User talk:Chovain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Adoption

Yes i would like to be adopted by you again :)Giggity Giggity GOO! 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:April two and a half men.jpg

No problem. These image tags are terribly esoteric. Good thing I'm anal! ;-) -- But|seriously|folks  07:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |}-->

By the way

Did you see the 2 "controversial" userboxes i created? {{User:ShooterBoy/UserBoxes/douchebag}} {{User:ShooterBoy/UserBoxes/Swearalot}} Totally NWS! Giggity Giggity GOO! 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Davey Pascoe

Entirely true but im fed up with playing his little game, and it is not really meant in jest.

I have however followed your advice

Barry Carlyon 11:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I might replace the second picture on Sign Language to a non-religious one because i strongly believe im neutrality. (This is me ShooterBoy, i forgot to sign in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShooterBoy (talk • contribs).

Michael Portillo

I have noted your vandalism on the Michael Portillo page. I am going to revert it. You are an asshole - you are vandalising pages on subjects you know nothing about. It helped bring his political career to an end because he lied about it in a public statement. If you continue this vandalism, I am going to revert your various entries. To teach you a lesson, I am going to disconnect and log in under a new IP address and randomly revert a half dozen of the numerous entries that I see you have made over the past week. I note that many of them are vandalism, simply reverting entries that you don't like. I will continue to monitor your conduct over the next few days. If you continue your vandalism, I will begin reverting more of your entries that you have made over the past month. Discontinue your vandalism. It is people like you that make Wikipedia less effective. I suggest you stick to editing subjects that you know. You are not a know all and be all on all subjects. We don't need your kind of "help" here at Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.242.99.202 (talk • contribs).

asad ahmad

seems you have a track record of deciding to randomly revert edits on a regular basis.

well on this article, i've taken out the sourced info about the harassment charges in the hope you won't just blanket revert the article the previous version which wasn't written in wiki style and which contained statements that were not backed up by - and in one case contradicted by - the main source (BBC website profile). If you blanket revert with a misleading edit summary again, I will report you to an administrator. Simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Yep - I do have a track record for reverting edits on a regular basis, but it's not random. I revert edits in which editors are using WP as their personal soapbox. Not being in wiki style is not a basis for exclusion on WP. Unverifiability is certainly grounds for exclusion, but I'd rather see the part that is incorrect excluded than have the whole lot go. I'll leave your version as is for now (at least we have a version that doesn't breach WP:BLP, but we need to continue this discussion on Talk:Asad Ahmad so we can get the correct details in. BTW, it would be great if you'd create an account so other editors can actually have meaningful discussions with you. Please also sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes - if you want to be part of the WP process, you need to try and work with other editors constructively. Random fly-by-night comments don't really achieve much. Mark Chovain 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Elvisandhismagicpelvis

I would be happy to certify it. It's an issue that has gone on long enough. This guy's been playing at the same game for a long time under a string of aliases and anon ips, and i'm pretty well over it. I like editing, I like WP, I don't like having to go on clean up missions and edit war with one guy who is just bananas and (barring certain periods of complete exasperation) I'm not prepared to let it slide.

He would probably argue I'm wikistalking, but my contribs show that I've spent way too much time on here stuck on edit wars and cleanup missions, and writing and rewriting ssp and rfcu cases, all of which resulted in me completely doing my top one time and I've had enough. Dibo ^{T | C} 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 19:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Michael Portillo

No mistake, maybe I should have been more specific, but since I wasn't actually editing the article I didn't think it would matter, but in the program Clive Anderson edits the Micheal Portillo page as he knew about an inaccuracy (he didn't lead in Macbeth opp Diane Abbot) as they'd been at school together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamie Kitson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 July 2007.

Reply

You are a real cool cat, arent you? Trying to turn an edit dispute into a community ban on me. You should be ashamed of yourself! I come onto wikipedia to contribute to football related articles for the past month and all I get is hate from a bunch of people with massive POV. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 05:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An edit war between an individual and a bunch of other editors on multiple pages is not an edit dispute. It's called disruptive editing. Mark Chovain 05:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PR related question.

i just noticed this and i was wondering of your thoughts about notifying the seven Arbitrators about the current discussion.
p.s. you can reply here, i'm watching your page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against them being involved in the discussion, but don't really see what it would gain. A number of them discussed the past matters in the ArbCom case itself, and those views and opinions will not have changed. They're generally pretty busy people, too, and it's better for the community that they not get too involved in debates outside ArbCom in case things ended up at ArbCom later. That said, jpgordon has been involved in trying to diffuse the most recent CSN discussion. Mark Chovain 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just caught up on the editing of the past 12 hours, and would now suggest contacting the arbitrators would be counter-productive in light of jpgordon's recent comments: "The block log is pretty much useless, and the arbitration case has no bearing". Mark Chovain 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - I vaguely suggested in this post, and more directly in the CSN discussion that jpgordon came up with the mentoring idea. This is not correct: It was Avraham (Sorry about that!) Mark Chovain 07:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PR Mentoring

Just for the record, which is somewhat important considering the instinctive reaction of any number of wikipedia editors to automatically stereotype others due to their upbringing, religion, politics, etc. I'd like to point what I believe is an inaccuracy in your statement here. Thank you. -- Avi 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Woops. That's actually twice I said it was jpgordon :-|. I'm terribly sorry about that. I'll correct my other reference (on my talk page). Mark Chovain 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

Hi Chovain ! I notice someone is in the process of vandalizing all the school names as i message you User:Jgeortsis. I just follow the guidelines from the School Project Page which states : Notable alumni — Provide a bulleted list of notable alumni with a short description to explain why they are famous. Alumni without their own Wiki articles should always have third-party references. I always try and place reference links to those names i added also, so they are clearly notable. To me having a list of notable alumni is worthwhile as you can see who has been of note. Not sure yet what classes them as notable. Boylo 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• It probably be a good idea to start a discussion on Notable Alumni on the School Project page. All i know is that for musicians to be notable they need something like 2 public released CD's to be accepted. So i expect sports and other fields would be similar to keep the B graders out. Boylo 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• I did find Info on Alumni at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools as there has been long discussions on it. It pretty much says 'editors on any particular list of alumni can institute their own policies for deciding who is notable enough for inclusion'. Hope that helps. Boylo 06:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

I've just returned from a wikibreak to find that this case was never checked, based I suppose on my mishandling it. Since it also seems apparent to you that Burgas00 was probably evading his ban, I would appreciate if you could take some action in pursuit of that. Many thanks, Tewfik^Talk 06:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine, as while I agree with your philosophy that limited punitive measures can have a preventive effect, I would be satisfied in this case with a simple cessation of the disruption. Thanks for your lengthy reply, and keep me appraised. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Hi. Thanks for lending your aid. I can't say I share your optimism, but I'll pop over and see what I can do. Doops | talk 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

re lough neagh

Hi, as someone who has suffered through various debates on the British Isles page, i'll try to bring some points of interest to the debate on lough neagh.....not that i expect it'll do much good. busy these days..might try to provide something at the weekend. Hughsheehy 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re [1]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, professors' personal webpages, and subpages thereof, such as those maintained by Werner Purgathofer under the prefix http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~wp/, are not considered to be reliable sources, since they are entirely under the control of a single individual, and are not peer reviewed or otherwise subject to fact checking. This is true even when material written in the style of academic papers is presented on such webpages, since such papers are not subject to peer review. The claims removed here, being based entirely upon such personal webpages, constituted inadequately referenced negative material affecting the reputation of the Wessex Institute of Technology, in violation of Wikipedia:Libel. Since the material I removed here and here was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, I did not consider whether Curuxz had any conflict of interest relating to the Wessex Institute of Technology. Conflict of interest issues are only considered when an editor is making edits that favor his alleged conflict, being policy violations themselves by virtue of such favoritism, or being within the realm of editorial discretion. Mere policy enforcement to remove material clearly in violation of Wikipedia:Libel does not raise any conflict of interest issues, regardless of the affiliations of the editor performing such enforcement. John254 02:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

SAYNOTO0870.COM links

Hey Mark, I've started a discussion on the talk page of SAYNOTO0870.COM regarding the link inclusion on the articles 0845 number and 0870 number. Don't know if you have any opinion about that, but if you do, your feedback would be most appreciated in the discussion. -- [Jam]^[talk] 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Is there a template to tell that this IP is a TOR exit node? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShooterBoy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bizarro

That was odd... Good to see the wheels moved pretty quickly. All was sorted before I even saw the comments! :) Dibo ^{T | C} 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Bumchewedwelloff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that... Dibo ^{T | C} 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I just renamed my username ok?

Thanks!

--67.71.69.222 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are, but... congratulations!!! :-/ Mark Chovain 06:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh - I've worked it out now :). Thanks for letting me know. Mark Chovain 06:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

I've just noticed that Talk:Lough Neagh hasn't got very far since I ran for the hills nearly 8 weeks ago. Well done for being so brave with it yourself :)! I don't think it's going to sort itself out in a hurry, so you may want to consider looking at dispute resolution. I think the most appropriate step would be WP:RFC. The article form tends to be a lot less adversarial than the user kind (IMO). Anyway, it's up to you. Good luck, Mark Chovain 10:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly moving away from acting as an single purpose account, and editing things I might be interested in my real life, though it's not really a good idea. Also, I wasn't really happy with my contributions at that page, since I allowed my personal view to become exposed, thereby reducing my value as a "mediator".

Actually, I don't think an RfC is needed - I did a "vote" on it which clearly shows that consensus is only obstructed by a few (is it 13 for British Isles, 4 against?) - and one of those few virtually told us he wants a personal feud. I think it's time that consensus was imposed, instead of the idiocy of letting the work of the project be held up by game-players. The only thing is, I don't really care enough to immerse myself in unnecessary controversy. I'm convinced the British are big enough not to care what a small number of encyclopedia damagers want and not to give them the oxygen of publicity they crave. On the news today, members of the IRA have beaten another 21 year old to death with iron bars - this time, for entirely personal reasons, nothing political, drug-running or anything else. So the criminal race-hate gang side of things is obviously still strong. PR^talk 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Pearce (Australian soldier)

David Pearce (Australian soldier), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that David Pearce (Australian soldier) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce (Australian soldier) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of David Pearce (Australian soldier) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit made me laugh. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Quit trolling... Anyways that was for one edit, my first time. I didn't realize British people spelled cesarean wrong. don't be an asshole next time Superbowlbound 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

British people spell a lot of words wrong. Color... aluminum... vandalize... poor illiterate saps. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Park

can you look at my wiki again crystal park Pennsylvania and tell me what i need yet to make it stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satellitebabies (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD closure

Here is a more expanded rationale:

Infoboxes improve articles. If possible, an infobox should be used in an article.

We cannot replace the FBI Top 10 list infobox with {{Infobox criminal}}, because {{Infobox criminal}} is only for people who have been convicted of crimes. To add such an infobox to all of the FBI Top 10 list, which includes those who have been only accused of crimes, would violate WP:BLP, a very important policy.

The FBI Top 10 list infobox elegantly covers many types of individuals, as the FBI Top 10 list includes those who have been indicted, those who have been convicted, and those about whom there is merely suspicion. No other infobox can be used in all of those situations due to WP:BLP, therefore there is no other suitable infobox to use at the moment, and that is why I kept the Top 10 list infobox.

I hope you find this explanation helpful. If not, I would suggest bringing up for review at either WP:AN/I or WP:DRV, as I will be unreachable due to travel for the next two days. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

LoTE

I know. I'm going for the known ones first (such as al-Qaeda, ALF, PIRA, FARC). Feel free to add the referenced ones back :). Will ^(talk) 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Done it that way. (I was doing when you posted) Will ^(talk) 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance, check the sources, find some extra sources, and then remove the tag. :) Will ^(talk) 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I get your input here if you're not too busy? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

EpicFlame

Hello Chovain! I apologize for not getting back to you, but I replied on your ANI thread. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask there or on my talk page. Thanks! GlassCobra 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Template warnings

Don't leave template warnings on the pages of longg-standing administrators, it's considered rude and obnoxious. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations

Eh? Revolutionary Struggle is very clearly mentioned here and here. Either way, an organization which carried out an attack with an RPG on the US Embassy clearly is a terrorist group, source or no source... I am therefore reverting your change. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as per the lead section and what I have read in the talk page, Revolutionary Struggle should be included: it has been "officially designated" (which as I understand is the major criterion for inclusion) as a terrorist organization by the Greek & US governments, included in the EU's "terror groups" list, etc. The "source" I included proves that, I think. As to whether the declaration has had any impact, I don't know, and I can't go ask them ;). If notability is a concern, the organization is clearly the major successor of the "November 17" group, and would merit an inclusion. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems I was a bit hasty as far as MIPT is concerned. I remembered that the EU had placed them on the list [2] and, more specifically, here, as "Epanastatikos Agonas", and did not bother to actually check out whether it was explicitly mentioned as "designated". Sorry for this. As for the Greek government, it does not publish any list of "designated groups", but it most certainly considers it one. Anyway, I hope the EU's position suffices. Cheers, Cplakidas (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: edit Sport in Australia

Hi, I would like to defend what i am doing with the editing on "Sport in Australia". I don't want to start accusations, however i do think that user Chuq is trying to enforce his view on people by abusing his experience on Wikipedia. I have thoroughly researched the page in question, and it seems to me that Chuq is using the non-consensus and British English to justify that the heading should be "Football (soccer)". My research has found that most people would rather "Association Football" in line with all the other football codes. I also discovered that the original heading was "Soccer (football)". This goes against his claim that "Football (Soccer)" is the original heading and should remain that way until a resolution is found. I will be happy to answer anymore of your queries. I realise that the head and previous owner of Wikipedia (gave it to public domain) is available to consider high importance disputes, and would welcome his input. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.21.229 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You stated that "should be left as is". Hence it should be left at "Soccer (football)" because this is the original heading. Just because it took time for people to realise the heading was changed doesnt make "Football (soccer)" the original any more. About this Elvisandhismagicpelvis, it is pretty obvious that i do not have their user name as i am editing a completely different section of the website. Reading through the discussion page it seems he was trying to change "Rubgy League" to "Rugby League Football".59.101.21.229 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi this conversation seems to have died down. It is now 5 day! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.34.210 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page. -- Mark Chovain 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) to Association football

Please see: Talk:Sport_in_Australia 61.69.183.142 (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)