User talk:Kovar

About Me

I finally figured out the short form. I'd long thought it was that I was Kipling's The Elephants Child, although that didn't seem quite right. Then I did a search for the quotation that most often came to mind, "Run and find out." It's Rikki-Tikki-Tavi. He is 'eaten up from nose to tail with curiosity' which is perhaps the best description of a websurfer I've even come across.

What I wrote mumble years back:

When I first started working on Wikipedia I did a data dump on my user page with some idea of going back to it but it's boring. I've now shoved science fiction affiliations over to there as well: they were first here because they appeared relevant.

WSFA, Disclave and Capclave...

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

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

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

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

What could be done with the Disclave article is to keep the main Disclave article and add a summary of the Disclave article to the WSFA article, with a link to the Disclave article. This is just an example off the top of my head, but look at the Republic of Ireland article and look at the first section, the Name section, which summarizes the Names of the Irish state article.

Oh, by the way, you can access older versions of an article by clicking the history tab on the top of an article and you can selsect an older version by clicking one the links with a date. It's easy to revert to an earlier version of an article. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, just a slight addition. To get to the older versions of the Disclave article, which now of course is a redirect page, try this link FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and thank you for working out a way I can have both articles. Disclave is now back to being an article with a link from the WSFA page. There's still a lot of information I want to add -- an actual description of Capclave and a section in the Disclave article for some of the many, many stories about Disclaves for people to play with -- but the basic information and structure is there. Whew.

So, what do you think? And can I take the 'not verified against sources' off? Although I did verify them I'm afraid that in some ways I'm using you as an editor.

And the Capclave page now redirects! Wow! Kovar 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL! Don't worry. The chances are that Wikipedia will still be around next week :O). People add citation needed tags to articles all the time. It means that a reference for a fact might be necessary and would be a good thing; it doesn't mean that they have to be provided immediately. A few days is fine and probably a lot faster than the time it takes a lot of references to get provided. And if you are lucky, someone else might come up with it. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- <idiot> There are times when I get fixated on a project. And it's not irony. That means words being used to mean the opposite of what they appear to. It's an amusing or amazing coincidence or something like that. So, which GoH, where, when, and how'd you wind up there? Plus there's the notion of someone in Ireland hearing out Capclave. Granted, we've been working on getting the convention known but we've only been running for a handful of years. Kovar 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

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

Only a week late in replying... (my oops)

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

Worldcon

I added a reply to your message on my talk page. Yes, the sources are out there; I go into more detail in the reply on my talk page, but essentially there are a lot of reliable sources, independent of Worldcon, which would verify most of the article, from what I can see from a quick check. If you need any help with formatting or anything else, give me a shout. I'll add a few sample sources later tonight or probably, as it is rather late, even for me, sometime tomorrow. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I replied to a reply to your comments at Talk:Jonathan Maberry#Conflict of interest., as you posted your comment a while ago I thought it worth flagging. Also this is worth a read considering your comments [1] (it is the section "Puppet Government").

I'd also like to start seeing what we can do to remove the COI banner but it is going to be tricky if he keeps editing the article, so I have added suggestions on the first step there too. (Emperor (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the note, and looking over the page.

I'm unsure we can strengthen the notices on the page, the general plan is to make sure the page is edited so it is more neutral.

The best step forward for making sure this isn't a problem is to ask for a checkuser test so we know what accounts and IPs are being used by people connected to him so we can keep an eye out for them and/or if they have been using sockpuppets to get around WP:AUTO and WP:COI they will probably be banned. (Emperor (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Conversion disorder

Hi, and thanks for your note on the discussion page. I would welcome someone spending some time on that page who isn't already embroiled in the edit wars. Just a headsup though, this is a rather contentious issue with at least one user who uses sockpuppets and anonymous IPs to revert new edits. All the best, --PaulWicks (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a rewrite on my user page, the second time I've toned down the venting my spleen on my user page. Given that there have been changes since my fairly mild comment on the talk page but no reply to it it is obviously being ignored. Doing any useful editing there would take quite a long time and I just don't have it right now. --Kovar (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==

Hi Kovar,

I would have replied to that, but I couldn't figure out what your gripe was. I have lots of complaints about the article. Mainly, that there have been no attempts to solicit input from psychoanalysts. The editor, Paul Wicks, has admitted he learned no more than ten minutes of Freud in college. I noticed above he complains about "sock puppets" rather than the lack of expert contributors.Snud (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balticon

E - If you want to remove it or replace it, please do so. I did not put it there and so will not remove it, not that I like it, but because don't feel compelled to. But if you feel so, be bold.:-) Riverpa (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a "go for it" and I have. Meanwhile, thanks for creating the articles for OEB and publisher. --Kovar (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of Arthur Uther Pendragon

Hello. I've deprodded this article, mainly due to the coverage cited from The Guardian and The Independent, which I believe are sufficient to require at least discussion before deletion. Should you wish to pursue deletion further you can list this at WP:AFD - if you decide to do this and need any help with creating the listing please let me know. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly on this! I came across this article when looking for something else entirely. It was bad enough that I tried to list it before continuing with what I had been doing but when I couldn't figure out the second part of the process I reverted the article to remove the announcement that it had been nominated. I made a note of it on the discussion page and suddenly found myself deeply embroiled.

As you saw from the discussion of the entry, the newspaper articles are external sources but everything else comes from a group started by the subject of the entry or a book written by him. But the other part of why I'd marked the article, the lack of NPOV, is the main issue. The problem I keep having with that aspect is that the article is so biased I didn't and don't know how to even start addressing it. So I approached it from the lack of unbiased sources.

I'd really appreciate your help with this, not only how to list it but explaining why it needs to be listed. I'm totally lost. Kovar (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key consideration regarding listing at AFD is whether or not the subject is notable. If he is then the article is likely to be kept at AFD. Other issues such as the article being written from a non-neutral point of view can be fixed by editing, although this can often be problematic if the original author is determined to prevent it from being changed. If you believe his notability is questionable and want it listed at AFD I'm happy to help you list it (although if I was offering an opinion I would suggest that the coverage received is sufficient to establish notability), but I'd also be happy to go through the article later today to try to address the other issues that it has, e.g. by removing unsourced or unreliably-sourced material and editing it for a more neutral tone.--Michig (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the article to try to bring it more into line - let me know what you think, assuming it doesn't get reverted first. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have dropped out for so long: I've been busy with other things in my life. This is just to know that I'm still keeping this article in one of the tabs on my browser so that I don't forget that I need to get back to it. Kovar (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meddling. Worse, meddling then bailing

As an editor and information junkie I honestly do feel a responsibility when I come across an article with problems and the problem I, personally, notice the most is lack of NPOV. Combine responsibility with being The Elephants Child and I'll spend hours doing research. Which would be more useful if I did when doing research professionally and collected it into something useful but that's the time consuming part. My getting involved would be far more useful if I stayed involved. But generally I make a post asking for reason then don't want to do the follow up.

Some while back I came across Conversion disorder and made a comment

"There have been repeated suggestions that there be a section concerning controversies. Why not just use the DSM-IV, if that is permissible within copyright, and then a section on history and competing theories. As things stand there is no reason for anyone new working on the article, to the point that I don't want to even move things around."

Someone thanked me on my talk page and encouraged me editing since I didn't have a dog in the race. The next post to my list would have required a careful response since it was back to the he said/she said of the article. The subject is important enough that I feel an obligation to work on it but . . . I bailed. Got involved, riled some folks, then was never heard from again.

Because I'd run into him elsewhere I looked up Jonathan Maberry; there's substantial evidence that Maberry had written much of it. I bailed on that one too. It really does bother me when an article is biased. But was this one actually worth it? The arguments about COI were more than interesting - "As is the case with many authors, considering budget cutbacks at the publishers level, Maberry took it upon himself to create this entry. Everything contained in this article is accurate and easy to research, but who has the time?". Authors and editors and information: Maberry wasn't worth the effort but the discussion perhaps was.

Then, because I'd been puttering about, I came across Arthur Uther Pendragon. You can see from the talk page [[2]] why I bailed on that one: the topic is, to my mind, trivial and the work involved in dealing with the primary editor substantial. But the actual topic was easy to research, for some reason intriguing, and the primary editor having such different views made me shift to an attempt at educating.

So today, yet again because I was puttering about (this time starting with an article in Atlantic. I think.) a google included an unexpected link to the Wikipedia article Circumcision. Erk! What a mess of conflict and Talk:Circumcision is even worse. Do I ignore it? No, once again I shove my oar in, making what I hope is an appeal for reason

"This isn't an argument against anti-circumcision groups: I really do want additional clear, scientific information from them without high emotional quotient. Without that I can't compare the two views, much less get actual data, and the article is so muddled that only these stand out. (Needless to say the talk page has been less than useful.)

Would people reply to this only with links to websites and a brief summary of what they say, or at least what you think they say? Or, if you have a link that counters the information of one posted, post that. If you disagree with the way someone summarized the information add your own summary. If you have issues with a study give information as to why: how participants were chosen, sample size, or whatever. In short, let's collect the available data and go from there."

This is someplace where the article is about something far more common than Conversion Disorder (not to mention easier to research) and isn't trivia about one person. And if I wanted to be slap-dash about it all I'd need to do would be to try to keep responses on-topic but if I'm going to do it properly I'm going to have to work. A lot. I should probably aim for slap-dash instead?

--Kovar (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]