User talk:Favonian/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29


Elector Palatine vandal returns

When you get an opportunity, would you please take a look at the edit pattern of Hansmccx in light of this? Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the rather dodgy move and encourage you to reopen the sockpuppet investigation. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


... for taking care of that IP. Some of the edit summaries may need revdel attention. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've revdel'ed both text and summaries for the contributions of the educational system's pride and joy. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha, thank you. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  17:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

please join

i need your help there Kittybrewster 15:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymani (talkcontribs) 18:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can Someone Help us out Here, Please

Is there anyone who can add a month by month section around the 1994 and 1995 pages the same way 1996 and beyond pages have them? Can you respond by our talk page, please? (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Would have freaked me out - the edit by if you hadn't reverted the edit. Thanks Raidriar (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kashimathvarnasi who was blocked by Wikipedia Administrators for (Abusing multiple accounts)now came from another Fake ID

Sr No User Blocking Date Reason for Blocking Reference
1 Kashimathvarnasi (talk | contribs) 30 April 2013 Abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - Kashimathvarnasi [1]
2 Kashimathorg (talk | contribs) 30 April 2013 Abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - Kashimathorg [2]
3 Hhsts (talk | contribs) 2 May 2013 Abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - Hhsts [3]
4 Shree Kashi Math Samsthan (talk| contribs) 3 May 2013 Abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - Shree Kashi Math Samsthan [4]
5 Dharmaguru (talk | contribs) 3 May 2013 Abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - Dharmaguru [5]
6 Kashimath justice (talk | contribs) 10 May 2013 Abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - Kashimath Justice [6]
7 (talk | contribs) 10 May 2013 Block evasion Wikipedia Blocked users List (Official page from Wikipedia) - [7]

Now above mentioned user has came with another Fake ID Spedian (talk | contribs)


Granuator (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Granuator Wat you Talking about? I dont have any relation with these accounts you specifying. Granuator You only Making unconstructive edits in Kashi Math than those users. You are removing the updated details of kashimath. Spedian (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Page KashiMath Granuator Removing the Updates By Un-necessary "Undo"s

Hi Favonian, The page Kashi Math required updated informations as the page contains old information As and whenever anyone update the page. This Granuator is doing UNDO

You can check the History of Page Kashi Math.

Kindly discuss with Granuator, about why he is doing "Undo".

The Well Experienced Wikipedian Ajithrshenoy updated the page with all References But Granuator doing UNDO on it.

Kindly verify the new details added from Exactly Genuine Sources & Block Granuator from doing further UNDO.

I dont have any relation with any users Granuator is specifiying in his previous post.

Spedian (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Favonian. Thank you for the recent page move of Rainbow (English band). With that done, could you please move Template:Rainbow to Template:Rainbow (English band), and then re-create Template:Rainbow with the following links in it:

and the rainbow colors:

and, in the below section of the template,

The reason being, is so that the traditional Rainbow template can have the rainbow color links in them. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Following an absence cause by real life, I have renamed the template and corrected all transclusions. I'll leave it to you to replace the redirect Template:Rainbow by the proposed list. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Favonian! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ANEW and Kashi Math

Favonian, I need some guidance as to what to do with this report at ANEW. From a purely edit warring standpoint, two editors have violated WP:3RR, but the history of the page and the editors is too weird. My inclination is to lock the article, but because of the sock puppet allegations and your protecting the page against non-auto-confirmed users based on sock puppetry, I thought I'd come to you first. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay—real life claimed me for several days. I fully support protecting the article. Initially, there it was a fairly clear case of sock/meat puppets opposing Granuator, but now the picture has become more muddled. As I have allowed myself to become involved by reverting and blocking the puppets, it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to choose the wrong version to protect. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Move reverted: Nancy Alvarez (psychologist)

Why did you put Nancy Álvarez without the acute accent? She was born on the Dominican Republic, in a Spanish-speaker country, and that Spanish family name always should be written with the acute accent, if not it changes its pronunciation from ˈAl-ba-ɾeθ to Al-ˈba-ɾeθ. The reason that in her website is not used may be because most people doesn't know to write acute accents on letters (especially on capital letters, which is very hard) with keyboards. Nacho Mailbox ★ 20:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

While it's entirely possible that I made a mistake, I don't really credit the idea that the people responsible for her website don't know how to enter diacritics. The important criterion here is what the common spelling of her name is in English-language sources. Considering that she has been "receiving highly positive reviews New York, Miami", according to the article, such sources should be available. At any rate, I would advise that you initiate a discussion under WP:RM to settle the matter. Favonian (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Favonian, sorry to bother you, any rough idea where the actual discussion of these keylinks for presidents was? and if you can remember that far back you have supernatural memory powers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Him again. :( Don't know if there's a specific US president discussion, but there was quite a bit of activity on Mr. Kauffner's talk page. Due to his habit of blanking his talk page when things get uncomfortable, the discussion is somewhat fragmented, but the highlights are Category:English monarchs - sortkey, Controversial sort keys reverted and Cat pipes. Interestingly, if not surprisingly, he then waited a couple of weeks before trying to get the sequence numbers back in the categorization of articles about English monarchs. Try looking at this sequence of edits, search for "Sweyn Forkbeard", "Mary I of England" etc. and notice how the edit summaries ("persondata") don't quite cover the actual edits. Favonian (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Running dog may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Vanguards of young Moslems were . . . urging the overthrow of the ‘Kuomintang]] running-dog’”.<ref>“Dog,” 8f, ''Oxford English Dictionary'', 2nd ed., 1989<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


The IP address is autoblocked because of 10SatchellJ. In doing so, I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia at school. Where do I go to request IP block exemption; if you can perform it, please do, or failing that, please shorten the autoblock by a couple of hours (11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC))?--Launchballer 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

According to this, there is in fact a range block in effect against your institution. It applies, however, only to anonymous editing, so I have lifted the auto-block. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Where do I apply for IP block exemption?--Launchballer 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your present unblock request should do it. I'm not entirely comfortable doing it myself and would rather leave it to someone with CheckUser privileges. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In which case I've reopened it. Thank you very much indeed.--Launchballer 20:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Clean start page

Hello, Favonian. I see that you are one of the editors who reverted Colton Cosmic on his IP sockpuppeting with regard to drastically changing the Wikipedia:Clean start page. Seeing that you currently have the most recent activity out of the other ones who reverted, and are one of the administrators who reverted (in fact, I see that all the editors who reverted him in February and March of this year are administrators), I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that he is back to making those changes at that page. Since he will likely continue making those changes until the page is semi-protected again, it may be best to immediately semi-protect that page at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're fast. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How repetitive! Page semi-protected for three months and IP temporarily blocked. Favonian (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Birth Of Heavy Metal

Hey Favonian

My point of deleting a lot of the content on your wiki is simply because you've simply made too many mistakes by putting a lot of rock bands who simply do not represent heavy metal at all like the beatles, queen, deep purple, def lepperd and guns 'n' roses e.t.c heavy metal and rock are 2 different genres granted metal did derive from rock but has a harder more aggressive sound hence the term "hard rock" which also is another name for heavy metal. It's highly laughable as well as adding the genre punk rock to the forum which has no connection to the genre except for grunge and goth rock, it need's to be removed before creating confusion and ignorance with people that read's that post — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a highly debatable issue, so I must request that you discuss it on the article talk page, and at any rate you should provide content edits with edit summaries. Favonian (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Grammatical comment: etc has one full stop at the end and none between the e and t or the t and c. It is an abbreviation for et cetera. I agree with 86.159 but this should have been discussed in one place rather than mass-revert. Kittybrewster 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

William Garden Blaikie

I have edited this article today. I wish to do so again but it tells me I am opening an old version of the page. How come? Kittybrewster 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No good answer up my sleeve, but I see from the edit history that you're using this new visual editor. I so distrust technical innovations. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I turn it off please? Kittybrewster 21:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe you need to press "Edit source" rather than the usual "Edit". Favonian (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Trophy.png your good at your job
hey dude, im sorry, i just wanted to prove a point to my friend Swaggymcyolo (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page and blocking that the IP address involved. I don't know what this user's problem is, but he is back to creating sockpuppets and changing IP addresses to cause trouble. Again, I appreciate your effort in attempting to take care of this troll. NHRHS2010 the student pilot 02:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure! The culprit is one of our regular customers, and we have blocked countless socks of his. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that he is a "regular customer". And thanks for reverting him again on my talk page. Although I am not 100% positive, it appears to be the sock farm of Dantherocker1, who was active throughout 2011; while Dantherocker1 was causing disruption on Wikipedia, he decided to target me after he posted a bunch of retarded comments on my YouTube video and subsequently discovering me on Wikipedia. NHRHS2010 the student pilot 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Favonian. I have noticed on topics Central Europe and Balkans that you undid my versions with request for answer. I changed some data of these topics because of fact that Croatia entered into EU on 1 July 2013 (European Union). I did it in good will, surely that wasn't a vandalism. I call on you to put back my versions so the true facts can be presented.

Best regards, Billiboom (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I never accused you of vandalism. However, Croatia becoming a member of the EU does not alter the fact that it's located in the Balkans and not in Central Europe. These are purely geographical terms, whereas the EU is a political entity. Favonian (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but in the topic Balkans there are sections Western Balkans (political term of EU) and

Politics and Economy which nowadays contain changes due to Croatia becoming a member of the EU. Can I do changes in these parts? And you'll not undo that?

Sorry for taking your time. Best regards, Billiboom (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the sentence "Today Western Balkans is more of a political than geographic designation for the region of Southeast Europe that is not in the European Union." has not been referenced. You will have to step very carefully and provide whatever you put into the articles with references to reliable sources. Avoid drawing your own conclusions; that is referred to as original research and is very much frowned upon. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the changes. I am trying to change the email associated with the page but I am having issues with finding the right method of doing this. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James2334333 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. As far as I know, there are no specific email addresses associated with articles. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


This user you blocked added someone's email to his talk page here. You may want to remove that part of the history. freshacconci talk to me 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for cleaning my user page. VVikingTalkEdits 01:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure! Wonder what you did to offend that particular vandal. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Another one (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - another Runtshit vandal to block. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 18:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind - blocked by Mark Arsten. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin help

Please see Talk:State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman#Vs or V?.

Per the above-referenced discussion, please change the name of that article from State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman to State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. That is, please change the abbreviation for "versus" between the party names from "vs." to simply "v." in accordance with legal convention and Wikipedia convention. In particular, please see the posting of User on the Talk Page referenced for specific citations. The issue is specifically and explicitly addressed in the Wikipedia MOS. See here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellaneous shortenings.

I myself cannot rename the page, presumably because the article is locked. Also, I was directed to Wikipedia:Requested moves. But, I could not make heads or tails out of all the formatting, rules, and procedures on that page.

Therefore, please rename the page. Or add the request to that Wikipedia:Requested moves page, using the correct formatting and procedures for the request. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


You gave me a penalty but didn't actually revert the change on the Tiberius wiki page. What gives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasteropod1 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't give you a "penalty", merely removed the part that wasn't useful, because a) we link to other Wikipedia articles using the double bracket notation (internal link), not the full URL (external link), and b) it wasn't being displayed anyway because the infobox template doesn't recognize that field. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Review please

[[1]]. How do I work this into an article on him? Kittybrewster 08:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert Of Move

Sorry i Clicked on the wrong link to move as you see my mouse is temper metal


Bren Harding

Bren Harding (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for continuing to fight that sock farm which would never stop harassing us, especially me. I filed a sockpuppet investigations report here just so you know. NHRHS2010 the student pilot 06:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your IP user block from yesterday.

To: Affected Administrators, 22July Subject: New approach for avoiding 3rr policy restristions

Yesterday, you were involved in a block of a user account on the Prometheus (2012 film) page.

During the last three months I have been conducting an investigation of activity on this wiki page following a report that the page was apparently being controlled by a single user who had accumulated over 1000 (one thousand) edits on this one site, ten times greater than the second most frequent user. This appeared unusual and possibly worth investigating.

There are three separate incidents to report concerning this user block yesterday and whether you were provided adequate information by the complaint you had received or if it was incomplete and misleading. The relevant edit history is listed from yesterday in chronological order by number of reversal sequences (edit and revert) for purpose of clarity of reference. This same pattern of activity occurred on three separate occasions in the last three months (documented), and it is only as the sum of these three incidents that this report to you will make any sense. The time sequence from yesterday is:

16 July 2013 (+523 bytes) original edit added

18 July (-636) Darkwarriorblake undo 1RR

1:13 21 July (+527) return text fully sourced

9:58 21 July (-577) Darkwarriorblake undo 2RR

13:41 21 July (+527) return, no reason given for delete

14:00 21 July (-575) Flax5 (takes over serial undo 3RR

while Darkwarriorblake initiates admin report)

14:52 21 July (+575) return text, no reason given for delete

14:58 21 July (-575) User Keri 4RR

16:51 21 July (+575) return text, no reason given for delete

16:57 21 July (-575) User Keri 5RR

Block issued.

Because this is the third incident (the other two are listed immediately below) over the last 3 months of evading 3RR violation by handing off the revert sequence to another user, please note that the original edit stood for two days with no complaint from anyone as a useful edit contribution. Since user:Darkwarriorblake has a history of reverting virtually everything not his own, it is interesting how he gets away with excluding all other user edits by simply serially reverting them. In this case it was done by first handing over the serial revert to another user by previous agreement User:Flax5, and then a second user:Keri to pick up on the serial revert process so that it appears that they are each following the 3RR rule, while the original reverter initiates the admin complaint report. This collectively gives the appearance to an Administrator that only the original editor is violating 3RR, while the others are handing-over the serial reverts process in only an appearance of propriety which is sufficient for most Administrators to effect a block w/o further investigation.

However, they have now done this over three times in three separate months and a pattern of behavior is now apparent that user:Darkwarriorblake has found an effective way to circumvent the 3RR rule convention and continue his one user control of this wiki page in order to protect only his version of the content. Looking at the history of edits for this page, a similar edit sequence can be found between 18June and 25June this time involving the same type of hand-off between User:Darkwarriorblake and User:MisterShiney, and a similar Admin appeal to Admin:Drmies to effect a page block against all IP user for a week which succeeded. Again, Darkwarriorblake appears to deflect all good faith edits other than his own, and gets an administrator to do his bidding. You may find a third incident of this mode of operation to avoid 3RR and deflect virtually all other user edits by User:Darkwarriorblake&Company on the sequence from 29May to 31May.

This report is to in no way state that Admin:Drmies or Admin:Favonian are in any way to blame for doing what any other administrators would do in the isolated instances. It is only when this is looked at as a repeated pattern of activity that Darkwarriorblake can be seen as having found a very clever way to avoid 3RR issues right under the eyes of administrators, and be able to effectively take control (over 1000 edits) of this wiki page from virtually the entire wiki community. The only way to make this report make sense was to actually go through the process of the full serial reverts so that you could see first-hand what is taking place on this wiki Page over many months and not only the isolated incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013‎ (UTC)

That one editor is responsible for an overwhelming percentage of the contributions to an article is not that unusual, especially not when the article has gone through the process leading to featured article status. This does sometimes lead to the behavior, characterized in Wikipedia jargon as ownership, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case here. Regarding the "handover", as you call it, it is clear that Darkwarriorblake knows about the 3RR brigh line and can count to three. That other editors, like Flax5, then decide to make similar reverts is not in itself indicative of wrongdoing. If there were any evidence that off-wiki canvassing had taken place, that would be a different matter, but the present data does not convince me.
Now, regarding your own part in the story, it is quite clear from your editing history that you are the same person as (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who I blocked for crossing the 3RR line. Though you're certainly entitled to edit anonymously from different IP addresses (as long as it doesn't constitute edit warring, block evasion, etc.), it would make your participation in disputes more transparent if you created an account and used that. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Attack page?

Would the old version of User:Wkwheel315 at this diff qualify for deletion as an attack page, should it be oversighted, or is it really a problem? Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 10:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It was an attack page, and shouldn't even remain in the edit history, so I've deleted the page and issued a warning. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No need for oversight - run of the mill crap like the pages we get every day that read "Mary smith is my scholmate. shez smellie and luvs bobby brown ~-heart heart heart smooch-~". Delete and warn (close to a block on this one), yes, OS or RevDel, no. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wasn't certain if it still qualified since it had been blanked by the user. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Favonian! Like a good admin you just blocked Rsuodiongan (talk · contribs). But I think there's more to it: their edits overlap with those by Enemyusuar (talk · contribs) and the relatively brand-new Yaleokine (talk · contribs). Rsuo and Enemy overlap on Odiongan, Romblon, and Enemy and Yaleo overlap, in a way, via Mole--look at the boneheaded move made by Enemy from Mole (sauce) to Mole (marinated) (yeah, the grammar is painful), and then look at this edit by Yaleo (they did it again, later on). It could be all a coincidence, of course! But even separately they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well hello, Drmies! Long time no talk page. Those three certainly seem to be "acquainted", and I would recommend that you submit an SPI with CU request. Though there is considerable quacking, I don't want to join the crowd of certifiably power-hungry admins at this point. I have, however, blocked Enemyusuar for a week, just for the number of accumulated "final" warnings with subsequent transgressions. Enemyusuar and Yaleokine also have a shared interest in Lucha libre, by the way.
Now that I got your attention: how about rejoining the penal battalion? The Editor Formerly Known as Malleus is back on the streets, and watching you languish in Gellerup (of all places!) is downright painful. Favonian (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm far from languishing there--I'm taking pottery at the community center, of which I own 0.000001%. But there's an old American saying about dogs and fights and taking things out of other things, and the fight has been taken out of this dog a little bit, or I'd consider leaning my 140,000-edit weight on my opponent. I should have been more explicit in my earlier question--really what I wanted was someone else to just look at the edits. When I saw a revert by one of a revert I had made of another, I thought it was maybe just a disgruntled user, hounding me a bit, and the edit histories don't scream SOCK!!!! at me. But I'll file that SPI and we'll see. I don't know, BTW, if Dennis Brown is still alive and kicking; he did speed things up considerably at SPI and I wish they'd make him CU. Tack sa mycket! (And yes, nice seeing you again, Favonion. Thanks for sticking it out.) Drmies (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Respect! You were certainly vindicated by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waldemar15. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Harry potter title

When I view the page for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) in the Chrome browser, it shows the title with the extra space between "Stone" and "(film)", and looks really awkward, so I made the edit. I was thus kind of surprised to have the edit reverted. However, when I view the page in Internet explorer, the extra space is not present, so that's a bit puzzling. Perhaps there is some issue that causes the title to not display correctly in Chrome? If that's the case, then I feel like the edit should be kept anyway, to ensure that it'll display correctly on all browsers. Robber93 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Most curious indeed. I use Chrome as well, and, yes, when I compare your version with the "standard" one, there is a small difference in the width of the white space before the parenthesis, but I have to look quite hard to see it. To be precise, for the two versions the parenthesis aligns with the "t" and the "n" in the first-line occurrence of "Pakistan", respectively. There are, of course, several local settings that may influence the result, but that's how it is with my "vanilla" installation.
If it matters very much to you, I won't object to you reinstating your change, but I suspect that you'll have the same problem with all disambiguated film titles. Favonian (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Upon closer investigation, I must conclude that you were right. When I remove the DISPLAYTITLE macro, it looks exactly the same as your version, so that's what we'll settle for. Somehow, I must have confused two issues – I blame the heat ;) Favonian (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden vs. Franz Ferdinand

Why in God's name would you remove that edit ? It is Imperative for Humanity to know the correlation between The Archduke of Austria Franz Ferdinand and Edward Snowden who on a World stage is in his exact same position, If Edward Snowden is killed because of the Criminal Elements or "Disappeared" as his peers in the NSA joke we will see World War 3. Safe to say I shall not be signing into this account again I resign to watch the world burn as Good men and Women are forced to commit actions better left in their own imaginations and nightmares. Criminals and Psychopaths are not going to just hand themselves over. Gestas (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For my talk page stalkers: we are talking about this edit.
You really should read the pages linked to from the welcome message I posted on your talk page. Wikipedia is not the place for soap boxing or speculation. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Creationism - Wikipedia promotes a NEUTRAL point of view.

Please read Wikipedia's above link. Calling creationism pseudoscience is NOT a neutral point of view, but instead extremely biased. It has not been proven to be pseudoscience, but in fact several books have been written to show how science actually supports creationism.

If you truly support the guidelines of Wikipedia, you will see that using biased sources and inaccurate data is not keeping with the neutral purpose of Wikipedia. What I am doing is helping Wikipedia hold true to it's purpose, and should not be considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm very well aware of our NPOV "pillar". You have been told, both by myself and others, that your deletion of sourced content is controversial. If you want to pursue the matter, it can only be done through talk page discussion. In view of your very recent block, you have to watch your step! Favonian (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So am I allowed to add my own controversial information from a creationism viewpoint source and I won't get in trouble for doing so? Because if that is the case, I will gladly do so. I shouldn't get in trouble right, because although the viewpoint is controversial I provided a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the extremely controversial nature of the topic and your obvious inexperience editing, you should refrain from making any changes to the article without prior discussion—and please remember to sign your messages with the four tildes (~~~~)! Favonian (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
...or I get edit conflicts from SineBot. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
...and because our behavioral guideline (WP:SIGNHERE) says you must. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it right that people who have a certain viewpoint (evolution) and view creationism as a pseudoscience are allowed to post their viewpoints on the main Wikipedia page for everyone to see, but I (who am seeking to just give a balanced viewpoint) am confined to the talk page even if I am willing to provide sources? Doesn't this seem contradictory to your NPOV policy. You argument is it is controversial. Well, I realize that but should readers get both sides of the story. It seems to me like you are trying to confine my point of view and hold up the other point of view. If you truly believed in a fair and balanced viewpoint, you would let me write on the main page as long as I provided sources. (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a gross oversimplification. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Favonian (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. Well, the most offensive part to me and the least accurate I feel is the use of the word "pseudoscience". I could provide you with articles if it would make a difference showing the science of creationism. Let me know if you wish me to do so. Sometimes, two people come to different conclusions from looking at the same evidence. That doesn't make one view right or wrong necessarily. The term "pseudoscience" is to me derogatory and inaccurate. It is not needed to make the article complete. So I am requesting an edit of that terminology and if you wish I will provide you with articles relating to it. I'm sorry if I came off as rude or vandalistic (is that a word?) It's just that I would like a more balanced viewpoint on this page. (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not just me you have to convince, it's the community, and the place to do so is Talk:Creationism. Favonian (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Favonian--I came across this link and I think this best describes me:

Good faith and newcomers[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to him/her, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them.

I'm new at this. Please be patient with me. (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Manson Nixon

Hi, Manson-Nixon's a common meme from the 70's/80's, given it is a reference to the original line it should be left stand for those unfamiliar with the source, since anyone searching for it will want the line. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and it was not my intention to rename the Mason Dixon redirect--that was a confusion with em vs en dash which I will never quite understand. Feel invited to move the dash-different redirect back with my apologies. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New account by blocked editor

You blocked Doglicker9912 (talk · contribs) for his 3RR on Valve Corporation but we just got Ilickdogsandstuff (talk · contribs) making the same attempt to change it here. Considering this a WP:DUCK, I'd block but I'm involved and ask you to review that on your block. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. :) Favonian (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Who are you to label what a man's nickname is? What source says his name is Phillip? None. (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

You seem to have an issue with the title of this article, and so far your changes have been reverted by three editors—myself included. According to WP:LEADSENTENCE, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, so if the name is not to your liking, you should request a change through the WP:Requested moves process. Your present course of action would, if continued, constitute edit warring and that never ends well. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragaza

Hello Florian, Sorry, yes I do have a little issue. It's concerning the names positions. According to portuguese habits it should be "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Braganza" or "Saxe-Corburg-Braganza" and not the contrary. So "Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" is a error. --Alaplaine (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaplaine (talkcontribs) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what WP:RM is for. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

Can I just deal with the fake block messages and have my talk page unprotected? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you're that patient. I've removed the protection. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Guideline Enforcement

Hallo Favonian
there is a problem about the usage of WP:OPENPARA guideline on the Riccardo Giacconi (an Italian-American scientist) article. According to this guideline, in the biography of a person only the citizenship/nationality at the time of his/her notabilty should be mentioned in the open paragraph. Giacconi was born in Italy, moved to the U.S. right after his degree, and in the U.S. he did his researches, winning the Nobel Prize for Physics. Due to that, the mentioned nationality in the opening should be American, and so it was. An Italian User changed his ethnicity to Italian-American and, although I reverting him with comment and later explained at his Talk page (now I moved the thread to the article's Discussion page) the existence of the guideline, he keeps reverting. The same user was involved last year in similar edit wars at the Fermi and Fermi-Dirac Statistics articles. Is it possible for you to do something about that? If you don't think that you should do anything, can you please suggest me possible actions? The service page about guideline enforcement is rather vague... Thanks in advance, Alex2006 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, another one! Yes, WP:OPENPARA is, like so many other guidelines, disastrously open to interpretation. Do we have any evidence about change of citizenship, dual citizenship, etc.? I'm getting old and tired (especially of Wikipedia and its, let's say, enthusiastically patriotic editors), and simply no longer have the stamina for those protracted fights. Merely glancing in the direction of the Marie Curie article, let alone Nicolaus Copernicus, drains me of all will to edit. Sorry that I can't be of any help! Favonian (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Favonian, thanks for your sincere answer, and no problem! I am not willing to do any edit war: I wanted only to apply the guideline, which I think is a valid weapon against these patriotic editors that make our wiki-life so difficult (to understand how patriotic I am, in this case I would like to keep American an Italian-born scientist, although I come from Rome :-)). But if you says that OPENPARA is "open to interpretation" well, then it is useless, and let's forget the whole matter. I retire too. :-) P.S. Giacconi became American citizen in 1967 Alex2006 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal

Hello again Favonian. It was a while ago but I brought a particular individual to your attention who was using multiple IPs to make sneaky vandalism edits such as claiming John Miles as a member of the Eagles. Evidently he was editing from Korea for a while and I got his IP blocked and he was stuck. Now he's back in Hanoi with multiple simultaneous IPs and aggressively adding more garbage. Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal for all the info we got on him. I'm asking, is there anything else we can possibly do to put a squelch on his activities: I'm afraid it may only get worse now that he's back in Hanoi. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


he moves fast! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Fy Fan", as they say in his country of residence. Favonian (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet Master" User:IPhonehurricane95/Typhoonwikihelper Notice

IP Range of User:IPhonehurricane95/Typhoonwikihelper Added by: (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

List of User:IPhonehurricane95 socks. Added by: LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

I am extremely concerned that this "sockmaster" is still out there, given the history and edit patterns of his accounts/IP Addresses. Please look into the matter, to see if there are another other unblocked socks out there. Thanks!LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Are any of the following accounts socks of IPhonehurricane95/Vicky870? If so, please block them.

1. User:Vicky986

2. User:Vicky811.

Posted by: LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a mess. Considering the magnitude of the alleged transgression and the fact that I'm not a CheckUser, you should probably open a sockpuppet investigation. Favonian (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I plan on starting an investigation here, because all of those users are one and the same. However, am I new to this, so I will need a lot of help. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, the accounts are unrelated. However, I'll continue to monitor articles for signs of IPhonehurricane95's return. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Geometry educators

Category:Geometry educators, which you have used, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The category's creator stopped editing 3 years ago, so I thought you might like to "stand in" for him/her in the CFD discussion. :) Cgingold (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


If I removed everything that doesn't have a source on WP, there goes half your site! Ironic! But the sad thing is, it's sourced to numerous publications.

Ice pick, meet Favonian. Favonian, meet ice pick.

Also, I was doing no harassing so your block was unjust. Harassing is subjective anyway. Don't let your little opinion influence these decisions. (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for interrupting but I have never known Favonian be unfair. His opinions are considered and not "little" albeit I often wish he determined differently. Kittybrewster 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Favonian in indeed unfair as he calls the Classification of Paul Tibbest... the man who murdered over 100,000 civilians by dropping a nuke on Hiroshima as a war criminal a "personal opinion that cannot be allowed"... I'd say it's Favonian's personal opinion that drove him to protect this long dead depraved murderer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Possible Sock IP

Please look into this matter. is suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Nicole cute08. Even if the IP isn't a sock, he's continuing to plunk nonsense into Wikipedia articles, such as 2013 Pacific typhoon season, even after being warned by another user. If the IP really is a sock, or has continued to vandalize. Please block him off. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Rossi Firearms

This page is protected against creation. I suggest making it a redirect to Taurus (manufacturer) and then edit-protecting said redirect. Hellbus (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Relisting Kaiserslautern Central Station

Do you mind if I just closed this move request? I feel like I was responsible for the hurricane that led to the request for relisting. I said that they had to put notifications on all 121 articles. However, that doesn't actually seem necessary. Because these are all reversions of undiscussed moves, it would fall under WP:RMT, so one could still fulfill the request even though notifications weren't made on every page. -- tariqabjotu 21:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'll let it play out for a few more days, just in case someone wants to lodge an objection (although I'm not sure how someone could object to all 121 moves). Also, I don't feel like moving all those articles right now. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is Vincent Morley?

The above question is the heading of a section on the Saint Patrick's Saltire talk page. It was posted on 3 December 2012 and has remained unanswered since.

I am the Vincent Morley in question and I provided details about myself, with links to my personal webpage and blog where details of my publications and background can be found. You deleted my reply and told me to "Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire for general discussion of the topic".

I have no wish to become a Wikipedia contributor and only became aware of this reference to myself when told of it by someone else. However, I consider it very odd that such a personal question should be posed on a Wikipedia page and that the subject of the question should be prevented from replying.

I therefore respectfully request that the question about me should be deleted entirely.

Vincent Morley (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied at WP:DRN#Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire. Favonian (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to have permission from anyone in authority, not necessarily from you, to post a reply to the question "Who is Vincent Morley?" Can I now do so? I don't want to do so without receiving explicit permission as I have already been given a "last warning" by another editor for the same offence.

Vincent Morley (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I may not exactly have the authority to grant permissions around this place, but I won't object to you re-adding the comment. What you'll get out of replying to a nearly nine-months-old comment from an editor who contributes infrequently is anybody's guess. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll make a fourth attempt so. My purpose isn't to engage with the original poster but only to defend my reputation as a credible historian on a page where some doubt has been cast on it.

Vincent Morley (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95/Typhoonwikihelper Sockpuppet attack

I suspect that User:Hiiiiiii im sheldon coooooper is a sock of IPhonehurricane95 for many various reasons.

1. He attacked me, by created a vandalized user page with my name (which has now been deleted). He is the only user who ever attacked my via my user space (in this case, the talk page of my IP Address), abeit as a Sock IP himself.

2. He vandalized Tropical Cyclone articles, compare with editing patterns of User: IPhonehurricane95 and his socks.

3. His onblock threats are almost exactly the same as those of his other sockpuppets.

If you don't mind, please check for other possible Sockpuppets of this vandalizer. I an growing extremely annoyed with his guy's attempts to unnerve me and attack Wikipedia articles. Thanks! LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See IPhonehurricane95's Sockpuppet Investigation, for more information on the suspected sock. Could you please trace and block account creation for the IP Address(s) behind these socks? If you do, it may prevent the vandalizer from creating even more socks. (The IP range I provided on this page should help). Thanks! LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yup, just like I thought. He has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of IPhonehurricane95. I knew that it was probably only a matter of time before he decided to attack me, given everything that I have done to root out his socks. How are we going to handle this guy? Every time things seem to settle down, he creates more socks to vandalize Wikipedia. Is there a way that we could stop this? LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 10:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


I am sorry and thank you. But why am I able to change what other people has written? Isn't it weird? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enginhakvar (talkcontribs) 11:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are just like all other pages: in principle, everyone can edit everything. You should make a habit of previewing all changes you make before saving them. It has certainly saved me from numerous screw-ups. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your fix worked

This change caused the bot to see the date, but I don't know why :-). Maybe the trailing </span> or </small> tags had something to do with it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's some unstructured, experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis that the bot will dump new requests in the trash section at the end if the time stamp is not sufficiently recent. Since this request was three hours old before the initial problems were ironed out, it does fit the bill. Regrettably, I failed to divine the truth from the source code. Face-sad.svg Favonian (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)