Jump to content

User talk:Favonian: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverted 2 edits by SineBot and Mazvitza jefferson to last revision by Favonian (HG)
→‎Shopi: reply
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 250: Line 250:


:Fear not, someone will. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Fear not, someone will. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Shopi ==
Sorry for doing 'vandalism'??
I've only being trying to expand certain articles. Anyway, I won't move anymore articles..
[[User:ProcEnforce|ProcEnforce]] ([[User talk:ProcEnforce|talk]]) 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:Glad to hear that you understood the message. Sorry if it sounded a bit harsh, but what you did was really quite damaging, and when you did the exact same thing after my first note, I had to raise my voice. Regarding the two schools with the same name, there may be good reason to treat them equally and not let one "monopolize" the name, but it has to be done properly. I'll look into it tomorrow, as it's getting a bit late in my timezone. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 20:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:07, 20 July 2010

A nice cup of...

Vandalism

How am I vandalizing the World Cup page? I am saying the TRUTH. --74.167.246.83 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Do you have any verifiable references from reliable sources to back it up?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You were adding your personal analyses to the article and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Please have a look at WP:OR. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Favorian,

Dear Favorian,

I have edited the page Azay Mohnatov, it is now correctly edited with referincing and biography box. Please have a look at the article.

Regards, Wikipation001 Agil 917 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)19.06.10 Wikipation001Agil 917 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been deleted by an administrator. In fact it has been deleted several times under this name as well as Azay Mokhnatov. You have to face the fact that this person isn't notable by Wikipedia standards.
Another thing: you seem to have at some point changed your user name from Agil 917 (talk · contribs) to Wikipation001 (talk · contribs), yet you still seem to edit under the old name. That is confusing, if not downright suspicious. Please stick to the new name. Favonian (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thx Favonian. I'm bending over now getting ready for it... Captain of the Golden Hind (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kadioglu Baharat WebPage

Hi Favonian, May I learn the reason why you flagged Kadioglu Baharat ? I was still working on it, it is one of the most health conciensus companies in the world, promoting unique and healthy production of spices for people.Geronimo ahmo (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is basically an advertisement, and the links provided don't really demonstrate that the company is notable. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Favonian, I just responded to your message. I know my page is connected to a case, but I am writing a much more enriched page then before. Last time, my page got flagged before I can finish it. I am just learning how to use Wiki. I read the terms. I believe this company is significant in non-business related ways which is very important. It is a cornerstone which must be mentioned. Geronimo ahmo (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coulibaly Talk Page

The Talk page is semi-protected so I can't write anything on it!Dfourni (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are right. I was confused by the absence of the usual icon indicating protection. At any rate, keep your opinions off the article, and use your own talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article the way it is right now is absolutely ridiculous. The only reason this guy is well known is because of his decision to disallow the goal. That is the ONLY reason. Look at the Don Denkinger article for an example of the article should look like. Why is the score of a match where Coulibaly was the 4th referee included? All he did in that match was hold a scoreboard announcing the subs. He was not involved in that match at all. That should not be included in the article. The fact that the article tries to downplay the controversy or pretends that only America thinks that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talkcontribs) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Clare

thank you for your speedy delition of my first wikipedia page i think you should reconcider it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwetafgrge (talkcontribs) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an administrator deleted it, while I merely nominated it. There was absolutely no reason to keep it. Favonian (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk

Gdansk was not German as Germany were none existent yet. The history of Gdansk is simple -> Prusia was first before Germanic nations created Germany as we know it. Gdansk was a free city that did not belong to either Poland nor Germany. Both Polish and German citizens were living there. All Surnames ending with "ski" like Bromowski, kowalski, etc,(in USA "sky" for proper pronunciation) or "icz" like Ciechanowicz, Krajewicz have Polish origin and they are part of original naming in whole Poland throughout Polish history. Many Jews were changing their names to Polish surnames to prevent being recognized as Jewish, because they were not tolerated in most of the Europe back then, and Poland gave them a freedom of leaving on Polish teritory, back then known as Polish Shire or Warsaw Shire(Ksiestwo Polskie or Ksiestwo Warszawskie). Please read more about it in some History books... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.74 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reference, quoted in the article, states that Brooks' father considered himself a German Jew, and that's what matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Favonian (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion copied to Talk:Mel Brooks, where it will continue. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Level of Knowledge

Dear Favonian In regards Mr Mel Brooks and his father instead talking and posting bullshit please ask him who was his father. I was born in Canada within Polish family, both of my parents are Polish and I am in Poland now. Is the fact that I was born in Canada makes me 100% Canadian? I don't think so! I am Polish by roots so is Mr Maksymilian Kamisnki. The letter "i" in his surname is being replaced with "y" for American Pronunciation to be more accurate. Also with his First name "ks" was replaced with "x" as all Polish community does for the same reasons as stated before. Gransk was a Free City and both Polish and German citizens were living there, Even when Poland was under occupation of Austria-Hungarians, Russia and Prussia. So do not change the history or I will have to boycott you publicly for attempts of change history to serve your purposes whatever they might be. Read more about Poland/Germany and Prussia (Another Germanic nation) also I suggest you read about Linguistic History where you will clearly see where is Kaminski's root came from. I suspect you are German but that is NOT giving you any rights to change history. Mr Kaminski's family run away from Europe to America between WWI and WWII and you should know why!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.74 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Michael Ksiezopolski and you can contact me at ksiezopolski@yahoo.com

Thanks!

I forgot to say thanks for the catch of the vandal on my userpage earlier! Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! Favonian (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss universe 2011

I see you tagged Miss universe 2011 with {{db-repost}}. I have declined this speedy deletion. The AfD discussion put much emphasis on the lack of verifiable plans, but the current version of the article gives a definite statement of the venue, so the same argument may not have the same force. I think a second AfD will be necessary if you still want the article deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, and in cases like this I guess the subject will eventually materialize, so initiating yet another AfD is likely futile. I took my cue from this log, which shows that the properly capitalized article with (I assume) the same contents was speedied and salted only a week ago. Favonian (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is virtually the same contents, but the essential difference is that it gives the venue as a fact rather than a speculation. Whether it actually is a well-sourced fact I don't know. I hadn't noticed that under a slightly different title it had been salted, or I might have taken a different line. If you want to make a point of the salting I can consider deleting it, but on the whole I agree with you: even if it's not notable, it will eventually emerge, so it's probably not worth the effort of pursuing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it. Wikipedia can live with yet another beauty pageant article :-| Favonian (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I was having a look at this. Who would want an article about the 2011 event when this year's hasn't even been held. But you're both right, best left. Except. It needs moving. And I don't want to get my fingerprints on it! :P – B.hoteptalk20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to add any external links I was just trying to figure out how to do it so it looks correct, unfortunately every time I was trying to view it you had deleted it again so I am still none the wiser than when I started, Also worth mentioning that you have removed part of the original article by mistake, you might want to check that! just a heads up since your not to busy.

How are people expected to learn how to use wiki when you get trigger happy DELETE FREAKS removing everything you post, you could have given me chance to figure it out and then perhaps you would have found the page to be as I had found it. Daneldiniho 20:40 2nd July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneldiniho (talkcontribs) 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is exactly what it was before you started to add your commercial link to it. If you want to experiment, use the preview button instead of actually saving your changes, or even better: use the sandbox. Favonian (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Dzierzon

What do you know about Polish, Silesian and Prussian history? Are you Polish or German? --Showasw (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I give you sourcess in Polish literature. Thus I ask you are you Polish.--131.104.139.151 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Chaplin: no, I don't have that honor. What you did was to remove the IPA pronunciation guide and add your personal point of view without providing reliable sources to back your claim. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

I need help in editing Alvina Alston's page so it is NOT deleted. Can u help me? Mediaexecutive01 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a look at WP:BIO, which explains what it take to establish notability for a person. You should, however, also look at WP:COI. If you have a conflict of interest, you probably shouldn't be writing this article. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUNBURY OFICIAL

We are trying to add the official sites for BUNBURY in Facebook, MySpace and Twitter... is that possible?

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunburyoficial (talkcontribs) 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer to do without them. Look at WP:EL for general guidelines regarding external links. And do have a look at WP:COI. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only account

User:Twomblies - Kittybrewster 22:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't edited since the two dubious ones which you reverted. I've left a warning, and if they come back for more, they will get it. Favonian (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1974

Then add in the summit, since SALT I, SALT II, or not, it's still an event that happened that year, and since the edit was for events that happened in 1974, that IS a worthy addition. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we only have entries for events for which articles exist. This one was just another summit in a long series; it doesn't have an article and is barely mentioned anywhere, though the picture of Ford and Brezhnev is used in lots pf places, maybe for aesthetic reasons. Favonian (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For the reverts to my talk page. I must have upset somebody, but the IP that did it had never made any contributions before! - I suspect he wouldn't do that under his user name, but maybe now the IP address is blocked, he might have problems.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Let's just hope that the vandal is not of the faithful kind who will be back after the block expires. Favonian (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dolly Rockers

Their name is The Dolly Rockers. Jared Moore 1985 (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point. If you want the article renamed, look at WP:RM. Do not make the change by copy/pasting! Personally, I don't give a hoot what they call themselves. Favonian (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Edition redirect

Hi! In future when you convert a page to a redirect, as you did with Special Edition, can you please ensure that the information from the page is transferred across? I've done that for you here. Stephen! Coming... 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, right you are. Sorry! Favonian (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick edit

Ohhh.. That was a quick edit on the movie - Antibody. I guess you must be watching the movie as well and searched for an article..

Cheers Ramanan rams81 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the explanation is a bit more banal: I was watching new articles, but I am a film buff. Hope I'm not getting in your way. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pig diet

Look now, it is a fact that domestic pigs do eat human feces.(wild pigs are also known to eat dung of other animals). It may not appeal to some people but a FACT is A FACT. So Why should this fact be hidden? Because it doesn't appeal to pork eaters? Go and see this in any village in India. If you think only Indian pigs eat poop, put a plate of feces in front of an American domestic pig (maybe they are not allowed to eat), and see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.4 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fascination you've got there, but you're barking (oinking?) up the wrong tree. It was another editor, who reverted you. Favonian (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

35 > 65 ?

Dear Favorian, I see you are mathematician than you know how to calculate. 69 out of 192 United Nations countries recognized Kosovo so you can calculate how many percents it is. I did not touched parts in articles where article says about Kosovo fight for independence because those are facts also and even links to outside resources but Wikipedia is about facts so no matter how our feelings are we should respect the facts and the fact is that Kosovo is not a country, it is still a part of Serbia, one day maybe Kosovo will be a country but the facts are that now it is not. Look at maps in the article, doesn't it seems absurd for you to write about Kosovo as it is a country and not to put it on maps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.16.83 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not decided be UN head count but by consensus among editors based on reliable sources. If you have an issue with the inclusion, you should take it to Talk:Balkans and not attempt any further reverts. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious...

I am software architect by profession also and it is obvious that you are amateur historian, I'll take this issue to Talk Balkan but the fact remains that truth and facts are not consensus, they are just facts and no matter how we feel about them they remain the same... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.16.83 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You approved this edit. Did you verify that the source being credited actually supports the edit? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. We are not required to as part of this tagged revision system (or whatever it ended up being called), only to ensure that it's not blatant vandalism, and this is not, as far as I can tell. The sources are not available online, but I admit that the edit summary looks a bit WP:ORish. Maybe a {{Citation needed}} is appropriate. Favonian (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll do that. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation

Could you please tell why my edit wasn't constructive? You left a message on my talk page then go away without coming back to check my reply. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding request

Why don't you re-add it. You should not have deleted my request. You should be the one to be "carefull". I feel you are a being hypocritical towards me when you deleted my request. Please add it back, thank you. GuineaPigWarrior 21:30 12 July, 2010.

Another editor was kind enough to do that. I am, admittedly, less inclined to mop up after you. And by the way, in view of the above and your other contributions to Wikipedia, please have a look at WP:CIVIL. Favonian (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mop up after me" you were lazy to just delete my request. How dare you say you were too inclined to mop up after me. As I see it, you should have done it. As for your link, you dis respected me by deleting my request when you did it and you should had cleaned it up instead of being hypocritical. GW!

A bot, not Favonian, originally removed your request. The reason the bot removed your request is that it was placed in the wrong section [1]. Open requests go in the top section, completed requests go in the bottom section. --B (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry. I just got mad at Graham87 because he commented on my 911 Dispatching article: There is NO hope that this will become a real article. And it is a real animation series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamer103 (talkcontribs) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such behavior is not acceptable around this place. Please stop, or you will most likely be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Health Sciences Antigua

For the past three years our school UHSA has been in this constant struggle with this place in order to get information to stay AS IT IS right NOW. Be informed that the legal representative of the school, Mr. Patrick Oneill, ESQ. has written a letter to the CEO of this place to give this place a formal ultimatum in regards of this. NO VANDALISM is made by our side. NO ALTERATIONS WILL BE TOLERATED. This actions from WIKIPEDIA has caused the life of our Founder, Dr. Yele Akande. He died on October of last year due of this issue.

Lyzette Roman Vice President International Affairs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyz roman (talkcontribs) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pushing your caps lock, you should read Wikipedia's guidelines regarding legal threats. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False positive report

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. Soap 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Based on the deluge of false positive reports that came in around the same time as mine, I figured there might be something wrong with the code. Quite amusing to be charged with "your mom" related vandalism, though. Kudos for fixing it so quickly! Favonian (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policies (June 24 2010)

I had possibly blocked from editing. You said 15:10 on 24 June 2010. Hidbaty223 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is less than clear what you mean, but I did in fact issue a couple of warnings to you in June, and you were subsequently blocked by an administrator for a series of rather idiotic edits to date-related articles, for instance this one. Do you have a problem with this? And while we are at it, this statement on your talk page will not keep you from receiving warnings, should you again see fit to edit disruptively, and you are in no position to block anybody. Favonian (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??

Why do you keep changing my edits.

FattyMagoo (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a vandal. Favonian (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I change a page to reflect facts. It may not be listed on any economic reports, however the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine is a major contributor to the economy of Wasilla, AK. This comment was not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FattyMagoo (talkcontribs) 22:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it? And your repeated removals of Sarah Palin? Oh, and thanks a bundle for Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Favonian. Could have become quite a collectors' item. Favonian (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A collectors' item, indeed. It's now out of print. – B.hoteptalk23:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rats! But there'll probably be more. Thanks for putting Magoo out of my misery! Favonian (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an offer (because I don't do that sort of thing, historically speaking) but when are you going for adminship? Then at least I can take your talk page of my watchlist! At least at the moment it is compelling viewing. :) – B.hoteptalk23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the !offer—I can take huge amounts of flattery without blushing. Drmies was kind enough to ask me the same question, and I've been kind of waffling ever since. Do you think odds are favorable? I have a very small production of articles, none of them DYK, GA, etc. material, and as my talk page demonstrates, I'm no loss to the Diplomatic Service. Favonian (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I don't nominate is I can't take don't take failure lightly and end up feeling all responsible. All I will say is: your reports to AIV are always dead on to the point I don't even have to check them most of the time (but I do because I am responsible ;)) and you have your head screwed on right from what I see. So, in that respect your odds are favourable... but then, wtf do I know? It's six of one and half a dozen of another most of the time. Put it this way, it will be a strong support from me, but I am under no illusion about neither my import nor influence around here! – B.hoteptalk23:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of late in my timezone, but I think I'll do the honorable thing for the sake of the community and go for it. If nothing else, the RfA procedure seems to be quite an experience. Just promise me that you won't use my hypothetical elevation as an excuse for your own retirement! The vandals were getting awfully frisky in your absence. Favonian (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. Now I've as good as nominated you... I'm doomed. ;) – B.hoteptalk23:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Jefferson (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

you didnt block


Mini Jefferson (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Jefferson (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, someone will. Favonian (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shopi

Sorry for doing 'vandalism'?? I've only being trying to expand certain articles. Anyway, I won't move anymore articles.. ProcEnforce (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you understood the message. Sorry if it sounded a bit harsh, but what you did was really quite damaging, and when you did the exact same thing after my first note, I had to raise my voice. Regarding the two schools with the same name, there may be good reason to treat them equally and not let one "monopolize" the name, but it has to be done properly. I'll look into it tomorrow, as it's getting a bit late in my timezone. Favonian (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]