User talk:Favonian

hinch

I'm getting the stranger and stranger notion that Nicosia is infected by socks. wtf?. Created today. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unlikely. I think you should open an SPI with a request for CheckUser. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to sort it out... who's who? *scratch head* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another new account and 2 IPs descending on the article right after protection expired. Might need another round of protection (at your discretion, of course) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! If I protect it once again, it will look like I'm taking sides, so could I ask you to post a request at WP:RFPP? Favonian (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

sigh... I'll consider... the issue is I don't have enough evidence for an SPI-case ("yet" I hope) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can well understand your frustration, however, you don't have to establish an SPI case in order to obtain a full protection. The edit warring is visible from outer space. Favonian (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No reason to keep things that much at arm's length, so I have submitted the request. Favonian (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

nailed'em Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweet! Favonian (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bokan995

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bokan995. I am at a loss to understand why this editor isn't blocked yet. I don't want to have to do it myself, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He is now. Noticed it right after issuing the 3RR warning. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

IP sock-puppetry

Hello, I was watching this article and noticed two IP address that were blanking the page. I checked the WHOIS and I think there is sock puppetry taking place. Is it necessary to report it to WP:SPI? I decided to ask you because you're the administrator who protected the article. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely the same person switching IP address. CheckUser can't really do anything, and as the article is now semi-protected, there is no risk of disruption for the next three days. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Ezekiel53746's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.} 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria

Please protect this page again - the 93.94.xxx.xxx vandal is back and active. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please protect this page again, again - the 93.94.xxx.xxx vandal is back and active, again. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. See you in a month ;) Favonian (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yalta image identification.

Hi. Great work identifying the people in the Yalta image! Perhaps you should update the commons page on it too? (Hohum ^@) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do so after dinner. It annoys me that I cannot identify the last Soviet officer. Since it's basically a "photo op" for the chiefs of staff, he ought to be Sergei Khudyakov, but it looks nothing like him if you compare the picture to ru:Худяков, Сергей Александрович and this picture. Favonian (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it Ivan Stepanovich Yumashev? Best image I can find of him is here(Hohum ^@) 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The mouth looks wrong, but more importantly: I haven't been able to find a source that places him at the Yalta Conference. Favonian (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure I have him now: Stepan Kucherov. He was at the conference and deputy to Kuznetsov; and this picture looks right. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Determination paid off! Good job. (Hohum ^@) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Detective Barnstar
		For tracking down all of those elusive officers in the Yalta image.

Turkish cousin is back again

149.140.34.124 . Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The previously blocked vandalist IP has indeed resurrected, check this lad [1], compared to previous star [2].Greyshark09 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No one compares to NawlinWiki when swift execution is called for. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. SRESQ

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Dear Favonian,

It is with a good deal of regret that I find myself to write to you to explain my displeasure which, by your intervention, has but only increased, however you have chosen to leave me with no alternative but to put an end to my silence. Your gross and potentially deliberate (although deliberate in good faith) misunderstanding of the situation has now only inflamed a minor issue into an exposition of the rot that takes place when good men keep quiet. Perhaps, to begin with you should read this rather handy little guide to etiquette before the thought of giving any sort of response enters your head:

Wikipedia:Wikiquette

However, this is quite aside from our issue. My main issue is now not factual inaccuracies, but indeed your misunderstanding of the concept of a user page. You referred to the user page User:ModWilson as his "home page". However, the article Wikipedia:User_pages, which, I hasten to add, bears greater authority than yourself in such matters, states that "[User pages] are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". This is in direct conflict with all the implications and insinuations of your message regarding user pages. If you claim the authority of justice, of banning and blocking, then you must learn to wield this power with a sense of responsibility and accountability before the community. You have, with all in good faith, made no attempt to understand the difficult situation or resolve it fairly and justly, but have twisted your alleged authority to suit your own ends (in good faith). My original edits, which you heavily implied constituted harassment (thereby refuting Wikipedia's great policy of good faith), were in fact made with the good intention of improving the project. As the article Wikipedia:User_pages states, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." My edits were minor and not substantial, and they were most certainly with the intention of facilitating the project, especially those good editors working on the French Wikipedia who rely on integrity in the Babel Userboxes pertaining to French. However, where is integrity in the French userbox of ModWilson? He has no such skill in the French language and by making a claim to possess this skill which he has not, he is hindering the efforts of myself and other good editors. You also understand some French, I understand. Try a simple conversation with him about this current situation in French, and the falsehood (made in good faith) will become all too clear.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I came here hoping to find the values of assumption of good faith here that I had read so widely about. Instead I have been now confronted by both ModWilson and yourself, neither of whom has attempted to perceive the good faith in my actions and neither of whom seems to have any intention to follow any aspect of Wikipedia's etiquette policy. Should you be doubting whether my issue is truly worth your time, I call to your attention these simple principles of "Wikiquette":

• Work towards agreement.

• Do not ignore questions.

• Be prepared to apologize.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that I dislike your tone. I feel your tone was deliberately aggressive, abrasive and non-constructive. Please try to follow The Golden Rule in all future correspondences. SRESQ (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the wall of text and the numerous references to Wikipedia scripture, with which I am quite familiar. Not the first time you've practiced this art, at witnessed by this splash on your antagonist's talk page. Whether ModWilson truly possesses the (low-level) language skill claimed by the user box is of no great importance, and if the person chooses to ignore your somewhat condescending message, nothing more should be done by you or anyone else, as it hardly violates any of the commandments quoted by you. Favonian (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll note that SRESQ has been blocked for continual edit-warring on another user's userpage. Wish I didn't have to do that, but they don't really appear to get it here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! In spite of the eloquent admonition above, I was having a hard time assuming good faith. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen

sure thks for the block i called ,,,you need to block two steps back..... as per my last pasge thks --Bioplus (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Full protections are invariably on The Wrong Version. Furthermore, it would be easier if future requests were made in English. I had a hard time deciphering your message. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WELL THIS IS THE CORRECT PAGE AND THIS IP NEED TO BE BLOCKED RE VENDALISM 71.172.245.177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioplus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the "correct" version is not something I'll commit myself to at this point, and I won't just take your all-uppercase word for it. The discussion should take place on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

okay the correct version is on the Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. pls upload and use this page we develloped by consensus and then you need to block this IP :71.172.245.177 --Bioplus (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't copy versions of the article to this or any other talk page; they can always be retrieved from the article history. I won't block the IP, as their actions do not constitute vandalism. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

well repeted "undo" is vandalis,,,,, pls upload the proper page now thanks --Bioplus (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It may constitute edit warring, but in that case you're as guilty as they are. The article will remain locked for a week or until agreement can be reached on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. You may present your arguments for the inclusion of for instance the phrase "party animal" there. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

look at the elements added Talk:Nicolas Berggruen , this article has several problems you can correct based on the disscussions, ref and elements in the talk page.... --Bioplus (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Crazy Italian Biologist is back

Do you remember this user? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.5.238.156 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_G._Edwards&diff=prev&oldid=447689299-- he did it again...Tyrannobdella rex (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The long-term disruption has resulted in a longish block. I was a bit surprised to see this hint coming from a freshly created account, though. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know who makes this changes because he did it in the italian wikipedia, but he was blocked for ever... see here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/79.5.238.156 and here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:79.5.238.156 you can see what he did for 3 years on italian wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannobdella rex (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Indef block of an IP. That wouldn't fly on this Wikipedia. Not that I'm not tempted from time to time. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is not the same man ( i don't believe it because he is an italian IP), but he says, like the other, that Robert G. Edwards had a degree in biology and not in agricolture, and he makes again a change. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_G._Edwards&diff=next&oldid=448007670 I'm sorry for this man, but, Robert G. Edward had a degree in agricolture, it is sure: http://sla-divisions.typepad.com/dbio/2010/10/robert-g-edwards-2010-nobel-prize-winner-in-physiology-or-medicine.html http://healthzone24x7.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-g-edwards-great-physiologist-to.html I don't know why he makes this changes... Sorry for the noise--Tyrannobdella rex (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed it—in fact I reverted their first attempt. Since you have the source handy that refutes the IP's change of Edwards' education, I would encourage you to undo the latest change, noting the reason in the edit summary. I'll monitor the IP's activities, and if they persist, a block will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

did it^^--95.245.8.234 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, he started again on italian wikipedia too, as you can see here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/87.30.187.203 I know who he is, because i did a lot of researches about his identity, and i spoke with him on some sites, it was easy found him. I don't have his ip, but is too easy, for some recurrent "phrases" and writing ways, and because he gave me a lot of confirmation during the discussions. I wonder if there is a way for shutting him down maybe with legal ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannobdella rex (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. He's a pain in the neck, but not guilty of criminal acts. So far, I have semi-protected the Robert G. Edwards article for a month, which will at least present an obstacle to his disruptive behavior. Favonian (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies

Sorry, I thought it had been a work of a vandal. I didn't mean to precipitate myself. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Single-edit IPs who don't leave edit summaries tend to make me revert-happy too ;) Favonian (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995

Any idea why this isn't showing up at SPI? Does the bot take a while? This guys a pain. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the bot runs every 15 minutes: Special:Contributions/Δbot. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And we have confirmation :) Favonian (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. How do you do the diffs as you've done above? Is it explained somewhere at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide and I've missed it? Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's something I picked up quite recently. The relevant templates are {{diff2}} for "one-step" diffs and {{diff}} for more general ones. A good deal more compact than pasting in those very long URLs, but you have to dig out the relevant version id(s) manually. Favonian (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Should those be added to the Complete guide? Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit divided on that issue. Afraid it might clog up the already rather complicated instructions. Favonian (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Time flies. I passed the 100 K mark, and my daughter just created her first Wikipedia article :) Favonian (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Roman IP vandal

The IP vandal who insists on removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" is back, using 76.4.176.205. I've left a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just a small thank you for being so on top of admin tasks (especially the RM of The Short-Tempered Clavier and other dysfunctional works for keyboard oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll munch my cookie now and leave the RM backlog for later ;) Favonian (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Divineabrahamad

I don't know the backstory, but I came across User:Abraham.divine on a weird post at RFPP. You blocked the original account, so alerting you. Seems ducky to me. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Very ducky indeed! The master account has been quite prolific, so I've requested a CheckUser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Divineabraham. Favonian (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the page protection request quite weird to say the least, but then remembered only later to investigate further -- took me to that photograph. We had another sockmaster using his image again and again on multiple socks! —SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User Robertistheman

You might want to check out the contributions of Robertistheman (talk · contribs). I suspect somebody has a beef with you. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way. I'll keep an eye on him to see if his obsession manifests itself further. Thanks to the sad fate of his so far only article, I now know for sure that I'm not notable :( Favonian (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Robertistheman doesn't look notable. But I think Favonian IS notable. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words :) Meanwhile, it looks like my latest epigone has left us, but my monstrous vanity made me conduct a search for others of that ilk. Looks like User:Corfiot58 ran out of steam after one sentence. Favonian (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

I added some socks of his that I stumbled onto after you blocked a couple, which you may not yet have noticed. FactStraight (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the SPI page. Favonian (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

I noticed that you have been editing this file several times today. Unfortunately, it's kind of futile because the file is regenerated from scratch every 15 minutes by an automatic script, which extracts entries from the relevant article talk pages. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope I corrected my request to change the article name again to 8x57mm IS and the the automatic script works now.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Genocides in History.

Please explain not accepting my addition to genocides in history. It is hardly "original research" or not adequately sourced. Here it is:

According to Hebrew Scriptures, during the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, Moses and Joshua ordered several genocides. "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods... And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host...Have ye saved all the women alive?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"(Numbers 31:7-18). At the conquest of the City of Jericho,they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:21).

These actions, on their face, meet the definition of genocide. Why is another source required who called them genocide??

So if I can come up with an "authoritative source" who labels these Old Testament actions as genocide, you will accept the edit, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGrady (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You are drawing your own conclusions based on the Old Testament, which is a primary source, and that's what makes your contribution original research in Wikipedia terminology. You'll need to find a reliable, secondary source, preferably a scholarly work, that attaches the "genocide" label to these events. At any rate, the statement has been contested twice, so you should take the matter to the article's talk page to get consensus. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

page moves

I've noticed you've handled quite a few of my requests. Thanks so much for doing this; sorry there are so many; but some areas of WP really need a lot of cleaning up. If it's too much, tell me and I'll stop or slow down. Tony (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Just keep them coming. The requests regarding various titles are very easy to deal with, in fact so easy that you might consider posting them under "uncontroversial requests". No real point in having them go through the whole one-week cycle. Regards, Favonian (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I wasn't aware of the shortcut, or the one-week cycle. Sometimes people do object where capitalisation and/or typography are concerned, although thus far it's a vanishingly small proportion. The move request at Chief Mechanical Engineer seems to have taken on a life of its own, and at least has prompted great improvement to the article. One thing I do want to ask: I see the occasional title such as "Tough love", which turns out to be a book title. Am I right to move it to "Tough love (book)"? And I haven't got the hang of italicising parts of article titles, although I notice that this is sometimes done in FACs, so it must be possible. Can't say I like the look of italicised article titles in large size, though. Tony (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! I should have known better than to recommend "uncontroversial requests". Seems like any request has the potential for being controversial, witness Talk:I Can't Be with You#Requested move. Regarding Tough love, that particular article is about a general term, and though it does mention a book in which the term was supposedly coined, you shouldn't try to rename it. If you look at Tough love (disambiguation), you'll see a list of the various other articles with that or similar names. Regarding the italic titles, they are mandated by the style guides of the projects to which the subject of the article belongs. As a general rule, titles of works like books, films, operas, albums (but not individual songs) are italicized. Sometimes this is managed by the relevant infobox, for instance {{Infobox film}}, but in other cases you have to force it using {{Italic title}}. Favonian (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Favonian: in haste, I just chose "Tough Love" as an example off the top of my head, and I've sent you on a wild-goose chase in the process; I had no idea there really was an article with that title, damn it (I was too lazy to go back and find a real one to provide an example, not expecting you'd follow it up).

Truth is, in long category lists I've encountered more than a few article titles I took to be concepts or processes, and found they were actually book titles when I clicked. Business, accounting, management—there seem to be a lot of articles on single books; I know this is allowed, but it's not the most satisfactory when it becomes a habit in a field (one big danger is cut-and-paste plagiarism, which is so hard to detect when it's a hard-copy book at issue).

Yes, I must explore the italicisation thing—thanks for the template—since that would be a solution for the book-titles-as-article-titles issue, at least some of the time. But I'm starting to see article titles italicised in category lists apparently because they're piped to a section: this is something I hadn't ever noticed, and perhaps it's a recent developer innovation. Kind of interferes with the italics as a signal that an article title = book title, and I'm not sure the message behind this formatting, as it were, gets through to ordinary editors like me, let alone readers.

One more thing, if you can bear with me: a title such as "X Y Agency" that turns out to concern, solely, the federal US agency by that not very distinctive name—should I add "(US)" if the plain title seems to claim generic status? WP:TITLE doesn't seem to be helpful on how specific article titles should be, although it prefers them to be short, naturally.

Non-controversial list ... yeah, I think I'd rather not assume that, even though I try to avoid anything that might be controversial or that I'm unsure of; for example, an uppercased title ending in "Model", "Framework", "Theory", or "Protocol" I steer clear of for the moment. Tony (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No harm done ;)

The category member items displayed in italics are redirects—and not just those pointing to sections. It is indeed a bit confusing when two formatting conventions collide.

Adding a disambiguator, for instance "(US)" should only be done when there actually is an article about a non-American agency of the same name. Unnecessary disambiguation if frowned upon. It's kind of the same with the book title vs. general concept problem: only if an article about the general term actually exists should we consider adding "(book)" or whatever suffix to the other article's name. It depends heavily on whether the general term is truly the primary topic, and that always leads to long, if not fruitful discussions. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Tony (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

kk

okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollage:D (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

That'll end one drama for now but I'm seriously just wanna stay off here is there anyway to get my account blocked by request? I don't want anything more to do with Wikipedia for at least a month just to get away from the drama. Please if there's anything you can do please do it. I gotta get away from here for awhile or at least till I get things in my life under control. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please.... JamesAlan1986 *^talk 12:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't usually block accounts by request, but you might look into the script Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Favonian (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 12:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I don't know if I'm doing it right it's at User:JamesAlan1986/vector.js can you fix it? JamesAlan1986 *^talk 12:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't follow the instructions. The entire script should be copied into vector.js; you only added the date and time specifications. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my bad sorry I didn't know. Thank you. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 12:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I need some help

I need some help sorting out this mess. On August 31, Mnealon moved Cocaine Blues (western swing song), splitting it from Cocaine Blues, saying "Multiple songs share this title, and the current article conflates them." He made this move without discussion or consensus. The fact is, all of the songs sharing this title are related, and cannot be easily distinguished from one another, as is often the case with folk songs of uncertain origin. The "Red" Arnall song, as the article says, is "a reworking of the traditional song "Little Sadie," a ballad with multiple alternate titles. As all of these songs share a similar origin, it is best that they all be discussed in one place. I want to revert Mnealon's edits, but I am not sure exactly how to go about it. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Complicated one. I'll look into it, though it may take a little while. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is my take. Mnealon carried out a bold split of the article. My knowledge of the subject matter is too scanty to assess whether the split is a good idea, but the current Cocaine Blues is a strange sort of hybrid between a disambiguation page and a "proper" article. You would be within your rights to revert the split and tell Mnealon that it should only be redone as the result of a proper discussion, using the process described in WP:SPLIT. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. The only thing he split was the "western swing" song, giving the impression that it, alone, is distinct. This is not helpful. I have been studying this, and related topics, for years, and I can tell you, as I said above, that these songs are too closely related to deal with separately. Is it as simple an issue as reverting his move, or is it more complicated than that? To move Cocaine Blues (western swing song) back to Cocaine Blues, Cocaine Blues will have to be deleted first, correct? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Favonian. I notice that recently there have been a plethora of disruptive edits from our IP address under the name Dust429. I will do my best to look into this and see what can be done. It's a real shame because our College is a real oasis of academia, and I believe it would have much to offer in the way of content and contributions. It seems that the perpetrator is vandalising other wikis as well: is there anyway of blocking him from all wikiprojects? Once again I apologise on the school's behalf. Sincerely. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The problem with blocking him is that he currently uses mobile access from a major provider, so the "collateral damage" would be substantial if we set up a range block. Good to see that you still teach your students Latin ;) Favonian (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that would not do at all. Latin has always been core to our curriculum and I hope always will be - though I had not expected it to be exploited to this end! Quidem, inanis conversari sic est quoniam consequiae demum sequentur. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally I got a chance to test Google Translate's ability to handle Latin :) Favonian (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

Dear sir / madam,

Since August 2011 I have attempted to add text to the biography of the above.

I referenced several articles to prove my points. I admit that the text entered reflected negatively upon Adriana Ferreyr, however it was corroborated. ie truthful.

People have constantly reverted the article to its original text. One of these HAP791 has previously been warned about their posting. This user has also misrepresented an image, which has only been corrected once I informed the real rights holder today. They also misuse the image as representing 2009 when the picture was not taken until the next year.

None of the text in the article is verifiable. It is all taken from either IMDB or Linkedin. IMDB and Linkedin are non-verifiable sources of information.

The complete article is nothing more than an advertisement. Hence, one presumes, its being flagged for speedy deletion. Something I can only support.

I ask that you re-open the article and then lock it to allow a full representation of Adriana Ferreyr.

Yours faithfully William de Berg (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The article will remain locked for at least three days. All discussion should take place at Talk:Adriana Ferreyr. If agreement cannot be reached there, you and the other editors should follow the directions in WP:Dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

Hello - the move wars at Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania and Horton Township, Pennsylvania have resumed. Would you mind re-protecting them? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitate to protect them once more. I was the admin closing the requested move on the Bensalem Township, and if I protect the article again on the same name, somebody may accuse me of bias. Better to file a request at WP:RFPP. Favonian (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks anyhow. Dohn joe (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the soapbox from ANI

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		For the prompt removal of crates of detergent VanIsaacWS 09:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's a new one. Thanks a lot! Favonian (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Divineabraham

I don't know if you've seen the latest on this case. I don't think I have anything to offer regarding the latest suspected socks that Hersfold found, but perhaps you do. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Though these (nominally) three accounts would be missed if they were sent off, I can't say with any degree of certainty that they are reincarnations of Divineabraham. Sorry! Favonian (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Edit War on Jesus

In the latest revision, I referenced several documentaries based on the latest research and findings by notable historians and scholars – and endorsed by government and notable institutions. Wikipedia is not about holding some religious belief – it’s all about scientific and historical facts and findings, and presenting the truth in front of the world community – which it is created for. For disputed facts you can present the arguments of the both sides, but you CANNOT forcibly suppress the other point of view and delete data. But this is exactly what this user User:History2007 is doing. Even he does NOT have the courage to keep my logical and explaining posts in his talk page. Whenever I am posting something in his talk page - he is hastily deleting this. This person has clearly some ill intention and is ill spirited. He needs a immediate BLOCK. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly about the need for reliable sources and the bold, revert, discuss process. Yet you insist on edit-warring and have therefore been reported to the relevant admin noticeboard. The other editor may remove comments from his talk page as he sees fit, subject only to a very short list of exceptions listed at WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the documentaries made my Government of India or News media like BBC is NOT reliable - then what is RELIABLE according to your prudent discretion ?? Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That has been explained to you on Talk:Jesus, but you really don't want to listen, do you? As a result, you have now been temporarily blocked from editing. Hope that teaches you something. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information

Hi there Favonian, hope you're doing well. I thought I might ask for your help on something, if that's OK. Is there a guideline that you know of that restricts trivial information within articles? Consider something like "He bought his first phone at the age of 15" in an article about a footballer which is sufficiently verified. To me this seems utterly out of the scope of an encyclopaedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states something merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, but then is very narrow in referring only to fiction, lyrics databases and statistics. There is WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, but it's rather vague. Thanks for your advice and help in advance. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jay. The level of banal but verifiable detail is not, AFAIK, governed by explicit guidelines, but left to the better judgement of editors and the ever-elusive consensus. Regarding the phone-happy footballer, I would happily invoke item 8 of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, because Wikipedia should not be "A complete exposition of all possible details". Favonian (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Highlandjacobite

Hello! I'm a new Wikipedian, as I can see you are also interested in history perhaps you could explain me how to upload pictures on to Wikipedia . thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlandjacobite (talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's something I rarely do, so my only advice is to read Wikipedia:Uploading images carefully. Favonian (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User William de Berg

This pesron user William de Berg continues to commit vandalism on wickepedia and it is compromising its integrity to true factual unbiased information. He is citing references that do not prove the accuracy of his stamentes-- they are misleading and not factual. He is trying to gain an ufair advantage for George Soros by portrying Ms. Mr. Ferreyr in a bad light. Please read the refences to see that they do not prove his claims. This is a person working for Mr. Soros that is trying to misrepresent Ms. Ferryer in order to gain an advantage for him. Is there any way to prevent his behaviour which falls under the category of slander and defamation. This in in regards to the page Adriana Ferreyr Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion at WP:BLPN#Adriana Ferreyr. Favonian (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Favonian, This user Bbb23 is vandalizing the wickipidia page of Adriana Ferreyr. He has taken off numerables references one by one and then put the page up for deletion for a lack of referenceces. He has also deleted the talk page that you have created for discussion of the page. Best, Jane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane77765 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with vandalism. See the discussion at WP:BLPN#Adriana Ferreyr. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue Line Media

Thank you for reviewing the new article written by me, user:mattkillion (the "Article").

First, I am sorry for the repeated removal of the csd template. I thought a bug was causing it to appear over and over. Everytime it appeared, I deleted it. Now that I understand what the code is for, I apologize for repeatedly deleting it. This will not happen again.

Separately, I would like to request undeletion of the Article because the organization that is the subject of the article is notable for the following reasons:

1. Largest provider of outdoor ads in 300 cities in 50 states to nonprofit and govt agencies.

2. Organization mentioned in several articles, including ones by military agencies (such as the Dept of Veterans Affairs), about the organization's work in outdoor ads for suicide prevention.

3. Organization has such an extensive federal govt representation that it has a GSA contract which provides for streamlined federal govt acquisitions. 4. Organization has millions of dollars in revenue.

Let me know if other topics should be covered.

At the least, is it possible to undelete the article and include the csd template so that users can review?

Thank you for the reconsideration.

-user: mattkillion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.35 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Highlandjacobite

Thanks a lot for your help and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlandjacobite (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarcococca hooker(i)ana

Thanks for sorting out that mess. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that time of the year again.

The falling temperatures (at least in the northern hemisphere) and the removal of the greek lettersNaraht (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, and the sending off for lengthy periods of time of IP addresses belonging to educational institutions. Favonian (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Manchester article

If Wikipedia's rules state that, when edit warring occurs, the disputed content shall be removed while the case is being discussed, I wish that you as an administrator revert Kagg's edit of today, containing the content, so that the article returns to its status before the edit warring began. At least this is the rule on the Norwegian Wikipedia.

The content concerned was added on 15th September by a new IP user. By the way, the information ('criminal' and 'bigamous') is already mentioned in this BLP.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we have such a rule on the English-language Wikipedia. Regarding your last remark, I'm not sure I understand it. My recommendation was that you bring up the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (better known as BLPN) to start a discussion on whether the contested passages are appropriate or not. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that in a relatively short BLP's introduction, such formulations get too explicit and dominating when standing alone (i.e. not in a context). They are now almost like slogans. The BLP guidelines say clearly that BLP articles shall have a nuanced presentation. Since the information concerned already is mentioned elsewhere in the BLP, I consider it as unproblematic that you remove the 'duplicated' text in the introduction. The information per se remains in the article.

Regarding BLPN: I know about this possibility (however, one cannot use BLP in this case, as the article is created before 2010), but wished first to send a signal via speedy deletion. If one thinks that the article is questionable now, one should have seen it some months ago, before I discovered it. It was really disgusting. There were actually formulations like In 1993, when still in a marriage, he married, bigamously, N.N.(!). This is like 'Rider riding on a horse' etc.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing BLPN with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, which has a "grandfather clause" for articles created before March 2010. The noticeboard is for discussion of all BLP articles, be they ever so ancient. Arguments like the ones you posted above would be suitable at BLPN. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank youu. I was not aware of this noticeboard, which I shall take a look at.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Never ending story 99.63.*.*

Remember 99.63.26.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They just don't stop. See 99.63.24.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I missed them. :( Favonian (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

... and back they will be in a few months :-| Thx - DVdm (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chief Mechanical Engineer

You relisted this since the RFC was open. Now we have two RFCs. If it is OK with you, I think the RM discussion should be closed as no consensus and reopened if needed based on the results there. If I do the close, I'll probably mention the option of converting to a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, and as I'm several time zones ahead of you, I'll do the closing. Fascinating how such seemingly uncontroversial requests can evolve into massive discussions. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Chembai

Hello, you have closed the move request in Chembai article with decision as 'not moved'. I respect your decision, but you didn't mention the reason on why and how you arrived at that conclusion. I like to know your reasoning for the decision, since I initiated the move request.
Thanking You,
Anish Viswa 04:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The opposing arguments were based on the WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy that carries considerable weight in naming discussions, even though in many cases it is hard to establish what the most commonly used name is. Your argument, on the other hand, emphasized WP:OFFICIALNAMES and a more general sense of propriety, which on Wikipedia are considered less important than common usage. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Radamel Falcao

Hello administrator. Can you delete this page Radamel Falcao García? Please read the Requested move: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radamel_Falcao.

Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though you and Soul Train have come to an agreement, I would prefer to let the discussion run for a few more days, just to be on the safe side. Favonian (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. :) --Hydao (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, rules are rules :)--Soul Train (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

IP sock of LC

• Hello Favonian. TBH, I knew it would be a matter of time before someone caught on after I tagged that IP's ISP info and it's geolocation. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • He was never known for his subtlety. I detected a peeved tone in his contributions, indicating a disappointment at not having been blocked yet, so I finally complied with his deepest wishes. Favonian (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • And we are only too pleased to aim for his analytics desire when one by one, we close in for the kill. Talk about a whacko who likes being accosted, he tops them all, eh? Anyhow... he was a good laugh, in the end. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Relink is the evil. relink mean no got a link in wikipedia here....

Just for some laughs. Wifione ^Message 12:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again.

An actually helpful editor, instead of being rude and just shouting "no", has informed me the proper template is MFD and I am working on that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.33.212.171 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Close of move request at MCG (disambiguation)

Hi, Favonian. I'm a bit puzzled by your close of the move request at Talk:MCG (disambiguation). While opinion was fairly evenly split, isn't that disagreement actually evidence that there is no primary topic, and that the page should be moved? Powers ^T 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. When !votes are evenly split with regard to changing the status quo, I prefer to close as "no consensus", whether the question is "primary or not" or some other renaming issue. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you support banned user: Iaaasi?

User:Iadrian yu is romani-an chauvinist Iaaasi's meta/sock -puppet. Why do you support his edits? (you always restored his bad faith edits or chauvinist provocation in Matthias Corvinus article.

Moreover, there is no other English language (real printed!) encyclopedia in the world, which use so-called bynames/nicknames in the title of the articles. "Matthias Corvinus" is not official name it's just a nick name of the Monarch. Please Modify the title of the article to Matthias I of Hungary.

Columbia Encyclopedia

Encyclopædia Britannica

Encyclopædia Universalis

Encarta Encyclopedia (2009)

Brockhaus Enzyklopädie

Encyclopaedia Larousse