User talk:Favonian/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Perth discussion again

I'm very disappointed by your characterising the discussion as having "a clear consensus that the city in Western Australia is the primary topic" [1], but I respect your judgement as a fellow admin. Deryck C. 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was probably unavoidable that the closing (any closing) of this emotional discussion would disappoint a number of the participants, but I really don't think the conclusion could have been any different. This (hopefully) final round had an unusually big turnout, and though I'm a strong believer in Wikipedia:Not a vote, the preference for Perth, Western Australia as the primary topic was too strong to discount. Now the habitués of Wikipedia:Requested moves can go back to bickering about important matters, like whether a local consensus can ban diacritics from articles about Lower Slobbovian pole dancers Favonian (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Careful with AWB

I notice you've done a lot of automated edits replacing links to ping with ping (networking utility). Most of the are OK but you need to be careful since a few of them were inappropriate: [2] [3] [4] [5] are all unambiguously wrong because they were not referring to IP based networks. Without having gone through them all I also noted a few cases where it isn't clear cut but I suspect the wrong sense has been adopted. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC).

Rats! I knew there would be some mistakes there. The deluge of changes was caused by the recent requested move of the article "ping" about, so my only comfort is that the links are precisely as wrong as they were before. I'll review the lot of them this evening (Central European Daylight Time) but right now, I have to go earn a living. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what we're here for. Mr. Daker is a new acquaintance of mine, but very dedicated. Favonian (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi

Hallo Favonian,

there is again a problem about the nationality of Fermi. I kindly told the guy that consensus has been reached thru discussion about the proper definition, and asked him to go thru the discussion page, but he keeps modifying the lead of the article. Can you please help?. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this source This Thanks. I'm going to revert providing this source.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In which case you'll be reported to WP:ANEW. Favonian (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite providing such a credible source still you need discussion at admin. Ridiculous/absurd.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at this source this. Need more I will provide, clarify why you are reluctant to provided that part in top of article.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a discussion "at admin", but with the community. This is how Wikipedia works. Favonian (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I know! What discussion you want, whole world he was Italian American. Even you know deep down in your heart what his nationality is?.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please response. Advice me why I shouldn't revert your edit knowing your power as admin.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My "power as admin" has nothing to do with it, as I will be reporting you to WP:ANEW if you revert again. Then another admin will review the situation. What goes on in my internal organs has even less to do with this matter. Favonian (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm reverting your edit. Sorry--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. And also mentioning the current situation to admin. Thanks once again.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Request/Favor

Hey Favonian! How are you? I hope you are doing well these days. I have a request for you, can you please move this sandobx to the original article that should be entitled "Can't Stop Won't Stop (song)". Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just way too slow! Favonian (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nvm :). Thanks anyway. — Tomica (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

John Miles and the Eagles - round 2

Hello again. Remember this dude? Here's a link to our prior discussions. At it again at the page The Very Best of the Eagles for the moment, using the IP:

1.55.179.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Let's see if they have found a new range. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. He hasn't used it in awhile, but I should have been watching this more closely. His crap's been up there for two weeks. Doc talk 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Aw shoot! Had that page on my watch list as well and somehow missed it. I will keep an eye open for more. Looks like they do have a new range to work with. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went through all the edits made by 1.55.127.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and thought I'd show you all this edit, just to give an idea of what we are dealing with. As usual the vandal is changing the running times for several tracks. In this case, one of the changes was wrong (I assume deliberately misstated), but the other change in the edit was actually correct based on some quick research I conducted. All the edits made by this IP were at least in part bogus except one, here. We have a vandal on our hands whose edits we need to pay close attention to. Very subtle and very sneaky at times. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• 1.55.179.219 (talk · contribs)
• 1.55.127.252 (talk · contribs)
• 1.55.62.244 (talk · contribs)
• 113.23.105.122 (talk · contribs)
• 113.23.41.175 (talk · contribs)
• 42.113.109.50 (talk · contribs)
• 58.187.101.132 (talk · contribs)
• 58.187.103.139 (talk · contribs)
• 58.187.42.212 (talk · contribs)
• 58.187.75.93 (talk · contribs)

This is a complete list of the ones I've found (so far), and every last one of them is from Hanoi. He seemed to start this nonsense in early April of this year, but I'm still looking into it. Doc talk 03:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Add to that list:

• 58.187.104.54 (talk · contribs)

I think there was one or two more I ran across with just a couple edits made by it. I will see if I can dig it up if it helps.--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check the revision history of One of These Nights, Doc. You reverted an IP but I'm not sure about the edits made before then by other IPs. One or all of the following IP's may belong to our vandal:

• 71.135.96.217 (talk · contribs)
• 171.226.3.43 (talk · contribs)
• 171.226.123.209 (talk · contribs)

Thats all I got for now. I think you already had the one I was thinking about. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• 171.226.3.43 (talk · contribs) and
• 171.226.123.209 (talk · contribs) are both from Hanoi so I believe those are the vandal. So Doc, I'm afraid you may have reverted an innocent IP trying to fix the mess made by the other two :) lol. Actually entirely understandable given the circumstances. The nature of the edits make it extemely confusing regarding what is right or wrong, but I will let you look over those before I do anything and see if you agree. Maybe I got it mixed up. Thanks for your efforts. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the 71... California IP is definitely not him and the other two are. It seems I did revert the wrong IP on that article - eep! Looking at the credits here, he was correct except for "Jim Ed Norton" is actually "Norman", and I can't see where "string by the Royal Martian Orchestra, recorded 'in root'" came from. I'll fix what I can there. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He's certainly a tricky one. Glad we are getting some of the loose ends from his previous edits taken care of. I caught a few older ones myself the other day while going over everything again. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Branching out with his strange Eagles/John Miles/Eric Carmen/Gary Moore obsession into Elton John and The Bee Gees is concerning, but I can't find anything before April 9th so far. So hopefully it's a "flash in the pan" habit that he will quickly lose after determined instruction to stop, rather than this being a long-term annoyance. (fingers crossed) Doc talk 04:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• 183.81.51.150 (talk · contribs)

New one in a new range. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeez! Blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc, take a look at these two edits [6] and [7].

This first one was made in 2010 by 113.22.86.91 (talk · contribs) from Hanoi.

The second was in March 2012 by 113.23.19.113 (talk · contribs) also from Hanoi.

They second one is efectively reverting the first from two years prior.

And there's more of course, this just an example. Note the prev. edit in 2010 was also a Hanoi IP 113.22.124.110 (talk · contribs).

I started to revert some the stuff from March-April 2012, but I'm gonna have to research those changes better as I may have restored some incorrect information. What do you make of all this? And please feel free to jump in and fix what you can from any of those 113 users if you are so inclined to do so. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, crap. Eerily similar behavior with trying to have The Carpenters including ABBA's "The Winner Takes it All" on one of their albums when they did not. Preliminary digging turned up 118.71.165.206 (talk · contribs) from... (drumroll)... Hanoi! Maybe we should set up a subpage, so poor Favonian doesn't keep getting new message banners. Doc talk 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea on taking this elsewhere. Let me know however you want to do it. I need to take a little break right now. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I didn't vandalize anything. That was actually my page, I just didn't log in. Kiki360 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, let that be a lesson ;) Favonian (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Mountain vandal

Haven't heard much from them in a while but I believe 92.5.154.249 (talk · contribs) is their most recent work.RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could be, though it's not completely obvious. At any rate, they have moved on from what is, no doubt, a dynamic IP. Keep your eyes peeled! Favonian (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

92.13.29.206 (talk · contribs)

Im pretty sure its our buddy. Geolocates to Manchester. Just added a close but bogus elevation for K2 in an article. K2 was a favorite target in the past. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, same location, same targets, and of course same MO with that elevation tweak. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairly compelling evidence, I grant you. It's a big ISP with a wide range of dynamic IP addresses, so blocking them is going to be tricky. Due to a recent, and not very successful, foray of mine into the dark art of range blocking, I'll probably let a more experienced admin handle that part. Favonian (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Understand. I remember you weren't real keen on messing with that range last time. Lately, real life caught up with me, but when i get a chance, I will dig deeper and try to get a better idea of how widespread the latest round disruptive editing is.RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just spent some time looking through the revision histories of the latest articles the IPs have touched. Looks like just a handful of IPs in the past month or so making a few dozen edits total. Looks like they are all getting caught quickly too, so no biggie. They do however lead a trail very quickly back to the more frequent attacks earlier this year and last. But all told still nowhere near the volume of that one from Hanoi in the above section. Speaking of, have you seen this lately? Un-freaking-believable! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

... for implementing article-title changes. Much appreciated work behind the scenes. Tony (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Always a pleasure :) Nothing I love more than uncontroversial page moves that don't send people off screaming in quasi-religious lunacy over minuscule typographical modifications. Favonian (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Royal Navy - color/colour

Hi, as regards this edit [8] on Royal Navy, the field does indeed appear to be visible in main space in the American spelling. I can rather see where the IP is coming from, although I understand that their change may have simply broken the field.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was overly optimistic of me: the Yankee spelling of the field name does indeed appear in the infobox, but changing it to the Queen's English removes the information entirely. I'm not template-savvy, so I can't make the infobox WP:ENGVAR-compliant. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse

Hello Favonian, just for your information as the blocking administrator of User:Wnnse i thought it would be important for you to know that a Sockpuppet investigation has been started by me. The main suspected sockpuppet is User:Bow-bb and many other multiple IP addresses which all track ISP Turk Telekom in Isantabul, Turkey. If more possible evidence or statements can be given then it will be good for the case. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with my edits

Hi, i do try to make construtive edits and all. I am sorry for the "vandalism" could you help me understand the fine line between good edits and vandalism?

Thanks, god bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.219.96 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The line isn't all that fine. If you think this edit is constructive, you're incapable of editing Wikipedia and will be blocked if you persist. Favonian (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with article

Can you take a look at 69th Infantry Regiment (United States)? An editor has just about blanked the page, and seems hostile about it. I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Thanks. INeverCry 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be reverting to an older (April) version of the article, and there's some sort of content dispute underlying the change. I have reminded them of WP:CIVIL and will try to keep an eye on the article, though I may not be available that much longer. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A 58k add and a 60k subtract - strange stuff. I'll leave them to it. ;) Thanks for taking a look. INeverCry 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

constant reverts

I know you were getting fed up with reverts on how to handle additional spelling on articles but what is my recourse? You protected the standing version of Sophie Lefèvre at the HandsomeFella edit. Next Jelena Janković gets protected at the HandsomeFella edit. I asked for help on the Jelena Jankovic talk page. Now this morning I see HandsomeFella has done the same to Toni Androic. I reverted back to the original and it was instantly removed again. I ask once more what to do lest he change every article out there? Am I just supposed to sit back and let him do it? I have a shadow that will probably now add something (we'll see), but thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight: I didn't protect the Lefèvre article. What I did do was report it to WP:RFPP because of the unbelievably lame edit war in which you, your cohorts and assorted members of the opposition have been engaged. Because I have previously stated my opinion about the addition of these so-called "alternative names", I would be considered involved if I protected the article. It is also just about the only thing that keeps me from blocking those involved on both sides, in spite of the fact that you so richly deserve it. You have been around long enough to know the meaning of edit warring and the road to dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops sorry. I thought I was actually posting on JDs page. My mistake, thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Australianka

Hi. I started looking at this person's edit history after they were reported to WP:AIV; you subsequently blocked him before I could finish following up.

I encourage you to reconsider your block. I suspect this may just be a well-intended newbie trying to create articles about people in his own family. If so, getting his articles tagged as "hoaxes" (instead of non-notable or COI) may have made him more determined to recreate them, knowing that they were, in fact, not hoaxes.

I left some comments for him on his talk page following up on this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have cut them some WP:ROPE. Hope they follow your advise. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User page redirects

This doesn't seem right. Per WP:UP, "User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user." More to the point, it is inappropriate because the user is an admin. A newbie attempting to talk to this admin might have a very difficult time. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were indeed his talk page, this redirect would be a Bad Thing, but it is in fact just his user page. Not the most brilliant of statements, I agree, but I don't think it violates any of our rules and regulations. Favonian (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:UP, "If you prefer to put nothing here [on your user page] then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors." Per WP:ADMIN, "administrators should be a part of the community" and are "expected to observe a very high standard of conduct"..."the community generally holds administrators to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct". It is generally agreed that administrators best represent the face of Wikipedia to new users, editors who may try to contact an admin on their user page should not be redirected to Awesome, but to the talk page of the admin. That you don't think it violates any rule or regulation seems to miss the boat on common sense. I suppose I'll have to raise this in another venue. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There's currently a relevant discussion at WT:UP#User page redirects to article space. Also, Viriditas, might it not be a good idea to talk to the admin in question regarding this? Worm^TT(talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That discussion is FUBAR. I'm not sure what good it would do to talk to an admin who thinks redirecting their user page to Awesome is a good idea. My concern here was meta; that another admin was actually supporting such a foolish thing caught my eye. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Having read the discussion in more depth, and looking at the dates involved, I think it's quite likely that Bongwarrior added the link to prove a point... so perhaps discussing it wouldn't work. I cant say I'm keen on any editor doing it, let alone an admin - but I don't believe it's against any policy. Worm^TT(talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This kind of thought process is foreign to me. Do we actually have admins and editors who say "if it isn't against a policy it must be a good idea?" Sorry, my brain doesn't work that way. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that "another admin was actually supporting such a foolish thing" (that admin being me) may be missing the boat a bit. Looking at the histories of Bong's user and talk pages, it's clear that he's under frequent attacks from persons on whom good faith is wasted. I very much doubt that the "contribution" I reverted was a an attempt by a well-meaning newbie to align the user page with a strict interpretation of Wiki scripture. Be that as it may; the owner has now gone back to a non-directing version of said page, and peace reigns again. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask, why is Mr. Bongwarrior under "attacks", and why do we permit these kind of attacks on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You may certainly ask, but I'm probably not the right person to ask and I doubt you'll get much by way of meaningful reply from the perpetrators. Last I checked, we don't allow such antics, and blocks are still being handed out with gay abandon, but the ignoble art of IP jumping makes it difficult at times. Why Bong doesn't semi his user page is beyond me, but that's his decision. Favonian (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Favonian. I don't know if you were responding to my AN/I post or if you came to AIV out of the blue, but thanks for addressing the bot-added users. I had left a request at AN/I because I did not know if edit filter or LTA reported users needed to be reported or logged somewhere. The socking and CSD application seemed fairly routine but I did not want to overlook any housekeeping that needed attention. If you have any input, I'd be interested. See ya Tiderolls 20:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I came from AIV, but have now put my DKK 0.02 worth in at ANI. It's an old acquaintance, and sterner measures may be called for. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the exchange rate and you seemed to have undervalued your contribution :) . Thanks for taking the time to respond. Tiderolls 20:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We have to listen to frequent laments on the theme of Danish salaries being too high to be competitive. Guess I just proved them wrong ;) Favonian (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

1D Formation

How so is the formation of 1D not notable, do you want me to add references? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I want you to read WP:DOY. I really don't think the formation of yet another band meets the requirements. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Understand why now, although I disagree with the notions of the guideline anyway just another day in Wikipedia. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a subject on which I have strong opinions. By the way, you have to be careful when you issue selective invitations like this one. Please have a look at WP:CANVAS. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP;CANVAS. This not an AFD and I didn't ask you to side in favor AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dilek2

Looks like more block evasion with only hours left for the block to expire. [9][10][11][12][13] Edward321 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes! Same MO, same ISP and same location in Germany. Block upgraded to indef and good riddance! Favonian (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I see Dilek2 still doesn't get it. After all, if editing around the block failed last time, it's sure to work now. Edward321 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a person of infinite energy and sagacity :) Their efforts have gotten them blocked indefinitely from the German Wikipedia with the rationale: "Block evasion, no improvement noticeable: foreskin troll." Rather disturbing image, that one. The situation is not much better on the Turkish Wikipedia, where they have been blocked repeatedly for a multitude of sins including copyright violations and personal attacks. But every cloud has a silver lining! They have found a home away from home at Simple Wikipedia, where they edit as Magnolia. A rose by any other name is still fascinated by circumcision, it seems. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather. Wonder how long they'll last on Simple? Edward321 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

cooperation with SDJournal

Hello Favonian,

I'm from SD Journal (http://en.sdjournal.org/) and i have proposition for you. Would you be interested in promoting your name on our pages? We're offering you cooperation with SD Journal, I mean we want you to write for us!

Our next issue will be "Mobile Development" - namely, iPhone and iOS Programming. And I see that you have essential knowledge to share with our readers (50 000 of them from all over the world). So why not to try?

If you'll show as our expert, we will offer you possibility of free advertisment of your page/company, publication in our famous magazine - SD Journal and possibility of longer cooperation (which means for example free, one year subscription!)

What do we want? An article of your own concept connected with the subject (iPhone and iOS programming). It may be tutorial, article, DiY, photostory? etc. As I wrote before - the concept is yours. The more interesting, the better :)

You don't need to worry if for example you're not the best writer etc. We have team who will elaborate your article. The bigest value for us is your knowledge!

I will gladly answer any question you have. So please let me know as fast as you can if you're interested in contributing and then I'll give you the details.

Cheers Mateusz Szymanski Editor of SDJournal mateusz.szymanski@software.com.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.207.70 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat

The IP you blocked wasn't a sockpuppet of Chanakya. It was infact me. Continual bullying I received from Chanakya was one of the reasons I quit wikipedia in March of this year. Cheers. Talk^Woe90i 22:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me. Terribly sorry about that. I shall unblock your IP as soon as I'm done typing this. Favonian (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP vios, Vandalism, Sockpuppetry etc. at Sam Webb

Could you do us a favor, take a look at the revision history of Sam Webb and do what you can to stop whoever is insisting he is dead. They are using false references, sock-puppetry tactics, etc. but they aren't even very good at it. Thnx --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article for three days as a BLP issue. It's now way past my bedtime, and in view of the fiasco referred to above I had better refrain from handing out sock puppet blocks. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. Much obliged! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ouya

Hi Favonian, could you please semi protect Ouya, there has been quite a large amount of vandalism. Once it's protected and go through and clean it all up. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I think there is something else going on as well, this is the second WikiProject Video games article which has been massively vandalised in the last 30mins. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Ouya. It might be worth having a look over the vandals edit history's, I saw a couple of other articles they were in recently too :\ ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The 4chan morons are bored. Articles being protected and users summarily blocked. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are the "4chan morons"? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A more accurate term is "/b/tards". They periodically organize attacks on selected Wikipedia articles, feeling ever so cool. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the link. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Infinite IP's

Hiya Favonian! Thanks! It may be a good idea to protect that talkpage so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. See here. Arcandam (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, and a range block imposed. Can't escape the feeling that I have encountered this specimen before. Favonian (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that is very useful information for the CU! Arcandam (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information in Vivien Carter Article.

Hello,

Recently, a significant deal of information from the article for performer Vivien Carter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Carter ) was deleted. This was because some of the information was considered personal.

Between us, myself and the subject had been deleting information until the article reached a level that the subject was happy with. The article remained this way for a month, until admins added all the original information back in. As it is causing conflict, we ask that the article be deleted.

Thank you, Hannah AndAllThatJazz175 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, the subject of an article does not have the right to decide what is and is not included in the article. The relevant policy is explained in WP:Biographies of living persons. Deletion of the article would have to be requested at WP:Articles for deletion, but as Carter appears to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, such a request is unlikely to succeed. Favonian (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well how do we lessen the information that is there, and get it to save like that, rather than all the old information being added again? That was what we originally wanted - we did not want to remove the article, just shorten it. We had every intension of continuing to add to it as and when appropriate. I do not understand how you can create an article but not delete information that is wrong, or that someone is not comfortable with when it concerns themself. Any advice would be gratefully received. Thank you AndAllThatJazz175 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The correct procedure is to start at discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Vivien Carter, and get a consensus there. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, okay. And do we request things to be removed, or removals to be approved (if that makes sense?) when we wish to make them? Apologies if I am asking obvious questions, I just want to make sure we get this right. Thank you very much for your help. AndAllThatJazz175 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You should explain what you want to remove and why. If the information is sourced, you will need fairly good arguments, so reading WP:BLP carefully before you make your case is recommended. It's approaching midnight in my time zone, so I'm signing off. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

I was pretty sure that it was not a proper noun in this case, but other pages seem to indicate you are right. Weird, but I learned something. T. trichiura Infect me 15:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing RM, but the bot is down

Hi, I wonder whether you could assist; the bot is down and I want to withdraw this RM, after Dicklyon uncovered the precise meaning in the scientific lit. Tony (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mikemikev

We need a range block here but I don't know how to do it. Muzemike has done these before when asked. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It has come up before, but the idea of range-blocking Imperial College failed to gain traction. I would also need to do some homework regarding IPv6 addresses :-/ Favonian (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See [14]. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

Why do you always revert my changes. Why do you find important the mention that Anne was 32 or 33 when she married when her birth date is unknown - 1501 or 1507 we don't know - plus her marriage was dissolved on May 17 not May 14 - it happened after her trial which took place on May 15. I don't mean to be obtuse but it is annoying to have corrections reverted when they are right. --70.29.251.36 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You should start a discussion on the article talk page, and you might also want to create an account, if only because communication with you is impossible when your IP address keeps changing. Favonian (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Recurrent disruption in Reconquista

Hi Favonian, sorry for disturbing in your summertime, hope you are enjoying it! I see you have intervened in history articles, and don´t like Vandals. You may want to take a look at the ongoing dispute, which will be much appreciated, with a recurrent disruptive editor (a crusader?) not adding anything, not improving the article, breaching edition rules (starting from the Civility rules) and pushing permanently his point of view, edit warring, WASTING my time, quite fed up by now. I preferred that another editor took part before resorting to directly blocking him. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but not tonight, I'm afraid. It's now past midnight, and I have to catch some sleep. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

???

Who are you and why do you revert my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.141.75 (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The page in question is for discussing the article and its improvement, not for venting your personal grievance, and you certainly shouldn't remove the project template. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gabby Logan

Please do not talk to me.

Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moggahun (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not for you to decide. If you continue down that path, I will not only talk to you, I'll block you from editing. Favonian (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not be part of your ego tripper exploits.

I know you're desperate to try and prove yourself with your 'power' on an internet site, but stay away from my account.

Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moggahun (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Favonian, good decision re the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It soon became clear that nothing good would come from this particular editor. Favonian (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mybad

Wrong king, wrong battle, sorry, mybad. Mugginsx (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Feared for a while that we'd become embroiled in the Hundred Years' Edit War ;) By the way, I tend to agree with you that the forced Anglicization of names is, to put it politely, a bit quaint, but on the other hand it frees us from having to choose the authentic name for the German-born, Bohemian king of the Luxembourg Dynasty. Favonian (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That is something. Mugginsx (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Duck?

User 217.248.148.211 [15] Edward321 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. Blocked for a week. Favonian (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi Favonian ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RVV

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, yep, and Watchtower Bible School of Gilead as well. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Right-oh! We have a trend. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's totally exciting. It's a shame I have to leave. Vaya con dios, Favonionionan, Drmies (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz

Thomas Szasz died September 8, 2012 in his home in Manlius, New York. Why would I make this up? http://blog.independent.org/2012/09/11/thomas-s-szasz-1920-2012/ Thomas S. Szasz (1920-2012), by Robert Higgs, published by Independent Institute. Is that better? Oscarmarin1995 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You made a mistake

Why did you revert my changes to Adrian Kennedy

All information is 100% accurate and can be backed up with online references...

David xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkpunkjapan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Random Irish News" is not by any stretch of imagination a reliable source, especially not for information about living people. I assume you are behind the IP that has previously tried to add similar material to the Kennedy article. Just stop it already. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Paris1127

Hi Favonian. Could you take a look at this user's block, please? As far as I can tell, there's nothing currently preventing them or the IP address used from editing, but I may be missing something as I'm not hugely familiar with autoblocks. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I appear to have solved the problem (by unblocking the IP, despite being unable to find the original block for it), but would still appreciate if you could quickly check that there aren't any repercussions from that action which I've overlooked. The User:Drunkonjin account is still blocked. Much obliged, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hallo Favonian, you removed my writings due to copywright violations. But the work and the book is mine, so it should be allright. Could you tell me what to do now? And do I have to write everything again? Hagengruber (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The message you received included a link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which you should study. Among other things you need to prove that you are in fact the author—the user name alone doesn't quite do it. Favonian (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Another troll?

Any advice on what to do about this editor? Keeps adding unsourced commentary to the EDL page, seems to be motivated by a transparent POV. As always, your help and input is much appreciated. Sindinero (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly an opinionated person with at tendency to WP:OR. He has been told about the dangers of edit warring and has restricted himself to talk page utterances since then, but should he attempt to reintroduce his opinions into the EDL article, a block will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

AIV thanks

Thanks very much for your very rapid response here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Always a pleasure! Favonian (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Hi, thank you for correcting My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_fandom and other related pages as well. I'm sorry for not reading & understanding MOS:CT beforehand. Charon77 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Wikipedia's collection of policies, guidelines, etc., is really quite bewildering. Favonian (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Divineabraham

This user, with whom you interracted at some length at the end of last year-beginning of this, has asked for an unblock. he asks that his request be brought to your attention, which I said I would do. I have made no other comment or committment. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Thanks for the note. I have commented on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ape

Hi Favonian, First of all I would just like to know what mistsake I made, I'm not angry, simply curious. Also I just wanted to make it clear that in the introductory paragraphs it said that 'more recently the word ape had become a synonym for hominoid' so I deleted the table that contradicted said quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C-dawg181297 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You made a fairly drastic modification to the article without any edit summary to explain it, in the process mangling the article as you should have noticed if you had looked at the result. You may consider the change to be controversial, and if you want it introduced in the article, you should propose it on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I fixed the mistake and I'm pretty sure the article makes sense now but if it doesn't reply. C-dawg181297. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C-dawg181297 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

St Albans & Harpenden

Hello, I agree with 'Hrachiko' I think it would be good if we were just to move 'Harpenden' to 'Harpenden, Hertfordshire' this would increase precision and cause less confusion. It would be great if the name of the town included it's county. It isn't a major change and I believe it would be for the better. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasoon212 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What an interesting first contribution for a new user, but back to the subject at hand: we don't disambiguate an article title unless we have to (WP:PRECISION), and since Harpenden is a strong candidate for primary topic, things should stay where they are. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, The Harpenden issue does also effect social network sites. As peoples place of residence is Wikipedia orientated. Many people see profile's of those living in Harpenden and see no county of where it is situated. I apologise for causing major problems on this website but that is the only thing I would like to change. 'Harpenden, Hertfordshire' Please take my comments into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrachiko (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, There is another St Albans in the USA. I believe it would be better to include the county name to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrachiko (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not when the English St Albans is the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You have no reason to deny the changes. You are just being stubborn. There is ANOTHER St Albans in the USA. Change the name to St Albans, Hertfordshire or St Albans, United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrachiko (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Read my reply above. You need to understand Wikipedia:Disambiguation, in particular the section on primary topics. If you want to rename an article, and you know it's controversial, you must follow the procedure described in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I believe you are mistaken in thinking that I have vandalised the reference desk. I tried to archive some of the questions. And that, unfortunately required deleting the original copies.

92.0.99.75 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would expect at least 3 warnings before being giving my "final" warning. It's good wikiquette!

Archiving means saving copies of the text on a different page, not just deleting it from the original location. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that is actually what they did. They added the text to the archive here and then removed it from the main page 1 minute later here. It was in fact you who deleted it from the archive, here. There is currently an issue with automatic archiving being discussed on the talk page here, and I do not see any indication that these edits were anything other than a good faith attempt to reduce the size of the page. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh shit! You are (both) right, and I'm wrong. I've undone my reverts, struck the warning and apologized. Need more coffee! Favonian (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, You and Favonian are wrong. There is a bot that does the archiving. Let the bot be fixed by people who know what they are doing. By deleting posts, you removed my comments and that is not appreciated at all. I will be reverting the mess you have made. Astronaut (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Apoligies for the slight lack of faith in my post above. However, even if 92.0's intention was to manually archive, simply reverting yourself once you realised what was going on, wasn't quite good enough. It also left mine and Looie's posts removed because 92.0 also removed them before doing their archiving. I have since restored the deleted posts as best I can. Astronaut (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

72.79.180.47

Hello! I saw that you recently blocked 72.79.180.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for disruptive editing. I agree that the massive additions to influenced/influences fields was out of hand and needed to be stopped, but I don't believe that I or anyone else had yet warned the editor before the block. I am guessing that you know something I don't here (sock/block evasion/something); but unless it should be obvious to the IP, could you drop a block notice at their talk page to explain? Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is a "returning customer". 71.173.50.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the most recently blocked instance, at least by me. Same editing pattern, both Verizon IPs from Pennsylvania. They are spread over too wide a range for me to work up the courage and range block them, put at some point someone more versed than I in that arcane art will have to do something along those lines. Favonian (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guessed as such. I was just caught off-guard having just dropped a note to them and then seeing the block. I'll keep a weather eye as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate#Sunni Opinion

What is written on the Sunni opinion is not the Sunni opinion. What is said in the beginning is true, but till this part: "Sunni opinions of the Umayyad dynasty after Muawiyah are dim, viewing many of the rulers as sinners and the cause of great tribulation in the Ummah[citation needed]. For example, in the section concerning Quran 17:60[23] in the exegesis by al-Suyuti entitled Dur al-Manthur, the author writes that there exist traditions which describe the Umayyads as "the cursed tree". There are some exceptions to this, for example Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz is praised as one of the greatest Muslim rulers after the four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Only one Umayyad ruler (Caliphs of Damascus), Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, is unanimously praised by Sunni sources for his devout piety and justice and for his efforts to spread Islam and his efforts to undo the wrongdoings of his fore-bearers eventually led to internal hostilities within the dynasty that ultimately lead to his poisoning in the year 720." This lacks sources, and is actually the Shiaa opinion of the Sunni opinion. And I have sources to prove otherwise. For example the verse 17:60 according to Sunnis it is not about Muawiyah's lineage. It is a Shiaa opinion not a Sunni. Here what is the actual Sunni opinion: Sunni view Muawiyah as good man, who made his own Ijtihad during the First Fitna, which may have turned out wrong according to them, and they point out the fact that he was one of the writers of the Quran. But they also criticize the change from a Caliphate to a monarchy, and criticize the Mawali system. Generally, They view the Umayyad regime as a good time, especially during Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz regime, that became bad near its ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelalSaid (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be assured that this interpretation is contested, and you should therefore propose the change on the article talk page rather than try to reintroduce it into the article. Favonian (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Duck?

An IP is adding the same thing to Mihrimah Sultan that Dilek 2 did.[16] Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And from the same IP range. Good, sound quack. Favonian (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

English civil war...

Oops - sorry about that! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem ;) The Wikimedia software doesn't always handle edit conflicts elegantly. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank u dear thanks

Dera edi I have read out ur precious message.Thank u so much...i will remember ur advise....thnaks dear... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Famous_Children_Writer_Dr_Prof_Mujeeb_Zafar_Anwar_Hameedi_From_Karachi,Pakistan.JPG (Founder Of Pakistan Children Writers Guild(P.C.W.G) Dr Prof. Syed Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi from Karachi Pakistan Sindh thanks...

--111.119.163.221 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)