User talk:Favonian/Archive 30

Wikipedia vandalism
How can an edit be vandalism if the information provided is correct, verifiable, and to insult Wikipedia, a provided fact by simply looking at Wikipedia.

On the Mad Max entry it is clearly stated that the movie was not filmed in New South Wales, Australia. It was filmed in Victoria.

When viewing information concerning Stockton Beach it is claimed by "AussieLegend" that  Mad Max was filmed in New South Wales.

Why is it a Wikipedia volunteer can ban a member of the public who does not have the technical ability to edit to the standards of Wikipedia. It's not vandalism if I try to correct information that can be sourced from Wikipedia.

A human being who wishes to improve the knowledge of others would have simply checked the information for themselves and entered the correct information on the contributors behalf. Seems we have a case of discrimination concerning people who cannot understand the rules and methods of Wikipedia.

On the issue of Tin City, another subject provided in connection with Stockton Beach, there is no factual records concerning this settlement.

Anybody can go to the National Archives of Australia website and search military/government records that will not provide any reference to a military base on Stockton Beach. Therefore Tin City could not have been demolished for the creation of a military base.

If you take the time to do some research though you will find written records concerning the demolition of a depression/unemployment camp at Newcastle, South of Stockton Beach, that was demolished for a military camp and has newspaper, government verifiable sources that has been used in books printed on the subject of the depression era.

Tin City only became public record, through newspaper records, about 10 or so years back when a the proposal for a National Park threatened to evict the residents

There are not even 11 shacks there today but about 5. Check Google Earth.

If you think correcting the number of shacks might be trivial why is it I cannot state that the Sygna, a wreck on Stockton Beach, was actually re floated twice in reference to the stern.

By including the fact that the stern section was in fact sunk by the salvage company it clearly indicates that the Sygna wreck, viewed today, was not a result of nature but of the greed of the Unions and their members. The tug and salvage companies clearly wanted to recover the stern section after it's refloating but the union members withdrew their services.

This information can be found in online newspapers.

It's up to you as a member of Wikipedia to assist the public in providing facts rather than attitudes of volunteers that play god by choosing what is relevant to "his web site" that carries the Wikipedia name. There appears to be a huge conflict of interest as the information I am trying to edit has been provided by Aussielegend.

It appears he does not want to allow any information to be included that is not his own.

I really have no concern as to the future of Wikipedia but you should acknowledge the simple fact that without good costumer service and a product that comes with a "warranty" you have no customers.

What you currently have is a "customer" who has the involuntary ability to sign up to use Wikipedia and the simply enter a simple "virus" that will block the general public from editing from that computer. The virus is as follows...

Type in "Mad Max was not filmed at Stockton Beach." Aussielegend will then ban that computer regardless of the fact that it is owned by a school, public library, university or privately.

This effectively goes against wikipedias aims of free information.

So I ask ..... Who is the vandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.34.148 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Langton update
Is there a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.181.5 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "" Yes, I believe we have a problem. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Streisand effect Protection
Hello, Favonian. I was wondering if you could assist me with the protection on the Streisand effect article as you seem to have been the last user to edit the protections to the article. Specifically, I was wondering if you could set the Visibility parameter to enable instead of disable? I ask since the protection occurred due to what seems to be edit wars on the article instead of anything on the Feedback Page. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. :)  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks a lot AE. For a moment, I was considering gunboat diplomacy.  Favonian (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Austria-Este hoax
Please review the recent edits of User:Max Wichniz whom this dif shows has created a fake member of the Imperial House of Austria-Este, whom he calls Anton Karl Ludwig Georg Felix of Austria-Este, and he has deleted notices to stop this vandalism and has restored the false information both to that article (which needs to be speedied) and to several other articles. He has created a new account which is entirely devoted to inserting this fake person in Wikipedia articles. Thank you. FactStraight (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Article deleted and final warning issued. Indefinite block will be next. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely, as it's clearly the same user as 67.247.54.159 and a couple of other IPs. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanx. Now his sock is back here. FactStraight (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked as well. Favonian (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

IP you just blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks is an IP-hopper.
The IP (Special:Contributions/122.162.129.154) you just blocked for personal attacks (they also engaged in vandalism) has also been editing yesterday as Special:Contributions/122.162.174.30 - both target the Cinema of India and Stanley Caine articles, vandalizing edits to those pages are pretty much identical. In any case, they have now returned as Special:Contributions/122.162.174.246. Would a range-block be possible? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked one range, but it may not be sufficient. There's a definite danger of collateral damage. Favonian (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -sigh- I was afraid that would be the case. Hopefully this will be enough. If not, is it alright if I report new incarnations directly to you (at least, so long as you are online) even if they have not yet been warned? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Favonian (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking further into some things, they're almost certainly all IP-socks of User:Am still here wiki fuckheads who was blocked yesterday as a sock of someone, though the puppetmaster's name was not mentioned. Seems to be part of a streak of bad usernames that hop from account/IP to account/IP, following editors that have reverted their vandalism. Strong suspicion of the puppet master, but as the name of the puppetmaster wasn't mentioned on said user's page or in the block-log, I am uncertain if it is permitted for me to say the name. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, that creep. Usually operates from Australian IPs, but in this globalized world: who knows. I don't think the "master account" has ever been identified. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the true master has never been identified, then "sockmaster" Dr. Karl Fan most likely is "sockpuppet" instead as well, as the pattern goes pretty clearly from the IPs to aforementioned bad-name account to Dr. Karl Fan. With about a hundred steps, temporary accounts and discarded IPs inbetween. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I should probably make a partial retraction: master not known to me. ;) I've only followed his antics for a few months, so maybe this 2012-vintage account is really the master. The fascination with Karl K. certainly fits the bill. Favonian (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, I checked the page's history. There is a streak of vandalizing IPs and redname-accounts well before the first edit made with the Dr. Karl Fan account. Current IPs don't show that fascination, strangely, so I might be off, but the way they harass people who revert them seems to fit, including some "last warning/last chance" type messages, as well as targeting amongst others MelbourneStar. Specifically this diff here makes me suspect it, because it seems a bit too similar to for example this, this and this. The mechanical way of revert-revert-revert is also rather similar. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And this with this and this. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding adding page on wikipedia
Dear sir can you tell me that how we can add the page of any organization not for promotion only for existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samworld999 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You should start by making sure that the organization meets the requirements of Notability (organizations and companies). Favonian (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Q-Tip
The article should be about the musician. Nobody ever refers to cotton swabs as a q-tip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadji87 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)


 * The Americans do. In any case, you should follow the instructions at WP:RM/CM. Favonian (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ali Qushji
Would you be interested in protecting the Ali Qushji article? An IP has decided to removed references and referenced information from the article since it supports "Persian" ethnicity. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's a single IP editor being disruptive. If they persist, there are ways to deal with them. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Final warning issued, following . Favonian (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some people just don't get it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Italians
Hi. I am one of the two users involved in the edit war in the article "Italians". Days ago the user Enok changed the incipit without consensus. Moreover the incipit he changed was based on a reliable source (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi, an important Italian encyclopaedia) that says Italians are also a nation as well as an ethnic group. Enok says instead that they are only an ethnic group without providing any reliable source (he showed in the talk page, an original work and a popular legend as sources). After a long discussion I found three further reliable sources that say Italians are also a nation. Here are links: Treccani.it - Miti e simboli della rivoluzione nazionale (Italian); Department of Political Science, Stanford University: Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country, James D. Fearon; Wordology.com - Italy/Italians: Development of a Nation How Italy became Italy, and how the Italians became Italians.. Could you tell me what do you think? Are they reliable enough? These sources would be added to the current one (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi). Recently I've also noticed that the user Enok also changed the Italian translation of "Italians" putting it in brackets and removing the capital letter while in similar articles (i.e. French People) the translation in the original language is not in brackets and starts with capital letter. Finally I would like to ask you if it's ordinary that a user changes all edits you did, also in different articles, as Enok did with me, because according to me it seems almost a way to intimidate other users. Thank you in advance. --93.32.133.235 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not qualified (or inclined) to get involved in this content disputer. Instead, you should follow the steps listed in WP:Dispute resolution. I should also mention you and Enok were both engaging in edit warring and that it would have been within my remit to block both of you, so please be careful when the protection expires! Favonian (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I showed my intentions to edit the incipit in the talk page (Talk:Italians).--93.32.133.235 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for temporarily blocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Themagician123456. This user keeps vandalizing the page of at least one musician he/she does not like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalaMadrid1972 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Return of the sockmaster - IPhonehurricane95
You should see what's going on in this sockpuppet investigation, as well as this discussion. This vandal is back, after a 4-month Rangeblock, and his isn't giving up. He's creating new socks every day, and I think that we are almost out of options. Can you please help? LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See this list of IPhonehurricane95's known sockpuppets. It records a ridiculous number of socks, and I only expect it to increases unless we are able to seal off his current IP Range (which is extremely active and mobile). LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not much I can do, I'm afraid. Only the CheckUsers have the information available to evaluate the feasibility of range blocks, and DoRD's reply was pretty definitive. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem editor
Thanks for your help with this editor. I've just reverted almost all his contributions. He even changed a quotation. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reverted some more. Since I'm sort of involved, I can't take action on the AN/EW report, but I guess a block will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Committee of Union and Progress
Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll resist the temptation. It looks like the IP has stopped short of 3RR, so maybe peace will prevail. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about warning
Hello, I just warned a user for vandalism, and after some time (after he vandalised some more) you further warned and blocked him.

So, I was wondering, what steps can I take to make sure a user stops vandalising? I can warn, yes, but am I allowed to give the "final" warning? Also, how can I make sure an admin knows that a user needs to be dealt with? - Moony22 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out! Sure, you can issue warnings at all four levels. When patience is wearing out, the place to report the scoundrels is Administrator intervention against vandalism, or "AIV" for short. You might want to have a look at Twinkle, which makes the mechanics of warning and reporting a lot easier. Favonian (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks. Although, with twinkle when I "rollback" an edit, it does not mention vandalism in the edit summary (even if I click rollback(VANDAL). Is this okay? Moony22 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a fairly recent "feature". It used to be as you'd expect: "rollback (VANDAL)" would generate an entry in the edit history, correctly labeling the reverted edits as vandalism, but the Wikimedia people sometimes move in mysterious ways. Favonian (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mammoth ip seems to be back
Hi Favonian, you might be insterested in and. It looks like they resumed their activity again once more another time some more, so to speak. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Same o' same o'. Sent off to the tar pit for a few months. Thanks for watching over the extinct species! Favonian (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And again, now as . Already spotted by - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and already taken care of by you . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another block. At some point, we'll get around to a range block, I guess. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And here we go again:
 * See also
 * blocked 1 week on 1-Feb-2014
 * blocked 3 months on 24-Jan-2014
 * blocked 1 month on 1-Aug-2013, blocked 3 months on 3-Sep-2013
 * blocked 2 times, 1 month on 1-Aug-2013
 * blocked 31 hours on 27-Jul-2013
 * blocked 6 times, 3 months on 19-Jul-2013
 * blocked 2 times, 1 week on 11-Jul-2013
 * blocked 4 times, 1 month on 7-Jun-2013
 * blocked 72 hours on 21-May-2013
 * - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh for crying out loud. Blocked the most recent one, but this is beginning to look like a full-time !job. Favonian (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One wonders what makes such people tick... - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hassan-i Sabbah
There are IPs changing the ethnicity of this individual without engaging in discussion, again. Would you be interested in protecting this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, it's more like a content dispute, so protection would be premature. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another IP has removed the Arab ethnicity, and stated on the talk page that the source does not state what I have typed."Note "claimed" and "Yamanite" (not Yemenite) in English book where actually don't mention Arab as Kansas bolded (Daftary, p. 123)." This IP is so disruptive, they even removed "Arab" from the referenced quote!  This is getting ridiculous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've chosen a heavy-handed remedy: that of fully protecting the article for a week. The most recent arrival on the scene at least shows willingness to use the talk page. As for the merit of their arguments, I prefer not to judge. Favonian (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection request
Can you semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.196 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? It hasn't even been touched by a non-registered editor for over a month D P  13:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur; no case to be made for protection. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Central Europe
Hi, why did you delete 24,578 bytes in the articke about Central Europe?--80.53.5.108 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you're evading your indefinite block. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar?
Hey Favonian,

I see you added a barnstar to my page as a sockpuppet and then reverted it through your main account. Not saying you are a sock master, but who added the barnstar? I want to know. I will not report you to SPI as the account may be hacked or not even yours. I just want to help. Titus Fox 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Favonian or hacking or sockpuppetry. Any random editor can make up a name of "Sockpuppet of..." -- Neil N   talk to me  16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You took the words right out of my keyboard. ;) Favonian (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Race (human classification)
Not sure what to do. Too much collateral damage for a range block, Callanec suggest sp. What do you think? I've been attacked as an Arab supremacist and pro-Semitic today, so I'm obviously balanced. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is probably the least ineffective tool in this case, controversial though it is. Guess we have to harden ourselves when dealing with someone this unhinged. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I think too. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fashad Fotouhi
Thank you for reverting the latest edits and making it protected. However, the page still contains incorrect information. This has been going on for some time and I don't have the time to repeatedly correct it.

For example:

"He was appointed dean by the provost in March of 2011 to facilitate the transfer of the Department of Computer Science out of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences and into the College of Engineering.[8]" This sentence is written to show that the reason for his appointment was only to do the transfer. However, the reference does not say that at all. It just says that he did the transfer. And the sentence tries to undermine his capabilities.

"He generated controversy with the firings of several people, including the Assistant Dean and non-faculty personnel who worked under Professor Greg Auner.[11]" The reference does not say anything about the assistant dean!

"After the firings, Fotouhi started a construction project to renovate and enlarge the Dean's Office.[11]" The reference does not say that at all!

And even if all these were corrected, the article has been edited in a way to show that most his contribution at Wayne State are negative; there is a whole paragraph about a paper article [11] in there, and half the truth in that article is not mentioned; the part that is about the problems with the people who were fired. There are a lot of positive things going on under his management, and one has to put all that in here if someone wants to give a clear picture.

I don't think Wikipedia should be place that former employees could take revenge from their managers. I was Dr.Fotouhi's former student a few years ago and created this page for him out of respect, and I know he is a great man. He has made many positive changes in the CS department and I know he is doing the same at the college. However, I do not have the time to deal with all these repeated revenge edits. I appreciate if you just delete the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobeir f (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My advice would be that you enter the above on the article's talk page – just for the record – and then make the changes you deem necessary to the article itself. It will serve as a reference point if the issues resume after the current protection expires. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have copied the above conversation to the article's talk page and made the changes. I didn't remove any references just changed the tone and sentences. Shobeir_f (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't take my word for it, read Crain's Detroit Business and the Detroit News. Farshad Fotouhi is an extremely corrupt man who should never have been appointed dean of anything. His greed and arrogance are costing the whole university wealthy donors, world-class researchers, student goodwill and tenured faculty, and who knows what else. Detroit Joseph (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. Here we go again! This is why I requested if we could delete the page. I really don’t have time for these edit wars. Detroit Joseph has obviously exteremly biased and negatively opinion about Farshad Fotouhi. He should not use the Wikipedia page to take his revenge. Below are some of Detroit Joseph’s comments about Farashd Fotouhi on different talk pages. He not only expresses extremely negative comments, unproven and undocumented professional and personal accusations about him, but he even makes racial offenses towards him and absurdly compares him to Ahmadinejad to express his negative feelings:


 * On []: “You need to read Crain's Detroit Business, to know that your hero, Farshad Fotouhi, is a very bad, corrupt man. Just because he's Iranian doesn't mean he's a good guy. Look at Mamud Ahmenutjob.” and “you just can't accept that Crain's Detroit and the Detroit News have called your Iranian friend out on his corruption. Detroit Joseph (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)”


 * On []: “Since when is the truth bias? Are you going to wring your hands because the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article calls him corrupt? Read Crain's Detroit Business http://www.crainsdetroit.com/assets/PDF/CD89200615.PDF page 8 or 9. Should Ahmedinajad's Wikipedia article just be a carbon copy of his page on the Iranian government's website?” and “Only a weak and insecure man needs a big office to compensate for his own inner smallness. Dean Kummler was a great man. The Kummler statue is inscribed "his heart was for the students." Fotouhi's heart is strictly for himself.”


 * On []: “Farshad Fotouhi is an extremely corrupt man who should never have been appointed dean of anything. His greed and arrogance are costing the whole university wealthy donors, world-class researchers, student goodwill and tenured faculty, and who knows what else. Detroit Joseph (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)”


 * I’m also pointing out some of the guidelines from the Biographies of living persons page for reference: “An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest.“, “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.", “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.”, “Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”, “Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to”


 * Could you please suggest what to do, if you don't want to delete the page? Thank you. shobeif_f (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I can't just delete the article, as it meets none of the criteria listed in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. You could try WP:Articles for deletion, but in view of the subjects notability, I doubt it would succeed.  Now, back to the real issue, I'd recommend WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The regulars of that noticeboard are more experience when it comes to dealing with touch biography issues than I. Favonian (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Italians again
Hallo Favonian it's about the Italians article again. After your block, a consensus has been reached on the form of the lead. One of the users who was involved in this edit war is starting now to change the lead again (and also other parts of the article): I reverted him twice, telling him to go to the talk page and explaining his changes there, but he keeps reverting and plays the dumb with me (see his comments). I don't want to be involved in a edit war, so I am asking to fully protect the article in its original state for a while, so that this user is forced to explain his changes on the talk page. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you, so I have undone his most recent revert. This of course makes me involved, after a fashion, so if he persists, he should be reported to WP:ANEW. Favonian (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't understand why User:Enok keep changing the article with worse layout and grammar, and without explaining in the talk page the reason why he makes those changes.--93.32.160.15 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Why did Enok change the layout of the infobox in the article Italians?--93.32.165.222 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not for me to say. Only he can answer that question. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Over the edge or just not?
Hi Favonian, I noticed you do anti-vandalism too. You have more experience, and I'd need some advice on this one. With my Twiki I thought to revert vandalism (albeit not a very clear cut case) on Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli; later on I got notified it had been reverted (IP). Now that I am reading the added text again, I am just doubting so-so if this is now to be considered vandalism (or just bad English), or not? The diff version starts here. I guess it is not blatant vandalism but citing a Facebook post isn't very encyclopedic? This is not just some sneaky commercial for that movie, right? Please let me know what you think (I haven't rolled back this time). Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It may not be vandalism, but gossip backed by ephemeral websites violates WP:BLP, so I've reverted it. If the IP jumper persists, semi-protection will be forthcoming.  By the way, thanks for helping out! Favonian (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ajativada
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I'm sure this guy will be back. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Socks affecting Saladin and some other Islam related articles?
I note SZakir's recent unhelpful response to you on his talk page along with his continuing poor editing behaviour. I wonder whether he is also using a sock, i.e. Cleopetra111?? Their editing behaviour (e.g. removing pictures without any explanation and repeated attempts to make the same edits to an article like Saladin despite numerous reverts by other editors) suggests that SZakir and Cleopetra111 could be the same person? Regards --Chewings72 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The thought did cross my mind, but I'll need a bit more evidence before I start an SPI. SZakir won't be contributing for the next week, his unconstructive editing having earned him a place on the bench. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

'''To make correction of the wrong & damage already done for years via Wiki is disruptive editing or what? Don't know the spelling of Allah? Hell with you!''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleopetra111 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 February 2014‎ (UTC)


 * I think you may have just had the evidence delivered to your door.--Chewings72 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Cleopetra111 blocked indefinitely, the same fate having already overtaken Szakir. Favonian (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Crystal Reed Personal life
I can prove Crystal was married with wedding pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcedcorrectly (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you can provide sources that live up to WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability you will be reverted and ultimately blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
Favonian, I thank you for letting me pass the Joan of Arc test by not reverting my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=598180142&oldid=598130011 :)

Merci beaucoup & cordialement, --90.2.113.193 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * De rien mon ami :) You might want to cut down on the number of times you link e.g. Paris.  WP:REPEATLINK is one of our many, sometimes confusing guidelines. Favonian (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried, but did not see all the previous ones in that long article. Bssides, I noticed several double or even triple links, which I didn't touch because not enough time.
 * BTW, do you ever read articles in fr.wiki? REPEATLINKING there seems to be very fashionable!
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Ier_de_France
 * Cordialement, --90.2.113.193 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is indeed one of the many point where the guidelines of the two wikis differ. Vive la difference! Favonian (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It could also be due to the fact that there are no such guidelines ->WP:REPEATLINK in fr.wiki... Ah! Ces Français! Si indisciplinés!
 * Anyway, I will try to be more attentive to the en.rules & regulations.
 * Cordialement, --90.2.113.193 (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ali Qushji
Would you be interested in protecting the Ali Qushji article? User:Akocsg continues to add POV wording to emphasize the Turkic ethnicity since the Persian ethnicity has only one reference. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the edit on the IP's page. I have a feeling that you'll probably have to keep a close eye on the talk page for Belle Knox. Despite repeatedly stating on the page why we cannot use what the media is reporting as Knox's real name, people keep trying to re-add it. I honestly think that it's their way of trying to harass her on Wikipedia. I'm undecided as to whether the page should remain or be deleted, but this sort of thing does make me somewhat want to delete it until the kids move on to the next person to harass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. I've asked for protection for the talk page so we can try to keep the IPs from posting. I don't normally ask for that sort of thing, but I have a feeling that it's only going to continue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anytime! I've added the article to my watch list and will use forceful measures to keep the jerks at bay. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Semi'ed for a week. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you again! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ankireddyavinash (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)/* Double helical gears */
Ankireddyavinash (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Double Helical gears differ from Herringbone gears. Double helical gears have groove in between two half gears. Herringbone gears doesn't have any groove in between. Image which is provided in Wiki is of Herring bone gear and not of double helical gear.

Thank you.

Ankireddyavinash (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ayyubids
Can you protect the Ayyubids article? An IP continues to change the referenced Kurdish information to Turkish. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem Page.
Hi Favonian, sorry to bother once more (I will not do this every week :-); I hope you have some time to look at this case, the Feylis page. I do not know how to fix the problems of combined edit warring with a clear cut case of copyvio. Point by point (against the background of continuously rolling back and forth of Article version): Oct 21 User:علی_ساکی_لرستانی edits Article injecting copyvio-material (text only) (diff=); Oct 30 User receives note on his (User_talk:علی_ساکی_لرستانی)about copyvio problem (note still there, directly above header "February 2014"); Nov 10-17 Article is editlocked; Feb 18 User gets second cv-warning on his Usertalk page, this time he removes the message, on Feb 20 (i.e. the current version, see History too) which means he read it. Feb 19-22 a second Article editlock; Feb25/26/27/March1 edit warring may seem to continue. Copyvio material is taken from this non-WP-related web page in the USA, it is plain copypaste work (one or two lines with references only are deleted, the remaining text is identical). The copyvio material is to be found (in the versions from User) in the 2nd half of the Article introduction (and above the contents box), and, below the contents box (the “Bibliography”, for some reason in the middle of the Article?). User keeps on rolling back to the copyvio-version of the article, which is surprising after 2 copyvio notes on his UserTalkpage, I must say.

Please also see the most recent additions to Talk:Feylis regarding the edit warring and a copyvio warning, and the Article content, with my and User:Avicenna’s comments. User does not seem to want to communicate since the 2nd editblock (given his “pushing it through”-behaviour perhaps not really a surprise) (He added something to the Article Talkpage before, so he sure knows where to find it). The last remark of User in this Usertalk (last entry) does not make me feel very positive about User's future constructive contributions to this Article (or to related articles, for that matter).

To make it more complicated please note: I rolled User back 3 times on Feb16, and warned him for something he did not do: I accused him of deleting a couple of sentences with reliable citations about persecution of Feylis, but then I saw he only moved those within the article, I overlooked it in the diff view (that is what I apologised for below his level4 warning on his talkpage).

Maybe you could have a look at it and see what prevails, another page block and/or a user block, and for how long, or still something else? I have a slight suspicion but cannot verify he used sockpuppets too (last 3 IP changes, see geolocate function).

PS - Note that all other contribs he made to some related pages have since been undone (see their Histories) (He/she seems to have a problem with "kurds"). Apart from that, the most recent change by User on Feylis involves the removal of a recently added reliable and verifiable source, so I do not know what this User is now up to except, indeed, trolling (and ignoring the copyvio warnings over and over)?

Oh well. Please do have a look. Thanks a lot, Poepkop (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear cut: copyright violations are not allowed, and as he has been warned, recurrence will lead to a block. In case of more IP sock/meat-puppetry, I'll semi-protect the article. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for looking Favonian, and you are served: please check the current version of Feylis, he included the cv materials once more. Poepkop (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some people just won't take a hint. Blocked for a week. Favonian (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, let's see what happens. Poepkop (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh well, what was I thinking? Someone included the copyvio material again via a meat-/sockpuppet (I cannot judge which one) by IP User:5.237.151.78, therewith not only (1) undoing some recent - I think - constructive work on the article, but (2) again injecting the copyvio materials, and (3) also actually falsely quoting sources (e.g. ref 22 in this (currently) recent version ) has the word "Kurds" in the title and throughout the source article not the word "Lurs" (as a consequence, the source link in the "corrupted" Feylis article version is dead as it does not exist (!); I had changed it back to the actual page, see History. I have a hunch this guy/girl is not going to stop just like that, and I wonder why he keeps on giving an edit comment along the lines of "please check sources" while he himself actually falsifies sources? It appears he is having some back up copy that he continuously pasts back here, regardless of other developments within the article. Please advice/help/block/protect? Poepkop (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC).


 * IP reverted and blocked; the clock on the named account's block reset with the promise of an indefinite block the next time around. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And he's - unfortunately - back, undoing your last edit (diff: = most recent version at this moment) to re-re-reinstall the copyvio materials once again (and whatever else like falsifying references etc as discussed lengthily above), using an IP puppet again. Wish I had better news :-) Please advice Poepkop (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Duff
Please can you look over this article and the last message on my talk page. Kittybrewster &#9742;  15:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A most worthy subject. I removed some of the accidental redirect that were created during the article's meandering through Wikipedia namespaces, and more relevantly: removed some incorrect incoming links and added correct ones instead. Not sure what you mean with "the last message on my talk page"; everything looks fine and dandy. Favonian (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks for the colors! Blocking school IPs is one of the more tedious, though apparently necessary, chores in this job. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem Page (c'tued).
Hi Favonian, it appears problem page Feylis sees the return of the vandal/puppeteer/copyviolator once more (2 IP rollbacks within 24 hours), see also above under User_talk:Favonian. Looks like exactly the same, rolling back, no comments on talk page for seeking consensus, weird (and unverifiable anyways) edit comments on last one (diff here ), destruction of previously functional links to external sources, removal of merge request on top of page, copyvio, etc all as before. The edit comment in the diff seems to admit the IP is indeed our Ali. ? Poepkop (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Enough is enough! I've semi-protected the article for three months. Favonian (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the trouble. This time, he uses (presuming the IP accounts were all edit-warrior puppets) his own account again, thus evading "his" block, please see . Though not inserting the copyvio materials again, he does imho corrupt the article by removing relevant references (the iraqi constitution), and again the inevitable replacing of "Kurds" with "Lurs". Since the article is semi-pr till June, maybe if his account would be blocked too for a while to cool down, then finally it may be actually quiet on that article since neither IPs nor new users will not be able to make changes right? Poepkop (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He's certainly trying my patience. Another editor reverted him, and I have now issued an ultimatum. Favonian (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tx, nonetheless I fear he is not impressed, given this morning's . Poepkop (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC). And again . Poepkop (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely. Let's see how he responds to that. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Rock8113
says he is doing a school project where he has to insert his teacher's name in an article.. I guess I should mention this elsewhere 0 if I can find the page for schools projects! Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's dormant, went to ANI to see if anyone else has run into the same thing - it may be real, it might be just vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, goody! Don't you just love it when they take away our lingering doubts about insufficiently assumed goodness of faith – like ?  Favonian (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Heat Wave (song)
Hey Favonian, I was wondering if you could check this out, please... and with the previous article move that you made with Heat Wave (Irving Berlin song) (see Talk:Heat Wave (Irving Berlin song)), might you be able to move Heat Wave (Motown song) (see Talk:Heat Wave (Motown song)) to Heat Wave (Martha and the Vandellas song), as you already know about all these titles and what's been going on with all of them, anyway! Thanks. Best,--Discographer (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would probably be considered improper (by some) if I brought the discussion to a premature close. At any rate, it looks like the participants are singing in harmony. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Thus spoke Zatathustra - about the link I tried to publish in the article -- these painting were published by Russian Accademy of Science, the title of the publication in Friedrich Nietzsche Also sprach Zarathustra in two languages(German and Russian) with 20 reproductions of Lena Hades' works (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your addition has been contested, so per WP:BRD you must start a discussion on the article's talk page. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Italians for the third time
Hallo Favonian Sorry to disturb you, but there has been an outburst of Edit war on the Italians article, always thanks to the same user, and his habit to refuse to get the point and refuse dialog. Now I asked temporary full protection for the article and, moreover, also a third opinion, always hoping that he goes to the talk page. If this won`t take anywhere, what is better: opening a procedure for breaching 3RR, or an incident? Maybe you can have a look to the history of the article and give your opinion. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update:Our friend has been blocked two days for edit warring. The third opinion has been rejected, since more than two editors are involved. Let`s see what it will happen now... Alex2006 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In view of his block log, 48 hours was pretty lenient. Regarding the general question: an ANI case will probably be thrown out (after some mandatory drama) because it's a content dispute. ANEW is the best venue, though of course you have to count your own reverts carefully. Favonian (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Favonian! Until now I never reverted an article more than twice, I am always for a dialogue...Let`s hope that he will change his attitude. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force recommends, "The article for each breed shall be titled based on the apparently most-common official breed name from the major registries." The Template:Infobox_dog_breed requires the "name" parameter to be the "Breed name as in article title". In the case of the German Shepherd Dog article, the name in the infobox has recently been changed to match the title of article which unfortunately is not the breed name. That "name" parameter is now equivalent to the "alternative name" parameter in the infobox. Apart from anything else, there would be less confusion if the article's title was the official breed-name.

The Move was proposed by SMcCandlish, and I don't see that any editors of the article were involved in the discussion to re-title (Move) the article. Anyone with more that a fleeting interest in the actual topic of the article, as opposed to a mere interest in the naming of articles, would be aware of the breed's official name. A supporter of the Move, Kauffner, appears to have been surprised to find that the The American Kennel Club uses "German Shepherd Dog", and concludes that the name (of the article?) was not as silly as first thought. I am not aware of any English-speaking Kennel Club or Specialist Breed Club that doesn't use the breed-name "German Shepherd Dog".

Admittedly, the Encyclopædia Britannica uses "German shepherd" in its online edition. Similarly, the Encyclopædia uses that wording in its hard copy (1985 edition) in its Micropædia volumes. However, it does list the breed as the "German Shepherd Dog" in its Macropædia volumes. I have the 2000 edition of "German Shepherds for Dummies" whose first statement is "Everybody thinks they know the German Shepherd Dog (commonly referred to as the German Shepherd)". I also have a quantity of books widely regarded to be authoritative on the subject - all of which use the full breed-name in their titles. To explain why the German founders of the breed, and the officials of English-speaking Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs who subsequently adopted a direct translation of the original breed-name, used the words "German Shepherd Dog" would require further research. However, as a contributor to the "Origins" section of the article, it is clear that German shepherds played a very important part in the development of the breed. The need for disambiguation is unequivocal from an historical point of view.

Regardless of the breed's common names or the most common search terms used to find the article (which proves nothing), there is a strong argument that the title of the article should comply with the recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force. It would also be reassuring to know that those genuinely seeking knowledge of the breed are correctly informed.

I am unable to find any documentation about other Requested Moves for the article and assume that the article was created under the title "German Shepherd Dog" on 1 September 2002. Almost ten years later you changed the title to that which has stood for almost two years now. I believe the reinstatement of the original title is well overdue. My arguments extend to those articles about other "Shepherd Dogs" whose titles were also changed.49.181.236.140 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a fairly strong consensus to go with WP:COMMONNAME rather than project recommendations, and I'm not going to reverse that. If you think you have a strong case, you should start a new requested move discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing your decision to Move (re-title) the article. I don't see a consensus unless you mean consensus by absence of opposition to the Move. In the archive you have posted on the article's Talk page, I see a discussion of 1078 words over a twenty-four hour period with four participants. (A later contribution to the discussion, providing a statistical analysis of sorts, claims to be in support of the Move.) Outside of that discussion there is clear opposition to the Move's proposer. The proposer and supporters of the Move do not seem to have been aware of the most commonly used breed-name in the English-speaking world, and would appear to have assumed that the word "Dog" was simply tacked on for no justifiable reason. They are wrong as has been brought to their attention - alas, to no avail. In closing the Requested Move, you were expected to be familiar with the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere, which reflect the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community, and not just the preferences of a tiny fraction of users who might wish to eliminate the words "dog", "horse", etc from official breed-names simply because they find those words redundant in most cases. The recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force reflect the greater desires of the Wikipedia community. At the least, the titles of articles falling under the WikiProject umbrella would be consistent if the breed-names of the various "Shepherd Dogs" were re-instated as required. Of course a similar argument continued over decades with the German Shepherd Dog in the UK. The difference there is that the breed-name was at first given an inappropriate title which was then hard to "move". In the present case, you have changed the title from the breed-name to something else, apparently believing the arguments of two or three users. The Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognizable names is qualified by the need to determine the name by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. Such sources would include the writings of the founders and promotors of the specific breed, the names and writings of the national kennel clubs and breed clubs (including the Breed Standards), the writings of notable specialised-breed-judges, breeders and trainers, etc, not newspaper headlines, search-engine terms, titles used by publishers of very general book-series, etc. If you believe the recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force contravene broader Wikipedia policies, you should notify the WikiProject and state clearly which particular policy is being violated and how. I was fairly satisfied to ignore the incorrect title as it has stood for the past couple of years. The proposer of the Move seemed hell-bent on having such titles. However, as the infobox in the article about the German Shepherd Dog has now been altered such that the article's title and the name of the infobox now match the alternative name in the infobox, it became very obvious that compliance with the WikiProject's recommendations is the only way to avoid confusion. If you do not see that point, please let me know and I'll try to put another way. 49.181.236.148 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion that I'm referring to ran for a full week, and what you call "absence of opposition" were clearly marked as "Support". At any rate, my talk page is not the right venue to exercise your persuasive powers. To reiterate: the only way for you to get the article renamed is by starting a formalized discussion. Assuming that you want the other shepherds renamed as well, the process to follow is described in WP:Requested moves. I recommend that you create an account, if only because the changing IP addresses make for confusing reading. Favonian (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was referring to a Requested Move of which you were the closer. When I said "absence of opposition", I meant absence of opposition to the Requested Move, and, it appears to me that that absence of opposition is what you have used to determine consensus, ignoring the wider Wikipedia community's consensus as reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. I have presumed that the recommendations of the relevant WikiProjects reflect a greater consensus than the two or three users who proposed and supported the Requested Move. The arguments of those who proposed and supported the Requested Move are clearly marked "Support". You appear to state the opposite, claiming that arguments against the Requested Move were clearly marked "Support", in which case you are wrong. The archive you have posted on the article's Talk page shows that the body of the discussion ran from 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) until 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC) with almost half the word-count being that of the proposer. As I said earlier, there was also a later brief contribution to the discussion which claimed to provide a statistical analysis of sorts in support of the Requested Move. As the closer of the Requested Move, you are the person responsible for changing the title of the article from the Breed-name to something else which brings you into conflict with the relevant WikiProjects. You are also the person with whom I must discuss the matter before requesting a Move Review. That's simply the procedure! If you insist that I register an account in order to continue this discussion, you will be falling foul of other Wikipedia policies, so I suggest you keep your recommendations and arguments in that regard to yourself. As an administrator, you should keep in mind that you are in a privileged position, especially in relation to normal users like me, and it would be extremely disheartening to see that position abused. 49.181.236.149 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please check your facts! I closed the discussion with on March 4, one week after it began. I probably cannot change the way in which you wish to interpret the supporting !votes, but at least have the courtesy not to claim that I demanded that you create an account, when I recommended it. It's pretty clear that we have nothing more to discuss. Goodbye! Favonian (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In summary: Over a twenty-four hour period, two or three users proposed and supported the Requested Move of the article, "German Shepherd Dog", to "German Shepherd". Another user later contributed a statistical analysis of sorts claiming it to be in support of the requested move. No-one has disputed that the discussion was open for less than the required time before being closed. At the time, you were aware that the relevant WikiProject recommends that the article's title be the breed-name. The proposer disputed that "German Shepherd Dog" was the proper name of the breed, and, simultaneously requested that the article (and other similar articles) be re-titled by effecting a Move. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_Shepherd&oldid=478916318). A supporter of the Move later did some research and was surprised to find that the official breed-name used by the American Kennel Club was "German Shepherd Dog". (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_Shepherd&oldid=479096222) In preference to two or three users, you disregarded the recommendations of the relevant WikiProjects and effected the Move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.146 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 49.181.236.146 (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)