User talk:Favonian/Archive 21

I think you undid a vandalism removal
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you undid a removal of vandalism (even if it was by the person who was mass reverting) on Template:Galatasaray S.K. sections. I've undone your undo as such (using the AGF rollback link), but feel free to undo me if you meant to do that. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That may well be. I mass reverted an IP jumping troll, and admittedly didn't check the details.  Thanks for being more careful than me. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 22:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again
Hi Favonian, Thanks again for keeping an eye on things and the reversion you did on my talk page. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 22:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. That guy seriously needs to get a life. Favonian (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll get no argument from me mate. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 23:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please go through w/o v vara prasad articles discussion page
and talk - I did not do any disruptive edits (Vensatry234 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).


 * You may not remove the AfD tag. State your case regarding the notability of the article at Articles for deletion/W/O V.Varaprasad. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but what is ur problem??? admin did nto post the article for deletion template
(Vensatry234 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).
 * Answered on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have stated my case about the Non sense created by you and other user A directors filmography is notable by itself. so i think this clears ur amateurish knowldge in removing the template about article for deletion

I cant understand why editors like u are entertained

(Vensatry234 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).

now what u do is - go through the below ABC's of wikipedia below
Articles for deletion/W/O V.Varaprasad

and take this issue to the concerned person and make sure, u remove the template as soon as possible wasting valuable time of editors here

(Vensatry234 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).


 * Such discussions usually run for a week. Meanwhile, I would strongly suggest that you stop yelling at people who disagree with you. We have rules regarding personal attacks and incivility. Favonian (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Intriguing. Thanks for the star, be it ever so mysterious. Favonian (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya-related disruption...
Thanks for nabbing one of the IPs spamming my talkpage. This is the same guy that started harassing me some months ago on my userpage (leading to its semi-protection) after my reversions of his disruption on the WikiProject Libya page. He uses dynamic IPs, which makes him hard to pin down. Hopefully he gets bored of this soon.

In addition, there is an IP trolling away at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war in violation of WP:TPG and in spite of being warned not to. A block would be welcomed by the productive editors of the page, if you believe it warranted. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. The new IP has been inactive for several hours now, so he may have moved on. I have reverted his recent outburst and will monitor the situation. Favonian (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me a hand with something?
Could you please, please, please immediately "unprotect" Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia so that me and Andrew Lancaster can go in and edit it? Yes, I have left messages on the talk page of the protecting admin, but he hasn't responded as he is on a prolonged vacation. Doing this would harmonize and bring up-to-date all of the articles on South Asian population genetics, so that everybody has freely available and accurate info. Muchas, muchas gracias.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like Fastily took care of it. Favonian (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi Favonian, noticed you were on and was hoping I could get a second opinion about something. This is not actionable, right? – Lionel (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The particular section of your talk page is not, IMO, actionable. I haven't ploughed through the humongous MfD, but I did notice your use of the word "lying" about your opponent and that is something you should probably refrain from repeating.  Enjoy your victory, and don't prolong the battle. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films based on the works of Karen Blixen
Category:Films based on the works of Karen Blixen, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films based on the works of Knut Hamsun
Category:Films based on the works of Knut Hamsun, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films based on the works of Arturo Pérez-Reverte
Category:Films based on the works of Arturo Pérez-Reverte, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello Favonian. I just noticed that this user is a vandal, please do something: Mega Mom 2: MLBP????


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wetsoap
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.201.36.225
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.106.133.82
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.69.4.64

Look at his/her contributions. -.- ... I think it's the same person. --Hydao (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wetsoap has been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist, and 112.201.36.225 is auto-blocked. I'll keep an eye on 124.106.133.82 for the next day or so, but 58.69.4.64's edits are stale. Favonian (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That creature just created two more accounts. Check my talk page history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydao&action=history ... Gokutm, Lazybumww. ugh, lol, weirdo. --Hydao (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: User tries to impose his own rules and persistently deletes people' contributions
Hi, I m not sure what do you mean by Dispute Resolution here. Those 2 users are just ignoring the Wiki rules and impose their own. They pretend they dont know the difference between primary and secondary sources and claim that the references for the contributions, they dont like personally, all "non-reputable" (primary) sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1344 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The process is described at WP:Dispute resolution. For a while, you and your opponents were engaged in an edit war, reverting each other over the appropriateness of a certain reference. Hopefully, this has stopped, but if it resumes, the page will be protected from editing and/or blocks will be issued.  I don't wish to become personally involved in the dispute, but I'll encourage you to study the various policies and guidelines, both regarding sources and general behavior. For instance, using the word "vandalizing" as you did in  is not acceptable.  As described in WP:Vandalism, the word has a very well-defined meaning on Wikipedia, and it should not be used lightly. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Arora
A courtesy note, since you semi-PP'd Arora. I have decided to take this one on board after tinkering with it some time ago. It is a mess, mostly of puffery/OR/SYNTH etc. I have ripped into it a little over the last few hours but my intention is to build it up once the obvious unencyclopedic/non-compliant stuff is removed. I have added a fair few requests already and will need to give people time to respond, but hopefully it will all be worth it in the end. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort in bringing that article up to Wikipedia standard. Much appreciated!  Looking at the edit history, I rather doubt that it will ever be able to survive without protection, but that can be arranged. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

thank you
For locking down the Statue of Liberty you have been awarded the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Display it with pride, or throw it away, but if you do the latter, please recycle. EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Gee thanks :) I like to think that I struck a blow for Liberty. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Vandal IP 86.184.74.98
Hi. I am sorry for having entered the same message at WP:ANI re the above vandal IP. By the time I compiled and copies and pasted my complaint I got several edit conflict messages, and I wasn't even sure the message had been posted properly. Not intentional spamming, I assure you. Yours, Quis separabit?  13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for reporting the miscreant. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing a CfD?
If I put a category up for discussion, with the suggestion that it be merged, can I now withdraw that nomination? Specifically, I had suggested that Category:Irish American organized crime be merged with Category:Irish mob. I now realize this would be a mistake, and intend to suggest that the latter category be deleted. Today, just to be clear, I emptied the latter category (all of the articles in the category were already listed under more specific subcats). All of this is part of attempting to sort out the over-categorization of Irish Mob-related articles. Thanks for any assistance or advice you can provide. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can withdraw the nomination. As the only !vote so far opposes the merge, the proposal will likely be closed speedily. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason to wait to nominate Category:Irish mob for deletion? And, if I do so, am I going to catch hell from other editors for depopulating the cat?  Would you be comfortable speedy closing that debate now? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia—catching hell is part of the experience :-| You might consider the WP:CSD criterion for speedy deletion, though.  I don't know how to check the population history of a category, but if it is allowed to remain empty for four days without you being roasted on an infernal BBQ, then it should disappear. And sure, I can close the CfD if you state your withdrawal of the nomination. Favonian (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Two years or so ago, I depopulated a category, believing I was doing right, nominated the empty cat. for deletion, and then took a shotgun blast to the face.  This situation is quite a bit different, though, as all the articles in this case had an appropriate subcat.  But, here I go, and hope for the best.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * CfD closed. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty
Since it is TFA, care to unprotect it for the day...as is standard procedure. I also put in a request at RPP due to the timeliness. C T J F 8 3 09:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, albeit grudgingly, but since it's SOP... Favonian (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I regret it as the principal author, but it is the policy. Actually I was hoping no one would notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to now?
Hi Favonian, I'm looking for a bit of advice. I've become a little involved in editing an article Australian Christian Lobby which probably has some issues. There are two editors involved and. The latter hasn't responded to any attempts to discuss the article placed by Freikorp or myself. Freikorp tried to trigger a peer review to look at the article as he himself has some concerns about the neutrality of the article and the quality of some of the references used, although the reviewing editor pointed out that this wasn't the correct forum.

Can you advise us where to go or what to do now, the article needs some attention, but both Freikorp and I are concerned about getting into an edit war given that sam56mas isn't willing to enter into discussion? Surely there's a better way to go about it than just doing the edits and dealing with it once the war has kicked off so to speak. Any advice would be much appreciated. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 11:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * After some deliberation, I have left a stern warning at User talk:Sam56mas. I'll try to monitor the situation.  Favonian (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jurors of the International Chopin Competition
Hello! The category was nominated for deletion - Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 27. I think that the List and the Category could coexist, because the Category is useful per se. Could you please take a look? Thanks, Semimartingale (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Need Specialist Help
Hey Favonian,

How do you create a personalised User Box?

MYGAMEUPLAY (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 11:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wanna play the "block the sock" game?
Hi Favonian, wanna play "block the sock"? User_talk:You_morron (sock of the recent blocked (by you) User_talk:You morrrron) Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124;  TK/CN  18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, my favorite pastime, closely related to Whac-A-Mole. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LoL! Well, looks like you won! Though, I don't know what the prize is, other than a "thanks for your diligence and hard work!" Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  18:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, I just to it for the greater glory of Jimbo and the five pillars ;) Favonian (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

166.127.1.220 is back
Hi, I notice on their talk page that you once blocked this user for 1 year. They recently made a border-line vandalistic edit. It was certainly nonsensical, and could only be made with intent to harm. It followed persistent vandalism from another IP (coincidence?). Their recent contributions certainly seem a constant stream of vandalism. Maybe you could have a look at blocking them once more. Thanks. WillNess (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing constructive from that school since expiration of the previous block, so they are now in Wiki-recess for another year. Favonian (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Chuckyreyna
My user and talk pages, among others, were hijacked by the vandal. I think I have everything cleared up, but may not have. Calabe1992 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like they have both been returned to normal. Favonian (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going through their other contribs here, seeing what else they've done. Calabe1992 (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't think to ask; could you put the move protection on my talk page as well? Calabe1992 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of doing that, and now I've actually done it. Favonian (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Calabe1992 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

James Cameron
I'd like to point out that the article does not support the claim that he's an atheist. --CatholicW (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jules Verne
Verne Swedish Titles:

1) According to Wikipedia, Verne is the second most translated author of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Translationum 2) Naturally, he has many translations in Swedish which, of course, means that he did not write in Swedish. The website listed below is an example http://www.jules-verne.dk/  (look under Swedish Titles) 3) The first DATED book ever authored by Jules Verne was published in Swedish in 1863 Ref. Truescans.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Verne Swedish Titles:

1) According to Wikipedia, Verne is the second most translated author of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Translationum 2) Many of these translations are in Swedish, transcribed from the French which they originally were written in. The following website gives a history of many of these Swedish translations: http://www.jules-verne.dk/  (look under Swedish Titles) 3) What is under discussion here is Verne's first book: Five Weeks in a Balloon, or Cinq semaines en ballon.  In 1862 Verne was said to have been in Stockholm, Sweden, the very place where his Swedish translation of the book, entitled, En Luftballongsresa Genom Afrika  was published (in Swedish) and dated 1863.  Had Verne arrived there with his original French manuscript intact, it's very possible that this book may have been translated into Swedish and then published in Sweden before it became published in France.  Bear in mind that there is no dating to the French first edition, so circa 1863 is the convention which has been applied Hence, the first DATED book ever authored by Jules Verne was published in Swedish in 1863.  Scans of this publication and dating are available at truescans.com/Verne-1.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.237.221 (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

user:Iaaasi
Hi, I would like to ask if you had any communication with the banned user:Iaaasi in email, IRC or otherwise? I was looking into some of his edits and something feels off. He has an exceptionally long history of contacting editors and admins, trying to make off wiki requests towards them even though he is banned etc. So I was wondering if he contacted you to request a few things done on-wiki or for any other reason? Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there has been no off-wiki contact between us. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's quite welcome news. He contacted a huge number of editors during the past year as well as a presence on IRC, constantly trying to influence on wiki things. Hobartimus (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than fiction: proven yet again
Drmies (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's – amazing :) Guess we owe a thanks to the golf-happy sockpuppet pair. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. You know how hard it was for me not to write "ironically" in an encyclopedic article? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I might have succumbed to that temptation. Favonian (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but
He's the one abusing his power, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.195.118 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maria Skłodowska-Curie
The Polish Wikipedia, Polish encyclopedias (e.g., Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN and Encyklopedia Polski), Norman Davies' God's Playground, and Adam Zamoyski's The Polish Way all hyphenate "Skłodowska-Curie". Nihil novi (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh! Secondary sources trump original research one again. Favonian (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello 'Mathematian', 'Software Arctitect' & 'historian
I was just wondering if, (only if) ml.wikipedia.org could you some of your help. We need a temporary Steward and CheckUser. -- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the flattering offer, but my total ignorance of Malyalam would be an insurmountable obstacle. Favonian (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Help
Please visit this page and help me please.-- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have only been editing English-language Wikipedia for a couple of weeks, and that's not sufficient to evaluate your editing. Favonian (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlucky for some
is back with his nonsense in 13 (number). I am still slightly reluctant to use admin rights in a simple edit war. Are you willing to do something? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am reluctant to throw my mop around. Instead, I have decided that yours is the stronger case and have reverted Bennison's most recent addition of the contested material.  If he persists, we'll have to follow the long and winding road of WP:DR. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Salman aditya
Hi. I see you just deleted Salman aditya for CSD reason G4. However, I couldn't find any evidence of a previous deletion discussion and G4 is not applicable to articles previously deleted by CSD. In fact, I had just declined the G4 by removing the template and had commented on the Talk page when you deleted it. Did I miss the previous deletion discussion somewhere? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Afraid you did: Articles for deletion/Salman Aditya. The most recent version was no improvement over the one deleted through the AfD, so I sent it off. Favonian (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks - I'd checked the deletion long and found nothing, but hadn't spotted the different capitalisation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

64.134... ip
Hi. Why did you block that IP? He is clearly not a bot (see his self-revert on ) and he was doing a useful job, removing templates from where they most certainly don't belong. Colchicum (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I took my cue from this precedence. The same editor's previous endeavor resulted in talk page queries and a block without response, and it did look an awful lot like a bot. Because of this I deemed this strong measure necessary. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the edit summaries, it looked like was acting in pretty good faith removing those templates, and I for one would agree that "List of Russians" don't belong on individual people articles. I won't revert it for now in case consensus is against me, but just voicing things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will self-revert and unblock the IP, imploring them to get a named account. Favonian (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, a related TfD discussion has been started. Colchicum (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lennox Lewis
Hi, What made you think there was vandalism at Lennox Lewis that led to you protecting the page?--Jahalive (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a problem with a rather unpleasant editor, using IP addresses starting with 178, who's been haunting a number of boxing related articles pursuing a vendetta against another user. A temporary semi-protection of some of these articles seemed the best way to put a stop to this. Favonian (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a content dispute/edit war between the IP and Username7212345. You've labeled it vandalism and reverted to Username7212345's version. Doing that looks like you've endorsed Username7212345's actions, which were no better than the IP's.--Jahalive (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you miss this follow up or do you not intend to reply?--Jahalive (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Content dispute, maybe, but the IP had gotten into the habit of leaving edit summaries like at a rather grand scale, and this had to be stopped.  I realize that the opponent was also rather lacking in politeness, and he has been admonished by another admin.  After I protected the articles in question, it appears from  that a couple of range blocks were put in place to stop the IP from doing further damage.  The protection on the Lewis article expires tomorrow, so we'll see if the peace lasts. Favonian (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Chrome
Thank you for handling this one! - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. If it continues, we may have to protect the article. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that, he seems to have a dynamic IP address and too much persistence! - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * And people think we are unpaid volunteers. :) Thanks you! Favonian (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note re: SPI
I mentioned your name at the SPI here. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up! Interestingly,  is also mentioned in Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles. Favonian (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my word! This could get messy. I'll dig around the history of that article. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Request indefinite block of user 38.116.202.9
A week ago, you blocked this user for a week (and not for the first time). User has just come off block and has resumed vandalism immediately and exclusively, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cardigans&action=historysubmit&diff=460959496&oldid=460959488 where section header "First years: 1992–1995" is changed to "First years: Penis And Vagina".

Please block this user indefinitely. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because IP addresses change, we generally do not block IP addresses indefinitely. However, we can make very long blocks, like for several months.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand that this is the current, ill-advised practice, and I disagree with it. The slow and gentle treatment of these miscreants is a weakness of WP, and a frustration. I would request that the block be extended for whatever the maximum length can be. After all, such blocks can be appealed, yes? I would personally prefer if edit rights, at least in the main article space, were eliminated for all IP users. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The key word is "generally". Take a look at User:65.88.88.175. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Materialscientist has now blocked for a month. If there is a "next time" then it may well be for three months. Since this appears to be generalised, childish vandalism/disruption - rather than tendentious, POV stuff relating to a topic sphere - I reckon the chances are high that they'll just go away as the blocks extend. - Sitush (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are right about the type of vandalism; just hope you are right about their attention span. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The right to edit without creating an account is something of a holy cow around this place, but I tend to share the frustration expressed above. If it's any comfort, escalating blocks on IPs, especially those belonging to schools have now reached a length that must seem like an eternity to the little monsters delightful youngsters. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wagner
a thousand apologies, have already corrected. Your edit was over anothe redt which vandalised some parts of the article, i quite wrongly attributed these edits to you.--Smerus 13:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No harm done ;) These things happen.  Looks like the repeated link is still in place though, so I might just pop by and remove it. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! It as I was typing.  Cheers! Favonian (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

IP sock disrupting WP

 * 1) Master:
 * 2) IPsock:
 * Greetings! After you did some reverting of his nonsense, the user (who was blocked indefinitely for her/his persistent harassment/personal attack on another SysOp - Antandrus) is back creating more nonsense, methinks you might have to apply some hard knocks to prevent the user from further disrupting WP. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like my esteemed colleague, HelloAnnyong, has administered the remedy already. Favonian (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Do you believe that this is section blanking? -- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RE:Accounts are for one person only
Oh, what I meant was that she no longer uses this account, only I use this account, not both of us. BandOfColor (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)BandOfColor

Why you delete Salman Aditya page ?
I already talk to NativeForeigner before i recreate the page but there is no response from him. i think he/she maybe dead or something. here i provided new reliable sources of Salman Aditya. http://band-indie.com/salman-aditya.html

http://mixgalaxyrecords.com/releases/mixg013/

http://inmyroom.us/salmanaditya/

http://www.salamatahari.com/2011/11/life-is-just-game.html

http://www.hebdoblog.com/2010/07/17/salman-aditya-la-musique-electro-experimentale-8bits/

http://deathrockstar.info/salman-aditya/

http://consequenceofsound.net/2010/06/04/mp3-mixtape-friday-mixtape-cvi/

Achievements http://deathrockstar.info/drs-2010-mp3-download-collection-roundup/
 * Place 1 (First) in Indonesian music scene most download single 2010

warm regards Tommyvarcetti (Tommyvarcetti (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Flanders
Why did you undo my work ? The message said, there is no edit summary, but in page history i see it clearly. Now several mistakes in the text are re-enabled. 78.22.73.32 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You made very drastic changes, removing referenced statements in the process. It seems fairly obvious that you have a personal point of view in this matter, so disguising your intent behind a rather bland edit summary is disingenuous.  If you wish to pursue the matter, you should open a discussion on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Donot remove external links unless you know the subject
According to wiki external links guidelines, it encourages external links in articles as long as they are directly relevant to the subject in the main article. If you plan on deleting all external links directly from the main page whether or not you are a subject matter expert, then why have the provision on the first place? The whole point of having a open encyclopedia is defeated and clearly the motivation to include content which at times can better explain concepts is low. I think if you have questions on the external link, route it to subject matter experts or the original author of the content instead of blindly deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.227.57 (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello !
Your Introduction is so catchy "I'm a mathematician by education, a software architect by profession and an amateur historian when time allows" :)  - Subash  Chandran  007  ׀  sign!  18:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Shamsul Wares
Shamsul Wares is definitely a legendary teacher in Bangladesh. This wouldn't be possible, if he is not a notable person. --Rossi101 (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)User:Rossi101| Rossi101
 * On Facebook, anything is possible in the sense that there anyone may write anything with no check on validity or quality. In order for this person to merit a Wikipedia article, he needs to be notable.  Specifically, you need to study the relevant guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

St John Plessington Catholic College
Hello, I think St John Plessington Catholic College might need some updates including the school's logo and a few picturesalong with some more relevant information about the college. I'm a student of this school and I had a chat aboutthis with the school's management. They agreed to give me the copyright free images so do you mind in me updatingthat? I'm also asking a few more opinions in this task, hope you won't mind. I have also read this (Schools, Article_guidelines, What_not_to_include) so I hope I can proceed, or may I? If you have any concern about it them could you please contact me on my talk page. -- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Favonian: There's some divine intervention required here. I'm not familiar with the case except for a couple of socks, so I figured I'll bring this to you after a post on my tp too. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Took a while to dig through the archives, but it's him alright. Have submitted evidence and requested CU at Sockpuppet investigations/Divineabraham and blocked the latest sock per WP:DUCK. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looked like him, but I wasn't familiar enough to do a duck; did you see the new main page proposal? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, rather "inspired" by French Wikipedia as another editor pointed out. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered a "help" request as they were on my wtah list due to previous issues. As you left talk page access, I switched it to the main account. M Hope you don't mind. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just the way it should be. Thanks! If he makes an unblock request, he should be told about WP:OFFER.  Six sock-free months should be an absolute minimum.  Favonian (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vandal...
...is back, at 209.33.105.12. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and gone ;) Blocked for 6 months by an admin in a more convenient time zone. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Deletion
I nominated an article for deletion. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omair00 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea, I'm afraid. The correct procedure is to make a request at WP:Requested moves, which was also suggested in the message I posted to your talk page.  The AfD is bound to get closed, in fact I might do it. Favonian (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

new user indef block
Thanks for blocking User:USALady. But why indef? Don't new users that start out as vandals often reform after a block? Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Users like this one whose only contributions have been clear cases of vandalism are typically sent off indefinitely as "vandalism only accounts". In this case she had ample warnings, but according to WP:Blocking policy it can happen without prior warning.  I suspect that the person in question is rather immature, and if she improves with age, she'll be better off with a fresh start. Favonian (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your input on an unblock request
In March, you (quite correctly) blocked User:08murtaghkc for vandalism. The user is requesting to be unblocked, and states that they've realized their error. I was hoping you could give your input into the situation since you made the original block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to unblock him, that's OK with me. After all, Saint Jimbo teaches us to welcome a repentant sinner.  A travelers' advisory regarding the unhealthy climate of Papua New Guinea would probably be in order. Favonian (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead with it&mdash;they meet the standard offer criteria, and if they were bent on disruption, they could've always gone on a sock spree instead of asking nicely. So here's hoping. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia Vandalised
by User talk:194.83.24.17 after already receiving a final warning, can you sort out a block since i don't know how? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have a nice evening  J e n o v a  20 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You too, when your timezone gets around to it ;) When I'm not around to swing the ax, WP:AIV is the right place to report miscreants. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, i've made a note of it!
 * If i don't see you, have a good morning, evening and night!  J e n o v a  20 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Recurring sockpuppetry problem
Further to your protection of William Hope (actor): a Hope-related article, Submerged, has also been hit by the recent disruption (dubious, unsourced production information added here; now removed). Much of this recurring vandalism seems to stem from the 187.77... and 187.124... ranges (both apparently Brazilian-based; possibly a single, IP-hopping, anonymous contributor is responsible).

To prevent further disruption, would one or more rangeblocks be something to consider? I've checked the revision histories of some of the affected articles as far back as March and the rangeblock calculator produces the ranges (for 187.77...) and  (for 187.124...). Unfortunately, this is one dedicated inserter of misinformation, whose edits are highly problematic with regard to WP:BLP.  Super Mario  Man  17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty big ranges. There will have to be some more disruption before we turn off the Wiki lights in Brazil.  I have the other article on my watch list, in case the problem escalates. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.
Sorry, I didn't realised I appealed in the wrong way; Also, I must not of logged into my account in school. Yours truly, 08murtaghkc. 16:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 08murtaghkc (talk • contribs)

Thanks!
Thanks for the revert! Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Surprisingly, the warning was enough to make him stop. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Brady Campaign
Greetings and salutations! I'm writing to ask that the Brady Campaign article be semi-protected due to the fact that people insist on trying to add the original research that it is a "Hate Group". I am a Second Ammendment supporter, in fact IRL I am a firearms instructor, but that kind of unsourced material has no business in an encyclopedia. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At least we can agree in that respect ;) I have semi'd the article for a month.  If the nonsense resumes in January, a longer protection will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SeanNovack (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could you possibly remove from view the latest personal attacks on my Talk page. Thanks Vrenator   talk  16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with my unblock
Hello, first of all I would like to give you my sincerest apology for all the damage I have caused over the last two years; I assure I have found my new place on Wikipedia and my monent(s) of immaturity have ended. Thank you for agreeing with the unblocking administrator, and I thought it was only right to put my first proper post on my banning admins talk page. Once again I am sorry for what I did, it will never happen again and I thank you for allowing me a final chance.

Yours truly, 08murtaghkc (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a very good start - copyright violation at Bradley Stoke Community School, badly formatted or broken references, and bad spelling. I question the competence of this editor and believe it would have been better if the block had stayed in place. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User: Jasonfitz
I noticed you reverted an edit by user:Jasonfitz and left a warning on his page about vandalism. I thought I would let you know that he committed several other acts of vandalism. I believe I have reverted all of his bad edits and left the few productive edits. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick WP:SEMI for Molly Meldrum
Thanks, Favonian. And I'm 100% sure I also write on behalf of the other editors who asked for the semi. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what we're here for. Hope they poor guy pulls through!  Favonian (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned one of your recent IP blocks in a relevant ANI discussion
See WP:ANI. Hans Adler 17:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unblocked the IP and replied at ANI. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't asking for immediate action, but obviously I am happy with it. I don't like the IP's attitude either, but much of it appears to be reaction. Hans Adler 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

al qassim ibn hasan page
can u make a fresh page of al qassim ibn hasan with the same content because my friend acedientally undid a edit and his ip is recorded

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.26.229 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you want. You corrected the other IP's edit; what more needs to be done? Favonian (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

i mean delete the page and start it again with the same old content

my friend accedientally undid a edit in the page and now his ip is recorded so start a fresh page so no one sees it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.26.229 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've used a slightly less drastic measure, namely removed the IP from the edit history. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

can you remove the reason that says i undid him

the part that says

Undid revision 466542956 by (his ip) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.26.229 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That was rather remiss of me. Now all traces of your friend's IP address should be gone. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

St. John/Ivan of Rila
Favonian,

Thank you for helping out with the “St. Ivan of Rila” article. I noticed that the WP:RM page has been backlogged, so I’m bringing forth my grievance to you first.

“Ivan” is the transliteration, and in this case the only acceptable translation of the Cyrillic “Ивaн”, pron. [ee’van] in Bulgarian. (“Evan” would be an even closer representation, but it wouldn’t yield nearly as many search engine hits.) “John of Rila” is a crude, ignorant, and highly arbitrary rendition of “Ивaн Рилски”. If that was an agreeable interpretation, “Kaloyan” should be anglicized as “Handsome John”, or rather “Pretty John”. That of course, would be silly. This is about a proper name of a person of great historic (and historical) significance; about the Cuthbert of that part of Europe. Let’s not make a mockery out of it. Let’s change all the “Johns” in the article to “Ivan”.

Thank you again for your help, Vkarastoyanov (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing against the correctness of the saint's original name, but Wikipedia articles are named according to another criterion, namely "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)". Doing a couple of Google book/scholar searches it becomes clear that John is used much more often than Ivan. Many editors find it hard to accept, but Wikipedia doesn't attempt to enforce correctness (by whatever definition), it reports on what is already written in reliable sources.
 * Regarding WP:RM, the backlog is not nearly as bad as is sometimes appears. The vast majority of requests are decided upon after the week set aside for discussion.  Only a few controversial cases take longer before an admin works up the courage to make a decision and reap the fallout. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Favonian, I don’t want to argue with you, especially about the so called “reliable sources”, but John is not the direct equivalent of Ivan, not in Bulgarian, nor in any of the other Slavic languages, not in Scandinavia. John is related to Ivan, Jan, Johannes, Ioan, Yoan, Jean, etc., but it’s far removed. This is like calling JFK “Jean Kennedy” in French, or naming King Arthur “King Ahmed” on the Arabic Wikipedia. Sometimes, mind you, errors are self-fueled and self-perpetuated, as in the case of a few Bulgarian sites translating “St. Ivan of Rila” as “St. John” because they looked it up on Wikipedia — it is the first thing that comes up on Google. And Wikipedia (in this case you), is quoting them as reliable sources.

Re: Wikipedia names: If that is the system you follow, then you need to change “Johannes Brahms” to “John Brahms” (and so forth). Vkarastoyanov (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, here we are, arguing ;) Starting from the end: no, that is precisely what "our system" does not imply. John is the English equivalent of Johannes (as Ivan is the Slavic one according to Ivan (name)), but since every serious book about classical music lists the composer's name as Johannes, so does Wikipedia.  Referring to the saint as John is not something we do, because we think his name should be translated (witness Ivan the Terrible and lots of other Ivans); we do it because the translated name has become established in the literature.  Your beef is with the authors of said literature, but the original culprits are probably long dead. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

New user on a vandalism spree
There's a new user on a vandalism spree, including an attack page, who could use an administrator's intervention (or blocking), if you have a moment. Thanks, Sindinero (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've speedied the attack page and issued a stern warning. The editor seems at best ill-informed. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked following persistent addition of unsourced information. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sierra McCormick
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sierra McCormick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The-Pope (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel sugden
is due for a first block. While some small portion of his edits are valid, most have been vandalism, including changing the names of spouses of celebrities and messing with templates. He has been warned well past the usual series of warnings and has not responded to warnings or requests to discuss in any way. Please review his edit history. He's only avoided being taken to AIV because he's been doing it in a rather slow and drawn-out manner. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am keeping an eye on him, but there needs to be at least one more transgression before I unsheathe the clue bat. His suggests a connection with, which may have to be taken into account. Favonian (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Exemplary block: PA "cunt" directed at woman editor
Well done! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bit difficult to decipher his lingo, but I fully expect to be at ANI and ArbCom before the end of the year. Favonian (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Dansk Wiki
Hejsa. Vil lige høre om du også er aktiv på den danske Wikipedia? --90.184.201.211 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hej selv. Med skam at melde er det meget sjældent, at jeg redigerer den danske Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bless your country for its beer and its bacon-wrapped hot-dogs.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Danish weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I prefer the pickled herring, and they are certainly in season right now. Favonian (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Werner Fenchel needs some work. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hard to contradict you. Somebody really should be doing something about it. Favonian (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

heh...
Taking into account the nature of the vandalism and their promise to stop vandalising, perhaps that indef block could be turned into a seven-days block :-)

Happy holidays and a fine 2012! - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice suggestion and very much in the spirit of the season. I would like to see the editor provide a slightly better explanation, though.  Best wishes to you too! Favonian (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

IP at it again
(previously blocked five times as for the same) has carried on the same way straight after the latest three month block expired. Four edits, all additions of religious categories, all violations of WP:BLPCAT. Could you do the necessary please? Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  14:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for six months. Such wasted perseverance. Favonian (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks for the help. 2 lines of K  303  14:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten all about them. Good grief! - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
For your quick word at my talk page - someone's sock obviously. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Does indeed look like a returning customer. Favonian (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:173.214.235.201
Hi! Just to let you know that this anon user you just blocked has started vandalising their talk page. So to stop it, I've altered your block settings to prevent any edits of their talk page. As one of the targets of their recent vandalism (I had previously blocked them), if you think I am too involved and made the wrong decision, feel free to change the block back. Stephen! Coming... 21:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was certainly called for, and as may be seen from this block log, I'm not overly fastidious with regard to such actions ;) Favonian (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an RPP request, looks like it wasn't needed.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually allow them to edit their talk page, and revoke it later if required. Just on the off-chance that I made an error, I always like to leave a right to reply.  Clearly this person didn't need it LOL! Stephen! Coming... 21:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)