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
m Reverted edits by 71.114.6.195 (talk) to last revision by MiszaBot III (HG)
Line 244: Line 244:
: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:OR]]ish. Maybe a {{tl|Citation needed}} is appropriate. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
: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:OR]]ish. Maybe a {{tl|Citation needed}} is appropriate. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'll do that. [[User:Everard Proudfoot|Everard Proudfoot]] ([[User talk:Everard Proudfoot|talk]]) 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'll do that. [[User:Everard Proudfoot|Everard Proudfoot]] ([[User talk:Everard Proudfoot|talk]]) 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== 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. [[Special:Contributions/112.118.149.119|112.118.149.119]] ([[User talk:112.118.149.119|talk]]) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:40, 12 July 2010

Risk Management

Dear Favonian, I think I understand why my updated was not allowed. May I add to the Further Reading listing on this page for our analyst report Enterprise Risk and Finance Architectures, which I feel is highly relevant to the Risk Management entry? I will wait to here back from you before I do so as my intention is not vandalise Wikipedia with irrelevant links. JRaeside (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit problematic to add links to publications by the company you work for, as this constitutes conflict of interest and may even be considered advertising. Wikipedia is generally reluctant when it comes to external links. Please have a look at WP:EL. Favonian (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI User:Abhi.kumarsoft96 added their spam again. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 11:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I was off-line for a while, but it looks like the user has been persuaded to stop. Favonian (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is unreal. The same minute I typed my optimistic message, our friend did this. Off to WP:AIV they go. Favonian (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my edit alone.

How is this edit not correct? "Blatter cheats the Irish team of a place in the 2010 WC finals." when the whole world knows it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.36.15 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole world knows" is not a substitute for quoting reliable sources and it also fail to meet the requirements of neutral point of view. Favonian (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really should get out more. Have you ever tried living without your PC for a week or is it a mere extension of yourself. Lacking something perhaps!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.36.15 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been vandalizing, my account was left on and friends were editing pages without my permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvale123 (talkcontribs) 19:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I was attempting to add categories to a page I generated and instead changed the categories of the category FAQ page....which I see you fixed before I could get to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakedimare (talkcontribs) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I figured that's what happened once I saw your other edits. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice cup of...

Mauritius

Hi, just regarding the page on Mauritius! My parents happen to be Mauritian Creole's, Mauritius is where my culture and where my ancestors come from Who are you? What gives you the rights and knowledge to change the history, culture, religion and fact's about my country????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmez (talkcontribs) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were the one who changed the article—in fact you deleted several referenced statements. If you want the article changed, you have to provide reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius change?!

Are you actually a Mauritian, or perhaps a Mauritian migrant?? My source of Information about Mauritius happens to be first class and not word of mouth. There appeared to be a considerable amount of missing info about my country that I had to account for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmez (talkcontribs) 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

Sockpuppet allegation

i do have a good explanation, sco told me in person that he was a sockpuppet but i didnt know who of so i suspected it was Larry jefferson if he is not a sockpuppet of Larry jefferson then he is deffinatly a sockpuppet of someone. Tariq harr (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your help on the recent edits by new editor User:Andemich to James Cassidy (musician). I'm pretty sure this is someone who's trying to edit in good faith, but just hasn't yet come up to speed on the Five Pillars. I'd like to help steer them out of the vandalism hole which they're in the process of (unintentionally) digging for themselves, but I'm not sure how to get their attention; I've tried leaving welcome notes on both their Talk and User pages (I hope that was okay for me to do that), and they haven't added an e-mail address to their preferences, so I can't contact them that way.

Is there anything else I/we can do to help them? -- Bgpaulus (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like they deliberately refuse to read the messages to their talk page. You could try one more polite, non-template message. If they persist, I'll be the "bad cop" and shout louder. If neither approach works, it's another contributor lost. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, Favonian. Per your excellent suggestion, I just left a message at the top of their talk page. Keeping my fingers crossed. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Micronations

I just undid an edit of yours and added the relevant reference you requested. PLease also see the discussion page on Dubeldeka where the references are listed. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.70 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I noticed. The reference checks out, so I'll let the entry live this time ;) Favonian (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]