User talk:Favonian/Archive 15

Gay Hoover
There was no attack on the page. It was actually a reference. Please reinstate. There was no back-up to the dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooner3308 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "reference" was a link to personal website. It's not even close to being a reliable source in Wikipedia's sense of the term.  Favonian (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
I just swung by to gather up a few loose ends, say a few goodbyes and I saw that my talk page was attacked by that little pervert once more. Let him rant on because he's making an ass of himself on a world stage; no need to protect or revert it unless things get really out of hand. My best wishes and sincerest thanks to you for all you've done for me and this project. Don't think that this punk caused me to quit. He was a catalyst, but this is a decision I've been thinking about for awhile. He's clearly not intelligent enough to contribute, he's left that phone number across various projects taunting people to call. One Google hit invited the victim to call for gay sex, so we know he's just another sexually confused adolescent. It's like the song says: "Desmond stays at home and does his pretty face and in the evening he's a singer with the band." I think that's a fairly apt description. :) Take care and God bless. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Arnold Layne had a strange hobby"? ;) Definitely a pathetic little creep.  Sorry to see you go.  Do come back if real life becomes too boring.  Favonian (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL! One of the all-time greatest Pink Floyd songs, I'm a fan and I didn't even think of it. Whlie we're at it, there's also "Lola" by The Kinks to consider. :)) BTW, one o my messages got trashed, so I swung by to see if you'd gotten hit as well. I'm glad I did. Needed the laugh. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, classical rock—a bottomless reservoir of kinky stuff. BTW, you are already missed (or rather: write-access to your talk page is), witness this. Favonian (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, groovy. A reference to my old username. Gee, ya think we're being...watched? :P --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All the world's a stage. :) Favonian (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah, he wants me to come out and play. I left word on the last sockpuppet account that I pity him. I really do. Sorry for the inconvenience. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Much appreciated. Thanks, also, for RevDel'ing the vandalism on my talk page. Normally I am the one asking for RevDel, this time someone had my back and I appreciate that. :) Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Nothing binds people together like mutual enemies.  Favonian (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So very true. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Block or page protection?
Hi. You blocked one IP for making these disruptive improper addition after being warned repeatedly, and now another IP (also, by pure chance no doubt, from Pembroke, Ontario) is reverting you -- making the same additions. Not sure whether the best course is a block of the IP or page protection or both. See:


 * 02:00 	Walid Shoebat‎ (diff | hist) . . (+531) . . 174.88.125.157 (talk) (Undid revision 405914832 by Favonian (talk))
 * 02:00 	Wafa Sultan‎ (diff | hist) . . (+927) . . 174.88.125.157 (talk) (Undid revision 405914854 by Favonian (talk))

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week. One more occurrence and it's time for semi-protection. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And it came to be: . Favonian (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

page protect
can i have 3 weeks page protection at Fiona Shackleton? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a full-blown content dispute. Have you tried the recommended ways of conflict resolution?  If I protect the page at some more or less random point in time, there is always the possibility that it ends up on The Wrong Version. Favonian (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I trust you to do the right thing. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to do some shopping, but I'll review the case in the afternoon. Just for the record, I have no informed opinion about the subject of the dispute.  Favonian (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, in view of the fact that another editor has also requested protection at WP:RFPP, I have protected the article for three days. The shortness of the protection was chosen based on the length of the dispute and a possibly naïve hope that the conflict may be resolved in that time span. Favonian (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He too is "uninvolved" and neutral. How please do we take this forward? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage seems like the right forum, and I can see that you already have participated in related discussions there. To attempt resolution of this particular dispute, you probably need to start a specific thread.  If this fails, WP:RFC is the next step. Favonian (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * rfc which ? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question! It is of course a biography, but the dispute is not about the content as much as the presentation.  Not quite "Wikipedia style and naming" either.  Groan!  It is possible to tag the RFC with more than one category, if your feel adventurous.  Confession: I have never actually been involved in RFCs. Favonian (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel it should be dealt with per examples I quoted on talk page. However I am not getting a response to that argument. More of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jscriptz
Hello, me and my PR team were currently working on a page for our artist, 'Jscriptz' it was taken down before we were able to finish uploading the info, they say we had a stock puppet, but we don't, there are actually 3 of us writting in which each of us had our own segments to write up. He is a signifigant artist in the michigan music scene, and have had produced for many large names, what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So far you have failed to demonstrate the notability of the person. The fact that account #2 shows up after #1 has been blocked makes it all look rather fishy. Favonian (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we would have added notibility, about his radio spins, and such, but was deleted rather swiftly. Is there anyway you can republish it, so that we may continue uploading the info? Then you can determine if its not notible... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you create your draft as User:Rondathewiseone/Jscriptz, provide it with reliable sources documenting notability and then leave me a note when you're done. Favonian (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can receive what we wrote back to add to that? & the one you deleted had reliable sources, from Real Detroit Weekly..in which they have a page here on your site as well. I also put the link in the ref where he had an article in there... how much realer can we get if you don't respect the ref's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 10:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's now at User:Rondathewiseone/Jscriptz. Gotta split now, but I'll look into it later.  Favonian (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you unblock the Ip's so they can get there work done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

hey, made some changes, added some references. still making changes, but i need rest, hopefully it should be enough to go live with the Nationally distributed album reference and the creditable mag's quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It still needs assertion of notability and refs. External links and blogs don't hack it. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

there are thousands of artist on here with less then what weve put, and you guys give them time along with others to add info, i uploaded my artist within 10 minutes it was taken down for exLink oneLink two but its okay, i will continue to dig up information for you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The existence of other articles have no bearing on the existence of this article; what you need to meet is the notability requirement for musicians, and the notability needs to be shown in reliable sources - please do read the reliable sources policy if you haven't already done so, because the sources provided thus far don't quite cut it. You acknowledged above that you have a professional interest in the artist, so you also really need to read the conflict of interest policy. Editing where there is a conflict of interest is not prohibited but it is strongly discouraged, and all promotional language (right now, that would include e.g. the section about the meaning of the artist's name, which does look rather promotional) needs to be removed. If the artist is really notable, somebody who does not have a conflict of interest will probably create an article for him at some point, and ideally, you should wait for that to happen instead of creating the article yourself.


 * Note however that as long as the text is a userspace draft (as it is now), you will get more time to work on it than if it had been in the main article space. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that this issue has led to a legal threat from Rondathewiseone - one that appears to be made mainly out of frustration than serious intent, but I am alerting you as an admin per WP:NLT. I42 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vigilance. As you have pointed out, the threat probably isn't meant in earnest, so I've attempted this "soft landing". Favonian (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I42 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...
Hi Favonian. I just stumbled across Special:Undelete/Sofia_Wilen, which you deleted. Hope you don't mind me pointing out that you made a mistake there, the article was blanked by another user after creation as a redirect, so it was no A3. I'm not asking you to restore the redirect but remember to always check whether a page can be speedy deleted in any of its versions; otherwise vandals may successfully get you to delete valid entries they vandalized and then tagged. Regards  So Why  19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my, how embarrassing—especially since I have on several occasions reminded other editors not to commit that error. Serves me right, and thank you for pointing it out. Favonian (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

apologies for the external links
apologies about the external links for physical exercise, was not familiar with the guidelines and thought I could provide people with more information on the topic.

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.159.238 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. Wikipedia and all its policies, guidelines etc. is a very confusing place.  Hope you decide to stay in spite of this somewhat bumpy start.  Favonian (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

request for undelete
Please undelete the IMEKO page edited by me. The document used for detecting a (in my opinion false) copyright infringement was in fact a document published by our Secretary General. Of course, some sentences are similar, but this is official material of IMEKO. Thanks. im-in-o 15:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You already have a previously undeleted version at User:Information officer/IMEKO which you should work on. Regarding the copyright issue you should have a look at WP:IOWN.  The biggest issue, however, is that the article did not assert notability of the organization.  The only references were to the organization itself, but you need to provide the article with reliable, independent, secondary sources. This and more was explained to you by Elen of the Roads at User talk:Information officer, and you might want to read that message one more time.  Favonian (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2011

92.12.206.8
Regarding this, please could you just block this IP as a block evading sockpuppet, see Administrators' noticeboard for details. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked for a month, which seems to be the standard for various incarnations of this waste of time and space. Favonian (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:65.254.5.78 is vandalizing again. Please re-block - for a nice long time.....
Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ One month this time. The pricking of my thumbs tells me they'll be back. Favonian (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx
... for this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most welcome. Don't forget to update your counter :)  Favonian (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the counter... maybe tomorrow :-) DVdm (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Magnus Eikrem
Hmmm, I tend not to believe the Sun, but I've seen an announcement on Molde's website saying that Eikrem has joined. No specific details from either club yet though. – PeeJay 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of Norwegian sources confirming it, but I understand your reluctance to believe The Sun. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Leakingisgood
- what's with this guy? Copies an Administrator's userpage to his (reverted), makes this edit claiming millions of French and American losses in the Iran-Iraq war (which I'll revert when I finish this), Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I should feel gratified! He copied my user page once more, which I had to revert with much regret.  Having been warned for the Iran–Iraq War thing, he'll likely be indef'ed should further problems arise.  Favonian (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

IPs removing shared IP notices
Hello! As far as I know, you've reverted and blocked IPs for removing shared IP notices from their talk page. Do you think this is a valid reason to block someone? If yes, then why? I'm wondering this, especially since they're apparently only doing so on their own talk page. Hey Mid  (contribs) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I reckon you are thinking of . Removing the shared IP notices violates WP:BLANKING, a fact which I reminded the IP of twice, with no result.  This is clearly disruptive, and as the IP is not exactly in good standing, I saw no alternative to a short block.  Favonian (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

JFK Autopsy Photograph
The JFK autopsy photograph depicting only a small bullet hole in the rear of his head is a fake and controversial. The drawing does not match up with the wound as described by the Parkland hospital medical staff. It also does not match up with the supposed X-rays of Kennedy's head wound. I've repeatably added the word 'fake' to reflect these facts. I would strongly suggest the photograph be removed. 90.197.138.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
 * The image may be controversial, but claiming it as a fake is even more so and hardly reflects a consensus. To make such a drastic change, you definitely have to take it to the talk page, though you should probably check its archives, as I suspect that the issue has been discussed before.  I do apologize the use of the word "vandalism" in the templated warning.  It is not the correct label, though I maintain that reverting your edits were correct.  Favonian (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of a discussion regarding you
I wanted to let you know someone had brought you up at the editor assistance page. It doesn't seem you were made aware of this discussion, so wanted to make sure you are. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. I'll join the discussion.  Favonian (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Block retraction
Hi, are you aware that the  tags that you added  are ignored? Try using. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. Will try to see if the other trick works on a subst'ed template.  Favonian (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Orange
Thank you SO MUCH for restricting edits on this page. I've always wanted to do some work on it and turn it into a great page, but it's really discouraging to do hours of work and have some fool erase it, or see an article with all kinds of nonsense popping up in it. I hope to see this page with the "FA" label someday :) Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, and you might hear from me if there is further nonsense. Apollo (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome! I'm just glad to see that there are still editors who have time and stamina for real content work. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy of page deleted
Darrendenzel (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Can you send me back a copy of the page you deleted yesterday? I meant to come back and complete it, I didn't think you would be so quick. I've tried editing since and it keeps getting deleted.


 * I have done what we call "userfying" it, meaning that a copy of the original draft is now at User:Darrendenzel/Daisy Head, where you can edit it in (relative) peace from the dread WikiPolice. When you think it is good and ready, you can move it into the proper location.  Favonian (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

John V. Saykanic
Why was page for John V. Saykanic deleted?→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawline (talk • contribs) 18:28, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * It was about the same guy as the article deleted according to Articles for deletion/John Vincent Saykanic. The present article was shorter, but that did not make him any more notable.  Favonian (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much
AndrewHowse (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any time. Wonder whose little sock that was.  Favonian (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

assassination of John F. Kennedy article
Please help. The article "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" has been deliberately vandalized with the addition of the name "Phillip J Howser". Can you please find someone to fix and protect the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.63.137 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Routine IP vandalism. Looks like it's been handled by other editors, but thanks for keeping an eye out for it.  Favonian (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

212.13.86.194
Regarding this, please could you just block this IP as a block evading sockpuppet of User:Eddie1kanobi. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ One week with the possibility for escalation if they resume. Favonian (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam
Thanks for removing Amy Adams from List of converts to Islam because it has no verify source. But Amy Adams has converted to Islam without occured in any news. --Nestor1010 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather unusual for a person of her profession and notability to take such a step unnoticed by the media. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV
--  role player 12:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

D. c. weber again once more
Hi Favonian, it looks like our user has returned with more of the same, but  this time as an anon IP. I have reverted,  mentioning User talk:D c weber in the edit summary, and left a short message on the article talk page. Sigh. DVdm (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Peace and quiet was too much to hope for. I've left a note/warning on the IP's talk page.  Patience is wearing thin.  Favonian (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

79.69.235.235
vandalism only. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've warned them. The vandalism wasn't outrageous enough to merit a direct block.  Favonian (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the speedy response at SPI, and sorry for mucking up the report. My second cup of coffee is not kicking in. Regards, P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. The guy was a blot on the honor of my country.   With regard to "mucking", let's call it even since you had to correct my typo. Favonian (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting my page. I can't imagine what set that dude off, as I'm operating at a rather low level of late. Again, I am much obliged! Jusdafax  15:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sock drawers have long memories. Maybe this was the deed that called for retribution.  Anyway, you're welcome—and I'm glad to see that you are still around! Favonian (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IP:70.61.219.36 is at it again...
Hello there,

The user of IP 70.61.219.36 is at destructive edits again (currently, the article Leprosy was where I found his new "contribution," although it was minor,) and he was blocked by you earlier. If possible, please take the appropriate steps.

Regards GoldFish 62.194.123.97 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vigilance. It was four days ago and as you say, not the gravest of vandalisms.  I've warned them, and if they persist then a longer block will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism in western Orissa and Koshal State Movement page
User Pattanayaksp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pattanayaksp) is repeatedly vandalizing the western Orissa and Koshal State Movement page. Please do the needful. Skarmee (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no specific knowledge about this subject area, and all I can see is a content dispute which has escalated into an edit war. If I were to intervene, it would be by imposing full protection on the articles for a short period of time—very likely freezing them on The Wrong Version.  Since you probably don't want that, I would suggest that you pursue the other means of dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reporting recurrent vandalism of ("the eggnog hunter")
Dear Favonian, I'd like to report that the aforementioned user continues to vandalise and delete links to eggnog (quite a fetish, indeed) after expiry of his block; so I've thought that it would be beneficial to block him for a longer period. Extremal regards from the mathematical faculty of the university in Toruń (pl)! 89.229.27.71 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vigilance, esteemed colleague! That is indeed a serious contestant for the title of Weirdest Wikipedia Vandal.  Regrettably, s/he hasn't edited in more than a month, so it would be against accepted wisdom to block, but if I see more of this in the future, a very long block will be forthcoming.  Favonian (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

disruptive editing
Hi can you help me with what to do, the content that is being removed for Michael Yon is not correct and is done so as a personal attack on Mr. Yon. Request information on how to block people from posting information that is questionable at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John1964H (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late answer. It looks like you learned the hard way what happens if you repeatedly remove text from an article.  I can only repeat the advise already given by another admin: bring the issue to the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

99.63.26.63 again
And yes, as was somehow to be expected from BadCat IP, here we go again... I have reverted the edit. I don't think that another talk page last-warning is needed? DVdm (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Sent off for three months, which is nearly as long as it took me to execute the block. Either Wikipedia or my connections is incredibly slow. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here. Cheers and thx. DVdm (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wittenberg
Hi, User:Leckdiemuschi is a sock of User:Jochen Schmidt. Just so you know. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ach so!, as they might say in Wittenberg. I've tagged it and will keep an eye out for more instances of this peculiar obsession.  Pretty easy to recognize. Favonian (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it's the older sockmaster User:Schwimmen81 who's behind the Jochen Schmidt socks as well - not sure it really matters, though, as long as they are RBId on sight. --bonadea contributions talk 21:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like him alright. What a mind-numbingly repetitive vandal.  I'll rebrand the Jochen Schmidt crowd in a little while.  Favonian (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks man
Thanks for deleting the user dantherocker1. He's pretending to be me. I hate him so much. anyway thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantherocker2 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If he's an imposter, whose username was created before yours, why does your userpage say, "My last two accounts (dantherocker1, PeeOnFavorian) got banned for vandalism"? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! I live for those moments. Thanks for blocking them before they made a bigger lie of their username. Favonian (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:David Gold, Baron Gold
Please speedyy close the RM. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've closed it since it's clearly just a local manifestation of a general dispute, belonging at WT:TITLE or WT:NCPEER. I have no opinion in this matter, but I'll probably get some flak for this decision.  Favonian (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Talk:Sue Nye please. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that one I'll let run its course. Unlike its predecessor, this one is the call to reinstate a possibly legit, but undiscussed page move of an established article.  Looks like it'll pass in any case, and there's no cause for speeding it along.  My secret agenda, though, is that I don't want anyone to think that I'm sucking up to Jimbo. Favonian (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Flak you expected... Your justification is, "This is a discussion about general naming principles, not about this specific article."...  that's not correct.  It's a proposal based on explaining how general naming principles indicate a different title that necessarily must refer to general naming principles in order to explain that.  This is a very typical (and arguably preferable) manner in which to make a move proposal. Also, since guidelines are supposed to largely reflect "bottom-up" what occurs at the article level rather than dictate "top-down", closing a proposal because it's a dispute about the relevance or applicability of a guideline is nonsensical.  Guidelines often change because decisions at individual articles indicates consensus has changed.  If that consensus is not allowed to be expressed (e.g., by prematurely closing discussions), then change like that is stifled.  Please revert your premature (2 days) close.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my decision. You seem to have a general problem with the naming of articles of this kind, in which case the natural forum is the talk page for the relevant naming convention.  The consensus was quite clear, not just regarding the naming, but also the appropriateness of this particular requested move. Favonian (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the premature closing of the WP:RM discussion about David Gold. The thread is Premature close of RM proposal.The discussion is about the topic David Gold, Baron Gold. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I chose the wrong (or maybe right) day to go to bed early. The ANI thread has now been marked as closed after much drama.  No earthly good will come of reopening it.  A sobering experience all together. Favonian (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Favonian
This user is trying to block the truth about Toyota. Why would you edit the truth out of a wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.166.173 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "truth" is entirely without reliable sources to back it. Furthermore, an edit like this rather tends to reduce my belief in your good intentions. Favonian (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GR:EEN page delete
To whom it may concern,

The wiki page 'GR:EEN- Europe's role in the Emerging Global Order' was recently deleted due to copyright issues. I would like to request that the page is reinstated as I own the text which has been written on both the Wikipedia page and the website it links to. The text on the website is temporary whilst the full website is being designed. As soon as the new website is designed and live, the text will be re-written and updated. I hope that this no longer constitutes a copyright infringement.

Kind wishes and thanks for your time.

LauraDowney (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's not that easy. In order to make copyrighted material available on Wikipedia, you need to jump through the hoops described in WP:IOWN. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Shia Islam
Hello, I noticed you semi-protected Shia Islam article. I was just looking at the section that was tagged with NPOV, i.e. "Origin of Shias". I went over the talk page and saw two people talking about this section. I could not find the sentences people finding to be biased. I guess someone already removed them. I wonder if we can now remove the tag. Thanks. Feb 07 2011 Kazemita1 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have a point. As far as I am concerned, you can remove the tag and leave a note in the relevant section of the talk page, but there is of course no guarantee that others won't object.  This is a notoriously contentious area, as I'm sure you know.  The semi-protection expires tomorrow, but you should not be affected by it anyway. Favonian (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ugh, thanks
Thanks for helping with these reverts. I handled a batch of them, but my process takes quite a few clicks and commands (open in new tab, rollback, paste common text, unwatch page, close tab). tedder (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. You might want to copy the script found at the end of User:Favonian/vector.js.  Comes in really handy in situations like this.  Favonian (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha! I like. tedder (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hello, please take a look at this. I can`t manage to remove that sentence at the beginning of the article. Can you please remove it? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Turns out it was the transcluded template C20 year in topic that had been vandalized. Thanks for spotting it. Favonian (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Np. Thank you. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I didn't know how to do this. :) -- JN 466  14:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Love that king of gnomish work.  Thanks for your work on adding real contents (as opposed to templates) to the article.  I assume that you concur with my "promotion" of the article from stub to start.  Favonian (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a start. Thanks for looking in. -- JN 466  14:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you a crusader?
Please don't mind the subject headline but why do you keep mentioning Rama as a mythological king AT THE START of the page on him? If you want to highlight his mythological being, then you can add a new topic on the contents like 'Rama: Real or Myth'. Look at the page on Christ or page on Allah - they don't start out saying they are mythological but only question their being real later on at the page. Rama is for Hindus, what Christ is for Christians. So, please show some 'wiki ethics'. I'm Atheist, FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britsin (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Come off your high horse, will you? I have no idea what you mean by "crusader", but I'm pretty certain I don't fit that description. Comparing Rama to Allah is non sequitur, as the latter is not supposed to have ever existed as a physical human being. As for Jesus, the opening paragraphs are very guarded in their claims regarding his life. Be that as it may, if you insist on claiming that Rama was a real king, go in peace; I have no intention of engaging in an edit war on that subject.  Favonian (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry? I never insisted that Rama was real. All I wanted was that same ethics be applied while editing Rama's page as are on other major religious figures' pages. I thought you might be vandalizing, but then I found out you're a pretty decorated administrator on here and a slasher of vandalizing itself!! Cheers, Captain Favonian!

Reporting of possible sockpuppet.
Hello,

I've reported on WP:AIV because I've noted that it may be a sockpuppet of  (report) due to the MO of awkward, commentary, and vanity edit the user did. I can report this user to the two admins who blocked AshleyBird1's alternate accounts, but they're both out right now. So can you help me on this user? Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's her alright, but Materialscientist was faster with the ban hammer. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to say that. Anyway, can I add the current name to the lists in the investigation archive or no? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother. At this stage, her socks are handled according to WP:RBI.  I've tagged the account so it appears in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AshleyBird1, in case anyone cares about the bookkeeping. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pure vandalism account
User:Lamontofbuckie. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  07:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * JohnCD has deleted the dubious article and left stern words on the author's talk page. If they return for more punishment, it will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemerle
Hi,

I see you deleted my IMPROVED version of Nermele article which I believe is a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G4

The new article was 5x times longer, and contained much more information. Please be more carefull with your del-trigger happy button — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukaszg (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello SPA. The version of yours that I deleted was a lot shorter than the original and contained no references.  At any rate, there is now a deletion review in progress, so trying to jump the gun by creating some new version of the article may well be counterproductive. Favonian (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, so how else can I stop vandals from deleting articles they 'don't like' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukaszg (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Item 1: study WP:Vandalism, before you accuse others of this offense, lest you end up having your editing privileges revoked. Item 2: the article was deleted because the author et al. failed to provide what Wikipedia considers reliable sources asserting the notability of this language.  Having dozens of friends sign in using single-purpose accounts or using anonymous IPs and make poorly argued statements mixed with personal attacks really doesn't help your cause. Favonian (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I worked with this language about 5 years ago. For people in the field Nemerle is without any doubt a relevant language, I do not understand how people get to erase "non obviously fake" articles on topics they do not understand. Which action should I take so the article comes back ? Rodrigob (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:DRV is where the action is. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Rodrigob (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please not try to delete those articles that you are not an expert in and when you can not judge whether they are relevant or not. Nemerle deserves presence in wikipedia by no means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.204.143 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Helle anonymous IP of unproven expertise. I am actually bit of an expert on the subject of programming languages, having worked in this area for several decades both academically and commercially. In this particular case, however, it was not a matter of expertise in the subject matter, but of knowing the criteria for speedy deletion as described in WP:CSD, in particular criterion G4. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the vandalism on my user page from its edit history. As a newly-minted admin, I was about to do it myself, but I don't know the right clicks yet. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. You will have ample opportunity to practice your moves.  Favonian (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it seems you are correct. I took the liberty of deleting the revisions by this latest IP vandal to both my user page and User:Joe Decker's. That tool seems easy enough! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting vandal edits
It's obvious that User:Picture Perfect Prince is the latest sock of LouisPhilippeCharles. When the sock is blocked, please also revert his edits (as well as User:Picture Perfect Prince/Sandbox). Once he realizes that his edits won't stick no matter how many socks he uses or how acceptable the edits would otherwise be if he weren't indefinitely blocked, eventually he'll stop coming back. FactStraight (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty convincing, but I would ask you to reopen the sockpuppet investigation. We are getting to the point where a topic ban is called for, and though I've never been involved in one of those discussions, I think some "paper trail" is in order.  For the same reason, I'm reluctant to just bulk-revert (and delete) the latest efforts of LPC, as this would normally be a step taken against banned users.  I have used it against the IP socks, but in my view there is a difference, especially since this involves article creation and picture upload. Favonian (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This was so obviously a repeat of a previously reverted IP sock that I used it as the "smoking gun" to block PPP. I'll be out of town tomorrow, but when I return we should start a ban proposal. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Favonian, I think I unintentionally made an error in filing this sockpuppetry complaint that may be in need of correction. Although, like LouisPhilippeCharles, Peaceingalaxy has predominantly edited bios of historical royalty and articles on royal tombs, I now suspect that I included him as a suspected sock of LouisPhilippeCharles prematurely. Based on the finding that Peaceingalaxy's IP apparently does not jibe as do the other socks, and the fact that s/he has protested being blocked by fully and coherently engaging in talk page discussion (whereas LouisPhilippeCharles engages minimally and cryptically, if at all, on talk pages), I fear that I have done an injustice with my accusation. In dealing with LouisPhilippeCharles's many socks over the years it has always been fairly easy to identify his pattern of edits. However, I made an error once before, publicly retracted my accusation, and apologised. I think Peaceingalaxy may be another instance (if not, future edits will vindicate my original assessment). If so, I ask his pardon and yours, and request that appropriate corrective action be taken. I understand better now why you requested me to document the case more fully before being willing to intervene. In trying to manage the ongoing problem, I promise to be more careful in future. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet.
AshleyBird1 is back with another sock:. I had just reported her to WP:AIV right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanami Kamimura (talk • contribs) 11:29, February 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But is it possible to find the IPs from which she used to create this and the previous one and block those as well? Or will that be hard? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible for the CheckUsers, who may be persuaded to identify and block the underlying IP(s) in connection with a sockpuppet investigation. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know any more checkusers myself. So for the meantime, I might leave a note to HelloAnnyong and Avraham, the two admins who took action against her sockpuppetry, and inform them about her activities. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea
While you were tinkering with PNG, if you had checked page history you would have seen that user Stephen G Brown had violated 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.180.23 (talk) 11:16, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, since he was defending the article against an IP-jumper, who persistently violated WP:ENGVAR. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Buses
Why not add list of buses?--85.12.88.17 (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your question has by now been answered at great length by various editors and administrators, and you have been blocked one more time. It's unlikely that I will be the one who makes you see the light. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

first edit back...
Hi, you blocked this account for twenty four hours, first edit back form the block makes the same edit again here I suggest an extension - Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, Its been taken care of - User:Closedmouth  blocked User:Rajupatnaik  with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (WP:Vandalism-only account) - regards Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And the socks are out in force. Such dedication. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Deal with the Devil
It seems you made a new friend. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... my mistake. Apparently, you've been acquainted for some time. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for unearthing that one. I had quite forgotten about it.  At least I'm not the sole focus of his affection.  Favonian (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editor back?
User talk:Tfeaster seems to be back as. do you agree? Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's the same. Blocked for a week. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

95.132.150.84
Thank you for blocking! Mrh30 (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. A steady customer, thought it's unclear what they expect to achieve. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian misinformation vandal back again...
Hello.

The Indonesian misninformation vandal has returned right this minute. This time, he used the address. Probably, the rangeblock on the 118.137.0.0/17 has now expired and is now taking advantage. Need your action ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Another six months. Favonian (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, I've also submitted the three Little League articles the he frequently vandalizes at WP:RFPP. BTW, he did his vandalism yesterday using . Also, two other articles he frequently vandalizes are Children's programming on NBC and Pokémon (anime). The problem: Semi-protection for the former is possible because he is the only one who touches that article, but the edits are days apart. For the latter, there are also many other IPs either vandalizing or making good edits to that article. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Article
Could you delete Abdulrahman Al-Shoaibi then? Cheers. Crystal Linux Talk to Crystal Linux...  19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry for the nomination, but BLP articles absolutely must have reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the revert! And good block, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Some decisions are easier than others. Favonian (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Clock tower
Oh, sorry. I meant to put it on November 12 and put the year 1955. Next time, I'll be more realistic in that case. --Eklxtreme (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't put it in any date or year related article. They are for the real world.  Favonian (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

lol :D Eklxtreme (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible sleeper
Hello Favonian. I saw you block of the IP from Florida for 3rr on the Walter Raleigh article. I just wanted to make you aware of a possible sleeper here Special:Contributions/Nolancarey who is suddenly editing again making the same edit. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thought did cross my mind, so I hardened the block on the IP, just in case there is a connection there. Probably to no avail, as another admin blocked Nolancarey directly. Favonian (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this. It is appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the mop is for. Meanwhile, the issue has transmutated into yet another shouting contest between two of Wikipedia's most faithful antagonists.  Think I'll go to bed early.  Favonian (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch
please semi-protect 6 months. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Though there have been three attacks by two IPs today, the general level of vandalism is not high enough for me to protect the article. I have it on my watch list. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please roast 64.30.14.50 Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Favonian (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Volker.haas
Could you please refrain from editing pages in my user space. I am a developer of the book tool and I am using my user pages for debugging purposes. Thanks 217.86.167.205 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please log in when you edit pages in your user space? When an anonymous IP removes large portions of a page in a named user's space, it looks too much like vandalism. Favonian (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why vandalism?
HI Favonian, I have added some wiki links internal to Princess Bee page and they have been reverted as vandalism? Please could you explain why? I have also added some link to external third party sources as requested, but they have been deleted..can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abduld99 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was overly hasty in at least one of my reverts, but the major damage was incurred when a bot reverted a number of your edits because you added some inadmissible external links. Have a look at WP:EL and then re-add the proper references, but avoid the external links. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

James Son Thomas
Sorry for my english, I'm an italian blues fan I modify surname. I hope that's OK. The bibliography / sources I wrote : it isn't SPAM (I think), it's the source for the imformation about James Son Thomas. I don't understand the reason why all that is cancelled. If you can help me to put them in. Thanks in advance LUCIOBLUES — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUCIOBLUES (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian IPs vandalizing (just a heads up, etc.)
Hello. This is unrelated to the Indonesian misinformation vandal, but I've also been scouting out on a bunch of Russia-based addresses in the 92.100.128.0/17 and the 91.122.80.0/20 ranges, possibly used by a single person. This is because although the edits are sporadic, most are a problem, involving an MO of putting "anime" hoaxes and other misinformation and "connections" to the Philippine cartoon, Super Inggo at ang Super Tropa, as well as adding unsourced information and categories on other unrelated anime articles and several others. I've forwarded the list of addresses he used for at least the last four months to three other admins, two of them already having a say (and are hesitant for a block due to the valid minor and major edits he also made). I've posted the list of addresses and the matter on WP:AN/I to see what other admins think. I invite you to have your say there so as not to clog up here. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you delete some reliable sources
Reliable sources.

See:


 * Cambridge Encyclopedia. Cesare Borgia. Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
 * Encyclopædia Britannica. Borgia, Cesare. Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
 * World Book Encyclopedia. Borgia, Cesare. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. Paul F. Grendler, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of History, University of Toronto.

Attention. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Refspammer
Thanks for blocking that IP user who was persistently adding 'references' to statistics articles without editing the article body. I'd got to the point of realising it would probably need admin intervention without being sure where to raise it, so I'm glad you spotted it. Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They certainly got plenty of opportunities to avoid the block, but if they insist. Favonian (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: somewhat inaccurate edit summary
Yeah, I forgot I changed something before the study I challenged.NapoleonX (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Goofy goth
Thank you for taking care of blocking this user. You accomplished the deed before I had the opportunity to figure out how to report the guy. Trackinfo (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had my beady little eyes fixed on him since his previous round of vandalism.  Favonian (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)