User talk:Favonian/Archive 12

Vandalism by User:81.135.63.201
Thanks for rolling back the vandalism on the Carlo Ancelotti. I don't have rollback rights and was getting ready to do manual reverts. The user noted above is on a roll. Vandalism only account. Cindamuse (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He is indeed. My beady little eyes are fixed on him.  Thanks for the revert undo.  Shouldn't you have revert rights?  Favonian (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm deliberately holding back on pursuing additional rights. Although I've been registered since 2007, I've only really been active over the past two or three months. I still have a lot to learn. I generally spend quite a bit of time just reviewing, learning, and trying to help out where I can. And when I do things wrong, I actually appreciate the nudge in the right direction. When I feel like I actually have a grasp of what is going on in various areas, I'll probably consider requesting additional tools, but for right now, I'm on a learning curve. ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Commendable attitude. When you feel ready, all you have to do is holler.  Favonian (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some feedback needed please
Hi, I was placing Promise (personality development for kids) on my user page to ask for help on how to modify it. It was not my intention to promote anything. I had placed a question on the help desk saying that I was ready to make any and all changes that were needed to reinstate the article. An editor had adviced me to post the article on the user page and then encourage people to suggest modifications, by going to the Wikipedia: Requests for Feedback. I had changed the infobox from the original article, and wanted some direction in what else needed changes. I would appreciate any feedback you could give me. Looking4solutions (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Your best choice is to place it in, say, User:Looking4solutions/Promise (personality development for kids).  Favonian (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Eproxy resin
Was not span... was informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haconti1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not ADVERTISING
Yes the website I have posted sells paint but it also offers free information to boat owners, Iam in no way associated with the website just a customer who had trouble finding relevant paints and finishes for my boats and I would appreciate it if you were to stop calling me a spammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haconti1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * A second opinion has now been obtained, and the article has once more been deleted. Sorry, but the way you present the information it is advertisement.  Favonian (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Marklmarklmarkl
I was rather amused by the example of shooting oneself in the foot at User talk:Marklmarklmarkl. I had actually been intending to contact you to suggest that an indef block was a bit harsh for a couple of bits of fairly low-level vandalism, until the defendant's incompetent attempt at mounting a defence provided such an effective case for the prosecution. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was truly a gratifying experience! An additional reason for going straight to indef was the apparent tag team between our friend and the rather less "subtle" .  Methinks the kids are a bit restless at school.  Favonian (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Thank you. Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC) How do I or we solve this? How can I prevent some arbitrary revertion if I'm not here while the discussion takes place? Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You proceed to WP:ANI and indicate that you are willing to discuss the matter on an appropriate talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage has been suggested.  Then you present your arguments for the added titles and request (politely!) that the existing additions not be reverted.  Favonian (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6027/32782/32884

it;s copyright free and more beautiful one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At the bottom of that page it says "Copyright 2010 Rolling Stone; Jann S. Wenner, editor and publisher". Favonian (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

can understand me what's happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep adding an image copied from Rolling Stone Magazine. There is absolutely no evidence that it's free of copyright.  That's a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Favonian (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

it's only text copyrighted

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/5945/32609/32664

this photo is copyrighted and paul's one not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not completely obvious what you mean. What makes you think that the image in copyright free?  Favonian (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

see this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/5945/32609/32664

beneath the picture: Putland/Retna

see this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6027/32782/32884

beneath the picture: nothing

it makes me think that that image is copyright free

and i have question paul mccartney's page is not protected and favourited and lennon's on eis. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Copyright is automatic, it belongs to the photographer, unless he explicitly gives it away.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

and flickr photos??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a copyright notice on all Flickr - most say "all rights reserved" and can't be used.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

and what if i add to the photo: "copyright Rolling Stone magazine"?

and what about featured article? John Lennon's article is protected and featured and McCartney's one - not

←[edit conflicts] :Taro-Gabunia, you are misunderstanding. In the absence of a clear statement that the photo is not copyright protected, or that the copyright is held by someone other than Rolling Stone/Jann Wenner (the case with the Jimmy Page photo), we have to assume that it is covered by the overall copyright on the bottom of the page. If you were to find such a clear statement of the photo being free - which I highly doubt you will - then we might be able to use it, but of course then we'd have to see if the consensus of the page's editors is to change the photo from the one currently in use. You can assume that something is copyright protected - you can't  assume it is not. Hope this helps - you seem to be trying to improve the article, but this is not the way to do it. Cheers. Tvoz / talk 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And, you can't just add a copyright notice, you need permission from the copyright holder to reprint it. Tvoz / talk 22:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4774/11paulmccartney.jpg

and what about LENNON page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pages are protected when vandalism is high  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kubacheck/3782013509/

i this photo copyrighted? i mean if i sign up on filckr, ulpoad mentioned image will i be able to use that cute image on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[another edit conflict] Finally (sorry Favonian for hijacking your talk) - decisions about protecting pages are based on the level of vandalism that takes place there - and an article being "featured" is based on the quality of the article. One article has nothing to do with the other, nor is it a commentary on the relative merits of Lennon and McCartney as musicians, writers, or human beings. Tvoz / talk 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've given up competing with your typing speed  Favonian (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

does anyonehave flickr account to upload that photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "cute" picture is copyrighted. It doesn't help to upload it to Flickr and then transfer it here.  Favonian (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ok than can you remove that photo of paul raising two thumbs up??????????????????????????????????????????

and i have question

in georgian version of paul's page, it's პოლ მაკ-კარტნი and should be პოლ მაკარტნი can i rename it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro-Gabunia (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should we remove it? It has been provided with correct licensing information.  Regarding the Georgian Wikipedia, that's beyond me.  Favonian (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Article
As I stated, there is no consensus reached for the current wording, feel free to find, there is not. If the current wording has not been established through consensus and merely words of an Armenian, it can't be expected others should reach a consensus to change it. That wording is going to change.

About 1RR rule, I have not violated the rule, I have made a change and other people attacked my edit with reverts I merely corrected their revert, not the other way around. So the blocking from edit is invalid and aganist WP rules. Please lift it. Tmhm --95.211.88.136 (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to apply for unblocking using the procedure specified in the block notice, but I doubt that you will succeed. And please don't use your IP to evade the block.  Favonian (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename
I did consider that. But searching online and on the news, the aways is better known as the "European Footballer of the Year" in English. MaxO1897 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the argument you should present in the discussion. Have a look at WP:BRD; next step is discuss.  Favonian (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Please don't edit war (Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel), I have explained why it doesn't belong, on that talk page.Stud1989 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you should please be a little careful with the term "edit war". I reverted a section blanking with no edit summary. If the explanation is on the talk page, please state so in the summary. Favonian (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin abuse!
Please explain yourself, Favonian, in response to this edit. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) <--"Snaps" as in schnapps, I would imagine...and yes, I'll have one, since I'm not done for the night. As for admin abuse, I probably have more overlap with User:ChildofMidnight than most around here, and so if anyone has to take over his role, it ought to be me. I'll see you at ANI, if you dare defend your reckless and unilateral actions against good-faith contributors. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no comment on the legitimate Taco Bell issue, I notice... Drmies (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My AGF bids me assume that the elders of the town meet there. Favonian (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, the Taco Bell as þing? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stranger things have happened. In my fair country, the restaurant in the parliament is called Snapstinget!  With your background in sundry Germanic languages you should be able to decipher the meaning.  Favonian (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FAV! Admin abuse?!?! I am indeed disappointed. :) Tommy!  [ message ] 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too . It's taken me more than a month of mop swinging to finally get labelled thusly.  I'm a wimp and a slacker!  Favonian (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Martyr's Shrine
Your suggestions sound good. I'm off Wiki for the next few hours, if you feel like taking the lead, but I can do it later today if not. I was looking into prod'ing the Martyrs Shrine page; it seems to have some notability issues. If you have any thoughts or feel like checking it out, I had not done any real research yet. Thanks for the work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it and look at the band's notability while I'm at it. Thanks for your quick reply. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl Daniel Taylor
You've deleted "Carl Daniel Taylor" sadly people were defacing it with statements about homosexuality.. could you please reinstate the page and disallow those people from adding such remarks.. we miss Carl's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamtaphead (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No dice! Even from its first version, it was a rather unpleasant description of this person.  If I were somehow able to overlook this, there would still remain an article that gave no indication of notability for the person in question.  Favonian (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Each detail of his life has had it's truth expanded, I'll admit that, but the background stories and information from the original version are completely true.. I hope you can bring it back.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamtaphead (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I take it you're not going to put the page back up because you have nothing better to do that remove people's wiki pages... So, assumption made, criticism not required.

Uhh
The edit to the Greg Rust page was valid. The announcement was done on the Channel Ten news, which featured Mark Webber, Daniel Ricciardo and the announcement that Rust would also be a part of the action. Of course i could not reference it because the "Festival of Speed" website is still in construction. The edit was valid enough not to warrant the removal of the information and certainly not the locking of the page. I find it insulting that you also did not give a reason for your reverting of my edit. If you think this is the way to create a community based on individual knowledge, you're going about it the wrong way. Very disappointing from a member who suggests that he does good. Some of the edits on this page, however, would suggest that it's a cover for an individual wanting to gain a sense of personal achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.227.94 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You failed to provide a verifiable and reliable source. Favonian (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it not reasonable to place down something with the expectancy of having a reference within the next 24 hours? It was hardly unconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.227.94 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No. In principle, all statements have to be referenced, and it's considered especially important when the article is about a living person. Favonian (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All statements? Even the comment on Ernst Rohm: "By this time, Röhm and Hitler were so close that they addressed each other as du"? That's not referenced. Then it shouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.227.94 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument that "other stuff exists" is not considered a valid excuse. Now, I don't intend to get into a Wiki-layering debate.  Just provide the reliable source if you can.  Favonian (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Happily. When the website is completed, within a short period of time, i will provide a reference. In the meantime, you may revert the page in what we'll call a good-faith move from you. Thank you for your generosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.227.94 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, neither by good faith nor my generosity extend that far. Favonian (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit unfair, doesn't it? Not allowing an edit that would appear to be reasonable just because the period of time to which it will take the reference to be located is a few hours? Can't help but think there's a superiority complex here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.227.94 (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

soarp
it is not a hoax, this word is real. u let people edit real things and make them completly ridiculous and false but u do not allow something that is real. soarp i a climbing maneuver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br3n8 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not sufficient for something to exist. You need to provide reliable sources asserting that the subject is notable.  Just listing the names of your mates doesn't suffice.  Favonian (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Plastic Tears
I hope the pages I created suit the Wikipedia standards better now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_tears

--DarkPistolero (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Please have a look at WP:BAND, which lists the notability requirements.  Remember that providing reliable sources is crucial.  Favonian (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow!
That was quick!
 * (Deletion log); 23:27 . . Favonian (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:BE-Army-OF2a.gif" (G7: One author who has requested deletion)
 * (Deletion log); 23:27 . . Favonian (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:BE-Army-OF4.gif" (G7: One author who has requested deletion)

You must be bored!! ;-) (Thanks for such a quick response!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Correctly diagnosed. Of course, with such a military topic the right response is READY, FIRE, AIM!  Favonian (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL!
 * You remind me of a few other one-liners! (e.g. Bang!! Bang!! Stop! Or I'll shoot!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

amGod page deleted again...
hello favonian,

my page was deleted again... the reason is: (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.electrogarden.com/music/egn/amGod/)

i made a copy of my article, before i posted my article. but can't find this link?!? the link was included in an older article, but after the first deletion, i erased all link, which seems not correct. i let only the bands and the labels webpage.

i'm the mastermind of this music band... so i don't understand why it's deleted again.

hope you can help me ... enclosed i sent you the script of my article...

thanks a lot all the best! dominik van reich


 * "CopyVio Material Removed"  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

adversus solem ne loquitor
How can i Block Favonian ? or Attack Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaPpLr (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

castigat ridendo mores castigat ridendo mores

damnant quodnon intelligunt

parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

facile est inventis addere facile largire de alieno facile omnes quom valemus recta consilia aegrotis damus cacoethes carpendi cacoethes loquendi

cacoethes scribendi cacoethes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaPpLr (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting collection of stray Latin quotes. If I may add one: Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit. Favonian (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

MessinUup4ev
Hey, what's up? I realise you've been in my face about vandalism, but seriously, my user name is MessinUup4ev, how much more obvious can it get. Anywho, that's that, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MessinUup4ev (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it. Bye! Favonian (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request: 98.177.155.42
Hi, Favonian! I heard the IP address 98.177.155.42 got block, and he's currently requesting unblock. He promises not to do damage/disruption to Wikipedia, understands the reason for the block, and will just do the useful ones. The blocking admin(istrator) was Ckatz, so can you discuss the block with him/her? Thank you!

97.65.112.182 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In view of your subsequent bit of vandalism, I can't take your request very seriously. Favonian (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Non existant
WHY WAS THIS DELETED, I LOVE THESE GUYS. BEST BAND EVER, YOU PROBABLY DELETED THIER PAGE BECAUSE YOUR HOMO-PHOBIC. PLEASE PLEASE RECONSIDER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.219.242 (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete my work....
Hello, Why did you remove the Dirtyphonics page ? It was clean and welldone, respecting the rules... Why don't you help to upgrade instead of destruct ? Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.218.229 (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article wasn't even within shouting distance of the requirements listed in WP:BAND. Favonian (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian, I have read this already. This band is touring all around the world, has won awards, has released records, has been first in the UK charts, was published in the press several times, was on the air on radios like BBC1... etc. Not enough? By the way, the music has evolved a lot these last years and this requirements list is a bit aged... who is responsible of it ? Some of the reguirements look very unconstructive to me. For example, what if a band is not in the charts or "golden record" because it gives his music instead of selling it ? What if a band has created a new style of music and stays a "small band" when big popstars are on Wikipedia just for doing a stupid remix ? Wikipedia can be desapointing some time ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.218.229 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess I was being flippant in the section below, and for that I apologize. This does not alter the fact that your article contained no evidence of notability according to the guidelines.  Whether you like these is a different matter, but the place to discuss them is at WT:Notability (music), not here.  Favonian (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For your good work. Cheers, JNW (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Nice with a change from the complaints by musical wannabes.  That unblock request by ShawnSim was [name of football player redacted] quite a boomerang.  Favonian (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Everybody's a star. I'm thinking of starting a band. JNW (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! Sign me up, please.  I can play the cash register.  Favonian (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"complaints by musical wannabes", you are so cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.218.229 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm certain Favonian doesn't need my support, but one can't edit here for any length of time without noticing the constant flood of articles about bands, the vast majority of which don't have the sources to support notability. 9 times out of 10 the articles are started by band members or their publicists, so yes, there is a certain amount of exasperation inherent in monitoring the stream of promotion. JNW (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient reason to be unpolite and disrespectful. (81.64.218.229 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Granted. But the above comment was not directed at anyone in particular, whereas your subsequent edits were. And an apology has since been offered. JNW (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ikechukwu Ndefo
HEY ! you need to stop reverting the information on "ikechukwu ndefo" cuz its false. i have deleted it so many times. i have signed it as well. please stop reverting it as the information is false. thanks Chichi beybuh (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You effectively try to delete the contents of an article with references. Instead you must present your arguments on the article talk page.  Favonian (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

hi, if possible delete the whole article on "ikechukwu ndefo" go on the maersk sealand website and you will see that he is not the CEO so why would wikipedia not remove false information on him. Please delete it because i have tried and it keeps saying insufficient explanation. I have explained enough; he is not the CEO. someone else is. Chichi beybuh (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC) sept 7th 2010


 * If that is so, you should nominate the article for deletion. This will start a discussion where you can present your arguments, and after a week an administrator will decide whether to keep or delete the article based on the contributions to the discussion.  Favonian (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

alright thanks. i have done so. thanks. Chichi beybuh (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for revealing the location of the AfD discussion.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In English, please
Hi Takabeg. Could I ask you to use English in talk page discussions? Comments such as User talk:Tmhm may be intended only for the user in question, but talk pages should be readable to any editor taking an interest in the discussion. Please see WP:TPG for the guidelines. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Takabeg (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rule on user talk pages
Can I delete some part of a user's talk page reply if he calls me a racist there? I deleted the word racist as this word does not help improve the article discussed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daraheni&diff=prev&oldid=383372983 Kavas (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't. Personally, I would have shrugged off that offensive remark.  Alternatively and in particular if the problem continues, you could report it to WP:WQA.  I don't approve of labeling opponents as "racist" etc., but in the end it just reflect poorly on the person making the accusation. Favonian (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can admins delete offensive remarks, like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArmenian_Genocide&action=historysubmit&diff=383624448&oldid=383623875 ? Kavas (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to borrow your RfA perspective
Dear Favonian, I was wondering whether it would be all right with you if I were to borrow the perspective, temperament, and structure of the answers you gave in your RfA. I've studied quite a few RfAs - almost fifty odd of them - and somehow have found your answers to be mirroring my thoughts. As I really appreciated the straightforwardness you showed in your RfA, I wanted to model my future RfA answers on your answers. Thence, the request. Sincere regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Be forewarned, though, that one of my opponents considered my answers "wimpy"   Look forward to seeing your RfA, and good luck with it!  Favonian (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer and the allowance :) Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note. I've transcluded my RfA. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD
Hi Favonian, FYI I've quoted some CSD tags in an RFA !vote, including one that you deleted - you might want to see Requests for adminship/Wifione. Regards  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi WSC. Thanks for drawing my attention to this discussion. It seems to have died off, so I'll comment here rather than rekindle it. Yes, I remember the professor with "four papers in international journals", etc., and I did pause to contemplate the A7 phrase: "any credible claim of significance or importance".  My conclusion was that the article failed to satisfy that.  The article's claim to fame is the academic equivalent of "John Q. Public is a truck driver. He has a Class B driver's license."  This assessment admittedly reflects my background, but none of us can escape that.  In other words, I agreed with Wifione's nomination then, and I stand by the decision to delete. Favonian (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it seems I'm out of line with consensus, at least at that page. FYI I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion re the general principle. Cheers.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 13:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

thx
Thanks for this. A few more weeks and they'll rediscover Space, Time and Spacetime. Hold on to your trousers... Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget the Battle of Hastings. Love this job!  Favonian (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A few more weeks as well. Patience.... DVdm (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Wtf305/Game maker sploder
Beat me to it, removing the tags! I hadn't forgotten; just slow. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thank you for helping the kid! Favonian (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

tks for help
tks &bull; Ling.Nut 12:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Looks like we had an edit conflict on your talk page.  Favonian (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vargatamas
Hi, sorry I did not want to delete, just put to the end of that stupid discussion some sources.

The fact that in the article more than a half is on the guy's descent not his deeds, due to some Romanian users who try to capitalize Hunyadi's possible Romanian descent. But the healthy ratio would be descent 10%, deeds-works-writings-battles won 80% death 10%. Check the comments, theey are on how many Hungatrians lived inb Hungary in diffeent times, what was her mother/father, I just listed 4 contemporary or 50 years later writers and what they said in 15th-16th century.

--Vargatamas (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, just remember to observe the guidelines for talk page use. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank a lot Tommy! Favonian (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also commend you for taking it to ANI. I mean, I think there would not be much of a dispute if you decided to just block that user indefinitely, but the fact you kept your cool and went to ANI instead to discuss it rationally, I think just reconfirms the fact that you are exactly the type of admin Wikipedia should have. Well done, Tom my! 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I was tempted! When I found myself searching for "hanged, drawn and quartered" in the Wikipedia blocking policy, I knew it was time to leave the matter to others.  Thanks for your support—and the steady supply of miscreants to AIV!  Favonian (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Billboard Family Page deletion......
Can you tell me why this page is flagged? If this is flagged for deletion, then this page should be also "I Wear Your Shirt" as it is very similar. Please advise.

Kshe95 (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is, a far as I can see, the exact same article that was speedily deleted a couple of hours ago. Furthermore, you are the user formerly known a, who was blocked as an advertisement-only account.  When you applied for unblocking under a new name, your were told that this could only happen under certain conditions.  Instead, you chose to create a new account and recreate the article.  It is as much advertisement now as it was then.  The fact that other stuff exists is not considered a valid argument, but the article you mention at least provides sources to support their claim to notability.  Favonian (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Kshe95 (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC) So, I guess there is nothing I can do at the moment, is there?. I wish it did not have to be this way. Thanks for getting back to me.

Bit of assistance?
Hi, I see you're on CSD duty right now. Could I draw your attention away for a while to help with User:Winglet13 and his articles? I don't want to get anywhere close to 3RR so haven't reverted his most recent removal of a db-advert tag on his Turkish Engine Center article. IMO, even if in the unlikely case the article doesn't qualify for speedying, the repeated removal of the db template isn't good. Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly drawing my attention away, since I ended up deleting the article  Incidentally, the way I read the 3RR regulations, undoing the explicitly forbidden removal of speedy deletion tags doesn't count.  Favonian (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The guy's back as User:Winglet013, and recreated it as a redirect to TEC. Could you please do the honours? Cheers, Strange Passerby 15:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Couldn't they at least show some imagination? Favonian (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethical SMM
Favonian 1249 (Scottish time) - Would you cast your mathematical eye over my user page Ehical SMM and give me some feedback on how we constitute vandalism? Ta Ethical SMM (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You see Favonian I was right. It is a matter of perspective. I see it as me helping you with your project. And if you're not clear, cosmicgilly is about augmented reality, which is right up your street surely? Ethical SMM (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And a final question for you Favonian - What matrices in F1 racing do you think applicable to social media networks? cosmicgilly knows. Ethical SMM (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 121.54.51.22
Hello Favonian. I was typing you a message about the fact that this IP had returned to its single purpose of removing links to the word eggnog. Before I finished I noticed that you have already blocked the IP so all I to do now is thank you for your vigilance and for your time in taking care of this. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are most welcome. The IP's talk page is on my watch list, so I noticed that it had returned to its strange, strange ways. Favonian (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

IP indefblock
Ouch. Şłџğģő 21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whew!!! Thanks for catching that one.  I'm not that blood thirsty.  Favonian (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oil Slick
Hey you, why are you deleting Oil Slick (Transformers)? And you gotta recreate this article, alright? 75.142.152.104 (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted as a result of this discussion, where there was a clear consensus that the subject of the article was not notable; so regarding the second part of your query: no, I won't. Favonian (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of J Lawrence Page
Hi new to this so sorry if ive done somethin daft! you deleted due to G10, Attack page and unsourced BLP

G10-- I cannt see any (disparage or threaten their subject) in this page at all. Attack Page-- no "personal attacks" either Unsources-- wikipedias own page and the "london Gazette" seem like ok sources Happynose (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When basically all you say about the person is that he is somehow affiliated with Oliver North, you are implying that he is connected to the Iran–Contra affair, and that is disparaging. The London Gazette is a good source for the fact that he was commissioned into the army back in the seventies, but it doesn't support any of the other information.  Favonian (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand a bit better now.

The only thing is that as a historical person Oliver North was involved in more than just the Iran-contra affair, and has and still does do things in the public eye. What do to base the premise the association had anything to do with "Iran-Contra" ? wiki's own pages have the connection in a different section. Sorry if im a bit thick :) Happynose (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * North has done other things, but mentioned without context the immediate association is Iran–Contra affair—for those who ever heard about North that is. There is another issue, however.  Why is Lawrence at all notable? Being an officer and maybe seen in North's company doesn't make him so? Favonian (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point I haddnt looked at it that way. But the fact that any Ex uk member of forces that is pictured inside the NSA with an Ex National Security Council member and being asked to "help the Senate Intelligence Committee" would make him notable?

Happynose (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. A person known only for one event is usually not considered notable.  Favonian (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One last question. If I find out moore information re lawrence (if any) have i been on the right lines with regard refs etc so far...Be gentle this is my first time! Happynose (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try  Good luck! Favonian (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

John Paisley, Speedy Deletion
Regarding the blank stub, my bad. I shoulda/woulda/coulda edited off-line before posting the stub. I was primarily adding him because his name was used within City of Life and Death, but had a blank entry. I thought I was a faster typist, but I was incorrect. I have the bare beginnings with a couple of sources, if you'd like me to put 'em in. Otherwise, I'll return after a decent interval and with added detail. Cmholm (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cmholm, apologies, I was the editor that nominated the article for deletion because it sat blank for almost 30 mins with nothing added to it (except a stub tag). If you have enough to actually make a stub (at least) then go ahead and recreate the article - i only tagged it becuase it was empty for quite a while. - Happysailor  (Talk) 10:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You sure must be a slow typist . The sub-stub had been in existence for 23 minutes before a new page patroller nominated it for deletion, and another 14 minutes before I pulled the plug.  Well, no harm done. If you have a couple of sources, by all means put it up.  It won't be speedily deleted.  Favonian (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

title GM 2.5 Liter Iron Duke
The title wasn't changed - the size of the engine was added - I think it's required - shouldn't need a discussion. maybe you can just put it through.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to just let the title addition go through if possible Vegavairbob (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reply on you talk page stands: once contested, you need to discuss, and this means WP:Requested moves. It's really quite painless.  Favonian (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein.7055 unblock request
I saw that you removed 'Category:Requests for unblock' from User talk:Amir.Hossein.7055. It seems that the unblock request never got formally reviewed since when the user in question posted the unblock request, he did it incorrectly. I am not sure what is supposed to be done in a situation like that. Maybe an admin still needs to act on the unblock request, even though it was malformatted? Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I'll try to reconstruct the unblock request.  Thanks! Favonian (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, very good, thanks. I see that the request has now been formally reviewed by another admin. Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by 71.247.247.55
Hello,

You blocked the IP address 71.247.247.55 earlier today for repeated vandalism. I did some digging and found that the edit and reversions (1, 2, 3) made to the page Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision strongly resemble edits made earlier this year by accounts permanently banned for sockpuppetry:

and possibly also this now-deleted edit:
 * User:HabbitTones: edit
 * User:BW and PS: Durr: edit
 * User:Ucuchasucks: edit
 * User:Asiddeamong: edit


 * User:BongwarriorisNOTfamilyfriendly: deleted edit

Based on this evidence, do you think that it it would be wise to apply an indefinite block to this IP as well?

Regards,

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Lothar. Thanks for providing the evidence. This obviously (WP:DUCK) an IP sock of Asiddeamong, and the block should therefore be extended. As I'm a bit new to this game, I have forwarded the question to the other administrators at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:12.189.87.254
hy there, you seem to have reverted a change of User:12.189.87.254 in the article Roman Polansky. He began to change the articles German war crimes and German Holocaust crimes against Soviet Jews. Please check his edits for yourself:. He changes figures but doesn't provide any sources whatsoever and adds these strange sentences. IMHO he just another pitiful little vandal and should be blocked asap. I'm not going to concern myself with this guy any further. I already did my duty and reported him to a cop. Thanks Flamarande (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it wasn't I who reverted the IP, but Off2riorob. Aside from that, I concur with your diagnosis and have issued a final warning.  Favonian (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Danish dynamite
Favonian, hur mar du? What fun! I'm working on a paper involving Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig! You all are interesting people, but now I need to learn Danish history as well. Can I trust our own article or can you turn it into an FA by next week? Man, Napoleon messed things up all over Western Europe... Drmies (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! You've got a nerve, addressing a Dane in Swedish.  Good thing that I have a substantial number of Swedish ancestors, so I can tolerate it, but there are certain bars in Copenhagen where you better not use that line!


 * And then you have to write a paper involving Grundtvig, of all people. He's still rather controversial, and I'm not among his fans, having had the limited pleasure of attending a school where his ideas were worshiped.  Long time ago, and maybe I should get over it, but the name still raises my blood pressure.


 * Danes can't really blame Napoleon for what happened; he mostly assisted us in screwing up. Your country got a rather rougher deal, if I'm correctly informed.


 * The article on our illustrious and heroic past isn't bad, but turning it into an FA would be bit of a challenge. Near total lack of inline citations—I'm appalled!  I'm rather curious, though: why do you have to write a paper on such an exotic topic?  Favonian (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know I don't speak Danish--but I thought you might appreciate what is really a linguistic olive branch. Until I realized how beautiful Copenhagen was Denmark was just a passing station on the way to Skane, Blekinge, and Smaland. I'll gladly try my Swedish out in Danish bars: the beer there is probably cheaper than on the other side of that big bridge, and your attempt at appearing tough is a miserable failure--you know that you all are among the nicest people on the world. I'm working on a presentation on the history of Beowulf, and Grundtvig has a part to play there, if only as a critic of Thorkelin. But I'm mostly interested in what he did with that poem, and if it helped him make some sort of nationalist case. Without wanting to raise your blood pressure any more, do you have any insights there? Tack så mycket! ;) Drmies (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Favonian, and any other Scandinavian stalkers, did you have to read Beowulf in school? And in which translation? (Grundtvig's or not is most interesting--though I doubt that his would be used very much.) And what was the "Danish" importance to the poem as it was explained to you all? Thanks--this could be very, very helpful! Drmies (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchdog for the conservatives?
Hello, "Favonian",

I see that you were very quick to undo my edits of the "Vlaams Belang" Article. Maybe the edits were not NOPV (and yes, I had to look it up!), but you so quickly returning the original state of the article is not exactly neutral, either. Apparently, you are alerted every time someone edits this article. What are you and your people afraid of? The truth? Who gives you the authority to decide the content of an article, anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.22.250 (talk) 10:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, "string of digits";


 * The fact that the article isn't perfect doesn't give you the license to make it worse. Regarding my "watchdog" function, the article in question is on my watch list (along with some 31,000 other pages) so I tend to notice when it changes.  Everyone has the "authority" to influence the contents of Wikipedia article, subject to the numerous guidelines—one of which you have just been informed about.  Favonian (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since you seem to be taking this seriously, so will I. I just registered on wiki, and will from now on identify myself as rudimer. No longer just a string of digits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudimer (talk • contribs) 19:47, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Winglet013
Hello Favonian. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandstein. The editor's explanation is acceptable, but before we unblock them, I would like to see their answers to the questions I have asked at User talk:Winglet013.  Best, Favonian (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For allowing me to use the structure of your RfA Q&A. Apparently, it works well :)  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, you brought it upon yourself.  Congrats on your new !job.  You had to take rather more noise from the opposition than I did, but considering that a "major" issue was your signature(!), I guess you're not going to loose much sleep on that account.  Happy mopping, and feel free to ask, if you run into problems.  Favonian (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure :) Thanks again. Take care sir/ma'am  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For your welcome. :D --VandTrack (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Duff
Please would you copy this deleted page to my user pages. I don't remember it. Kittybrewster &#9742;  08:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was speedied as a copyvio, so I guess you'll make an "honest article" of it in the near future . Favonian (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevencurtis
Hi Favonian - thanks for reviewing User:Stevencurtis. Just a quick note - I had disabled talk page access due to their attempt to grant their own unblock request, but if you feel that is not appropriate feel free to revert without any need for discussing with me. 7 08:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. Formally speaking, as soon as there is "evidence" that the account was hacked, it's a lock-down.  Less formally, well, I think we agree in our assessments of the editor.  Favonian (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx. Happy Friday.   7  09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Spod
re your message about Spod.

There is no 'proof' regarding the reference changes I made to Spod. They happened as I was there along with all the other staff and delegates of the companies mentioned.

This restriction and the constant undo'ing by Chaos5023 is not in the spirit of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencertaylor (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia relies on verifiability. It's not sufficient to say that you were there, you have to provide reliable sources documenting your claims.  Favonian (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson
I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Noah
Just because it's a comedic reference to Noah, doesn't make it invalid. Have you ever heard the pieces referenced? They're classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.149.207 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you are referring to this edit of yours, it's a bit difficult to establish any sort of context, let alone validity. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Response
So in retrospect I suppose this would be considered trivia and not vandalism as you implied. Please refrain from ostracizing new users by misidentifying their contributions.

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."

User:92.29.114.41
Can you have a look at this editor please. Codf1977 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bit on the dickish side. I've sent it off for 24 hours because of the tit for tat against Matthew Yusuf Smith and its talk page.  Regarding the original question about the notability of the institute, I have no particularly well-informed opinion but will leave it up to the talk page discussion.  Favonian (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, sad thing for them, I had already posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities seeking other input here and had moved on before he went on his tit for tat. Codf1977 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sensible move. Let's hope for a more reasonable debate.  Favonian (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chelsey OMG deleted under A7 guidelines
hi, I am trying to create a page for the web series that I am involved with, and keep being deleted. I am going to re-submit the page with the press references and links, but can you tell me if there is something I am missing? because this series ahs been covered by international press and has over 4million views. please let me know if I need to add anything specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukevknight (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's going to be something of an uphill battle. I see that another admin, who deleted a previous version of the article, has listed some guidelines for you to study here.  Not much I can add to that except that your article is a typical example of what happens, when people write about their own work, and thus serves as an illustration of WP:COI.  Favonian (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Our article is entirely bereft of any unsupported praise or hyperbole, is neutral and factual in tone and information, and claims of its relevancy are supported by expansive media coverage from major international media - which automatically puts it in a tiny percentage of online productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukevknight (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)