Again, please sign your posts by appending 4 tildes to the end. Read this link if you do not understand this.
2. Again, do not make personal attacks. Suggesting that I am "inflicting" my "uneducated views" by reverting POV (see below) changes is uncivil. Read this link if you do not see the problem here.
3. Two important tenets of Wikipedia are Neutral point of view, and verifiability. The NPOV policy prevents Wikipedia from being used to promote individual points of view. The verifiability policy prevents users from making false claims. The Provisional Irish Republican Army page has a section named "Categorisation" that discusses IRA's status as a terrorist organisation. If you disagree, discuss it on their talk page (and be ready to provide references!). I am not wasting anyone's time by posting links to articles where this kind of thing is and has been discussed already.
4. No-one is suggesting that the Irish Republican Movement is a terrorist organisation. The article suggests that the international community viewed the IRA as a terrorist organisation at the time the article is discussing. This is not a controvertial claim.
5. My reason for leaving your last edit alone is not because I believe it to be superior to the original version. While it is the better than the edits I reverted, I left it because I did not want to be blocked for the three revert rule (this is an important policy to know about if you wish to make changes that others are reverting - it will apply to you too). Assuming I have the support of other editors, I plan to revert your edit still, but want to make sure my reasoning is correct, and I wanted to give you a chance to explain why your edit wasn't attempting to promote a minority POV.
6. I do not think "regime" means what you think it does. The IRA is certainly not a regime.
7. I never gave a definition for a terrorist organisation as you claim. There are plenty of places that try to do that already. While not everyone agrees on the definition of terrorism, it is true that the 1980s IRA was seen as a terrorist organisation by the international community. Whether or not the British army counts as a terrorist organisation is irrelevant to the Gaddafi article.

Finally: The Gaddafi article is not the right place to discuss this. If you want to argue against the PIRA's terrorist status, I suggest you do so on the PIRA talk page.

Chovain 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of an honest discourse is to acknowledge, and hopefully learn something from another viewer. You are clearly neglecting this. On this point of discussion, you have failed to effectively present any merits to your discussion. You should heed your own request for civility, by not patronizing others with comments such as "missing most of the points in my post". The only reason I'm taking time to respond to someone who is failing to communicate is to educate you. As per your requests regarding communication, feel free to continually waste your own time by informing me of Wikipedia etiquette. While the recommendations are there, you seem to have neglected yourself to read the suggestions, the recommendations are just that: Guidelines, which are only recommendations, and do not have to be adhered to. That pretty much addresses the first half of your response. Regarding your lecture about Neutral POV and verifiability, if you had read, or should I say u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d my last post, you would realize you still have no authority to associate the IRA with terrorism. It is extremely naive and down right dangerous of you to provide your easy characterization of this situation based on your own viewpoint. You seem to have ignored my points about the IRA's war against the occupying forces of the British Government. Maybe you ignored it because you do not understand it. Repetition does not mean you are making a point, or any sense. I am writing this on behalf of the average Wikipedia user who does not need to be misguided by your own flagrant POV stating Gadaffi financed "terrorism". If you do not want to debate the definition of terrorism, as you clearly do not understand Irish history, the IRA or the troubles, do not state it! For your information, all prisoners in most cases illegally convicted or convincted on false evidence, through collusion, etc. fought and died to be recognized as Political Prisoners. Take a page out of your own preaching papers and provide references in your posts. You are ignorantly expressing your own misguided opinion by stating the IRA is viewed as a terrorist organization by the "international community".

You clearly are insecure in your knowledge of this subject, otherwise you would have left the last minor, compromising change. Your comment, "whether or not the British army counts as a terrorist article is irrelevant to this article" clearly illustrates your inherent bias and POV. It disturbs and saddens me you do not recognize your hypocricy. I'm not asking you to apologize for your ignorance, I'm just advocating a true reflection of unbiased fact. The debate of this topic could very well be conducted in another area of Wikipedia. You, however, must acknowledge that you are irresponsibly advocating unproven and misguided opinions in this forum. This is unacceptable, whether it is in an article only related to the IRA, or not. Again, good luck to you, as I truly fear you're going to need a lot of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clandyboye (talk • contribs) 03:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But you did miss most of my post: You still aren't signing your posts, and in just your last post, you described me as "insecure", ""ignorant", "misguided", "irresponsible" and "hypocritical" just to name a few. WP:NPA is a policy, not a guideline. It is not optional. If you make personal attacks, you may get blocked. Let's discuss the changes on the talk page. There is no need to resort to edit wars and name calling.

I did read your post in detail, and responded to each part of the post.

You are correct in stating that I have very little knowledge of Irish history. Nor do I have any particular interest in the subject. I came into this argument with virtually no point of view. I am not personally affected one way or another if the IRA, the British army, or both are terrorist organisations. I only care that this particular article improves over time.

I did not revert your changes because I have any particular issue with removal of the word "terrorism". Note that I did not write the version that I keep reverting back to. I keep reverting it because your versions are attempting to portray a non-main-stream point of view in an unrelated article.

I have not said that the IRA is seen as terrorist organisation by the international community. I said that the IRA was seen as a terrorist organisation in the 1980s by the international community. I did not include references because I linked to an article where this has been discussed to death already (which has references and explanations). The IRA was seen as a terrorist organisation (in many cases, their status has been changed since disarming), by the US, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Australia. See [1] [2]. The president of the UN general assembly referred to the IRA as terrorists (in reference to last century) here. An interesting article discussing groups that support the IRA can be found here. It is not difficult to see that the view of the IRA as freedom fighters was not a mainstream view.

If you'd like me to look up references for more countries, I will - but I'd like to see references suggesting that the broader international community didn't view the IRA as a terrorist organisation first.

Let's please discuss this on the talk page, so that we can get input from other editors. Chovain 04:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Clandyboye: I'd like to get this dispute resolved. I've summarised the current situation on the Gaddafi talk page in the section titled Third Opinion. Would you be willing to get input from an independent third party on this? There is a process called WP:3 where we try to summarise the dispute, then put in a request for an independent opinion. If you're happy to go through this (painless) process, then feel free to check that I've got the details right, and add a section for your supporting arguments (with 4 equals signs like I have). Chovain 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Chovain, let's stop wasting each other's time. Your opinion that I'm inflicting a point of view by editing your choice of the word "terrorist" is arguable. Your insistence on including that description is inflicting a point of view much more than my mild edit. Without trying to be patronizing, I think you've read my responses, but I'm unsure if you understand them. I have outlined my reasons for editing this article many times. Please don't consider my comments as name-calling, if curt with you it's simply because you may not be aware of the enormity of your insistence on classifing this group from your limited perspective, or point of view. I appreciate that you have admitted to not having a working knowledge of this topic. Cutting to the chase, please familiarize yourself with the following works on the Troubles as a start:"The Dirty War", Martin Dillion; "A Secret History of the IRA", Ed Molony; "Making Sense of the Troubles", David McKigttrick and David McVea; " On Another Man's Wound", Ernie O'Malley; "Rebel Hearts", Kevin Toolis; "Provos: The IRA and Sinn Fein", Peter Taylor; "The Provisional IRA", Patrick Bishop and Eamonn Mallie. After familiarzing yourself with these, let's re-visit this converstation. Until then, I submit that omitting the word "terroist" is very fair in this article about Gadaffi. I agree with you that the debate regarding the IRA's status as a terrorist organization has already been addressed in another area. Let's not include it in this article, by leaving the existing edit. Good Luck.

Mindrap

What you and I both reverted as vandalism was the newbie editor's good faith attempts to fix the copyvio problem. I restored the other two blanked templates and left her a note. Anchoress 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.......

for going ahead and making that change in the Exclusive Brethren‎ article without waiting for me to do it. As a new editor and new to that particular story, it would have taken me a while, especially given the long history on that article.

I often find the discussion page much more informative and thought provoking than the actual article itself. I am amazed at the patience some editors (yourself included) have with those who are often angry and oblivious. Lots of good brains on this project! R Duggan 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my userpage! riana_dzasta 06:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Balmain

Love your work on the Balmain article. Rachel Ward and Bryan Brown are current local residents and I have added them in. amitch ^(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I felt like blocking you instead of the vandal :P Viridae^Talk 10:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

re EB article - National centre vs right

Not really a biggy but to be balanced National should be described as right-wing if Labour is described as left-wing. Arguably Labour is centre-left and National although traditionally centre-right has been right-wing under Brash. Clearly since dropping Brash and promoting Key they have tried to re-position themselves as centre-right, equally clearly they were percieved as right-wing during the last election (the period this EB material relates to) and gained support at the expense of ACT and NZ First. For the purposes of the EB article for an international audience, left and right 'orientated' might be more useful, as elsewhere left and right 'wing' describe rather more extreme positions than most NZ political parties hold. --AGoon 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you here:

• Firstly though, my main reason for reverting your change was because I'm very wary of changes that are appear hyperbolic. Your summary had the word "arguably" in it too, which set off alarm bells for me. I was more concerned with POV creep than anything (there's been a lot of it in both directions in the EB article). I probably should have put a comment to that effect on the talk page at the time...
• As for the direction of National under Brash, in 2003 Brash "promised centre-right policies".[3] I realise that politician says ≠ politician does ;), but it's the strongest indication I can find anywhere about National's direction at the time.
• I agree: NZ Labour is definately not "left-wing". Both sides of NZ politics are extremely moderate both by international standards, and when compared with NZ's past. I'm a big fan of that one changing.
• I really like your suggestion regarding "left and right 'orientated'". Can I leave you to make the changes?

Cheers, Chovain 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've summarised our discussion on the EB talk page. Chovain 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes National don't like the tag 'right-wing' and always push 'centre-right', some of the press kindly repeat this self definition. I expect the names National and Labour give readers a fair clue ;-), but I'll make the change to 'orientated' and see who objects :-) --AGoon 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your revert on Calypso (software)

Yay, I was too fast. Sorry. Jacek Kendysz 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Little Britain

I've replied to your comments on my talk page. ~~ Peteb16 09:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

agencyPlus

agencyPlus is a software application, notable as it is the only 100% .Net SQL2005 smart-client application in an industry (general insurance) dominated by outdated proprietary systems (competitor systems; see TRIPOS). It's not a group, person etc. The company behind it, Insurecom, is a business in England (run by an Australian) that has it's funding from the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by agencyplus (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance notices

The only maintenance notices I intentionally deleted were the uncategorized ones and that is because I added categories. If I deleted any others, it was in error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.165.167.97 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Ilan_Pappé

[4] Could you be so kind and explain why you reverted the edit of Chovain in the Illan Pappe page. Have you read the related discussion on the talk page? Abu ali 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was a largish block of content that was incorrectly removed (there was a stray '=' left behind, making it look like a vandal), performed on a protected page, by a recently registered user, without an edit summary.

I have no problem with the content being removed, but it should be removed cleanly (every last character ;)), and should have an edit summary explaining why the content is being removed, preferably indicating the section on the talk page where the decision was made (I must admit, I still can't find it). Chovain 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the last item on the talk page. Basically you restored inflamotary attacks onto the biography of a living person. Abu ali 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I intended no harm to the article, however:

1. It is not clear that a decision was reached to remove the section in question there. I only see someone questioning the purpose of quoting a particular subject, and a couple of people commenting.
2. Edit summaries are extremely important when editing articles, otherwise how are others to understand the purpose of edits?
3. Like edits, removal of content must be done carefully - Stray characters can make good faith edits look like a damaging edit.

Chovain 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheep Tag

Thankyou for going through my entries and checking them for mistakes and stuff, and thankyou for keeping my Sheep Tag page on Wikipedia but for future reference, could you please explain why you chose to keep Sheep Tag but not 'Don't Move Your Panda', another article about a Warcraft 3 custom game. Could you please give me some advice about, what i could do to keep the 'Don't Move Your Panda' page on wikipedia. Thankyou.

Sheep Tag

Don't Move Your Panda

The previous comment from Robbie Muir was originally sent by email

Every now and then, pages will be nominated for deletion (for a variety of reasons). I don't think I was involved in Don't Move Your Panda's case, but I have been involved in the deletion of a number of Warcraft maps of late.

There are a number of reasonable objective criteria that must be met for a topic to get an article on Wikipedia. In short, the topic must be notable, as defined by WP:N. That normally means that the topic must have non-trivial coverage in printed media or equivilent. There are exceptions, but Warcraft maps don't cut it.

In answer to your question of why I chose to keep Sheep Tag: I didn't explicitly consider it for deletion. I was actually looking at the edits of another user at the time, noticed that they had removed your signature from an article, and decided to send you a quick note about when signatures are required.

The bad news is that I'm likely to nominate Sheep Tag for deletion in the near future. I will likely follow the WP:AFD process on it though, so if the decision is to delete, it won't be for a few days after I nominate it.

I hope you'll understand it's not a personal thing. I understand that people put significant work into many of the articles that get deleted. The issue is one of policy. There are plenty of wikis, forums, and other sites out there that would gladly accept contributions such as these. Wikipedia does not aim to have an article on "everything". It aims to be an encyclopedia with articles on every notable topic.

Cheers, Chovain 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaddafi

What do you mean by this: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Muammar al-Gaddafi. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Chovain 21:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) ??

• A) You think that that was "nonsense" that I added "Within hours"? It WAS within hours, as those of us who followed Arab events 40 years ago well remember.
• B) You think that my comment about the link was "nonsense"? When I click on a link, I expect it to go somewhere. Go ahead and click on that footnote-link, and it takes you down to the bottom of the page, to some ostensible links or sources. So go ahead, and click on that "link", and it takes you back to the quote above. It is completely circular, and serves as some cover for what I suspect is a nonsense quote that Gaddafi may well have never made—which I was simply trying to point out. You want to patrol for "nonsense"? Then take out that alleged quote by Gaddafi about Lincoln being his hero, which, contrary to appearances, actually has no supporting citation. 216.199.161.66 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the effectiveness of the article's links, do so in the article's talk page, not in the middle of the article text. Regardless of your complaint, you intentionally reduced the quality of the article by adding a fake quote.

As for the "within hours" bit: we don't put details into WP articles based on what we remember; we put details in with references to back them up. If you can find a reference, feel free to put your change back in. If you don't know how to put references in, post a link on the talk page, and someone will gladly put it into the article for you.

Chovain 21:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a valid point regarding the lack of citation on the quotes. I'm going to look into fixing it up. Chovain 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about adding the comment in the middle of the article's text. I am not as experienced as some in editing this forum, and I have seen others with comments inserted into the text of an article in a manner which could not be seen in the article, but only when editing the page. This was my intent, and I apologize for disrupting the article's look.

But a "fake quote"? What are you talking about. I never added any quote at all.

And, as to using my memory . . . You speak of the ideal Wikipedia. If I were to guess, I'd say that probably 90% of what is in Wikipedia is someone's memory. Most of Wikipedia is NOT documented. If it were, it would be unreadable. Generally what I think gets documented are things that would otherwise be questioned by others who remember or interpret things differently. For example, no one would expect it to be documented that "Dwight D. Eisenhower was the 34th president of the US", since that is universally accepted. "The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church" is almost as noncontraversial, and it would simply interupt the flow of the article to document it. This statement about the Libyan coup is clearly not so universally remembered, but does it need to be documented? Let me ask you, do you remember it differently? What about whoever wrote this article originally? Here's a news flash: Re-read the article. Upon a second reading it becomes evident that the original writer of this article also understood that the events happened "within hours", since all the events took place on September 1, 1969. It's in the context of the article already, and my addition of "within hours" simply made it more clear to a reader who might very well--no, almost certainly would--have taken it to mean that the change in Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi's status took place over a long period of time. Go ahead, and look at the version from before my edit. For a bit, the reader can be deceived, but then, by the end of the paragraph, even without my edit, it becomes clear that it was, in fact, within hours. All my edit did was to make it clear as the reader reads along, instead of getting confused for a second at the end of the paragraph.

Good luck fixing that link. If it's a true quote, it's truly interesting trivia. But I suspect it's a fake. 216.199.161.66 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have comments on my talk page. "Cheers". 216.199.161.66 04:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, I have recently (like, in the last two hours), come to the realization that I don't know as much about citations in Wik as I thought. I guess that cite is kinda standard, but for the life of me, I don't see the point. How can we look at that cite (on the Lincoln-as-Gadaffi-hero) and know that it wasn't just made up by someone? It could be completely fraudulent, and (again, as far as I see it) no one could know. 216.199.161.66 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Caesarean

G'day. Could you please make the reference change as discussed on the Caesarean page please. I've got myself all in a tangle with the referencing. Much obliged. Maustrauser 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem - coming right up Chovain 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mooseguy

WP:AIV does not seem the right place for this. Please use WP:DR or WP:RFC to get a more permanent solution. Agathoclea 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Chovain, just replying from the Mooseguy topic on my talk page. This might seem a bit pathetic about me, but I'm not very familiar about WP:RFC or WP:DR. I've read about them, but I still don't very much understand. I'm sorry, but I've just gotten so stressed up over Mooseguy, not only because of the vandalism, but because he gives me crap and I've never even spoken to him. So, uh, I think I'll just read over RFC a little more. Thanks for helping, much appreciated. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 22:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never been through an RFC myself, but I understand they can lead to binding decisions (in this case, hopefully to ensure Mooseguy stops his current behaviour). You should be aware, however, that an RFC raised by you, will lead to scrutiny of your edits too (along with anyone else who decides to contribute). The kind of RFC you're likely to want is a user RFC. I'm willing to provide input into and participate in the RFC, but I'd want you to initiate it as you are the most affected party. Chovain 23:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm making an entry for him right now. I'm catching on. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 23:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten confused. I need some help, here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mooseguy. Do I add evidence, or you or.....what?! --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to go out now, but will be back to take a look in a few hours time. Chovain 01:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I've done what I can to the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section. You should add evidence to that section too. You'll want to point out the note you left on Mooseguy's talk page warning him about vandalism. Chovain 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some evidence to that section. Check it out. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo, I'm joining you and Tohru in filling out this RfC. However, you and Tohru need to sign your names under the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section in the next 20 hours, otherwise the RfC won't be accepted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC) NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

user talk:artlondon

it's not vandliasm, it's removal of the 6 month old welcome message ( 15:14, 8 August 2006 Crossmr). you should check the page. 195.27.20.35 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

full disucssion is here User_talk:195.27.20.35#195.27.20.35_is_used_by_user:artlondon

Page Deletion

No, Chovain, I DID write a reason for deleting the page Erotic spanking , there was an edit conflict, and I, who has never faced an edit conflict before, did not know what to do, and my reason was deleted. I shall try again. Uioh 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You originally listed the page for speedy deletion (with a reason), which is the incorrect thing to do in this case. The page is so well established that only the AfD process is appropriate here. Step 2 of the AfD process involves creating the AfD page - you haven't done that. Chovain 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg for your forgiveness, Chovain, if I am endlessly frustrating you, but I am not intentionally doing so. I am still quite a new user. Besides, if you go to Erotic Spanking, you will find the discussion page made and active. Thanks! Uioh 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not your fault if I'm getting frustrated :). I'm sorry if I am coming across as abrasive. I want to help you here, but I'm not sure where our communications are failing. I'll try again from the start:

• This page has instructions for listing a page under the AFD process. The steps are labelled: "I. Put the deletion tag on the article", "II. Create the article's deletion discussion page", and "III. Notify users who monitor AfD discussion". Please make sure you have read those 3 steps all the way through.
• You have performed "Step I" perfectly (a number of times now). This means that the tag is on the article (you can see it there at the top of Erotic Spanking), but this is just a superficial edit to the page - it can't get the page deleted by itself. The discussion regarding the deleting doesn't happen there (nor does it happen on Erotic Spanking's talk page).
• The next two steps create the deletion discussion page with the correct format (which doesn't exist yet), and advertises the fact that the article is being considered for deletion. Note, that the page must be created with very specific formatting (as explained in the instructions).

I can't really do these steps for you, because I don't know your specific arguments for deletion. To be perfectly honest, you're going to have a hard time with this one: I can't think of any insurmountable problems with the page in regard to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The content could be considered offensive, but that is not a good reason for deletion. Without more details (which should go into the nomination text), I suspect I'll be voting to keep the page.

Chovain 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chovain, I thank you for your responses for my questions on the Erotic Spanking page, but I still persist with my opinion of strong deletion of the page. From a few of the messages I received, I received heavy implications that some of the users that object to my opinion wish to maintain the page in question because of its subject. Some even called be "foolish" or "clueless" because I nominated this article for deletion and some even sent me messages that informed me that they erotically spanked their "partner" just last night. I did not expect so many people to not wish to delete the article mainly because they were so entertained by its subject, as it seems. I at first thought they disagreed with me because of reasons such as it is a legitimate page and it is well supplied with sufficient information of its topic, but now I am troubled. When I joined Wikipedia, I did not expect all Wikipedians to be so interested in sexuality and erotic acts, as some of their messages implies, but now I wish to delete the article more than ever because of their quite unreasonable reasons. Thank you. Uioh 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'd never condone people calling you "foolish" or "clueless" for what was obviously a good faith AfD nomination, I suspect at least some were referring to the reasons you gave, or the nomination in general. The only reason a page can be deleted is because it breaks a Wikipedia policy. In short, your nomination did not cite a single policy or guideline by which the page should be deleted. From most editors' perspectives, your reason might just as well have been, "because I personally disagree with the topic area".

It worries me a little that you are so concerned about what other Wikipedians are (or are not) interested in. I personally don't care what other Wikipedians do with their partners in the privacy of their own home, as long as it is consensual. That said, there are many other articles on less tasteful topics (some of which are illegal), for which I would could never support deletion: Take for example zoophilia, and even rape. I do not see these pages as promoting or condoning the topics they discuss, but think they're an excellent source of information if people wish to learn about the topics (assuming it is appropriate for the reader to be learning about that topic - but that is the editor's discretion).

In regard to the Erotic spanking discussion, while a number of voting editors would have stumbled across that discussion by accident (like myself), you need to expect that many will see it because they frequently maintain the article. If you really care about what other editors do in the bedroom, I suggest you move to another part of the encyclopedia where discussion is less likely to reveal things that disgust you about the editors.

If the lack of censorship is really an issue for you here, then sadly, I think you will ultimately need to leave until such a time it stops being an issue for you. You simply won't ever win a fight for censorship here. The lack of censorship directly stems from the ideals on which Wikipedia is built.

I really hope you'll be able to just let this one go, and learn to self-censor (by avoiding the material that offends you). Find something that are interested in, and make it better. Every moment you spend in a section of Wikipedia that angers or moves you in a negative way is a moment Wikipedia is without a useful editor. If you're truly interested in objectively removing articles that don't belong here, then you'll have to spend time learning and understanding Wikipedia's policies.

Chovain 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NPWatcher approval

You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! Martinp23 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure adopt me away

Adopt me away :)

ShooterBoy 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Meson Cannon

On the history page it shows you havn't even edited it before so why say you did revert that vandalism because unless you can prove it I will replace your warning with my own.Sam ov the blue sand 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Little Britain

In your recent edit to Little Britain you delinked a number of years. I'm interested in your reasoning here. The Manual of Style indicates that there is no consensus when it comes to the linking of bare years. Is there a reason beyond personal preference that you delinked these? Chovain 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually there is consensus to "make only links useful in context" the spectrum of disagreement is about what constitutes "useful in context", and even here there is general agreement that there are too many linked years. In this article the links to 2001, 2003 and 2006 are of little or no use, even links to 2003 in television would be of limited use, as it does not mention the show, nor really provide a context. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47 7 January 2007 (GMT).

Hello

I'm moslty interested to create articles on criminality, like street gangs but more locally specialized

ShooterBoy 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

rehello!

Why hello there :)

I just noticed the message and currently, i restarted school so i'm gonna sparsely edit, but i'm gonna still be on wikipedia and are you on IRC?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShooterBoy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not on IRC, sorry, but I'm happy to help with any questions you want to ask me. I'll be online a lot for the next few hours. Chovain 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT

Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.

Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

penchant for drama

Hi again Chovain. I am sorry that you do not like the tone of my edits and "my perchant for drama". I would state in my defence that these comments were made to a specific user on hist private talk page some time ago, and that user never took offence to my remarks. As you have seen fit to comment on my talk page on this issue I would like to ask whether you think this [[5]] warning is justified? [[[User:culverin]] has so far refused to substantiate his allegations against me. I would also like to ask if you know whether User:Brilliance is a sockpuppet for User:Isarig, User:Amoruso or User:SlimVirgin? Abu ali 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was probably being a little harsh with my comment about you: that view was based on a subset of your edits. I've seen your name pop up a number of times in the past month or so, and in my experience, it seems that conflict is not far behind. I'm not suggesting that you are to blame for the conflicts. You obviously edit in controversial areas, and many of the editors on those topics are quick to criticise and bring offline hatred as baggage. In searching through your edits, I do notice that your messages do only seem to get heated when you're replying to heated messages. I'm sorry that I didn't notice that before making the "drama" comment. I do, however, still stand by my claim that you're too quick to claim the existance of conspiracies. As for not liking the tone of your edits, I was only referring to the tone of that one (out of context) comment.

I felt compelled to comment on your talk page when I saw Brilliance's message, because he was clearly taking your comment out of context and bending your words to generate more conflict. That your comment was placed as a private message is quite a good partial defence. In the end, my problem with your comment is that it treats Wikipedia as an extention of a warzone. A number of your edits make it appear that you view it as a battle that each side is fighting to win. In the end, I only find your comment mildly offputting. I found Brilliance's absolutely disgusting.

As for your question regarding sock-puppets, I'd need to spend a bit more time looking into that. I'll get back to you soon.

To summarise, I completely appologise for (and retract) the "drama" part of my comment. My problem with the comment Brilliance quoted is dwarfed by my problems with Brilliance's alleged interpretation. Chovain^(t|c) 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock-puppet and have never heard of those names before. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and have recently decided to create an account and improve some articles. Aslo, talk pages are not private and can be viewed by everyone in the world. Brilliance 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I most certainly never suggested you were a sock puppet. I just agreed to provide an Abu ali with my opinion when I get the time to form one. Talk pages are public, but context is important. Does the fact his comment's were public make it ok to bend Abu ali's words? He was quite clearly consoling another editor who had just received a very long block. Comments like yours do nothing but create conflict. I personally think an apology is in order. I'd expect one if my words were twisted in an effort to compare me with an Islamic dictator. Chovain^(t|c) 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali's racism warning

Hi Chovain, thanks for your thoughts. But I was wondering what you thought about this [[6]] warning I recieved from a third user who was solicited by User:Brilliance. This third individual (User:culverin) has accused me of "pushing racist extreme POV on wikipeida" and threatend to ban me indefinately. He has refused to substantiate or withdraw these attacks. You have rightly advised me not to see WP as a battleground. But my friends at WP:ISRAEL will use Culverin's warning to have me banned next time I make an edit which is not to their liking. What if anything do you think should be done about this warning? Thanks again for any thoughts on the matter Abu ali 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually already had this on my todo list, but I have not been sure what the best course of action is. Looking through Culverin's contributions, he is an very responsible editor. I'll raise my concerns on his page too. It's possible he'll pay more attention to me as an independent third party.

For the record, if you were to be blocked for anything minor as a result of this, I would expect the block to be lifted immediately on review. I wouldn't worry about it too much for now. Chovain^(t|c) 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question regarding what should be done about the warning: Nothing for now. The warning obviously needs to stay in place. Any change to it (by anyone but Culverin or an admin) would reflect poorly on both you and that editor. Chovain^(t|c) 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. Thank you Chovain for your valuable input into this disscussion. I am not an adminstrator so I couldnt ban you. I do accept that I may have been to harsh in this situation but comments like these one really enrage me. Especially at the current time with turmoil in the middle east. These comments were uncivil and inappropriate. I propose: Abu apoligises on his talk page for making those comments and then If he does this Ill remove the warning template, and in future I hope both sides can remain Civil. Hope this sorts it out. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interject, but Culverin's warning strikes me as an extraordinary violation of WP:Civility. "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." Also, listed as "more serious examples" is "Calling for bans or blocks." How can this staying on Abu Ali's page be conditioned on anything? Abu Ali can't possibly owe Culverin an apology, after Culverin makes this wildly aggressive attack on Abu Ali. This isn't some kind of witch hunt, where we extract confessions. If Abu Ali violated a policy, it should be dealt with by WP. He should not face wildly aggressive personal attacks on his talk page from another user. I completely respect the effort to deal with this delicately, and I think your attempt is admirable, but whether this is an inappropriate personal attack per WP has nothing to do with whether Abu Ali apologizes for his statement, and it shouldn't be tied together in any way. If an admin thinks Abu Ali needs to remove his own comment, that decision should be made by the admin. At most, Abu Ali should be made to remove his comment. He should not be made to apologize for anything, however, particularly to Culverin, any more than Culverin should be made to apologize for his attack. I think you should see that the idea of either is equally offensive. We shouldn't forget that we're all adults here. With great respect, Mackan79 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mackan79 for your input. I never said I wanted an apology for his comments against me! I said I want an apology for the uncivil POV his been saying about Jewish people. To restate my proposal: I think It would be best for an apology from both sides (me and Abu) I will apologise for my harsh attitude towards Abus comments and Abu will apologise and remove the hurtful comments he has made. Then I will immediately remove my last warning template from his talk page. Cheers. I hope a resolution can be reached soon. Culverin? ^Talk 09:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been falsely accused by user Brilliance of advocating suicide bombings. Brilliance contacted culverin who falsely accuses me of racism and now of antisemitism. If either of these gentlemen would be kind enough to show where in my comments (private comments to another editor) I have advocated sucide bombing, and have been racist and antisemitic, I will apologize unreservedly because I oppose terrorism racism and antisemitsm. But if Brilliance and culverin can not substantiate their allegations, they should have the honesty to admit that they are false and withdraw them. Abu ali 09:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On the scale of abuses here, it seems to me that Abu Ali made an overtly political comment on WP. This comment may have been seen as offensive by some, but hardly because he went out of his way to attack those people. In that regard, I've also seen material at least as provocative, from many directions on WP. OTOH, Culverin has now left an extraordinarily inciteful and damaging message on Abu Ali's talk page. I really don't think apologies should have anything to do with this. I won't suggest you didn't have a right to be offended, Culverin; one person can't tell another whether they have a right to be offended. But after making this kind of accusation against Abu Ali, I don't think you can possibly expect him to offer an apology, whether specifically to you or otherwise. At the same time, if you now recognize that your statement against Abu Ali is overboard, I don't see why you should have to wait for some atonement from him to retract that statement. Whether or not Abu Ali's statement was inappropriate, you have not been aggrieved here, but Abu Ali very much has, and I'd hope you could respect that. In any case, I have to say I find your willingness to discuss the matter encouraging. Mackan79 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I originally saw Abu ali's original comment as overtly racist. On closer inspection (and admittedly without much knowledge surrounding the offline conflict), at no point does Abu ali refer to Israelis. He refers to Zionists. Zionists are a political movement, not a race. Not all jews are Zionists; not all Zionists are Jews. (Note difference of definition between Land of Israel and State of Israel). Israel's opponents do often use the term synonymously with "Jew" (that's the interpretation I originally took). We can't base our actions on an implicit interpretation of the comments. I'm going to make one last crack at this. There are two separate issues here:

• Culverin: you have accepted the warning you left was too harsh. You can't base removal of an inappropriate warning on an apology. Abu ali is no asking for an apology; he just wants the warning struck. I have suggested an alternative wording to you, which reflects the fact that Abu ali's comment was potentially offensive, not racist. Please show some good faith and maturity: Is there any reason you can't strike the old (harsh) one and replace it with less accusatory wording?
• Abu ali: People are clearly being (rightly or wrongly) offended by your original comments. Forget about the racism warning for one moment. Be big. Show some initiative. Is there any reason you can't strike the comment that is offending people?

I personally couldn't care less if you guys apologise or not. I would like to see this issue resolved though, and the only way I see that happening is if you both independently and unconditionally take the actions I've proposed. If neither of you are willing to budge an inch, then I'm all out of ideas. Chovain^(t|c) 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is not only Israel's opponents,as Chovain suggests above, who sometimes use the term "Zionist" synonymously with the term "Jew", . Israel's supporters, the Zionist movement, and even the government of Israel do so all the time. The effect -- presumably intentional -- is to delegitimise any criticism of Israel, particularly any anti-Zionist criticism, as an antisemitic attack. It is only by scrupulously using the terms correctly and appropriately that Israel's critics can hope to counter this. I see no evidence that Abu ali has misused the terms, or that he has displayed a racist agenda. He may indeed have been uncivil; that is an occupational hazard of many Wikipedia editors. Deplorable possibly, but certainly not deserving the sort of notice that Culverin placed on his User Talk page. RolandR 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your interjections are really helping here, Roland. We're trying to resolve a dispute between two editors, not discover the root cause of the problems in the Middle East. I simply don't care who is to blame for the term "Zionism" being overloaded. The simple fact is that people are misinterpreting Abu ali's words. Neither his nor Culverin's comments were constructive with regards to our goal of building an encyclopedia, so have no place here. Let's not get into "What X did was worse than what Y did, so Y shouldn't have to fix their mistake"-type arguments.

Quite frankly, I see no reason why there should be any more discussion here! I've proposed a solution, and I've made it clear that this is going to be my last attempt at finding an amicable solution. Either the two involved parties accept my solution (which ironically involves them retracting something they've said unconditional of what the other editor does), or this will need to be solved in some other way. People can discuss this until the cows come home on someone else's talk page. Chovain^(t|c) 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chovain, I apologize for getting you involved in this squable. For my part I am happy to remove my comment on PalestineRemembered's talk page as it was a message to her and presumably has been read by her and served its purpose. Unfortunately users Brilliance and Chovain [Ed: I think you mean Culverin :). Chovain^(t|c) 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)] have refused to retract their personal attacks agains me for allegedly being racist, antisemitic, encouraging suicide bombs and vandalizing wikipedia, so I am compelled to post appropriate warings on their talk pages in the hope that they will be more careful with their accusations against other editors in the future. Thanks for you attempts to resolve this amicably. Regards, Abu ali 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting so sick of this argument. Look here is my final proposition for a resolution:

• Abu removes his comments (done,I think)
• Abu declares that he will not use that kind of context or say uncivil things that may be extremely offensive to some wikipedians. This can be done here or any place he really wants.
• I (Culverin) will remove my last warning template and replace it with the warning message written by Chovain.
• If Abu continues to be uncivil, action be taken by the community
• Me learning from this long incident and in future always strive to maintain WP:CIVIL.

I seriously hope an outcome can be reached soon!. Cheers Culverin? ^Talk 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to be bold, and ignore the rules. It seems like we pretty much have in-principle agreement here; there's just few details to be ironed out. There's no reason why the two offending comments should need to remain while "declaraitions" are negotiated. I'm going to remove Abu ali's comment, and change Culverin's warning. This will never get resolved if each of you wait for the other to act first. Chovain^(t|c) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chovain, I think you've handled this admirably. Best, Mackan79 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and feedback. Unfortunately, It's not over yet: User:Brilliance doesn't seem to want to let it go. :( Chovain^(t|c) 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Break

This is getting out of control. Shall we take this to a higher power? Everybody has to back down. Culverin? ^Talk 09:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid it going to a higher power: Brilliance seems like they could be a great editor. He/she really does seem to mean well - they just need to cool it down a little. If this gets escalated, I suspect Brilliance will be eaten alive, and I'd rather that didn't happen. Perhaps putting the spurious warning on my page was just Brilliance's way of letting off steam. I'm happy to just leave it and see what happens. If I see any other nastiness, I'll make sure I let you know before I escalate so you have the option of trying to iron it out. Chovain^(t|c) 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on Abu's page now so he knows my position too. Chovain^(t|c) 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Be fair to Brilliance. Sure his comments were uncivil but it goes to show what some people will think including myself when Abu does this. I personally agree with Brilliances opinion of Abu's actions. Brilliance is new (He has been here for something like a week) so lets give him some help. He shouldn't have got caught up in this affair anyway. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm being more than fair to Brilliance. Fair would be to let him explain his actions in an RfC and let the community judge his actions. He got a level-2 warning for accusing Abu of condoning suicide bombings, and comparing him to an Islamic dictator. What more can he expect when he will not even retract that? Chovain^(t|c) 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If Brilliance retracts his comments, Abu should retract his. That is fair, isn't it?. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 10:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would necessarily work like that. It made sense in case of Abu's comment and the racism warning because the racism warning was based on an incorrect interpretation of Abu's comment. Basically, the warning was the wrong one, so shouldn't have been there in the first place. Abu was not really all that uncivil, either. Had his comments been directed against a Zionist, it would have been pretty incivil. Try rereading his comment, and replacing every instance of the word Zionist with "liberal", "libertarian", "conservative", "trade unionist" or any other political movement: It's just an aggressively voiced opinion.

The change of the racism warning was not conditional on him retracting his comment (well, it shouldn't have been, anyway). It was two separate issues: Abu's comment was offending people, and you gave him the wrong warning. The corrective actions should have been taken independently.

Warnings are not punishments. They are meant to remind editors of their responsibilities in terms of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. There's actually no real reason for Abu's warning to stay at all. He has accepted that his comment could be misinterpreted: lesson learnt.

There have been suggestions (mainly from you, I think), that Abu ali apologise. The problem is, Abu ali cannot really apologise for anything more than not thinking about his words better. We all say inappropriate things at different times though. His comment was not directed at the people who were being offended by it.

In Brilliance's case, Brilliance could reasonably remove the warning himself as soon as he accepts that his comments constituted a personal attack on Abu ali. So far, Brilliance has given no indication that he even understands he has done anything wrong. If Brilliance were a reasonable person, he would put himself in Abu's shoes for a moment and realise that his accusations caused hurt. I would think he would then strike the comment (but not remove it in this case), and apologise for the hurt he caused.

Note that removal of the warning is not conditional on retraction of his accusations. It is conditional on him understanding that he made a personal attack against another editor, and understanding that it is not appropriate behaviour here. It just so happens that retraction of the accusation, and apologising for the hurt he caused Abu is what I'd expect to see from an editor who has understood that. Chovain^(t|c) 10:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comments that you dislike. I except the warning to be removed. I shall return on Monday the 22nd. Brilliance 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

And I have removed my warning. Sincerest thank you for being bold and doing a lot of work to resolve this little conflict. I hope everyone is happy now. All the best... Abu ali 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Understanding at Afd

AfD is fairly hostile, and asking questions doesn't gain answers, for example, you didn't bother to explain how you got 8 citations, when one article in which he is listed as lead author, from Journal of Cell Science, gives 20. I asked direct questions about your nomination, that you may answer to help me understand why you are nominating this AfD. KP Botany 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I & KP are in general agreement about the appropriate standards, I actually don't think you did very wrong. That you did a search and reported the results is more than 90% of the AfD people would have done. That is may not have been a perfect search, and that the search results may need interpretation, is important, but it isn't that easy for people to do this outside of their fields (unless they happen to have been taught by an experienced librarian like myself, of course--hint, only use as few key words as possible, and then narrow down as needed..). The important thing is to not delete without taking a real look, and you did that. It makes it much easier to get the discussion started in proper objective way. And I do think your comments on KP's page fair. Yes, AfD should be less hostile. But scientists at AfD feel persecuted sometimes, and not always without reason. (smile)DGG 06:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"But scientists at AfD feel persecuted sometimes". With editors like KP Bounty on your side, that doesn't suprise me. I'll be sure to go in with all guns blazing next time. Chovain^(t|c) 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the reason they feel that way is that people without experience in the area or knowledge of how to go about verifying whether or not a scientific article should be kept or deleted are very comfortable proposing these articles for deletion without that knowledge. I don't post IT articles for deletion, because it's not my area. I don't post popular music articles for deletion because it's not my area of knowledge. Yet, it's fine for anyone to post a scientific AfD while admitting they have insufficient knowledge of the area. You've already gone with all guns blazing, at least blazing for deletion, because that's where you posted it, Articles for Deletion, not it's talk page for discussion, or one of the life science projects. And you didn't answer any of my questions so I could understand why you are posting it for deletion. KP Botany 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:AFD. Anyone can nominate an article, and anyone can take part in the debate. But in the debate, act like a scientist: Don't attack the person; attack the ideas by providing better evidence. You should be nominating articles in other areas if they are not up to scratch. The AfD process is robust enough to handle mistakes being made. Chovain^(t|c) 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it, especially this part, right up on top:

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

• For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
• If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
• Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the Speedy Deletion criteria and process.
• For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the Proposed Deletion process."

And I ask questions, since I'm new to the area. But they never get answered, as mine to you weren't and won't, because people are heck-bent on deleting articles, they're not proposing them for discussion, but for deletion, and they're offended when asked questions. A discussion, on the other hand, would included challenges and questions. KP Botany 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But the relevant article is not WP:AFD but rather a whole lot of other related articles, like Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. And Wikipedia:Notability (people). And Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. All of which I read over and over, each time I participate in a deletion debate to see how it applies to this particular AfD. And I think of which questions are relevant, such as "The work or the original ideas described therein must form the basis[4] of another work which is itself notable for other reasons." And I ask related questions, will this particular article be notable and read 100 years from now for its discovery? In the sciences one must still go to the original references. If I write an article about genetics and use Mendelian genetics theory, I may be expected to reference Mendel's work directly. Because of the nature of the topic of the one article by this scientist, it may be the case that his work is fundamental to a current discovery area in the biological sciences. If this is the case, this scientist's work is notable today and will be notable 100 years from now, and, no matter how small the contribution in the area of mutation genetics of the mitotic spindle, he should have an article. However, it's a complex topic, in a field where new discoveries just started being made some 10 years ago. My college text book on the topic simply said something along the lines of nothing is really known about the genetics of the mitotic spindle. So, it needs some expert evaluation of the scientist's contribution and its notability and its relation to the whole body of research. That's not going to happen on deletion debate, when the debate consists of proposing deletion and people who can't or won't answer questions about the basis for deletion. KP Botany 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your reason for quoting that piece of the AfD process was. Since my concern was with notability, the first point is irrelevant. The article wasn't copyvio, so that's point 2 out. The article asserted notability (although I questioned that notability), so speedy was out. Prod would be the perfect option if I was absolutely sure that the article shouldn't be there. AfD nominators aren't hell-bent on deleting articles: You're just rubbing them up the wrong way. Nominators are clearly going in with the opinion that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but if you think the only way to argue against them is to belittle them and insult them, then good luck to you. I answered your question about how I arrived at my results (and admitted fault). I ignored your question about why I chose the search terms I used: If you want to get answers, lose the sarcasm. If you think you have a better search than the nominator, then just link to it and say why you think it's better. Chovain^(t|c) 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for sounding sarcastic. However, I AM trying to understand this process, and I only get further away with every new post. I will ask nicer in the future, and just assume that you acted in good faith. KP Botany 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My nomination was certainly in good faith, and as it turns out is going to give the article in question both a mandate for existence, and a kick in the pants - we should see some improvements come out of this. For the record, this is only the second bad nomination I've made, where consensus has gone the other way. I'm normally pretty thorough on AfD noms.

If you have any serious questions about this nomination (apart from the "not widely cited" one that I've already answered), feel free to ask them here, and I'll do my best to answer them. Chovain^(t|c) 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Well, why did you search using the organism's common name?
2. And, yes, I did post that I noticed you actually searched, which was unusual for AfD, so I believe that you are probably responsible with your nominations--in spite of my hostility.
3. Still, couldn't this have been posted on WP:ToL discussion page? There are more people broadly qualified to research and fix life sciences crap there, as most of us don't participate at all in WP:AfD (probably the why so many science articles get deleted). This one would probably have to go to Wikiproject MCB, or genetics, if there is one, because of the highly technical nature of the subject matter, but someone on WP:ToL could direct it to the proper place.
4. One of the biggest problems on Wikipedia, imo, is an overabundance of people qualified and knowledgable in certain technical areas, and a limited number in some of the general sciences. The small number of editors can't both monitor the AfDs and copyedit the slew of science articles that desperately need work. By the way, I don't know enough about this guy's topic to tell the importance of his contribution. There was an AfD a while ago for a guy who helped start the first African-American fraternity--turns out he wrote, apparently, one scientific article. However, it's still cited in almost every monograph on maize written.
5. How do science articles get a fair shake on Wikipedia? I don't know the answer.
6. In this case it might not have helped to search for the organism by scientific name, because the key to searching for the notability of this scientist is in his area of research, mitotic spindle genetics, and in knowing the importance of this area to research in the Life Sciences, but the articles and area he writes in are a subset of this, and "mitotic spindle" is not a keyword. Still, you would have seen that it's a model genetic organism, possibly giving yourself more information than otherwise, had you searched with the organism's scientific name. Again, though, you did actually bother to search, and I should have given you much more credit for that right from the start, which I usually do. KP Botany 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) [Numerical points added by Chovain to make my answers clearer.]

In response to (1), this was me copying phrases from the article. I probably should have used the scientific name, but expected that papers would not use the scientific name exclusively. I should have spent more time looking for papers here.

Thanks for recognising (2). It really does matter to me.

Your suggestion in (3), that a project would be a good place to address notability concerns is a tricky one. There are a lot of projects on Wikipedia, and knowing which project to direct one's queries is difficult. I think to some extent, projects are responsible for tagging articles for which they want input. As it turns out, had any of the projects you listed tagged the article with {{WikiProjectNotice}}, I probably wouldn't have nominated it. On the other hand, I feel a 5-day, open debate is plenty of time for interested parties to get involved (all projects should have someone scanning AfD). As the article stood, this page has not been discussed, or seen any content changes in the 2 years since it was written - It appeared no-one was interested.

I recognise the problem you refer to in (4), but a counterpoint is that if the number of editors with the qualifications to improve science articles remains constant, and the number of articles accelerates (as it does), then the overall quality articles will drop. Regardless of notability, an article that no-one has touched in 2 years is unlikely to terribly interesting, but it's up to the community to decide if it's worth keeping around.

I disagree with what you're getting at in (5). I believe there are two questions here, both different to what you're asking:

• How do we get other areas of Wikipedia up to the same standard as say science and geography?
• How do we get the good areas even better?

The way to improve other areas is to get rid of all the OR fan-cruft for a start. That's not going to happen in a hurry, unfortunately. I don't want to see the sciences go the same way, where every academic and crackpot gets an article, and sifting through the noise becomes too much effort. I genuinely thought Douglas Stirling was noise. Chovain^(t|c) 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is doubting that you nominated in good faith, & you were not unreasonable, and articles such as this are why we need people in the subject areas. The workgroups are a start, but we all know what happens to projects... The way to improve the science area is to get qualified people in proportion to the articles, and discourage the unqualified. What the present deletion process is doing is discourage those qualified in the science, but who don't know WP. If someone submits a poor article, they can be guided & taught. I took the trouble to learn something at the start & to look at other articles to see the style, but then I knew that I intended to work on the improvement of a particular group of articles where I expected to meet opposition DGG 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of copying phrases from the article, you might try using keywords when dealing with science articles, or copy only phrases from the abstract or the discussion section, seldom the introduction. And, in particular with a model genetic organism, you won't understand the place of the research in relation to the organism and the field today without using the scientific name--also, the common name is general, applied to numerous yeasts, but the organism studied is specific. Again, with this particular author it would have been tricky anyhow, because what really should have been searched for is not mentioned or keyworded in the one article (mitotic spindle, again).

Well, we're going to disagree on the plenty of time to get involved--I just don't have the time, as I work full time and study also. I'm going to drop out of AfD and just let things get deleted or not. It's too much work to follow the debates. I could have researched and written or improved an article instead with the time I spent. And, again, the main issue is that the people who can improve the articles--those in the projects--aren't the ones who are participating in AfD--it's too acrymonious overall, and it's a lot of work. There are some articles that it would be important to bring to the attention, though, of people in the know. For example, last week Thermal optimum was up for deletion. This is a primary concept in climate change, a raging debate these days. It needs a substantial article, and it's also a biological term. If I hadn't seen it, it would have been deleted. However, if it had been posted on the geology board, people would have said, "Oh, wow, we don't have an article on that."

That's my point, that Wikipedia is improved more by bringing an article to the attention of people who can correct it or know that an article needs to be added, rather than deleting a crummy article. The projects do the former, AfD does the latter.

And, in the end, the jury's still out on whether or not Stirling is noise. On the other hand, it turns out our article on Mitotic spindle is sad and needs to be brought into the current century. Again, though, it needs the attention of the MCB people. KP Botany 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

KP, if you had not spotted climate optimum I would have. About half the things i think I am unique in catching i m not unique. This is why we need more people watching these things, and we need to improve the procedures to encourage them. Newbies even.DGG 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you would have. I just don't have the energy and attitude for it. In fact, Chovain did actually do a search, attempting to do a proper search, also, and I shouldn't have lashed out at him/her, but I'm so incredibly irritated at the whole thing. The person who nominated Laura Nader didn't do a search, simply assumed that since she is Ralph Nader's sister, she's only included for that reason. This is a leading, well-publicized American academic with a world wide reputation. I'm too frustrated, and will have to drop out. I'll book mark the test cases, or you can post on my talk page, DGG, when important ones arise. KP Botany 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems the problem at the moment is that those with the "scientific literacy" are too busy to keep an eye on AfD. Those keeping an eye on AfD are not necessarily "literate" enough to make good decisions. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a new Wikiproject here: A sort of "Scientific article AfD board", where Science related AfD's are listed for those with the skill and patience to judge such nominations on their merits can do so. Thoughts? Chovain^(t|c) 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe work on policy guidelines for AfDs for science articles. Fact is, folks who don't bother with searches now, aren't going to do them right in the future, they're going to continue not doing them--folks who are already bothering to do them, bothering to weigh whether it should be speedy delete or AfD are the only ones we'll reach, anyhow, and they'll actually bother to read updated guidelines. In Chovain's case, it's useful to know you plucked strings from the article for search, because it shows useful information to use in the guidelines, search for and use not just use the scientific name of the organism, but get it from the keywords, and search for key phrases from the abstract and discussion sections--however, this is not what is happening, people are searching under the wrong terms, what's happening is editors are not searching. Someone's doing a Science articles test cases board, that will work for some. We still need the projects on board. Speaking of projects, I just won a monster one, and won't be around much. I posted Douglas Stirling's AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, requesting an evalution of the one paper, and his overall contribution to science. KP Botany 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Excuse me, Chovain, I have been reading what you wrote on the user called User: Uioh's talk page, and I must point out similar writing style is no evidence of the user in question of being a sockpuppet. For all you know, he may be telling the truth. I am not saying he is, but you should not have just jumped to conclusions. The other users you spoke of may really be his brothers, or someone he may not even know at all! If the other users were his brothers, then naturally, they may share common interests and writing styles, but I repeat, they may be no one he knows at all. You should not have merely accused other users of being sockpuppets with no good piece of evidence that they are! Thanks very much! 24.193.35.176 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I most definitely didn't accuse Uioh of being a sockpuppet. I know he's not a sockpuppet. I am aware that there a number of people in his household that share the same computer (I do have evidence of that), and have similar interests. My message on his talk page was some friendly advice to be careful about treating AfDs as votes, and cautioning that if everyone in his household just "votes" on AfD's (especially without loggin in), then other editors will disregard his views as they will assume they are sockpuppets (as they have been already!). My comment was valuable advice, and most certainly not an accusation. Chovain^(t|c) 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"On a note slightly related to the preceding section, a number of other editors have raised concerns that you are using sock puppets in the deletion debates. Now, I know that you are one of a number of people in your household using the same computer, but I've also noticed a pattern whereby both you and your IP address place entries in the debate with very similar wording." -- Chovain^(t|c) 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[source]

Yes, indeed, Chovain. However, from what you said, your words somehow did not exactly register in my mind as "valuable advice", and instead a strong implication that you agree with the Users in question. Hmmm... also, you seem to have accused other users of being sockpuppets too. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was rather offended by your words, and did not even dare edit wikipedia for quite a few days by your rather unkind comment, fearing I will no longer bw able to edit it ever again. Uioh 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have offered you valuable advice on many occasions. Just because we disagree on many points does not make us "foes". Please don't be offended by anything I say to you - My intention is only to be helpful. I believe you have a lot to offer Wikipedia, but you are a new user, and do have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. Don't discount advice about "the way things work here" just because we have differing views. Unless you explicitly ask me to leave you alone, I am going to continue to offer you advice. It's up to you which bits you heed, and which bits you ignore.

I don't agree with the other users that you are a sock puppet, but I do feel that you and your family have formed a voting bloc, whether that be intentional or unintentional. Either way, my advice still stands: If you and your family treat AfDs as votes, you will erode your reputation, and ultimately your views will be ignored.

When have I ever accused another user of being a sock puppet? Chovain^(t|c) 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, Chovain, that you are trying to help me, and I thank you for that, but I did not lie in any of my statements. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the first section of this current archive on your talk page indicates that another user has, to, apparently believed you accused him of being a sock puppet. You may have been here longer than I have, but I am now quite familiar with the rules and regulations of wikipedia. Now, whom do you think that is forming a voting bloc with me, please? You are obviously a skilled and intelligent Wikipedian, and of course we are not foes. I was merely pointing out what I beleved was true. Thank you. Uioh 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I never thought you lied. You've misread the "penchant for drama" section. User:Abu ali asked me if I thought User:Brilliance was a sock puppet of a number of users. I deferred my answer until I was able to look further into it. I'm in the middle of writing up my opinion with supporting evidence here, although I haven't had a chance to work on it for a while. To summarise, I do not believe Brilliance is a sock puppet, and I reckon I have pretty convincing evidence that he's not a sock puppet of any of the users Abu suggested.

"Forming a voting bloc" is stronger than what I meant (that's why I suggested "unintentionally"). Off the top of my head, I can only remember you and your anon IP taking part in the same discussion (I assume it was aidoflight that was not logged in?). I remember reading a comment from someone suggesting Librax was pretty similar with the "votes", but I've never seen anything non-circumstantial to back that one up, so very much doubt it. I'll need to spend more time looking through histories to give you a better answer - I'm meant to be working at the moment :).

The main issue though, is not that you guys take part in the same AfD debates, but that you sometimes treat it as a "vote" rather than a debate. (For example: [7] [8] [9], or even [10]). I admit though, I quite often do the "per nom" or "per XXX" comments too. The problem is they don't get looked at by the closing admin. Chovain^(t|c) 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think you're the second person to misread that section. User:Brilliance seemed to indicate I was calling him a sockpuppet too, but I think he may have been replying to Abu ali, not me (he just got the indenting wrong). I can't for the life of me see how "As for your question regarding sock-puppets, I'd need to spend a bit more time looking into that." could possibly be interpreted as an accusation. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to that particular discussion getting archived. :) Chovain^(t|c) 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this page interesting. I find it fascinating how descriptive your observations were. Although I know this means nothing to you coming for me, I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet. Brilliance 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

PS: I'm glad we have resolved the conflict.

Once I'm finished (I've got heaps to go on it), I'll hopefully be able to convince Abu ali beyond any doubt. It's also kind of fun analysing writing styles, etc :). For the record, I'm completely convinced you're not a sock puppet (Also note: I started writing that page very early in "the conflict"). I'm also glad we could resolve that conflict. No hard feelings, I hope (I hold none against you). Regarding my subpage, my intention was to let you know when I was finished. If you're at all weirded out by it, let me know and I'll get rid of it. Mark Chovain 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo - if you could adopt me that would be great. I'm not really on as much as i would like but any help you could give would be fantastic.--James Naeger 07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me

I'm requesting help from any experienced wikipedian who wants to adopt me, I'm a total newb... Would you help me? KatKiller 07:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)