User talk:Kovar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kovar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  AUTiger ʃ talk/work 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WSFA, Disclave and Conclave...

I'll take a look at the WSFA, Disclave and Conclave articles later tonight, or early morning as it will be (my time). I have to say that I am strongly of the opinion that the Disclave article probably does meet notability and verifiabilty criteria and probably could stand as an individual, separate article. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you, and I am sorry for rushing people. The first I heard about any of this was when someone started cursing about 'those Wikipedia people'. Once these are cleared I'll relax again but Capclave getting an RfD as a result of someone (else) deciding to take care of things has me wanting to get all the tags off before a third person decides to fix the situation. Obviously anyone has just as much right to as I do but that was something of a scare.

I've been thinking a great deal about the Disclave article, especially after what you'd said. It is strong enough to stand on its own and in some ways should. But Disclave is also an integral part of the Washington Science Fiction Association and of its history in the same way that Capclave is part of WSFA, present and future. I'm still reluctant about merging it but think that it's the correct thing to do in the long run. An editorial decision rather than an editing decision.

Having made it -- because of the redirect I can't access the Disclave article. Is there a way to get to that code (or whatever it's called)? I cleared my backup of Disclave as a separate article and would like to be able to archive it for myself somewhere. Kovar 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What could be done with the Disclave article is to keep the main Disclave article and add a summary of the Disclave article to the WSFA article, with a link to the Disclave article. This is just an example off the top of my head, but look at the Republic of Ireland article and look at the first section, the Name section, which summarizes the Names of the Irish state article.
Oh, by the way, you can access older versions of an article by clicking the history tab on the top of an article and you can selsect an older version by clicking one the links with a date. It's easy to revert to an earlier version of an article. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
PS, just a slight addition. To get to the older versions of the Disclave article, which now of course is a redirect page, try this link FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, and thank you for working out a way I can have both articles. Disclave is now back to being an article with a link from the WSFA page. There's still a lot of information I want to add -- an actual description of Capclave and a section in the Disclave article for some of the many, many stories about Disclaves for people to play with -- but the basic information and structure is there. Whew.
So, what do you think? And can I take the 'not verified against sources' off? Although I did verify them I'm afraid that in some ways I'm using you as an editor.
And the Capclave page now redirects! Wow! Kovar 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


  • (reply) "...a section in the Disclave article for some of the many, many stories about Disclaves for people to play with. OK, but be aware and careful of WP:CRUFT, which (even) I have to admit is a problem that can happen in science fiction articles. I will freely admit that I am not unfamiliar with science fiction conventions, and I know the temptations, but remember that an article has to be accesible to other readers. So as much as possible, keep to the main points that can be referenced. But then again, don't forget that a more informal assessment of Disclave hosted off Wikipedia can be included as an external link.

I took the {{verify}} tag off the WSFA article, but I added a citation tag to one sentence. Not that it isn't true, but the more references, the better.

Just an additional note: There is a bit of irony in that I actually had heard of Capclave before I read the article or the AFD discussion, and indeed have met at least one of the GoHs (or said hello to, at least :O) ), but I still think that it wouldn't have met notabilty requirements, although it might in a few years. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Rambling response, parts of which were relevant and parts of which weren't, much of the former having to do with the the problem of cruft. I've saved them but the overwhelming one at this this hour of the morning is: damnit! Some years ago I looked at the WFC page and mentioned it to Hartwell, having decided that it was all I was ever willing to do. The whole short time I've worked on Wikipedia pages I've known that that's the next one I should tackle. And now I have to reference WSFA hosting a WFC? I'm sunk.

Grumble, curse, swear. And of course it's the easiest of any of the WSFA things to reference, the DC WFC having an excellent website. Grumble, curse, swear. Consider time travel and beating up on Hartwell when it was easier because he hadn't fully committed to giving up smoking; at someplace such as a Capclave when I can ply him with single malt scotch; or at the Glasgow Worldcon when I could have done both. It's almost 2:30 AM EST; I'll post something useful and relevant later on. As I said, grumble, curse, swear. Which is what everyone says when they've been caught doing something that's going to require more work.

Your getting all of that is your own fault: until you admitted it I was busy enough with the WSFA things that I could only act on the assumption that you knew your way around SF conventions. More on topic, it's almost 3:00 AM on the East Coast which if I'm correct means that it's 8:00 AM in Ireland. I'll try to have something useful by your Friday morning. Kovar 07:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL! Don't worry. The chances are that Wikipedia will still be around next week :O). People add citation needed tags to articles all the time. It means that a reference for a fact might be necessary and would be a good thing; it doesn't mean that they have to be provided immediately. A few days is fine and probably a lot faster than the time it takes a lot of references to get provided. And if you are lucky, someone else might come up with it. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • <idiot> There are times when I get fixated on a project. And it's not irony. That means words being used to mean the opposite of what they appear to. It's an amusing or amazing coincidence or something like that. So, which GoH, where, when, and how'd you wind up there? Plus there's the notion of someone in Ireland hearing out Capclave. Granted, we've been working on getting the convention known but we've only been running for a handful of years. Kovar 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only a week late in replying... (my oops)

Sorry, I meant to reply to your message earlier, but I have a few things to do in the non-Wikipedia world, so I am only dropping in and out for a few minutes everyday. I should be around properly at the weekend. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)