User talk:Chovain/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, , 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   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) 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)
 * 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

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 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) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) 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!

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 Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board. 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:
 * Again, please sign your posts by appending 4 tildes to the end. Read this link if you do not understand this.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * I do not think "regime" means what you think it does. The IRA is certainly not a regime.
 * 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   .  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!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! 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". 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_Papp%C3%A9
 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:
 * 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.
 * Edit summaries are extremely important when editing articles, otherwise how are others to understand the purpose of edits?
 * 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  Honda 13Sign 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  Honda 13Sign here! 23:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gotten confused. I need some help, here at Requests for comment/Mooseguy. Do I add evidence, or you or.....what?! -- Tohru  Honda 13Sign 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  Honda 13Sign 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)