User talk:Favonian/Archive 3

Penderyn
Thanks Favonian, was just trying to find a reference for the fact that Penderyn is 46% and hadn't given the link much thought. Is it acceptable to cite the company's own page? Cheers, Luke Luke.ab09 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That should not be a problem. The other link just had a far too "commercial" look to it.  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding DJ AM
I apologize. I was unaware that the article had to be in at least 10 different languages. However, Adam Goldstein was a very influential musician and his death was very newsworthy (still being reported on now, almost a week later). I believe that his passing was very important, and that his death should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.228.81 (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. If you feel very strongly that an exception to the "Rule of 10" should be made, I suggest that you bring it up on the talk page.  Favonian (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Man, you're fast! I just added Like Dandelion Dust today and you've already expanded it into an exceptable stub. Thanks! --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :) Favonian (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bupropion links
Sorry for the links that you found in error. I was unaware of the problem. Would you identify the links, and suggest the appropriate solution. Thanks. Beach4444 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes you made are summarized here . Firstly, you try to link from a proper article to a subpage of a talk page.  Links should only go to other articles.  Secondly, you seem to add your signature to the bottom of the page — twice in fact.  Signatures are only relevant on talk pages; they have no place in articles.  Favonian (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I wrote this article in user:beach4444/sandbox in order to have it reviewed, edited, or rewritten before submitting it. Then moved it over to the Talk:Nariman Mehta as a subpage. Then linked it to the Bupropion article as a link to Nariman Mehta. Should it be linked from the Nariman Mehta website? I am confused about my next step. This is quite foreign to me as you can undoubtedly tell.Thank you for your patience. Beach4444 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. From your talk page it is evident that you've made a couple of attempts at publishing previous versions of this article, only to have them speedily deleted because they were in no state to be published.  The current version still needs some editing before it is ready for public viewing.  You should look around Wikipedia for articles of a similar nature to see in particular how references are formatted and referenced.  When you think it's ready, you can publish the article again under its proper name and then add links pointing to it from the bupropion article.  Favonian (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the guidelines you have set. I agree with your criticism and once again thank you for your patience. Beach4444 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness are NOT Christians, Christians believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ as part of the GOD-head (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Hello Favonian,

Thank you for your reply on my correction. However, I have to tell you that my correction is accurate. There are many people who believe in the existence of Christ Jesus including Muslims and they are not considered "Christians." Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. Where are you getting that from? There is no neutrality in Christianity concerning who Jesus is in the GOD-head. The difference is as plain as night and day which is why JWs do not worship Christ therefore they do not celebrate Christmas as is shared in the article (this piece of information makes it quite plain that they are not Christians therefore the article contradicts itself). That reference made in the wikipedia article is misleading. In the article's attempt to be neutral, that needs to be removed so that it is not taken as "fact" that JWs are Christians; within Christianity there is NO debate about that. People who do not know the difference will assume that JWs agree with the Deity of Christ when they don't. I'm sorry but I cannot allow that to remain there when it isn't true. So, I'd like to know where you are getting that from? I mean no harm or ill will but as a Christian that article is by no means "neutral" with that reference to Christianity within it. JW's consider it Blasphemy to worship Christ, denominations of Christianity ALL worship Him as God and JWs do not fit into the denominations of Christianity. I believe that wikipedia prides itself on being as accurate as possible and that article is not accurate.

Sachiko353 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)sachiko353


 * Personally, I have no opinion in this matter, but when you make any sort of controversial change to an article you should first discuss it on the article's talk page and try to obtain consensus, since the the edits will otherwise most likely be reverted because of the general policies of neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Favonian (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage
Hello, …

Regarding the conversations at Articles for deletion/I Love You, I'm Sorry, and I'll Never Do It Again, I would call this link of this subject's participation as a "Fan Guest of Honor" at a SciFi convention to be WP:RS, but there is no content except for a photograph of the subject and a link to the subject's website, so it is not "significant coverage". :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash;  19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Deletionist (per your user page). Point taken, I guess.  Out of pure, idle curiosity: when you're so firmly established as an anonymous IP editor that you actually have a user page, why don't you register a "proper" user name?  Favonian (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness, gracious me! I now, belatedly, had a look at your talk (sub-)page.  Please forgive my even thinking to ask.  Favonian (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's all good! :-) … looks like my evil twin was kinda naughty during my recent period of 43 hours without sleep (I rarely "reveal myself" to other editor's) … now it's back to several weeks where the only reason I have to get out of bed is to jump out the window (good thing I'm on the ground floor), and I only get dressed and leave my apartment to procure litter &amp; kibble for my medically prescribed, assisted-living companion animal … BTW, Anonymous WikiGnome or Sockpuppet? explains how I came to be an anon … Have a better one! &mdash; 138.88.43.201 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of Imam Hasan
with due respect i tell u that depicting the image of Phrophet Mohammad or any imam is against Muslim law throught the world. I had removed the image but it is put back again.Hopefully u may now go and remove the image as an responsible editor. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.50.148 (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has come up repeatedly and been discussed on various talk pages. The consensus is that the images in this and other Islam-related articles stay.  Please read Wikipedia's policy regarding censorship.  Favonian (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that some things never change … this is why I gave up monitoring Islam/Muslim pages back in '06. :-( &mdash; 138.88.43.201 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed rather frustrating at times, but it pales to insignificance when compared to the debacles that arise from dealing with articles about the Indian castes :( Cheers, Favonian (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to delete my Dog Daycare page
Please explain why are you trying to delete my page, there is no advertising on it and it does not promote a service instead of another. It's simple information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd rome (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why I, and apparently others, have problems with this article is that it is written like an advertisement. Phrases like "its popularity is constantly rising", "dog owners found their self looking for a solution" and several others sound like they come from a brochure, not an encyclopedia article.  Further down we have "This Dog Daycare can be a 100% Cage Free or Partially Cage Free".  Now, that sounds awfully specific for a supposedly general article.  Favonian (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interrupt you, Kd rome, but it's not "your" article … please see Ownership of articles:"You do not own articles … If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so."And please learn to sign your posts … BTW, I took a look at, and I think I'll put some lipstick on it, and then Move On. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash;  04:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is from the wiki page for "kennel" : Although many people worry about the stress placed on the animal by being put in an unfamiliar and most likely crowded environment, the majority of boarding kennels work to reduce stress

and ''Many kennels offer one-on-one "play times" in order to get the animal out of the kennel environment. Familiar objects, such as blankets and toys from home, are also permitted at many kennels.''

That sounds exactly the same, it's not advertising, does that sound like a brochure to you?

That's just what they do in a kennel, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd rome (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does indeed look like some editor should have a close look at the kennel article. However, the fact that some articles are flawed is not a reason to accept an article.  Favonian (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that it's flawed is your personal opinion, you should be more objective in your decisions, that's what they do in a kennel, pure and simple.


 * Would you like it better if the kennel article said: a kennel is a facility with 4 walls and runs w h ere animals of different kinds are secluded. ?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd rome (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source (i.e., previously published elsewhere), otherwise it's original research … Unreferenced articles do not survive for very long, so, no, it wouldn't be any better … even so-called "common knowledge" needs a Citation to back it up. &mdash; 138.88.43.201 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

John Bulwer
Hi, I have been working on John Bulwer. I wonder if you could have a look at it and make suggestions on how it could be improved. You seemed like a sensible wikipedian, and I am not sure what to do next; more on his sources and theoretical framework? The books on greater detail? His social milieu and the effect of the civil war? Change the layout? Any pointers would be much appreciated. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack. Sure, I'll give it a check-up.  Looks interesting!  Favonian (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some comments based on a first reading. First of all, I think it's a very good article on a fascinating topic!  I have removed the stub category, for the article is quite a bit beyond that state, as I read WP:STUB. That's not to say that the article is finished, of course :)  One question, which presents itself, is how Bulwer's work influenced sign language and other issues regarding deaf people after his death.  You write that modern sign language still uses his ideas, but there must be more to say on the topic.  Personally, I would also like to read more about how he managed to stay out of political trouble.  With his opinions and the political climate of the time that could not have been easy.  Regarding layout, I noticed that you already have an Infobox ready on your user page.  It should be included in the article — it is quite the fashion.  You may have noticed that I've been fiddling around with the categories.  "Gestures" and "Biography" don't really cover as they are to be interpreted literally.  I've added a couple, inspired by the article on Bacon, but they should be double-checked, as I'm rather ignorant on philosophy.
 * One question. In the section "Anthropometamorphosis" is a sentence starting with "Until now obeying the sacred impulse of the geius..." Is there an "n" missing in the last word, or is my 17th century English just too limited? It's getting a bit late in my timezone, but I'll return to the article tomorrow.  Meanwhile, keep up the good work; I look forward to reading more.  Favonian (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy assistance. Yes there is was an n missing. I was a bit unsure on the infobox because (of things like) I don't have his birth date but I do have his baptism date same with death and burial, and known for...hmmm...Books, a few scientific firsts, I dunno. I will include it in the article as is and modify from there. I will have a think, re-read sources and make some additions. Cheers! --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nariman Mehta
Thank you for reviewing and critiquing the Nariman Mehta article. Would you mind elaborating on your ideas on " living bibliographies " for this article. Being a newbie, I am still trying to learn the proper guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience. Beach4444 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you are referring to the modifications I made to the article and its talk page. It's important to mark clearly that the subject of the article is a living person because of Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons.  As this has now been done, you need not worry about it.  The article is coming along nicely, by the way.  Congratulations!  Favonian (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your improvements. Would you take a look at the "external links" section and give me your thoughts. Beach4444 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've formatted them so the reader doesn't have to look at ugly URLs. They look like the may actually be relevant for direct, inline references, but that requires a closer look.  Right now, in my timezone, it's getting a bit too late for that.  I'll have a look at it tomorrow.  Favonian (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, they really look better. I looked at how you formatted them and once again learned something new. Above you referred to inline references, I guess that you feel they would fit better as references. That's an interesting idea. Favonian, I can not express my gratitude enough for your help. Thank you!

Beach4444 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined for Hassan rachidi
I declined the request for speedy deletion of because it does not meet CSD A7: "director of Al Jazeera in Morocco" is an assertion of significance. &mdash; Sebastian 04:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:September 2009
How about NO? 86.178.134.174 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The header is bit of a non sequitur. Did you have anything constructive to say regarding your own edits, such as this one?  Favonian (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the revert earlier on my talk page. -- Menti  fisto  16:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime! Favonian (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ádám Bogdán
No problem! In truth I only re-instated the tag because I was unaware you had got rid of the first one. I originally thought it was some sort of mistake on my browser's part (the page would not complete the tagging process), so I refreshed the page and re-added the tag.

I would add a bit of depth to the article itself if it wasn't already up for deletion anyway, but good that you tried to resurrect the page! I was under the impression that the creator was writing the article purely for pseudo-biographical interests, if you see what I mean :).

You seem like a nice guy and a keen editor, so here's a barnstar for your kindness:

See you around!

Merge
How would you feel about a merge of the two anti-Islam related articles. It seems the two groups are very closely linked. Francium12 21:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Until today I had never heard about a Danish branch of SIOE, whereas SIAD is well-established.  Favonian (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rapid application development
You deleted my post on RAD, it seems you who is not neutral; RAD states you must prototype an object before you add logic to it. It is a hard fact. •	You cannot add logic to a non existing object. •	RAD is not a technique at all. You are wrong, this is objective, it can be deducted logically. Can you tell me a way to add logic to a nonexistent object. If you can't you already use RAD. There are no cons/pro's on prototyping. You must to make it work. Every project successful project has had a prototype. I'm PhD in computer science, this is classroom material, but Wikipedia states there are cons to prototypes. Fact is: You will need a prototype to begin to add logic. Example If you want to build as SWAT game: You first want to capture motion and have modeled the characters weapons ect. Ect.  prototype Then you let them react to your mouse and keyboard input  programming You cannot make an actor react if you have no actor, thus the prototype (RAD) is a must. Uncle X PhD in Advance Computer Science Stop deleting my posts you look like an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.40.32 (talk • contribs) 08:39, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have obtained a doctoral degree you must be acquainted with the academic world's equivalents of these Wikipedia guidelines: neutral point of view, reliable sources, and last not least civility. It does appear, however, that you could do with a brush-up of these essential principles.  Favonian (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Yusuf Smith
Thank you for outlining the issue with the addition of Matthew Yusuf Smith on the List of converts to Islam page. I am in the process of compiling a page for him, however, I must admit to be a little puzzled with the requirement "he cannot be listed without a proper Wikipedia article", as there are at least 8 others on the list without one ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have every right to be puzzled. Those entries shouldn't be there, although the injunction against such is tugged away in a comment inside the article source.  I'll weed them as soon as I can find the time.  Buuut, Wikipedia has guidelines and the like for almost every contingency, so feast your eyes on WP:OTHERSTUFF :)  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply, as I only edited the "M" section, I did not see that. Not wishing to appear argumentative however, the comment at the top of the article says , does that need to be changed ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez! Well, it's certainly easier to change the rule than re-sort the whole shebang.  Favonian (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's done, all red links removed. Now I can wait for the roof to come down on my head. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * :-) I had not noticed the sort order, I was more thinking about the use of the word source - might, it be more informative if you used the words you used on my Talk page - just a thought. Codf1977 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! I automatically focused on the all-caps part.  Now it says "Please add only persons who have individual Wikipedia articles, and quote at least one source regarding the conversion for each entry.  Arrange by FIRST NAME."  The "which in turn demonstrates..." is just boilerplate required for any article.  Favonian (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm awarding you a Barnstar!
Favonian, thanks so much for your teamwork this morning on developing Millesgården from a substub into a stub. The two of us worked well together! kevyn (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevyn. Thanks a lot :)  Thought for a moment that I was getting in your way when we both added coordinates to the article at almost the same time.  Been a long time since I read the Anderson story, so I had forgotten the reference to this museum.  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no problem whatsoever. I was just thrilled to see I had a collaborator so soon after starting the article! In fact, it was the Poul Anderson story that made me aware of the existence of Millesgården in the first place -- I read about it in the book, and wanted to learn more, so I naturally went to Wikipedia... and there was no article! So my personal rule is, when that happens, I have to start the article. Thanks again for your help! kevyn (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

c c u p Fitzgerald
Hi. If you glanced at the article, you may also have seen the note that he changed his name to Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald. There are a number of other people with wiki articles and variations of these three combined names. I presume they are closely related but havn't figured out what was happening yet. Anyway, I wasn't sure what to call him, not for reasons of hyphenation, but because presumably his final surname included uniacke. Had to call him something but am open to suggestions. One of his books seems to have been published as Penrose Fitz-gerald, just to add confusion. Sandpiper (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit of the democratic party
to be unbiased and to tell the truth I was going to put the same thing on the republican partys wiki,its the truth should I include references,the us IS under a two party system that works towards enslavement of mankind by means of the New world order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.175.243 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are able to produce reliable sources backing your claims, you might try to put it into the article, but since it is safe to say that such statements are controversial, I suggest that you first take them to the relevant talk pages. Favonian (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

alleged crucifixtion of jesus pbuh
i had edited the wiki page on crucifixtion of jesus pbuh but u reverted it,i gave the references from bible too,there is a seperate page which talks on this issue: "islamic view of crucifixtion".you should have atleast summarized the islamic perspective on tht page rather than removing it completely.i humbly request you to yourself write a short summary on this topic on the main page

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliabbas aa (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Businesses
Just a friendly note on Fictional Businesses. I declined the speedy as it was fairly easy to see what the article was attempting to be. I added an intro and moved it to a better title. However, notability is questionable, so if you still think it should go, feel free to prod or take to AfD.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I rather expected you would. Seriously considering AfD.  Favonian (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful
Please be careful when making reverts using Twinkle. You reverted this edit as identified vandalism. It seems that all the user did was to mistakenly delete
 * Right you are. To avoid unpleasant incidents like this, please provide edit summaries.  And do remember to sign messages to talk pages please.  Favonian (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Eleanor J. Cramphorn
Thanks for your help with this entry

Sam


 * My pleasure :) Favonian (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Power ratio vs decibel
Hello Favonian,

I have created the article Power ratio vs decibel. I did my best to improve the article and I have summarized my opinion about delation of the article (which you proposed on the 17 th. of Sep.) on the discussion page of the said article. Sincerely...

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on Talk:Power ratio vs decibel. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

About september the 21st
I am sorry that my edit has been recognized as vandalism. I was merely posting a link to an article that I was in the midst of creating. If you feel like removing the link the next time I create it ( if this occurs, we still don't know wether the article will be accepted or not), feel free to do so, but do not accuse me of vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.146.103 (talk • contribs) 11:38, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the harshness of the notice. Chose the wrong template.  Entries to date/year articles without articles are rejected out of hand, normally without notification, but I noticed, that this was your second attempt, so thought it advisable to indicate that the addition was not acceptable.  We get loads of, let's say non-serious entries from anonymous IPs who don't use edit summaries (that's a hint by the way), and it was tempting to add yours to that category based on the evidence available at the time.  Regarding your proposed article I would consider it unlikely that it gets accepted for inclusion in September 21, if only because there has only been one "observance" so far.  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Time
I did not quite understand the reasons for your suppressing IMHO so many interesting facts about time and would appreciate your kind explanation.

Best regards

claude (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Claude. I assume you're referring to my reverting of this edit by Nicholomothy.  Calling it "suppressing IMHO so many interesting facts" is a bit off the mark, as these facts are to be found in the article Time dilation.  This article is referred to at the top of the affected section in Time, but Nicholomothy chose to copy/paste the whole article into the section—without an edit summary for added good measure.  This, of course, served no useful purpose, made the article nearly 50% longer, and messed up part of the format because some "housekeeping" templates at the top of the included article, which because of the editor's clumsiness made it into the final article.  All in all good reasons for reverting I would say, or do you disagree?  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Appreciating your kind answer: I apologise for not having realised that the article had been copied and pasted from another article, reference to which was duly made. Your decision was all right!

Best!

claude (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm so sorry that i vandalized Triwbe. thanks for the great advice. You are really wise and I value your Advise. I'm indebted to you So, I won't vandalise Triwbe again instead I will vandalize you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.188.214.198 (talk • contribs) 20:45, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch out Favonian - hooligans with cans of spray paint are waiting in the shadows for you! Cpl Syx  [talk] 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh goody! I'll recharge my taser.  Favonian (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And a message for my new best friend: please sign your threats, and make up your mind regarding "advise"/"advice":) Favonian (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Puffs
Hi Sorry for not adding a reason for proposed deletion, i am not aware of the steps required to do this. Could you advise on my proposal please? The reason is that many users are habitually vandalising the article so we now wish to remove the article. Thanks for your help.
 * Well, my considered opinion is to put it brutally, that your proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in a hot place. Lots of Wikipedia articles get vandalized every day, but if we accept that as a reason for deleting the affected articles, it's giving the bastards a reward they definitely don't deserve—plus it would make Wikipedia a rather empty place.  "Sugar Puffs" is by no means the article most affected; have a look at the revision history for "plate techtonics" for instance.  The conclusion is that the article remains.  Another editor has already contested the PROD, and I can see that your previous attempt at deletion through AfD failed.  Instead, you can help the community by undoing vandalism to this (and other) articles whenever you encounter it.  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing: I notice that from some of your edit summaries and the use of "we" above that you claim to represent a "Sugar Puffs Team".  This leads me to remind you that there is no such thing as ownership of articles in Wikipedia.  Favonian (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacks
Hi Favonian. Please don't rollback abusive usernames. thanks in advance and kind regards, --Sargoth (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you say so. Is there a technical (or other) reason why that is not appropriate?  Cheers, Favonian (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simply that the abusive username shows off in the edit summary. If you set back to old revision, it doesn't. --Sargoth (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see.  Will do that in the future.  Have a feeling this guy will be back :(  Favonian (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's one of those well-known vandals ... i think we call him edgar or so. He will be back for sure, but some day even he will die and Wikipedia will last :P --Sargoth (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler
RabbitHeart22 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Dear Favonian

Can you please stop deleting my work. I am trying to add new information to help readers learn and better understand this figure. I have learnt the info from a long history lesson and numerous books and I want to post this online. You once sent me a messege saying I have no referances, fair enough, but I posted another enrty AND some references at the bottom, but someone deleted that too! This fustrates me as I see no harm in trying to teach people. So if you are going to delete my work, can you please at least give me a reason or read the references I have put up for you.

RabbitHeart22 RabbitHeart22 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi RabbitHeart. I see, so those external links were your sources.  I would help if you used reference tags and footnotes to indicate the connection between statements in the text and their sources.  In general, when you contemplate making controversial modifications to an article (and this rather "lurid" mentioning of rape and torture probably falls in that category), you should first take it to the article's talk page.  That would save you from having your edits reverted, and as you may have noticed, I'm not the only one to have done that to you.  For the moment I will have to revert your most recent attempt (though I'll not send you a formal warning), if only because the external links rather mess up the formatting.  Please do as I suggested and take your contribution to the talk page.  Favonian (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RabbitHeart22 (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know why you are acting so shocked Favonian. On wiki simple English it even says he suffered. I'm not doing this because I'm some sicko. I'm trying to get people to sympathise with him. No one is born evil.


 * I'm hardly shocked, but the combination of gruesome contents and rather "light-weight" sources (like YouTube) does tend to raise an encyclopedic eyebrow. Favonian (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk rv:v
Cheers for the vandalism revert - I didn't even notice it! Cpl Syx [talk] 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime! The vandals are really at it.  Maybe all the schools will be blocked in a few weeks, and peace will come.  Favonian (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, I dunno if it is important...
Hi, you seem to be busy, but I wonder if you could help. I went to login and was told that my IP address had asked to change my password. I looked through the help but couldn't find anything that explained that. I did not request any password change. Should I be concerned? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, and I reverted some "unconstructive editing" to your user page, hope you don't mind. It seemed pointless to leave it. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revert—I certainly don't mind that in the least. Regarding your IP-related problem, my best guess is that you have been accessing Wikipedia from some share access point, and that there has been some other problems from that same address.  Afraid I don't even know the appropriate place to ask.  Favonian (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)