User talk:Favonian

"Zeal" vandal

Kingzeel (talk · contribs), the vandal is back. Keep an eye out, I'm going to log off soon. -Reconsider! 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've already encountered a couple today. Regrettably, I'll also be signing off in the near future. Favonian (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So far there's Supremezeal, Kzienagl!, Kingzeel, Zealking. Should post this on the noticeboard, or notify other patrollers. -Reconsider! 10:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. WP:ANI#A vandal full of zeal Favonian (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Back again. Hmm I was about to follow up on the investigation. -Reconsider! 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez! It never ends. I've dropped Shirik a line, since he appears to be in charge of edit filter 316. Favonian (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"First" sighting since late April, that is, assuming that he hasn't gone undetected. Filter appears to be redundant.-Reconsider! 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Yesterday, Zealipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tripped the filter, but now he's honing his skills. Favonian (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

and Drunkzeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Favonian (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

CCW changes

Why did you send me a warning and change the page back for my edit of Catholic College Wodonga, I was adding applicable information, and helping the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.160.8 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to this bit of juvenile crap? Thanks for your contribution, and please get lost! Favonian (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it was legitimate. Give me a reason it was not, my content was central to the philosophy and community makeup of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.27.9 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin

You really ought to be an administrator. You will get my vote. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your expression of confidence! I have been thinking about it for quite a while now, and I think I'll go for it. Will study the procedure, and think of some appropriate answers to the questions. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you're serious about this admin stuff, you're going to have to stop making edits like this--no one loves a bot lover, and you could have just let it go as "unverified information."

Kitty, do you want to type up a nomination? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Never done one. But keep me posted. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(@Drmies) Hey, some of my best friends are bots! PseudoBot, please come back, all is forgiven! Favonian (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, adminship. A support from moi aussi, hope you'll have it up soon. • ɔ ʃ → 04:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Chappuzeau page

Hi, Why is removal of dead links from a page which I created myself classed as vandalism? I am puzzled Neil Jennings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.50.251 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Now logged in under my username pavane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavane (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't, and I apologize. When patrolling for vandalism, it can be difficult to view modifications in context, especially when the users fail to provide edit summaries. You would do everyone involved, including yourself, a favor if you remembered that in the future. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore, when you made the edit in question, you were logged out, so it was registered under your IP address and not the name of the author of the article. Favonian (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Poisson Distribution External Links

Hi Favonian,

Thanks for your note, however I'm a math major and also a sports bettor. When looking at the article these tools are valid calculators for the theory being discussed. I'm in no way building links or spamming rather adding useful references so readers can see the theory in real life scenarios.

Best Regards!

Dannomatic (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dannomatic. Thanks for your note. I don't question your motives, even though the word "betting" tends to raise my eyebrows. We have a set of guidelines about which external links to include or exclude. The latter are listed in WP:ELNO, in particular item 13, "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject …" Since it's a general site, which happens to have a Poisson calculator, this clause seems to apply. My judgment is not (quite) infallible, so you could try ask for a second opinion on Talk:Poisson distribution. Best, Favonian (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, more neutrality plz

Dictator From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (APPLIED)(sometimes but not always with military control) but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch (APPLIED).[1] When other states call the head of state of a particular state a dictator, that state is called a dictatorship. The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency (see Roman dictator and justitium).[2]

Like the term "tyrant" (which was originally a respectable Ancient Greek title), and to a lesser degree "autocrat", "dictator" came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.[citation needed]

In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly (AGAIN APPLIED)[citation needed]. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties (APPLIED); proclamation of a state of emergency (APPLIED 30 years ago, and still going); rule by decree (APPLIED); repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures (APPLIED, and examples are countless, look up "ayman nour"); these include single-party state (APPLIED), and cult of personality.[citation needed]

The term "dictator" is comparable to, but not synonymous with, the ancient concept of a tyrant; initially "tyrant", like "dictator", did not carry negative connotations. A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas, single-party states and civilian governments under personal rule, have been described as dictators. For example, Hitler, Stalin , and Kim Jong-il.

---

so, could you please tell me how can wikipedia be neautral when Hitler is considered a dictator nd Mubarak isn't ?

please study more history , follow up more egyptinan internl affairs, and BE neutral, and just apply every word from the "diactator" topic onto Mubarak and you'll find this is the correct title.. by the wy, omar al-bashir, the sudanese president is considred a "diactator" according to wikipedia's neutrality, while half of these dictator "attributes" dont apply to him while they do apply to Mubarak... so, please let me do my job of correcting the page of my country's leader.

have a nice day sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.173.64 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is that your conclusion based on available evidence is that Mubarak is a dictator. In Wikipedia terminology that's referred to as original research and it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you want to include include the word "dictator" in the article, you need to find reliable sources which describe him thus. For comparison, have a look at this newspaper article about Omar al-Bashir. If you wish to debate the applicability of the word, the right place to do so is on Talk:Hosni Mubarak. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clicks principle

Sorry about tripping all over you there, I saw it in Huggle and, agreeing with the prod, sent it straight to AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fault entirely mine :) We certainly agree on the usefulness of this article. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's not useful go ahead and delete it but the application to momentum seems astonishing so I added it. The coincidence it seems is M/M not the reverse. Just an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.108.90 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And if it's so obviously true then why do I not see it on wikipedia? {98.251.108.90 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}

Aluminum borohydride

I created the article, so it must stay with "aluminum" (not "aluminium") per WP:RETAIN. --J4\/4 <talk> 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this before. You do not own an article just because you created it, and the spelling of the name was settled back in November. More specific guidelines, like WP:ALUM trumps the "tiebreaker" WP:ENGVAR. You can only rename the article through WP:Requested moves. Favonian (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll down on WP:ALUM, you'll see that articles may be at a more common name regardless of other policies or IUPAC. Also, WP:RETAIN states that the variety of English used by the article's creator must be used in all subsequent versions of the article. --J4\/4 <talk> 19:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You can try that line of argument at WP:Requested moves. Do not try to rename the article on your own, especially not using copy/paste. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a controversial opinion to an article is not vandalism."

Why am I then being told that it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.233.233 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be your personal opinion, which has no place in Wikipedia. Do you have reliable sources backing your claims? Favonian (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted a link to an informational website on Electronic Cigarettes yet leave a link to a page that sells them? (Referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-cig)

May I ask what the reasoning behind the decision is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleibanez801 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No reason, except that I hadn't noticed it. Already gone. Thanks for pointing it out. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the informational site was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleibanez801 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers to minimize the number of external links as explained in the guidelines. If you think a link to this site should be included in the article, I would recommend that you bring it up on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleibanez801 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Town

I've requested indefinite semi-protection for this article, a favorite haunt of puppetmaster DailyWikiHelp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering about the somewhat systematic IP attacks. Favonian (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

leave me alone!

i do what i want! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.177.98 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to National debt, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

May 8th 2010 (Australia)

Thankyou for your comment (whoever you are)...There was a similar Vandalism done to the first Edit that I had ever made on Wiki...I came here, to Wiki, looking for a current definition of National Debt or as Wiki had it at the time..."National debt" which turned out to be a redirect to Wiki Def "Government debt"...

The definition of "Government debt" on that page, unreferenced and unsupported, claims...(It has been reinstated from the edits that I made following a vandalism attack by "Mean as Custard" (Whoever they are?) which reinstated the Redirect to "Government debt" that I had removed as part of my first edit to "National debt"...):-..."Government debt (also known as public debt or national debt)".... This is not correct, and it appears to me that the page "Government debt" is some "Vandal Attack" on the "Fundamentals of ECONOMICS as a Science" as such it sets out to muddle anyones thinking with regard to these fundamental Economic Definitions.... If you - "Mean as Custard" or "Favonian", whoever you are, - continue to reinstate the "redirect from my edited "National debt" back to the incorrectly defined "Government debt" page, then it is you that is committing an act of Vandalism, and adding to the confusion created by that pages claims....At this time when The Greek Nations so called "Sovereign debt" is an issue, your interference in this issue is not only adding to the confusion on that issue but is preventing people from having some clear thought on the issue of "National Debt" and what it is. For instance....since, from the Oxford University Definition as relayed from the Oxford University Faculty of Economics to The Salesian College Farnborough Lecturer and Tutor of "Economics" in 1962 (and to all other Colleges teaching that subject), in response to my query "What is the definition of National Debt... "National Debt is the Debt that a Nation owes to itself for investing in it's own Future"....Then a simple question that follows is..."Under whose authority did The Greek Nation Change their National Debt to being "A Debt that the Greek Nation owes to Any other Nation for them investing in the Greek Nations Future" and if that is just an extension of the original Definition then it is perhaps an act of Treason to the Greek Nation by whoever did it... The questions that should be being asked at this point in time...in the United Nations Forum....aren't being asked....and your censorship of The Definition of "National debt"....as supplied by "Oxford University" is certainly counterproductive to those issues being addressed.... If you persist in your Vandalism then all you succeed in doing is confirming my developing opinion that "Wikipedia" is an "Anarchistic Encylopedia", an opinion, I am assured, that many have reached before me. Thank you. . PCGull (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert edits of the article of GQHS

Please do not make any more unconstructive reverts to articles of schools, as you did in the one of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School. All information are properly cited or do no needs sources, as they are self-explaining like the CEEB school code everyone can look up on collegeboard.com or the location coordinates. GQBC publishes verious English-language information about the school, which should provide source to most information in the article. Numbers like enrollment and faculty are either retrievable through the school administration or ETS (English Testing Systems) Code Control, which overseas the school's SAT program and has been provided all necessary information. Moreover, refering to a "socket puppet" incident is no reason to revert recent edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.85.170 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a very bad idea to vandalise Wikipedia and spam it in a way that must be easily traceable to you by everyone who knows you. Just stop thinking about Wikipedia, at least as a way to promote any of your pet projects. Hans Adler 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

copyright issue on Csaba_Zvekan

Hi Favonian,

I was wondering which url or material you are referring to that might violate the copyright issues so we can correkt it. Is it the picture ? That should be GNU though.

Kind Regards Csabi911

Csabi911 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

It's the whole text which appears to be lifted from this. Favonian (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian..now I understand ... it has been corrected on the original website. There will be something else there that doesn't conflict with WIKI it has been taken care of as we speak. Originally it was done in WIKI on my userpage User:Csabi911 and then HKain transferred it over ,set up Killing_Machine_(band) and the associated Csaba_Zvekan page. I think it should be OK now. Please check this. Csabi911 (talk)

Hello Favonian.

I am currently editing the wiki of the band Killing Machine and their members. Among them the lead singer Csaba Zvekan. I understand there was a copy-write conflict between his website and Wikipedia. I will change the content on his website, and as you can see there is no longer a conflict now. It would be nice if you would lift the redirection. Thank you for the warning and keep up the good work. It´s people like you that keep the quality up here on wikipedia. Best regards, Heidi K Hkain (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Avatar edits!

I don't understand why you keep editing the article I'M TRYING TO FIX!!! On the page for Avatar (2009 film), I keep on editing the reception area whic says, "The film received generally positive reviews from critics." 'Generally Positive,' in this case means, 'Okay movie. It's good. Just not amazing.' But it clearly states very good reviews such as an 82% from Rotten Tomatoes, which would be a very good score. A "generally positive" movie would've been around the 60's or 70's. It also shows a review that gave the film four out of four stars, and there are other very positive reviews as well. What I am trying to do is simply edit the word "generally" to "very," if that is not too much to ask for. With this simple edit, it will correctly say: "The film received generally positive reviews from critics." IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR TO HAVE A SIMPLE WORD EDITED!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Come on, Fanovian. It's time you either give me a good reason to shut up, or you just accept the fact that a simple word on one of MANY articles is just going to be a little different, as well as more accurate. RESPOND!!!!!!!!!

Autobotprowl (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Autobotprowl

Dear Bot. You seem to be barking (loudly) up the wrong tree. As far as I can tell, you have made two edits to the article in question, namely this and this, both of which do as you describe above. I have no problems with this, though apparently other editors do. The only edit I have performed on the article is this, a rather legitimate bit of anti-vandalism. So in the future, please check your facts and have a look at WP:CIVIL. Favonian (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Zola

I think it would have been best to check the reference given by the IP editor before reverting the Zola entry.
Samcol1492 (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IP(s) did not provide any references. If you look at my revert, the statement of his dismissal was attached to a reference from 2009, which seemed rather suspicious. Now a proper reference has been provided, and all is good in the world. Favonian (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Samcol1492 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Peace of Augsburg

umm excuse me but i edited that page because i wanted to let everybody know what i think. i think you should stop messaging me okay. thak you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.107.203 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe me: nobody cares what you think. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Excuse me good sir, but I believe I recently received a message from you Claiming that I have in some way damaged or "vandalized" Wikipedia, and I would just like to contest this obscene claim you made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjackon (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reckon you're referring to this revert of your edit to Scientology and marriage. Referring to this organization as a "cult" is derogatory. There have been several attempts to use this term in connections with Scientology, but the consensus is to avoid it. The reason for the strongly worded message is your track record, which does not inspire confidence in your abilities or intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

what "track record" are you referring too?? Just because of my status as a new user, does not mean that i am out to hurt Wikipedia. In addition I would like to say that Scientology is most definitely a cult and that statement could be backed up by a massive quantity of factual evidence, the consensus to avoid it is inspired by the fact that Scientology has an army of lawyers to take legal action against anyone who speaks out against it. Therefore i find this consensus invalid and I find your edit a form of censorship and therefore I find it destructive to the integrity of what is known as one of the most neutral sources on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjackon (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition I am irritated by your comments on my "ability" and "intention" is one of the rules of these talk pages not "to avoid personal attacks"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjackon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is not too impressive, and nor is this, and this is, well, vandalism. In fact you haven't made any worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats your opinion.... All of these changes are factual after all I'm fairly certain that a Bauhinia picta has been in someones mothers bedroom before, and I've been to Diassara and they all seemed pretty good at it so i made the mistake of thinking it was their official sport(my mistake sorry). As for Pål Løkkeberg, i found his movie "Bitches on the Tip like George Bush on Liqueur" on the internet, but I gues it wasnt directed by him so that is also my mistake I'm sorry. Andrewjackon (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of getting angry Favonian it may be best to explain your points more clearly and also try to avoid making any judgmental comments such as “In fact you haven't made any worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia”. I came across this randomly and I think it’s not the ideal way to communicate with someone who may well have tried to make a constructive edit on Wikipedia but perhaps they may not be overly sure of the functionality provided. In case like this it would also be a good idea to offer help. Just a thought. Thank you.--Ciaran M (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but did you see their edits, and the fact they are now permo-blocked? – B.hotep •talk• 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Ciaran. I have to ask you if you checked the edits of this editor, which I enumerated above, and which were at that point his only contributions? They were followed by this one after which they were indef blocked. In short, I stand by my assessment. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I threw my eve over them quickly(his edits). I was more so reading his defence above and it sounded genuine but upon closer inspection it became clear he was not asgenuine but just seemed to be causing trouble when clearly in wrong. Sorry if I caused any offence above. --Ciaran M (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No offence taken. Your motives were laudable. Favonian (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your edit by mistake

Hi Favonian, I was notified that I reverted an edit you made on Question, and in fact reverted your reversion of an inappropriate edit. I just wanted to let you know that I was intending to revert the edit by 160.7.72.147 at the same time you were, and either I or Twinkle got confused. Sorry about that! Thanks, and "see" you around. Bento00 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but thanks for telling me. I have had to "make amends" a few times myself, usually because my fat finger hits the wrong Huggle key. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts on my talk page. We won't be seeing that editor any more. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor will me miss him! Favonian (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:216.102.76.214

I added proper punctuation! a "." instead of a "," is vandalism?! Why are you a mod?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.76.214 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How an editor chooses to employ punctuation on her user page is not really any of your business, and you should not edit the page at all. If you have a problem with being cautioned about your previous vandalism by the editor, leave a polite message on her talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Userpage Shield
		For the reverting of vandalism on my Talk Page, I award you The Userpage Shield. Spitfire19 (Talk) 22:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I know how it feels: [1]. Favonian (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Glad to see he's blocked now. Cheers! ElationAviation 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page mentioning you

Please see deleted contents of Wiki, The musical.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so flattered! Unfortunately, as I'm not an administrator I cannot read this epic. Favonian (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Just some minor vandalism. It wasn't very clear what the user was going for. Five or six other users were mentioned. I thought I'd inform the lot just because I'd want to know if the situations were reversed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Another chance at immortality lost Favonian (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we can't all be famous or this well loved;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

They are hard to beat, though this small token of affection left me deeply moved. Favonian (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to tell that what I wrote is a hoax??

Well who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteAgent (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Who am I? A question worthy of one your country's philosophers, but more to the point: the reason why other editors and I have labeled your initial efforts as a hoax is that you failed to provide anything that would pass for a verifiable reliable source. I can see that you have now expanded the article and provided a link to a website, but that there is still some doubt as to whether this pilot can really be considered a kamikaze. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I just wanted to do the same as you to Template:Infobox SOFTWARE ENGINEER, but you were about a second faster. Very good! :) Hekerui (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." Favonian (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Tween Turd

why did you delete my post? i provided the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As explained in a previous edit summary, there is no indication on Google search that this "book" exists—even when I correct your spelling of the title. We need a verifiable, reliable source. Favonian (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

apparently you didnt bother to read my last reference citation, as i updated it to include the full source...which you no doubt can find on Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A college handbook, written by students for students? In my book, that just doesn't cut it unless is has gained wider usage. I don't think it's relevant. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be this one? No mention of your little brainchild in that. Favonian (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional research, Rod and Favonian. Northumbrian (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for removing the content on the Topix article. I did not know that it was against the rules. I won't do it again. Guy12345123 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

William Cnut

I see you've added a hoax speedy to this article. FYI, the reason I didn't add a hoax tag to it when I removed the no-context tag was that although I thought it was likely to be a hoax he'd been listed as an illegitimate son of Harthacnut on Harthacnut's article since September last year and that gave me enough doubt. On investigating it more I notice that the IP who added that originally listed him as an adopted son. Given that and this editors more recent addition of hoaxes I'm now fairly certain it's a hoax and I suspect that the IP editor and EwanBoi are actually the same person. Dpmuk (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I intend to remove the claims from the Harthacnut article with a suitable edit summary. Which IP do you suspect of belonging to our friend? I have reason to believe that 75.89.204.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is "affiliated", judging from their recent edit histories. Favonian (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking possible 81.135.44.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but it's a bit too much of a hunch to take further - it seems too much of a coincidence if it actually is a hoax that one person would add him as issue to the Harthacnut article then someone completely different create an article on him. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that kind of coincidence would seem unlikely. I'll keep an eye on both IPs and the named account. There is always the possibility that StephenPaternoster has returned to haunt WP, but that may just be some late-night paranoia on my part. Favonian (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If we accept the SPI that 86.151.62.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and StephenPaternoster are linked then I'm nearly certain that 81.135.44.133 is as well as they come back to the same internet provider, unsure about the newer stuff as 75.89.204.71 seems to be based in the states whereas the older two are in the UK. Of course it's not impossible that they've moved in the mean time. [User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubt that would convince the jury at SPI ;) The "new" contributor, who started their career mucking about with King John's year of birth, may just have become inspired by the surprising information about Harthacnut's son and decided to fill in the blanks, so to speak. I can AGF, when I have to. Let's see how they respond to the speedy nominations. If they are StephenPaternoster, than it'll be loud. Favonian (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm going to assume good faith, and certainly wouldn't take this to SPI yet - I'm still very uncertain about the link between old and new (if anything the different countries makes me lean towards them not being linked). It's one thing raising vague concerns on another user's talk page, quite another taking it to SPI. Dpmuk (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the unconstructive edits made to my user page. Sco1996 (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Quite a "friend" you have there. I have reported him(?) to the administrators, which should put an end to this silliness. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

…and it's gone! Account blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Etchi

Of course, I disagree. Please, use Japanese dictionaries and handbooks. There are strict and easy to understand rules--Seibun (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ecchi#Page naming and actual name of the term is where the discussion takes place. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have got a Final Warning?

I have recieved a final warning on disruptive edits for an article about a rugby player called John.A.Power why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboy007 2006 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that you persist in your attempts to create and link to an article about this individual, even though it has already once been deleted as non-notable. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Howis this person non-notable he is the 1st disabled person ever to row a marathon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboy007 2006 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article contains no references to reliable sources backing your claim. Favonian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are just 2 sources backing this up?

RFL Benevolent Fund: - http://www.rflbenevolentfund.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:oarsome-effort-in-marathon-rowing-challenge&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=8 Oldham Chronicle: - http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/11/roughyeds-news/40355/power-hits-his-mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboy007 2006 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboy007 2006 (talk • contribs)

Put them into the article and see if this saves it from deletion. Favonian (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Oldham Chronicle only says he "might have become the first wheelchair competitor..."; the RFL Benevolent Fund website makes no claims whatsoever. – B.hotep •talk• 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Should have taken time to read them instead of machine gunning vandals with Huggle. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But the Oldham Chron still says he was a professional Rugby player for Oldham so he is still notable isn't he?, he is awaiting guiness records approval for the rowing. ( Johnboy007 2006 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC) )

why

why did you delete my editing and its 100% and i have my proof and give it to you now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shia4life (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking of this, by any chance? It violates Wikipedia's rules about neutral point of view and several other rules and guidelines to such an extent that it cannot be labeled as anything other than vandalism. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

99.237.40.67

Re 99.237.40.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and their continued requests to delete their talk page. The last time I blocked them, I semi-protected their talk page to prevent such disruption. When the block expired they immediately resorted to article blanking again, so I granted a longer wikibreak than the last time. Would it be worth semi-protecting the talk page again, or should we see if they continue with the disruptive requests first? Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering this editor's tendency to repeat past transgressions, I think a protection is in order. They evidently don't intend to appeal the block in approved fashion. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, revering an admin's actions is never a good idea. I've semi'd the talk page for a month too. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:110.137.33.20

Every edit by this 110.137.33.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be a hoax + vandalism. They all need reverting and he needs blocking. All are unreferenced and unverifiable. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

They haven't edited for some hours now, so a request for blocking is bound to be turned down, but I'll keep an eye on their activities and escort them through the system if they misbehave. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

After an eight-day pause, the editor returned with this contribution, which I reported to AIV. Apparently, the evidence was sufficient to get them classified as a sockpuppet of "Disney Vandal" (I think that term refers to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101) and blocked for one month. Favonian (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Headers on Tea Party movement page

I do not think the grammatical fixes will cause problems. With exception, perhaps the first one. I am not certain it that will cause problems since the page title has not changed. Links to this Tea Party page would be to the title, most likely. As it is, the page title is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuncacat (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely certain what you are talking about. What I and a couple of other editors did was to revert your capitalization of words in headers, which violated the manual of style. Favonian (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the reverts to my userpage. I hadn't even noticed it had been hit. I appreciate the help! Wikipelli ^Talk 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The least I could do :) I see that you reciprocated by reverting vandalism to my talk page. Thanks muchly! Favonian (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

Why is it that absolutely EVERYTHING that I contribute to this page you "editors" immediately take down? Also, what gives you the right to be the "electronic cigarette" page Nazis?! My reference regarding harm reduction and claims made by electronic cigarette companies was correct, I am starting to believe that either you guys may be working for an electronic cigarette company in particular (probably Green Smoke since you allowed their statement to be referenced) or are COMPLETELY AGAINST electronic cigarettes altogether based on the information you DO allow on the page...something is DEFINITELY wrong with the way in which you are monitoring this article- it is completely biased and I think it's quite ridiculous. I will be reporting you guys if you do not allow the article to be more neutral in regards to what REAL people know about electronic cigarettes. ISN'T THAT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS HERE FOR?! IT IS BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH- STOP BEING COMMUNISTS AND ALLOW BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY TO BE HEARD. The truth will prevail anyhow...People need to hear facts not just your opinions. Andra1987 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rant has been answered on your talk page by another editor, who also received it. Looks like an administrator was as unimpressed by your efforts as we were, which caused you to be indef blocked. Goodbye and good riddance. Favonian (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's funny, I'm having a bit of deja-vu here. I'm pretty sure I've had a run-in with one of these e-cigaretteers some time in the past. I'm searching my archives to see when/who it was, but seeing as that is one of the most spammed articles ever, I don't think it would make much difference if I did eventually find out! – B.hotep •talk• 10:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Spammers are attracted to that article like flies to [REDACTED], and they have a tendency to get excited when their efforts are removed. Guess giving up real cigarettes didn't improve their balance of mind Favonian (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits at Talk:Core countries

Those edits are not vandalism; as I explained on that talk page they are edits of students who are just learning how to edit. I appreciate you monitoring their edits; please keep in mind they are not vandals - some are just having trouble learning how to edit Wiki. If you revert such edits, please drop them a non-templated message about why you have done so and what should be fixed in their future edits. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. Thanks for the note. One major problem is that vandal fighters are unlikely to see that message, especially if they use Huggle. As the prodigies had already collected one warning, patience was wearing thin. Favonian (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Vandal Whacking Stick is given to users who have been attacked, and didn't lose their cool.

Perfectly understandable. Here's something to aid you in your work: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! Huggle and Twinkle were beginning to feel a bit "insipid". Favonian (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hinge Theorem Edits

I do not consider the edits made to Hinge Theorem vandalism. These facts can be confirmed at spp15.emagc.com. Please reconsider. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the edit I reverted was this one. As it stood it was sheer nonsense. What made me classify as vandalism was that you had previously had a similar edit to the same article reverted by another editor, but instead of reflecting on this, for instance by posting a query on the talk page, you just repeated the edit. In such cases we have to "turn up the volume" on messages, and apparently it caught your attention. Further discussion takes place on Talk:Hinge theorem. Favonian (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ml mlkw

Hi, you gave this user a lvl 4 warning a couple of days ago for inappropriate article creation or at least inappropriate cut and paste. He's been at it a lot since see User Talk:Ml mlkw, do you want to take it to ANI/V? Normally I would do it myself but having read a couple of the as yet undeleted articles I can see that notability of the subject might be there and to ban the guy for being a pilloock when he's got some useful leads just makes me hesitate. NtheP (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I would have taken the editor to ANI, asking for a temporary block in the hope that this would persuade the person of the error of his/her ways. Meanwhile however, an administrator has blocked the culprit for a week, so we get to see if the treatment works. Favonian (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the editor's record it appears that all their contributions have been either deleted or redirected to existing articles. They have something to prove when and if they return. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be steep, it's just taken me 30 min to sort out one article he'd edited. NtheP (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow...

...you're quick! I was just about to warn the vandal and you beat me to it. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." Favonian (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the numerous reverts on my userpage. (: —Tommy2010 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. Looks like you make the right kind of enemies ;) Favonian (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your talkpage

If you want my actions removed or varied, please let me or another admin know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. Looks like ROBERT TAGGART is upgrading from his usual quaint invective to harder stuff, so I appreciate both the removals and the temporary protection. Favonian (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

your flags/deletion of my contributions + warning

I feel your deletions of my contributions and the warning are unfounded.

Did you do any research into this before you flagged my contributions?

The Lap-band mentioned in the entry is a brand name http://www.lapbandcanada.ca/index.asp So is the Realize band, also in the entry. http://www.realize.com/dtcf/ But, those entires you leave to stand.

Yet, you choose to delete my entries for Slimband and leave the other band brand mentions like they are fine. This is inconsistant.

I did look at how the entry was written before I added to it, and I believe I was within the standard there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbta (talk • contribs) 17:49, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

You additions to Adjustable gastric band, which I reverted, were blatant advertisement. The presence in this or other articles of other material that may be considered promotional is not sufficient reason to allow more. For the record, shortly before your message I reduced some overly brand-specific passages with this edit. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig

Thank you for your work on Johanna Budwig. This article is prone to attack by fanatics of one sort or other. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, that's what we're here for. Well, actually not, but it seems to be what we spend most of our time on :( The person to be thanked is you for keeping that article encyclopedic! Favonian (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from 82.5.38.213 concerning article Lie

It appears you changed what I wrote conserning the subject of lying? Lying is a form of learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.38.213 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems I've been tardy answering. Meanwhile, another editor has explained the problems with your theory at your talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect on Atticus

Just so you know, the street name having a separate page is a waste of space, using a redirect option condenses the space, and eliminates confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruelhumor (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That may well be contested, and the way you handled it was not terribly elegant. Have a look at Help:Merging for instructions on how to propose a merger of two articles. Favonian (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

International usage

Good sir, what I said was perfectly neutral. A correct and accurate representation of the truth. If you wish me to rephrase it in a more wikipedia-like form I wouldn't mind whatsoever. But I believe it's more important to have scientific and factual information on this glorious website than ridiculous bigotry. Don't stand in the way of freedom and truth, I challenge you to come and visit this school. I just believe that perhaps doing this might get things to change, tarnishing its reputation might force it to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.254.2.90 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral? We are talking about this, which you attempted to add twice. It contains no reliable sources to back your claim, and is phrased as a rant rather than an encyclopedic article. Your personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia—it is not a soap box. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

What are you doing? Are you deleting because you can't triforce? TylerDurdenn (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)