User talk:Chovain

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

June 2006 – December 2007 January 2007 – June 2007 July 2007 – current

Hi Chovain,

The change to the "false" Harassment Allegation title was made as it was a fundamental part of the defence from the beginning and it was stated in court when the case was dropped in Dec 2007 that the allegation was false. As the CPS themselves said the complainant lacked credibility and they offered no evidence upon investigation (which is why the case was dropped), and they did not in court challenge the lawyers claim that the allegaion was "entirely false". It therefore seems reasonable to disassociate an allegation which may be genuine - to one that is false, repeatedly claimed to be false and is finally proved to a high degree to be false and the is also accepted to be false by the Prosecution.

Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss 'on the article talk page, not here. -- Mark Chovain 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

i think the article should be protected. the other user seems intent on including a disproportionate amount of information on the whole harassment thing as opposed to the basic facts, which is particularly worrying when all of that info comes from one very biased, unreliable source. also the attempt to change the heading to "false" allegation is ridiculous. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Help! The cape article needs you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.223.247 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this AfD, I have made a page on the artist Casely. Given that there is now a page for the singer, both the nominator and I have proposed to merge and redirect Emotional (song) to the singer's page. Since you participated in the AfD as well, I thought you might want to voice your opinion on such a move. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer contributing to the article because it's a waste of time. Any fact that I put in there is removed because . I'm still monitoring the article and can see that any other attempts at editing are also being reverted. What are your thoughts? I think we could benefit from your unbiased comments on the subject of the Mosman article. J Bar (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely frank with you here. I mean this to be constructive criticism, but I'm too busy at the moment to mince my words, and sugar coat this :).

To begin with, I should point out that I haven't completely followed the entire Mosman debate, so I can't comment on the specific problems and arguments presented there; I'm commenting on the general conduct of editors in that discussion. I feel that all of the editors have been behaving below par: antagonising one another, being snarky, etc.

I've always been an absolutely huge fan of your work on Sydney suburb articles, but feel that your comments on the talk page have fallen way short of your usual standard (That's not to say that you've behaved any worse than others, but that I expect more of you than the average editor based on your excellent history).

I know what it's like to get into a heated debate, and find myself behaving below my own standards. Perhaps rather than rescind from the discussion, you could step back from the article completely for a week or two, move onto other articles, and come back with a fresh perspective at your usual top form. It's just a suggestion, but I'd love to see you back there soon! -- Mark Chovain 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comments and your frankness. I don't disagree with what you've said. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to avoid getting into any argument with an editor over just one article on a Sydney suburb, when there's so much work that needs to be done on all articles. I guess I was getting frustrated that content kept being deleted from an article that has so little content anyway. I have already stayed away from any further contributions to the article for days now, (as you have also suggested) and I'll just have to do the same with the discussion page in future. I'll just give the whole thing a wide berth, in future. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad you were able to take my comments as they were intended. I'd seriously like to see you back on Mosman again in the near future though. -- Mark Chovain 05:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you efforts and your time to review the situation. I don't think I'll go back to the Mosman article or discussion page because the whole things left a bad taste in my mouth. However, I'm glad to see that some good has come from this and that some other editors have been allowed to add some content to the page recently. There has also been some constructive work after other editors providing unbiased comments and supported my merge suggestions for the locality article in the same suburb Balmoral, New South Wales and the old 'Balmoral Beach' article. A positive outcome there too. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment of yours is highly offensive and I'll kindly ask you once again to stay off my talk page. J Bar is not a "thorn in my side". J Bar and I have hardly had anything to do with each other and rarely even edit the same articles. Disagreeing over image choice on one page does not qualify someone as a "thorn in my side" or as someone I want to be rid of. If I wanted to block J Bar, I have had the opporturnity and easily could have yesterday or even for edit warring on Mosman as between his logged in and logged out edits he either violated or pushed 3RR on that article (I haven't cared enough to bother counting the actual number of reverts) and an edit warring block would easily have stuck and yet I have never blocked him. Yes, I gave him a "stern warning" but that was because I was trying to make the impression that speculating about other editor's personal information is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia and it is considered a serious and blockable offense. I have never looked through J Bar's contributions, ever. I came to this page because I was asked as an Australian administrator by someone who was concerned that the comment here containing speculation about another editor's location of residence violated policy. I was asked to review it and so I did. I really think you are overesitimating the conflict and interaction between J Bar and myself. Even if I did dislike J Bar, which I don't, what would blocking him for a day or two achieve? It's not like a block is going to "get rid of" this so-called "thorn in my side". I find your allegation that I would abuse the tools to take out someone you falsely presume I dislike highly offensive. You are completely out of line and completley and utterly muddled about everything. If you have further opinions to express please do so somewhere other than my talk page and please cease peddling false and offensive information which is easily contradicted by the evidence. You are just making yourself look incredibly foolish and ignorant. Thanks. Sarah 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I originally went to your talk page to suggest that you may have misinterpreted J Bar's intentions. There was no history of harassment, and a perfectly acceptable alternative interpretation of his comments. Your response to my concern was simply to insist that you knew J Bar's intentions were bad, and to go on a tirade about an ongoing dispute.

1. Why is the veracity of J Bar's ownership accusations anything to do with this? My original message on your talk page was about intentions.
2. If you are as impartial as you claim, then why did you raise that dispute, of which you were a party, in your response to me? Both editors in the most recent incarnation of the dispute have been acting disgracefully, but that was not the issue here. If you had blocked J Bar for edit warring, I'd be even more disgusted, as there were at least two users warring, and someone was blanket reverting J Bar's changes - sure, blanket reverting is easier, but reverting references is not good form, and it can be extremely frustrating for the user being reverted.

I apologise for accusing you of watching contributions, but from the outside, this all looked pretty dodgy. I realise not all administrator actions can be transparent (in this case, for privacy reasons), but when they're not, they need to be explained.

1. Given that you were familiar with the user in question (you certainly didn't need much prompting to describe his ownership claims as "bogus"), you should have explained that you removed the edit because you were asked to review the revision by an editor via email.
2. While it shouldn't affect the outcome, it's worth questioning the user's motives. Did they contact you because you were an Australian admin, or because you were involved in an earlier dispute, and they thought they'd get a favourable outcome? If the second option seems plausible, it might be worth doing what needs to be done immediately (removing the problematic revision), but hand off to another admin to review the change, and leave a message for the user in question.
3. Back to the issue of transparency: When I questioned your impartiality, another admin has come in, apparently unprompted, to back you up 100%, while not addressing a single one of my concerns. Such a "review" is pointless, as there's no record I can find of you requesting an impartial review. To the outside observer, you might as well have emailed a real-life friend, and said, "Hey, can you back me up here?" I'm not suggesting that's what's happened here, but a bit of transparency can prevent these questions from being asked. If you requested the review, a post to ANI would have been a much better approach, as other users can see how the request was made.

As for your request that I stay off your talk page: Remember, Administrators are not some elite clique; you work for the community. If I have concerns with your work, then I'm free to raise them with you, and will continue to do so. Such a comment gives the impression that you have nothing to learn, and no need to entertain the opinions of one of the plebs. -- Mark Chovain 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see we require such high standards of maturity of those we entrust with the mop. -- Mark Chovain 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chovain. That Sarah has removed your message shows she has read it. Please don't continue to badger her. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the height of rudeness for someone to say "Stay off my talk page", only to continue the discussion on my talk page. She failed to demonstrate any accountability or transparency through this whole thing, and has not acknowledged a single one of my points. -- Mark Chovain 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of the details of your disagreement with Sarah. However, when someone removes a message you have posted, it is best not to keep on posting, as it is only likely to lead to raised voices all round. It is better to walk away, drink a cup of tea, copyedit a few articles or something. If you need help longer term to resolve your difference with Sarah, it may be that I can help you. For now, I think it is better to walk away. Sorry for barging in by the way, but my advice is sincere. --John (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt the sincerity, nor the value, of your advice. My issue here is with an admin who does everything behind closed doors, and won't accept there is a problem with that, and herself continued this discussion in the first place. -- Mark Chovain 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chovain, I reverted a comment to your userpage from 82.19.159.15. It was a copy of something you said on a Kylie talkpage with a nasty little note behind it. Just FYI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the strangest bit of vandalism I've seen in a while. The quote wasn't even mine, as far as I know. -- Mark Chovain 11:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mark, I did a big renovation on the Sexuality and Space article. Could you do me a favor and take another look at the AfD with the new additions. I tagged the thing for speedy when I first saw it, but after digging around and cleaning it I think it might be a good addition.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This new article may interest you as it has returned despite your previously successful nomination for its deletion. I have requested that it be speedily deleted. Elsendero (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for the heads-up, and well spotted! I've added Prayaya and Prayaya v3 to my watchlist in case they come up again. -- Mark Chovain 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of 57 users at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Please consider offering adoption to one or more of these users. Don't forget to change their {{adoptme}} template to {{adoptoffer|Chovain}}. Thank you for your continued participating in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. xenocidic (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked it up on the wikipedia page right after that, and it said Dr. No was a Tong, though when I saw the movie, I'm pretty sure he said triad. Doesn't really mater--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just watched the movie, and the truth is kinda complicated. Dr. No says he became treasurer of one of Chinas most important criminal societies; when bond notes that The Triads or the Tongs don't trust anyone who isn't full blooded Chinese No retorts that they won't again now that he stole their loot. So how do we wikify that? I thought a "tong" was a generic name for a Chinese criminal gang?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day! I am the guy who is in agreement with your AfD nomination for the Tomboys in Literature article. Yes, I am the one. I just wanted to say that I appreciated your input in the AfD process and your defence of the argument that the article does not belong here. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

...and you were right. The style first lead me to believe it was a copyvio and when it came up zilch after Googling some of the paragraphs, I thought it was a hoax. I did a Google on "william forrester warwick farm" and bingo. I got hits and I've withdrawn my objections and apologized to the user. Thanks for lettting me know, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Timing, as they say, is everything.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't like making mistakes, but I sure as shooting do try and correct them when I do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the "wiki-fying" of my article on my great grandfather..I'll later add an article on our 5times great grandfather who was on the 1st fleet HMS Scarbrough in 1788. I'm a school librarian & will do a good job!!!!

Susan Hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan.h. hill (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've voted on the AFD for Comet (song) but noticed there was no template on the article? Renee (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NPOV. Flora Jessop's content was entirely based from her POV, the content is not just from a blog, it is from the ORIGINAL SOURCE, it is not just a random conjecture. It also balances the unbalanced POV since there is more than one POV on this person. There are many other comments to the effect that Jessop cannot be trusted that indeed should not be put in, but that statement is widely quoted across the internet Bachcell (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we completely rewrite the article from scratch, as I think that both the version that was there before your edits, and your changes go completely against wikipedia policy. We need to be sure all of the claims in the article are supported by independent, reliable sources. That means they need to be taken from media with independent editorial control. Your sources are neither independent, nor reliable. I'm going to stub the article out (to the bare minimum undisputed facts), and I suggest we work on rebuilding it with extensive discussions on the article's talk page. Does that seem like a reasonable plan to you? -- Mark Chovain 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There we go. I've put a much culled version up. I don't think there's anything controversial in there from either side. Let me know what you think (probably best to take the discussion to the talk page though now, so others can be involved.) -- Mark Chovain 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

G'day, I just noticed that the population figure in the infobox for Camden got changed at some time from that for the suburb (about 3000) to that for the council area (about 45,000). I was going to change it back but noticed you'd changed the infobox from a suburb to a town. If you think Camden is a town rather than a suburb, do you think the population should be the larger figure as you would with a country town with suburbs like Wagga or the smaller GNB definition of Camden the suburb? Personally, I think Camden is part of Sydney's suburban sprawl and should be considered a suburb but I accept it has a long history as a separate town so I'm open to other people's opinions on the matter. Crico (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this message, and thought I might give my two cents. We tend to use "official" designations whenever we can. Sometimes this involves information from the GNB (in determining if things are suburbs or not), other times from the ABS (in determining if something is "part of Sydney"). In this case, Camden is described by GNB as being a County of Shoalhaven, a parish of the Camden LGA, and a suburb of the Camden LGA. We cover the Camden LGA in Camden Council, so I think regardless of whether or not Camden is part of Sydney, this article should be considered a suburb (of either Sydney or Camden LGA - not sure which) -- Mark Chovain 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, GNB consideres Camden (suburb) to be a suburb of Camden (town). It doesn't define "Camden (town)", but the only thing I can find called "Camden" that contains "suburbs" is Camden LGA.. I suspect we should be treating Camden LGA as the town. Perhaps we need three articles here: Camden, New South Wales for the suburb, Camden Council for the local council organisation, and Camden Local Government Area (or something else?) for the area covered by the town.-- Mark Chovain 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With the urban sprawl of our cities extending to these towns on the outskirts, it's difficult sometimes to determine whether a place is still considred a town in its own right or whether it has become an outlying suburb of the city. I'm hesitant to agree with the idea of having three articles for Camden. As you guys suggest, I always follow what appears GNB too because that's the official designation. From what I see there, it looks like we should be treating Camden, New South Wales as a suburb in the local government of Camden Council. I don't think it's a good idea to have a separate town article as well. It will just complicate things and cause more confusion. Chances are that Camden Council will eventually be declared a city, like many councils in Sydney and that might then be less confusing. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mark. On what basis do you claim that an article informative written by the head of the LHC project in the magazine of the Royal Academy of Engineering was spam of any kind? -- SCZenz (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my mistake. I reacted too quickly when I saw a user doing nothing but adding links to a magazine. I do think these kind of links are better used for references than external links, but that's an argument for another day. I have reverted my edits, and apologised to the user. -- Mark Chovain 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Once in a great while, a user adding magazine links to many articles turns out to be adding useful and relevant links to article development. Even if the person is working for the magazine—I don't know about this case, but it happened with Scientific American a while back—if it's a good magazine then the added links help us develop the articles. -- SCZenz (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider Section: Science, Fears & Fantasies - One of the problems here is that 1) there clearly are people who are using wikipedia to get the LHC viewed in a bad light, and to help legal proceedings shut it down. 2) there has been a repeated history of mysterians, religious people, mystics, primitivists, schizophrenics and so-on who for whatever reason have wanted to halt practical scientific progress. 3) while it makes perfect sense to listen to the *scientists* who are bringing up concerns about the safety of LHC, if the web pages concerning LHC are slowly and sneakily, or overtly, modified in order that non scientific data and opinion are presented as fact or important, with no examination of where the attacks on LHC are coming from, what kind of people are bringing up these attacks, and what motivations they have, how are we supposed to assume wikipedia's entries are objective, or trying to be? When nuclear power was investigated, we already had real proof of the dangers of ionizing radiation and neutron flux. It was suspected that the first atomic test might ignite the earth's atmosphere, but outside of casual references we don't often get to see the reasoning behind such suspicions. Most fears of nuclear energy ended up in the form of science fiction movies in which biological organisms somehow had their DNA re-arranged just in the right way that they became macroscopic and more dangerous yet otherwise healthy and fully functional. (in the real world, the odds of an animal mutating to become massive while having no adverse side effects that would hinder it becoming some kind of unstoppable predator are so minuscule that it would never happen in the length of time the earth, or the universe, has existed. I think we need to view the fears about the LHC this way, and understand the reality of probability, huge numbers, and the difference between emotional fears and real science. We have to ask ourselves what is going on if a scientist brings up a concern, such as a black hole or strangelet might be created by a human-accelerated proton smashing into other matter, but then someone else points out that a ultra-high energy cosmic ray proton with the effective energy of a 60-MPH baseball recently struck matter on the earth and no such occurrence happened, that the theories are then modified and we are told this is a "special case", and the danger still exists, and when new data comes up to dispute or refute that, new "special case" theories are thrown out, and so on and so on and eventually it seems suspiciously likely that instead of people interested in truth, facts, or science, these are people with a pre-decided agenda, who aren't interested in listening to scientists, and who want to postpone scientific advancement because living in a state of mystery feels comforting. -Radical Mallard, July 20, 2008, 1:50PM

I am making a large number of individual edits to pages that are listed in cleanup categories. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I actually didn't think it was so bad before...and I probably should have fixed it myself! Thanks for going over it. Dppowell (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about such things as assuming good faith, etc, can you please tell me if this user is actually acting in a way consistent with Wikipedia's expectations? I kind of doubt it. (as I believe they are just a sock puppet that has already had their account's suspended several times for repeated abuse on Wikipedia): User:Operation_Spooner - Radical Mallard, July 20, 2008, 1:45PM

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would endorse it if I agree to what has been stated in the summary of evidence. - DigitalC (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll take me a couple of days to put together, as I have real work to do too, and want to make sure the process is as productive as possible. -- Mark Chovain 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck... I pretty much just tried different angles to add the important contribution of Alhazan (Al-Haytham). You're going to have a very hard time as I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here.

The latter is my defence so lets hope you have a good case against me. Happy Drinking! InternetHero (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have started working on the RfC, but I believe this may be helpful for a desired outcome:

• Ideally, the desired outcome is that InternetHero reviews and accepts the policies and guideline of Wikipedia in general, and content standards and working with others in particular. In addition, it would be ideal if he volunteered to be mentored, with all initial content additions being reviewed.

Feel free to adjust it. - DigitalC (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) As well, I believe the following policies and guidelines apply: CIV, NPA, CON, V, WP:NPOV#Bias / WP:UNDUE, EW/3RR, VAN; CANVASS, AGF, ETIQUETTE. - DigitalC (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to start yet, unfortunately :(. Thanks for the input. It's most useful. I think that the most valuable outcome would be him finding a good mentor. A good mentor would be better than us at communicating with him, would be less adversarial than us ("on his side", so to speak), and could introduce and explain the relevant bits of the guidelines to him as appropriate (rather than dumping the whole lot on him in the heat of a content dispute).

I'm likely to be insanely busy with work over the next 24 hours, but should have a lighter load in the 24 hours after that. Fingers crossed! -- Mark Chovain 07:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just taken this suggestion straight to InternetHero. If he's happy with it, then it will save a lot of time for everyone. -- Mark Chovain 08:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - he declined. It was worth a try, though. -- Mark Chovain 08:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort.Mavigogun (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never filed an RfC before, have you? I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, but have started to collect evidence in my sandbox/2 - DigitalC (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you have started some work in your sandbox. I have some diffs organized, although maybe it needs to be pared down before filing? User:DigitalC/sandbox/2/ - DigitalC (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are aware, an WQA was filed, and personal attacks continue. Are you willing to co-certify the RFC/U as it stands? - DigitalC (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I reckon that all looks really good. You've done a stellar job of putting all of that together. Sorry I couldn't get my act into gear sooner. I'd be happy to certify. -- Mark Chovain 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is ready for certification. - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero - DigitalC (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, on this page you said that the internal combustion engine article shouldn't be called the "internal-combustion engine, becaus emost readers would relate to it that particular way. Anyway, I don't want you to think I'm gaming the system here, but could you tell me if there is any other guidelines to that respect? I'm asking because I think that the telescopes used in schools and bought at department stores relates to the readers more than high-tech ones do. Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The only related guideline that applies to content is WP:UNDUE, which says minority viewpoints should usually be mentioned, but should not necessarily be covered in depth. The reliable sorces guideline (intentionally) gives a bias towards what professionals and/or scientists tend to discuss. I don't know how that applies to telescopes (it's not an article I am familiar with). My argument with ICE was basically that ICE experts do not use the hyphen, so neither should we. I suppose it's kind of similar in that whatever part of a topic the experts focus on, is the area we should also focus on. -- Mark Chovain 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Sir. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that template Sydney regions map. It's exacrly what I wanted to do but wasn't sure how to do it. It will make managing changes much easier. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'm glad it's going to good use. -- Mark Chovain 02:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chovain, sorry to bother you again but someone has again tried with this controversy nonsense on the wessex page (http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikifreehand.com/en/Wessex_Institute_of_Technology) and they are now even claiming copyright issues. Please as a more senior member take a moment to look into the issue. They are also being extraordinarily patronizing on my talk page and in their actions, I have tried to assume good faith but their edits show clearly no intention of following consensus. --Curuxz (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The copyvio notice was properly placed and improperly removed by a non-administrator. I have no problem with it being removed, by an admin, if it has been licensed and vetted correctly - and a notice placed on the talk page to that effect (which I could not find). I have been involved in the discussion page, and I feel the controversy is a minor issue not worth getting upset about. However, copyright concerns trump other wikipedia policies, for obvious reasons. Verbal chat 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the copyright issue is more or less settled now, as it looks like WIT has released their pages under GFDL. I'm going to put a query to the copyright guys though, to make sure they meet the GFDL requirement. I haven't looked at the recent criticisms, but unless they cite reliable sources (an academic's views, published on his website doesn't count), they should be removed, as per a comment somewhere by John254. -- Mark Chovain 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have come back to update you. Getting further confirmation sounds like a great idea to me. About the other issue, reliable sources is the reason why my edit about controversies was removed (not editing against consensus) and I agree with this. To that end I wrote about it on the talk page and requested further sources and expansion, if possible. Since then I haven't raised the issue further as there is no point unless RS are found, as you rightly say. I did place template warnings on Curuxz talk page following his incorrect removal of the copyvio tag, and following his comments directed at me on the talk page (which I have asked him to strike after a lengthy exchange on my talk page). Please feel free to comment on my behaviour, right or wrong, if you wish, I'm willing to learn, but I'd be just as happy to move on from this. All the best. Verbal chat 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I see no problems with your behaviour here. The Copyvio was a valid complaint, and still is to some extent (although the tag should probably remain off now): I've requested input from those who understand copyright better than us here. Even if that notice is GFDL compliant, I'd still like to see the content reworked. Wikipedia is not really intended to be a copy of GFDL sources; we're meant to write about what other people write about subjects. It's not normally all that difficult to convert lists to prose (allowing us to expand on them at the same time), and paraphrase other people's prose.

With the criticism stuff, given that you were unfamiliar with previous discussions, you followed WP:BRD to the letter. I'll likely put a friendly message on Curuxz's talk page later today with my views and suggestions, and see if I can suggest that they might be the best person to do the initial rework of the content we're reusing. -- Mark Chovain 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been improved. And the first deletion request was denied. Why do you placed it again? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The first deletion request wasn't denied, but didn't generate enough discussion, so an administrator (Cirt) relisted it. You can take part in the continuing discussion here. -- Mark Chovain 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re this article you created - I hope you don't mind, but I thought it looked better as a table... Anyway, can you have a quick look at my comments on the talk page - basically, the article is currently completely unreferenced and, as an established editor, you'll appreciate that it currently looks like it violates WP:V and WP:OR. Having phrases like "Intense, black currant aroma", "slightly richer bitterness", "Pleasant woody flavour and berry aroma" etc. are all very well, but try and prove those statements to Wikipedia standards...one person's strawberry is another persons raspberry etc :-) Comments like that should probably either be referenced or removed. Also, I can't find any description of what 'beta acid' and 'cohumulone' are - it would be good to link the column headings to desciptive articles if possible. Anyway, this wasn't meant as a list of complaints - after spending ages reformatting it to a table, I don't really want to see it deleted ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there Chovain! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sydney image with region labels has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned in the South-eastern Sydney AfD that you thought you could find some references. It'd be great if you could do that, as I don't see the article surviving without them. I notice that the NSW Health Department uses the term, as do a collection of other geosearch sites, but I'd love to see something more concrete than those.

As you point out, it's hard to get a definitive definition of Sydney's regions since the Geographical Names Board doesn't seem to define them. Feel free to email me if you want any help. -- Mark Chovain 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I'll look into it further, when I get a chance. J Bar (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:A set artists impression 2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 03:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

G'Day Chovain A new user (PoorPhotoremovalist) yesterday started deleting photos from many Sydney Suburb articles and enlarging others to suit their view, without entering into discussions. Any attempts to revert have been reverted back. I suspect this user may be a sockpuppet but do not have proof yet and am not sure exactly how to prove it yet. I'm frustrated because there s no justification for deleting these photos and no attempt to at least group them ina wikimedia commons link tha will at least link to the article. What do you think? J Bar (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a word with User talk:PoorPhotoremovalist the user on their talk page to try and get them involved in discussion. -- Mark Chovain 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I appreciate you efforts. He also seems to be operating under the guise of another user now (Poorarticleremovalist) but has been warned of vandalism. J Bar (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Something that's worth keeping in mind though: It's best to avoid hyperbole like vandal and sockpuppet.

• The two accounts aren't really sockpuppets, as they're not acting in concert. The user has probably just forgotten their original password, and has created a new account.
• The user's latest editing is certainly disruptive (and will result in a block if they keep it up), but placing maintenance tags does not "comprimise the integrity of the encyclopaedia". It's more a dummy spit than vandalism.

-- Mark Chovain 06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've struck a bit there - it looks like the second account is a fake. -- Mark Chovain 08:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you help with the other account. Also I will try a new approach to my editing style so I don't upset any other users. I think it is going to be a difficult task trying to clean up a lot of those Sydney articles though. Kind Regards PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have noticed but I have tried to discuss some of my image removals before I go ahead and remove. If I don't get a reasonable response soon I may start to edit the articles. I now that some editors have their own images in these articles and might get upset, so I will try not to be as harsh as what I was. I might start to add some photos myself some day. Kind regards PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually been paying that much attention to the articles, but as a general rule, if you've posted clear reasons for a proposed change, and no-one has responded in about 24-48 hours, I'd go ahead and make your change. Be prepared to continue discussing it on the talk page if discussion starts up again though, and remember, Wikipedia is not a race. It doesn't matter if your preferred version is there or not while discussion is ongoing.

As an aside, you may not have seen the result of your CheckUser case. To summarise: Poorarticleremovalist was actually Loy Wong (who I suspect was actually a sock of a user who stalked J Bar for a while). Your identity was protected as it was decided you have not been editing abusively. -- Mark Chovain 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Game screenshot rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 11:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:PoorPhotoremovalist is back and is having another anti-photo rampage, this time starting with Annandale, New South Wales. Since you intervened with this person in February, would you like to have another chat with him/her? The problem is the way this person makes a unilateral decision to do away with large numbers of photos without taking the trouble to discuss it with anyone else.

Sardaka (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state that the above editor is basically seeking favour in an edit war. I would also like to state that I am willing to compromise and negotiate but it seems that the two editors involved want everything there way and are trying to seek favour in an edit war. The below comments are in response to comments made on my talk page PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No this is not the case. The article has to many images, this is not a mass deletion but a minor clean up. This article contains a total of 13 images, isn't that enough for you. I am discussing this and trying to reason with you but my comments are falling on deaf ears because you are the author of these images and you are biased. You should also take into consideration the fact that Wikipedia is not an image gallery. How many times do I need to repeat, just because a suburb or street has many historical buildings doesn't mean that we need to have a picture of every single house in that street. I know that I may have edit warred with the Annandale article a bit but now it seems as though we may have come to an agreement with the current status of the article and I am willing to leave it as is until the proposed commons link is instilled PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chovain! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 21 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Rebecca De Unamuno - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chovain,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Abdul Gafoor for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vinod 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Tropfest finalist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)