User talk:Favonian/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Favonian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage :). Airplaneman talk 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever been on vandal patrol (ever) using WP:IGLOO and I'm already a target. Airplaneman ^talk 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! Glad to see a new vandal fighter; your assistance is much appreciated. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for reverting my user page. I noticed you're getting attacked a fair bit, I can semi your talk page for a few weeks if you like--Jac16888^Talk 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, also for the offer of protection, but unless it gets completely out of control I think I can hold the fort. Currently, it's really just this character who, though he has announced his (somewhat forced) retirement in disgust, keeps coming back for more. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a film that is a Green-Star production, a small filmmaker that does not show in theaters and is open to a small group of a people. 4 PAGES CREATED TO DATE. KingofFilm, the mighty Wikipedian. 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs)

I see. Please have a look at WP:NF and tell us how this article meets the notability requirements stated therein. Favonian (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

im not really sure how to do this for i have never done it before but i've read what it was and that brought up a few questions...but first i'll explain what exactly happened here...the speedaless guy wanted to make a wiki page about me and the things i've done/made and asked if it was alright if he was the one to make it...so i said i'd make a start for him by writing some basic stuff about me...so he could edit and finish it after that...is that against the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldtrojan (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really against the rules, but it did look rather fishy. At any rate, your main problem is that the article (which has now once more been deleted) gives no evidence of the subject (you) being notable. Unless you and your friend can come up with reliable sources documenting notability, there isn't much chance of the article surviving. Regarding the sock puppet investigation, I think I'll call it off as a token of good faith. Favonian (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i see...sorry for any trouble i've caused then but may i ask...what exactly do you mean with "notable sources"? then i'll do my best to get everything right before making the page again...or having speedaless fully do it from here on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldtrojan (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So much for the benefits of hyper-links . The full story is found by clicking HERE, but in your case it amounts to finding mention of "the subject" in news media. Favonian (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i've read it...but don't fully understand (my english isn't perfect..) but if i'm correct you want links to proof of everything speedaless puts up there or at least a source of where it came from? if thats the issue here then should speedaless put external links to websites or pages to things i've made or things about me? or pictures with proof of those things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldtrojan (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As a rule everything in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable. What you need to demonstrate in particular is notability or in other words: you and your work should be sufficiently "interesting" that the aforementioned reliable sources (for instance newspapers) have written about you. Blogs and similar websites, where basically anyone can publish anything, are not considered reliable. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, regarding this case, do you have any objection to it being archived, as opposed to being deleted? Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been deleted. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving would have been OK with me, but as you say, it's a mood point by now. Looks like we are not dealing with hardened Wikipedia miscreants, so I'll let the matter rest. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

hmm...then wikipedia has 'alot' of stuff about people that do not have anything interesting...don't get me wrong im not aiming it at my opinion...though there is alot more about me he wanted to write about apparently...things i've written and such...and alot of 'interesting' things aren't interesting at all to things like newspapers and such...so...what about that?--Coldtrojan (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there's lots of stuff lying around Wikipedia, which shouldn't be here, but that's not considered a valid argument for letting more of the same in. If no reliable sources have written about you and your work, then I'm afraid the conclusion is that you are not notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Don't take it too hard; you've got plenty of years ahead in which to achieve this. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

nah it's alright...didn't use it as an argument to make my page pass, just wondering is all...well guess i'll have to show the world what im capable of then. thanks for your patience -) --Coldtrojan (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really questioning that Turiya Hanover were notable? I would like to think that such a position is a signal of amateurishness about history. ObRoy (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Being married into a (former) royal family is not sufficient to establish notability. Please have a look at these guidelines. At present, the list of references doesn't do much beyond proving that she was married to a prince. The Spiegel article is about her late husband and merely mentions her in passing. Think what you will about my position, but in view of your past record, you might want to have a look at WP:CIVIL as well. Favonian (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For reverting Highdeeboy. He was up to uw4 for blanking. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that in spite of his talk page being blanked, so I've sent him off to WP:AIV. Favonian (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that last one may have been a bit close to the bone. However, Ash's grounds for removing my contributions on the basis of libel OR bad referencing are highly questionable and in direct conflict with the supposedly democratic and impartial principles of Wikipedia. My edits were in no way libelous. I was referring objectively to allegations of plagiarism by Mr. Gervais that have been made by other persons. Furthermore, these comments were all fully backed up and referenced and the allegations are already published and in wide circulation:

• www.plagianimals.com
• www.captainpottie.co.uk
• www.enotes.com/misanthrope
• www.enotes.com/tartuffe
• www.pilkipedia.co.uk
• familyhobgoblin.blogspot.com

(X15v72A (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

The problem is that none of these sources achieve what they set out to.

• In the case of "Flanimals", we have somebody's comparisons between the invented animals, and having reviewed the first, the alleged similarities are just so vague and subjective as to lack credibility. As for a comparison of the two cited sources, we are synthesising the sources and inviting the reader to draw a conclusion, which is impermissible as original research.
• In the case of "Le Misanthrope" and "Tartuffe", we have exactly the same problem in that the reader is invited to draw conclusions from the similarities, and in any event, the existence of similar previous stories suggests that this is a fairly common theme in story-telling.
• As for pilkipedia, it is, like Wikipedia, user-written by anybody, and I note the page you refer to not only cites some person's (who could be anybody) opinion, but also that the poll cited at the top would seem to militate against that site supporting plagiarism. The blog cited suffers from the same problem, which is why we do not generally regard blogs as reliable sources.

All in all, if we are dealing with the reputation of a living person in relation to the way he earns a living, we'd need much better sources than these. Rodhullandemu 21:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Points of view

Point taken on subjective unreliability of blogs. The Pilkipedia forum is a fansite for Ricky Gervais so opinions will tend to favour him in any discussion. As for The Misanthrope and Tartuffe, it could be argued that the themes of honesty and hypocrisy in religion are so unique to Moliere that an apparent melding of the two into one work is beyond coincidence. It's not a common story in the way that say Romeo and Juliet can become West Side Story. However, again a matter of opinion. Also, you seem to have missed the multiple textual, conceptual and visual similarities between Flanimals and the previous book on the www.plagianimals.com website. Far from being vague, the probability of two such books being produced independently seems infinitesimal, especially considering claims that Gervais agents had access to the original material. Yet again, however, a matter of hearsay I suppose - subjective opinion.

The fact that your and my perception of the same material differs so greatly demonstrates your point that the use of certain types of sources in discussions on living persons is inappropriate so I fully concede this point. In future I will ensure my sources regarding living persons are built on more solid foundations.Thanks for your clarification on this. I do not see however, how anything I've contributed could be perceived as libelous, defamatory or disruptive, since I have simply been reporting neutrally on other peoples' observations.

Sources too subjective, yes.

Libelous - how?

(X15v72A (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

I've taken the liberty of moving this section back here, and also to clarify that you are replying to my criticisms of sources, not Favonian's. As for the wording of the warnings you've received, they are pretty standard and of increasing severity to protect the Wikimedia Foundation against accusations that it does not take such allegations seriously. It's perfectly possible (at least where I practised law) to defame a person without any evil intent. But when your edits are reverted, it's as well to look at the article history to see why, and discuss on the related Talk page before you get to the stage of getting a final warning. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that's clarified it. I'm relatively new to this. I realize I have brought up issues which some people will be uncomfortable with and just wanted to make sure I wasn't being censored by an interested party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X15v72A (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, User talk:David in DC added an attack warning on my talk page, though why I do not know.

I have made only two minor edits to Elaine Parent. In the first, I erroneously made the section heading lowercase, then realized that "Parent" was a surname. See edit diff. I am certain that he has the wrong editor.

Is there a glitch in the system? Esowteric+Talk 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like a human error. Judging from the edit summaries, he uses neither Twinkle nor Huggle. Guess he'll be in for some major embarrassment next time he signs in ;) Favonian (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, we live and learn. I just had a shock when I saw the warning. :) Esowteric+Talk 23:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've apologized and explained on all the relevant pages. David in DC (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Must have been rather a rude awakening for you this morning ;) Favonian (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism 5 times in a raw to my page, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Thank you :-) MaenK.A.Talk 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall wear the helmet with pride. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You should be proud of your self, keep up the good work, and enjoy editing MaenK.A._Talk 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Next warning should've been a level two one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.71.22.223 - Zhang He (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions differ. Once personal attacks are involved, I escalate to level 4 (even 4im when relevant). This guy moved on to prove himself worthy by getting himself blocked right afterwards. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the SD nom, as there is a claim of importance - Karen has acted in many movies in the U.K and Australia, Karen is also a very well known poet.

Please feel free to either PROD this or take it to Articles for Deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have PRODed the article. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic! Dlohcierekim 19:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. And now the article has already been deleted. Favonian (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I never saw an article get through the day so quickly. ;) Dlohcierekim 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by At-par (talk • contribs) 11:26, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to work quite well, given the fact that I just received an e-mail from you Favonian (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm new to Wikipedia's mail feature. To test, I picked you beacuse you had pertcipated in the development of the page Harish Gaonkar. Please let me know whether the mail works as expected or not. Sorry for the inconvinience caused to you. Thx. kaeiou 00:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That IP is actually perfectly allowed to (mostly) blank his page. I've cut it down to what HAS to stay, since it's obvious he wants the rest gone. WP:BLANKING --King Öomie 14:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I know the chapter and verse of WP:BLANKING, and the bit about shared IP notices was my alibi for hitting the revert button. I know from ample experience how tenacious RT can be, so I opted for the least labor intensive method. Any chance of blocking all Vodaphone IPs? No? Darn! Favonian (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd felt pleased that he'd stopped reverting after my edit, thinking I'd found a compromise.

Then I saw he'd been talkpage-blocked. A little less misunderstood vandal, a little more rabid wolverine. I'd love to see certain user-agents simply not presented with edit buttons, but none of that would ever pass. --King Öomie 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

for reverting the vandalism on my UP! Always my undying gratitude...
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I grace blocked him. But Nawlin went the full monty. Must have known his history. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nawlin is a lean, mean, blocking machine! Favonian (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hey why did you fiddle with my modification...its a fact live with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balleshera2003 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources for the claim, then it's merely your personal opinion which does not belong in Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

are you there where are you?Highdeeboy (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm right here. If it's about your contents dispute on Abraham et al., then I don't intend to get involved. My concern is merely to ensure that the guidelines for editing Wikipedia are followed. Favonian (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

no its not that forget it every thing's good there! but its about another page i have everything i just need an editor to examine my sources one said its right but still i need another one in case so my editing can be accepted fairly!Highdeeboy (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you put that warning at User talk:188.47.93.54?--125.25.10.148 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on the edit history of that other IP there is no reason why they should be warned. You, on the other hand, exhibit highly disruptive editing behavior. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But you know? that he is acctually vandalize the TVP2 article--125.25.10.148 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And he said that I am trolling and fraud, while I said its a joke, see his talk page--125.25.10.148 (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of that IP user vandalizing TVP2? Your idea of a joke evidently isn't welcome at their talk page, nor do I think it's appropriate, so keep it to yourself. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I have a teacher from Poland, and she is 46 years old, she knows everything from PRL, but this user is 15 years old (i think), and he said TVP was called TP, but my teacher said it's RTP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.10.148 (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

One more time: what evidence do you have? And what does your teacher's age have to do with anything? Favonian (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Polish TV, TVP formerly called RTP!! But he said only in Portugal--125.25.10.148 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

188.47.93.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has never edited that article. If you imply that the same person has edited using a different IP address you must provide evidence. At any rate, you should keep the the discussions factual and not resort to putting weird and decidedly unfunny jokes on talk pages. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is many IPs start 188.47 editing TVP2 article, and keep saying that I am a troll and my YouTube name is fun17092008 (while I am ThaibeYond02) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.10.148 (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dan is a famous canadian producer guitarist who has just died- he deserves to be on there and the rule clearly state that there should be a link- which there is to his former band junkhouse- there doesn't have to be a link to his own page-(read the rules!) therefore i am not violating or vandalizing anything --and will keep putting him there!!!

(zenman666) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenman666 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what it says: "Only add names here if the person has their own article—anything else will be removed". He does not have his own article, so he won't be included. If you don't like this rule, you should take the issue to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just to say thanks for setting up the re-direct. It didn't occur to me that there was an alternative spelling - I just assumed the BBC knew what they were talking about! Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure—and thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Favonian (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why like this? I think that pointing out that mohammed was a pedophile is most constructive. Imagine millions of peoples believing in something that can't be falsified. With all due respect, please don't revert me on such thin basis. --82.181.195.240 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That issue is, to put it mildly, strongly contested. The reason why I reverted your utterances was because of the wording. It was very far from the standards mandated by Wikipedia's policies regarding civility. Favonian (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Favonian,

My apologies for my disruptive editing, I copied the whole article into Notepad++ and the text editor can't read the languages. I did not notice that. Typhoon966 (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I can well understand the need for an external editor, but it's essential to find one that can cope with UTF-8. Glad we solved the problem. Favonian (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I must have messed up the other articles as well. Typhoon966 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Only some of them. Don't worry, I've reverted your changes to those ;) Favonian (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Typhoon966 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Dlohcierekim 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Rather weird kind of vandalism. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, thanks a lot for removing spam and blocking em' from Karthik Calling Karthik, Hum Tum Aur Ghost, e.t.c. Keep up the good work mate..!

Harikrishnanpv.nair ans (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Actually, the editor hasn't been blocked (yet) as there have been no edits since the final warning. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was boring. PiCo (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but it's a lousy excuse for cutting text from an article. Entertainment is not among the defining characteristics of Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asking you if you meant to remove this. Looks like a content dispute to me. I'd have left a reason, not marked it as vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. As I told him above, that summary cannot be construed as a valid explanation for cutting 18 K worth of text from an article. I did check his track record, and it is true that he is a "regular"; in particular he has been blocked repeatedly. (edit conflict) Yes, you are right, I should have hit the blue rather than the red button. Got provoked by that rather juvenile summary. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A better reason would be that it's irrelevant - 18k of quotes from ancient authors, adding nothing very obvious to the article. There's no explanation of the context within which these authors were working, nor anything about what they were attempting to do. This kind of juvenile "scholarship" makes Wikipedia a laughing-stock. PiCo (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's you considered opinion, then you should bring it up on the talk page. Just removing a large segment of text with a, let's say "rudimentary", explanation is not a good idea, in particular not when the article is in an area where editors tend to get emotional. Sorry for the late reply; I didn't notice your message until now. Favonian (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Favonian, the oprey is listed as endangered in Australia by birds in backyards SydneyBirdlover777 (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that's a book you are referring to. The references currently in the articles are to the IUCN Red List, a rather more global register. I believe that is the more reliable source, so please don't make changes which contradict this list. Favonian (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, Could you help in improving the page 'Kurmi' ? Please get in touch with Tnxman307. he is monitoring the page.

Thanks guddu56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guddu56 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i see you want my account deleted thats ok many people are selfish i see you have a page but i am not allowed so i dont want it. too many discriminating people on here in fact i will never be back here again you all can go to hell you goddamn mother fuckers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briggssims (talk • contribs) 19:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

OK. Bye! Favonian (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Favonian, I see you doing lots of good work. Also, your user page was vandalized 84 times, by your own count? You must be doing something right--also judging from the comments above. If you ever consider running for office, you have my vote. Keep fighting the good fight, Drmies (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Know an editor by the enemies he makes? ;) The count would have been a good deal higher, if my user page hadn't been partially protected nearly four months ago, but it still happens. This recent one is my favorite so far. But levity aside, I have indeed been thinking about putting my name in the hat. Will try to structure my thoughts this weekend and get back to you. Thanks a lot for asking! Favonian (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, nice! But can you beat this? Protection is a good thing, though I sometimes think it cramps some vandals' style a bit too much. All the best with your future plans, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome. Nothing is libellous, and it is for that reason that I cited the court reference. Velimtefutuas (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the source available on-line? This is not required, but it would really help if the source of such rather drastic allegations were readily verifiable. There is also another issue: your insertion of the word "masquerades" in the previous paragraph looks like your own personal interpretation and not something stated in the Washington Post. Favonian (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the external link that I've added to the Elizabeth Siddal page keeps being removed. I'm new to wikipedia and if I'm doing something wrong, I'd honestly like to know. I was adding the link to my website LizzieSiddal.com. I saw someone describe it as a fansite, but I feel the link is useful as some items on my site (handwriting analysis of Siddal/Rossetti, photos of her grave, and my interview with biographer Lucinda Hawksley) would be interesting and useful to those searching for information about Elizabeth Siddal. Thank you, Beguilingmerlin (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)beguilingmerlin

As a rule, Wikipedia tries to limit the number of external links. The consensus regarding what should not be permitted is listed at WP:ELNO, and your site falls under item 11 of that list. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I understand it, but I have to admit I find it upsetting. There was a link to my site for several years and it surprised me that it was no longer there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beguilingmerlin (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, a quick question just occurred to me. If a link to my website would be unacceptable, how about a more specific link? For instance a link to my interview with author Lucinda Hawksley about Elizabeth Siddal or a link to perhaps one page of my site that would be useful as opposed to linking to the entire site? Is that permissible? Beguilingmerlin (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)beguilingmerlin

You could try to bring up the issue on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is all about consensus, and this is the best way of seeking it. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have recently made an article named Buho21. Well honestly was my first article so I don`t much experience, I`m a regular player of that website in the chess room and in the trivia. I was trying to look information of Buho21 and I`ve notice that they don´t an article in the Wikipedia, so I made this article. I`m regular user of other websites like funtrivia.com and other online games and I`ve notice that they have articles in the Wikipedia, that`s why I came up with the article. Buho21 in my criteria is one on the largest sites for chess, in my research I find that they have more than 400,00 users and you can play different games like trivia and dominoes. I appreciate any help that you can provide me, because I`m new at this.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posidonia (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of North-West Frontier Province constitutionaly changed to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. I made the move but some mistake occurred and talk did not move. Can you please check and fix it. Thanks. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For the moment I have had to revert your changes. NWFP may have had its name changed constitutionally, but naming in Wikipedia reflects the most common English usage. I would therefore recommend that you propose the name change according to WP:RM on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know since I am newbee but thank you for being the door keeper. I will look into WP:RMfor this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahkaal (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hi i have reverted you in duck page and mahabharata talk page,i am mkbdtu (talk · contribs),and want him to include in my sock list--Krukbond (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be surely blocked because i am sock of mkbdtu (talk · contribs),i have already been blocked 24 times because of socking.but i see that duckbunny is worst user here,he has no sense.so i m blocking his account,you can block me after blocking him--Krukbond (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your wish has been fulfilled. So long! Favonian (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure . . . Dlohcierekim 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling he/she was going to do something like that. Thanks for the revert & warning. See you around... Bento00 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Any time! Yep, those vandals are depressingly predictable. Favonian (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey what proof you have that all Shaikhs in India are of Arab descendent or foreign. You all western people have become the seeds of Nazism in India. By forcing a new identity on the Shaikhs , what do you want to gain??? disunity between the tribes ? where is the proof that Khwajas are Semitic. Any Khwaja will laugh at you. You all are doomed like Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamindia (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You made a series of similar edits to a number of articles without providing sources. Take the issue to the appropriate talk page(s). Furthermore, refrain from comparing editors to Hitler. That constitutes an attack and will get you blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

hey I read that you reverted the change in the page Bihari Muslim. How can you proof that the richer belong to a foreign ancestry. Is not it a trick by Christians to fool poor Indians into thinking that Islam is biased towards non-Indians. Whatever you try to do, remember that Islam is loads of better than your systems which suck. ALSO FOREIGN DESCENDENT MUSLIMS ARE NEGLIGIBLE IN INDIA. SO DON'T TRY TO FORCE FOREIGN IDENTITY ON MUSLIMS IN INDIA. Maybe when Muslims become stronger in future, they may start forcing Arabian ancestry on you people; who knows? My point is that there is no proof that the high, wealthier sections of Indian Muslims are descendants of foreigners. So don't play politics here!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.20.75 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also in articles on Shaikhs, I have read that they are descended from foreigners. Why the hell are you guys bent on destroying our country by insisting on Aryan Invasion theories and the likes. Now indeed I have to find a Jewish guy here who may help me with you nuts. You did to jews and now you want it done to us or what? DON'T SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION LIKE Shaikh are a multi-ethnic community who are mostly descended from Turks, Afghans, Arabs.etc The truth is that Shaikh are a multi-ethnic community who are mostly descended from local Hindu tribes. They adopted the title Shaikh either out of reverence to the Sufi Saints who used the honorific or were awarded the title Shaikh by the Muslim government or tribe. If you dont believe me, visit the articles. Below in all the articles you may see the local origin of the tribes from local people. If you do want to vandalise and spread false info, I will also not stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.20.75 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

i am duely sorry for the estimated time of arrival edits me and a friend made. i did give an explination and thought it was suitable for an example and response to be made, however i then noticed im not in the urban dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.156.95 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, go and sin no more! Favonian (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact about the Swedish painter Matt Farmer is true. He is a friend of an author who I know and it was written is his autobiography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattimole (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source; otherwise it won't get into the article. Favonian (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Paint by Numbers - Matt Farmer. It's his autobiography, that I am reading right now. In the 6th paragraph of chapter 5 he clearly mentions it- "George had suggested that we played a game to prove how manly we really were. I thought that adding a custard cream to the equation would make it a lot more interesting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattimole (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Charming. Considering the somewhat questionable notability of this gentleman, you might have difficulties persuading the community that this bit of information deserves inclusion. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have his autobiography right here! He is one of my inspirations as an aspiring painter and the fact that you question his existence makes me extremely upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattimole (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

FOR I AM NO LONGER SINNING.

THANKYOU

YOU'VE CHANGED MY WHOLE WIKIPEDIA EXPERIENCE.

THANYOU SO SO SO MUCH.

I think im in love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.156.95 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

This is to let you know that there is a discussion at Talk: David Farrer regarding recent edits that you may be interested in --5 albert square (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he cooled down at the same time I reported him for edit warring. Let's hope this ends peacefully. Favonian (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really interested or knowledgeable in the subject, but I thought I should draw your attention to these two rather unhealthy looking edits ([1] and [2]) by 80.169.25.108. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unhealthy indeed! Another editor had already reverted one of them, and I have taken care of the other. Thanks for catching them, and sorry for the long response time—enjoying a very pleasant Wikibreak. Favonian (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers :-) DVdm (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, I am sorry to bother you but in October 2009 you condensed 6 footnotes in the above mentioned article, quoting five different pages into one condensed footnote quoting only one page. I guess that is not what you wanted. Maybe you can reverse this condensation so that only those 2 prior footnotes quoting the same page will be condensed.

Thank you. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That was very clumsy of me. Apparently my attention span is too short to read a whole reference. The blunder has now been remedied. Thanks for catching it, and sorry for the long response time—I was enjoying a pleasant Wikibreak. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Favonian: the introduction to the article is mainly based on the Old Testament. It is written in the Old testament that these two tribes were decimated by Moses and his followers. What's the problem?--Little sawyer (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the article "History of genocides": "The Old Testament describes the genocides of Amalekites and Midianites.^[1] Jones quotes Jerusalem-based Holocaust Studies Professor Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited ... encompasses the call for genocide in its canon."^[2]" --Little sawyer (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The way you presented it was in the form of original research, using a contemporary, POV political term to describe a biblical event. If a scholarly source makes that observation, you must present it as such. Favonian (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Yehuda Bauer certainly does, doesn't he? And it's already in Wikipedia, in the article "History of genocides" (see above). --Little sawyer (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you added the source, but there are still issues. Please have a look at Talk:Moses#Moved paragraph with OR. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Favonian,

thank you for your help. Now I've finished the Text of Saskia Hoelbling. But there are 2 info-boxes.

"This article ist an orphan" an "this article needs references". Please can you help me. This is an one-to-one-translation of the german article about Saskia Hölbling and there the article is ok.

Kind regards

Stefan SchettStefan Schett (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stefan. The first issue is that Hölbling isn't mentioned in any other article on Wikipedia. Since a very important way of locating information on Wikipedia is by navigating links between articles, it would greatly improve this one if others linked to it. The second issue is more important, though. To merit having an article on Wikipedia, a subject (person or otherwise) should be notable, meaning basically that a sufficient number of reliable sources have written about it. More precise requirements for "entertainers" like Hölbling are found in WP:ENT, while the more general requirements are WP:ANYBIO. I recommend that you do a Google web/news search to come up with third-party sources writing about her. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have begun to rework this article. Would please look at it and make any suggestions either to the AfD or its talkpage?--Morenooso (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! For your information, on that ip reverting on the three articles on armenian monasteries: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quzeyli (see the first SPI). Sardur (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your friend Tim Song wants to suppress information about Deschner's service in the German Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.93.199 (talk) 13:10, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering why you made this edit. I know huggle can get a little cloudy at times, but I was just wanted to let you see it. :) –Turian (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Huggle can indeed be a bit of a challenge, but in this case I can't blame the program. I deliberately returned the article to the original (with the title bold and italicized) from before the previous editor had mucked around with it. If you check his intermediate edit you will see that his intentions may not have been entirely honorable. Favonian (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that one. No worries then. :) –Turian (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please to be laying the smackdown upon the vandal. :-) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One can of whoop-ass opened! Dunno why Huggle didn't do it automatically. Favonian (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What kind of vandalism did I do? You just simply come and annoy me with messages and reverting my edits, so you better leave me alone. And, if you block me by the way, I can immediately change my IP address and continue to do whatever I want. Keep your mouth to yourself. 115.134.108.228 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Troll harder. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Aptly put :) Favonian (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep dreaming, idiots. I will do whatever I want here. 115.134.108.228 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cute little troll. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You still don't understand me. :) 115.134.108.228 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems no one does. Enjoy your involuntary Wikibreak. Favonian (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's easy for me to evade a block and do wahtever I want. I just have to disconnect the Internet and connect again. So I did enjoy my '5 min' wikibreak. 115.134.255.139 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am Extremely Sorry About what I just did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.25.154 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yugioh Abridged which you just tagged as g12 was actually a copy of a Wikia article which offers an allowable license, and was not a copyvio of the meme site the CSB tagged. Just thought you might like to know. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Guess I forgot to read the small print. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to do, and I retagged it for a7, so it probably doesn't matter in the long run. Keep up the good work! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Same to you! I concur with your assessment of the article's notability. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen you around combating vandalism and I want to give you this to put on your user page. It's a personal project. Deagle_AP (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate! I'll be in truly august company. Favonian (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit? I'm trying to turn it into an article!--Small Boss (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case you should prepare the article in your user space, similarly to what you are doing with User:Small Boss/Popular Rewards. Your first attempt replaced a redirect to a proper article with half a line of text, which didn't convey much information beyond the obvious. Favonian (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete my post? It was from a scholarly source out of a college text book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.177.99 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You reduced an article stub containing image, categories, Interwiki links etc. to a couple of lines without any edit summary explaining your actions. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me for vandalizing pages like the one on Beverly hills hotel,when i am not doing anything but being constructive, Thank you,--98.22.134.201 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Brian Greenwell

You are trying to add two very marginal "celebrities" and at the same time destroying the column layout. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First off i wasn't destroying the column layout and second off Jay McGraw is Dr Phil's son very notible,and Erica Dahm is a famous Playboy. thank you again,sincerely--98.22.134.201 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Brian Greenwell

a) Being somebody's son isn't notable, b) look at the bottom of for instance this. Favonian (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ArGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you never learn,i am done arguing,i have proven my point,you havent,Good by,and good day, sincerely--98.22.134.201 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Brian Greenwell,arg!!!

I guess if its not a more popular subject than Lady Gaga or Tiger woods or Oprah than its not good enough,Now im done, Good by Again . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.134.201 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Toodeloo Favonian (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr Phil's son is a popular author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.134.201 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have a hard time saying good bye for good, but then you got yourself blocked. How tedious. Favonian (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage! ^^ GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No sweat! I'm on a Huggle power trip. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.31.45 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Fuhrer a synonym for Chancellor? I heard several people call Dr. Angela Merkel the Fuhrer of Germany or Fuhrer Merkel. She is a right-wing politician, just as much as Hitler was, but today Germany is under control of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty. That means Germany cannot anymore void most human rights, with some exceptions, such as they read mail sent to and from abroad and violate privacy rights and the "right of free association", as they register every citizen for voting automatically and thus do not allow voters to affiliate with a party on registration forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gqhs (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As it is apparent from your plethora amount of accolades, thanks for stopping the vandalism of the tRNA page and for your endeavors in general. --Pjlmac (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, and thanks for the kind words! Favonian (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on an article that I took the time to completely re-write. Go raibh maith agat! Heggyhomolit (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tá fáilte romhat! (Courtesy of Google Translate — I sure hope it didn't turn into an unfavorable statement about your mother) And thanks for your great work on the Ireland-related articles! Favonian (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, perfect translation! Keep up the vandal patrol! Thanks and all the best. Heggyhomolit (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and well done generally on your edits. I restored the IPs deletion, (even though, as you rightly pointed out, it should have included an edit summary). The links to this personal page are not appropriate IM(H)O. If you still think otherwise you can re-apply them; I won't contest. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You were absolutely right. I was too focused on the deletion of images to even notice the improper links. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was done with WP:RFPP for the moment, and thought i might just as well clear the AIAV backlog in 5 minutes or so before going over to the CSD's. 30+ minutes and a boatload of IP's later i am finally able to give CSD some attention because for every vandal i managed to block, a new one was dragged in by you. Good work! Hopefully this short interruption allows AIAV to cool down a bit to keep it from melting down as well :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For dragging in vandals faster then i could possibly block them and thereby protecting our valuable article's. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, for the barnstar, and especially for getting rid of all the scum I send your way :) My girlfriend also thinks I should take a break from vandal busting, so guess that's it for the evening. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I removed your A7 speedy tag from this one and replaced it with a prod. I know the article needs deleting, but it really didn't meet the A7 criteria (No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)). Although I suppose ghosts could be animals, if you stretched the definition a bit. Prod is slower, but it will get there in the end - if the author removes the prod I'll AfD it. Cheers, Karenjc 19:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When you're right, you're right ;) A "generic" A7 is never a good sign, so I'll wait patiently for this article to disappear. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For erasing vandalism --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[Sniffing like Sandra Bullock accepting an Oscar] Thank you, thank you! Favonian (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Today I have added some facts to the Northern Ireland section and get a wave of treats from wiki about being a vandal, warnings, last chance and so on.

If I add FACTS to site why are they removed? The section about the subtle ethnic 'cleaning' in this part of Ulster may be too senstive for the wiki but it is a historical FACT and is currently being addressed by the United Nations as I stated. This research by the UN is also being conducted for farming land in four other counties. These are areas where republicans have targeted Protestant land owners for the past 80 years, documented facts that will be admitted by these organisations

I do not see adding facts as being a act of vandalism. I understand that you have a job to remove rubbish from certain posts, but removing the truth just makes this another censored web site.

No more donations from me.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Chicken Ranch (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits violated Wikipedia's principle of neutral point of view, for instance in your use of the word "sadly", and also failed to provide reliable sources for your claims. You may think that you are publishing the truth, but in a dictionary like this one we are more concerned with verifiability. Favonian (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Man you must be on a rage tonight...you were out there reporting a lot of IPs from what I saw just then. But I have to call it a night at my end, so yeah you're a very dedicated counter-vandal. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia vandal-free. Deagle_AP (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And thanks to you too, loyal colleague :) It has indeed been a busy day in the trenches, so I think I shall return to real life as well. See you around. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Must add more thanks for your reverting of vandalism on my talk page. You are truly great. Deagle_AP (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Favonian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.