User talk:Favonian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 28 February 2014

This is Favonian's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58: 31 days

Mammoth ip seems to be back

Hi Favonian, you might be insterested in 95.151.41.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and [1]. It looks like they resumed their activity again once more another time some more, so to speak. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And again, now as 95.151.40.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Already spotted by Apokryltaros - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and already taken care of by you

. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And here we go again:

2.30.139.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You have failed to beat ClueBot NG, try harder! ~~Junvfr <~_~> (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the sockmaster - IPhonehurricane95

You should see what's going on in this sockpuppet investigation, as well as this discussion. This vandal is back, after a 4-month Rangeblock, and his isn't giving up. He's creating new socks every day, and I think that we are almost out of options. Can you please help? LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this list of IPhonehurricane95's known sockpuppets. It records a ridiculous number of socks, and I only expect it to increases unless we are able to seal off his current IP Range (which is extremely active and mobile). LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much I can do, I'm afraid. Only the CheckUsers have the information available to evaluate the feasibility of range blocks, and DoRD's reply was pretty definitive. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem editor

Thanks for your help with this editor. I've just reverted almost all his contributions.[2] He even changed a quotation. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Golden Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Union and Progress

Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll resist the temptation. It looks like the IP has stopped short of 3RR, so maybe peace will prevail. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan-i Sabbah

There are IPs changing the ethnicity of this individual without engaging in discussion, again. Would you be interested in protecting this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it's more like a content dispute, so protection would be premature. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP has removed the Arab ethnicity, and stated on the talk page that the source does not state what I have typed."Note "claimed" and "Yamanite" (not Yemenite) in English book where actually don't mention Arab as Kansas bolded (Daftary, p. 123)."[3] This IP is so disruptive, they even removed "Arab" from the referenced quote![4] This is getting ridiculous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen a heavy-handed remedy: that of fully protecting the article for a week. The most recent arrival on the scene at least shows willingness to use the talk page. As for the merit of their arguments, I prefer not to judge. Favonian (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about warning

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protection request

Can you semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.196 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Why? It hasn't even been touched by a non-registered editor for over a month D P 13:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur; no case to be made for protection. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Europe

Hi, why did you delete 24,578 bytes in the articke about Central Europe?--80.53.5.108 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're evading your indefinite block. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar?

Hey Favonian,

I see you added a barnstar to my page as a sockpuppet and then reverted it through your main account. Not saying you are a sock master, but who added the barnstar? I want to know. I will not report you to SPI as the account may be hacked or not even yours. I just want to help. Titus Fox 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Nothing to do with Favonian or hacking or sockpuppetry. Any random editor can make up a name of "Sockpuppet of..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words right out of my keyboard. ;) Favonian (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Race (human classification)

Not sure what to do. Too much collateral damage for a range block, Callanec suggest sp. What do you think? I've been attacked as an Arab supremacist and pro-Semitic today, so I'm obviously balanced. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is probably the least ineffective tool in this case, controversial though it is. Guess we have to harden ourselves when dealing with someone this unhinged. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I think too. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fashad Fotouhi

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On [[5]]: “You need to read Crain's Detroit Business, to know that your hero, Farshad Fotouhi, is a very bad, corrupt man. Just because he's Iranian doesn't mean he's a good guy. Look at Mamud Ahmenutjob.” and “you just can't accept that Crain's Detroit and the Detroit News have called your Iranian friend out on his corruption. Detroit Joseph (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)”[reply]

On [[6]]: “Since when is the truth bias? Are you going to wring your hands because the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article calls him corrupt? Read Crain's Detroit Business http://www.crainsdetroit.com/assets/PDF/CD89200615.PDF page 8 or 9. Should Ahmedinajad's Wikipedia article just be a carbon copy of his page on the Iranian government's website?” and “Only a weak and insecure man needs a big office to compensate for his own inner smallness. Dean Kummler was a great man. The Kummler statue is inscribed "his heart was for the students." Fotouhi's heart is strictly for himself.”

On [[7]]: “Farshad Fotouhi is an extremely corrupt man who should never have been appointed dean of anything. His greed and arrogance are costing the whole university wealthy donors, world-class researchers, student goodwill and tenured faculty, and who knows what else. Detroit Joseph (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)”[reply]

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

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

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

Italians again

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#earthspacecircle.blogspot.com.
Message added 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over the edge or just not?

Hi Favonian, I noticed you do anti-vandalism too. You have more experience, and I'd need some advice on this one. With my Twiki I thought to revert vandalism (albeit not a very clear cut case) on Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli; later on I got notified it had been reverted (IP). Now that I am reading the added text again, I am just doubting so-so if this is now to be considered vandalism (or just bad English), or not? The diff version starts here [8]. I guess it is not blatant vandalism but citing a Facebook post isn't very encyclopedic? This is not just some sneaky commercial for that movie, right? Please let me know what you think (I haven't rolled back this time). Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ajativada

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

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

Socks affecting Saladin and some other Islam related articles?

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

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

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

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

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

Crystal Reed Personal life

I can prove Crystal was married with wedding pictures.

@@ Line 199: / Line 199: @@
 ::Indeed. Cleopetra111 blocked indefinitely, the same fate having already overtaken Szakir. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 15:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
+== Crystal Reed Personal life ==
+I can prove Crystal was married with wedding pictures.