User talk:Favonian

Danish barnstar

Now that is one I don't have!! Thanks for your appreciation! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I would call you an awesome Wikipedian, if that adjective weren't so overused in articles being speedily deleted. Noticed that you have a Nepalese barnstar; you sure get around :) Favonian (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah!! Thanks mate. Happy editing! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've always found that particular editor "irritating". As if 5 star hotels in London are not high priority for WP:Hotels... Most of them are amongst the top ranked hotels in the world. Why doesn't he just try to expand them? I'll just swipe away his spam messages, none of them stand a chance of being deleted... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Norwegian Dictatorship

I've checked the sources for the the clam to be the best country to live in, and no such ranking are referred to in the sources.

As for Norway being a dictatorship, Norwegian government are currently working on a low making it illegal to criticize governmental employee, and Norwegian government are also currently working on a new law making illegal to post and document child abuse done by governmental employee. Dictatorship is the removal of freedom of speech and the rights to oppose illegal activity by the government. As such Norway IS by definition a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the best country claim, you can add {{Citation needed}} to the paragraph. If the citation hasn't been provided in, say, a couple of months, you may remove the claim with a suitable edit summary. As for your claims about dictatorship, that's very much your own personal analysis. Take it to the article's talk page and see if you can get a consensus to put the claim in the article. I rather doubt it, though. Favonian (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you already found your way to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. And the claim that Norway is the best country to live I've requested a verification. As Norwegian, I cannot verify that the claim is true, but I can verify the claim.--90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia article it's sufficient to cite a reliable source (and a major newspaper is considered such) which says that the country has been ranked. That the source in turn fails to cite chapter and verse from the UN report in question matters less. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, you better provide some sources yourself regarding the dictatorship claim. Favonian (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are only available in Norwegian, and they are not as easy to find, as the Norwegian government does not want the truth to come out.--90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian sources are OK; Google Translate should be sufficient to verify if they do indeed back your claim. Don't try to use the absence of sources as an argument in favor of your claim—that will just get you labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Favonian (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links to support my claim of Norway being a dictatorship Cecilie Rønnevik wishes to silence parents that record child abuse by Norwegian police and CPS. The government want to close unwanted sites better protection against unwanted use of freedom of speech. There was also a page at the same site that was more specific, but it looks like it has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.107.110 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is also a clear violation of the law, Cecillie Rønnevik talked about. In this case it is the government that displays children of parents in conflict CPS. The claim from the government is that such display are a violation of the children's rights and that any such display will be damaging to the children when they grows up. Obviously this doesn't seem to apply to the government, as there hasn't been uttered a single condemnation of the CPS and police displaying these children as they were criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.107.110 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And another, it is now illegal to support the freedom of speech in Norway, or at least in Oslo. Check Youtube. Note also that one of the cops states that the constitution is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.222.38 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

European Universities Debating Championship

Hi,

Can you have a look at an article for me (European Universities Debating Championship) - I seem to be getting into a Edit War with another editor and would value someone else having a look.

In summary, I think the article has two main issues - firstly it is sourced almost exclusively from the websites maintained by a one Colm Flynn a long time debater for which I am not sure they meet the WP test of WP:RS - I have posted to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but no one unconnected with the article has responded. Secondly is the amount of detail about each event - even though this is a team event the other editor is insisting that the names of the members of the 3 loosing teams must be listed (setting aside the issue of the WP:RS) I think that this is not relevant and as these are not notable and the including runs contra to WP:NLIST. I offered to compermise and let him include the detail in the main table of winners but he felt that it did not work and needed a second table with team members.

The other editor has called be obstructionist - I don't think I am just trying to keep this article fit for an encyclopaedia.

If you think I am being obstructionist please let me know or if you can offer any advice it would be welcomed.Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Fairly lengthy discussion trail to work through. Favonian (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I finally did, though it was hard going ;) Regarding the reliable source issue, I have commented at the noticeboard that I tend to agree with you: the websites in question cannot be considered reliable Wikipedia sources.

As for the other matter, it is rather more difficult to decide. I'm afraid the most compelling argument brought forward is actually that of your opponent. If the debate is between two teams of two members each, then it is like a tennis double, and if it is customary to list both winning and losing players there, it seems reasonable to do it here as well. The precise structuring of the tables I cannot really comment on, being rather a poor layout designer myself. I see that the discussion has now turned into a sockpuppet investigation, but I prefer not to let that influence my opinion on the general issue. Favonian (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I will take that on board - the sockpuppet investigation has taken a most interesting twist with Singopo holding his hands up to running at least 4 other Debate related socks. As for the page - I will let it alown for moment and look at it fresh later. Codf1977 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Ok so I made a Page for Charles Kelley from Lady Antebellum, but when you click his name on the Lady Antebellum page, it doesnt go to the page i made. I'm new at this so if you could help me do this properly, there are probably some mistakes i've made. I would appreicate it. There are alot of referances and but i'm just confused on how to use them. Please if theres anything you can do i would be so thankful. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatsthewaytodoit (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the problem with the link on the Lady Antebellum page is that it is coded like this:

[[Charles Kelley|Lady Antebellum]]

In other words, though it is displayed as Lady Antebellum, it actually links to Charles Kelley. The latter is not the page you just created, which is called Charles kelley with a lowercase "k", instead it is a redirect, created June 1, 2009, which points back to Lady Antebellum. Pretty confusing

Now, about your new article, Charles kelley; I have read it and must say that it has too much overlap with Lady Antebellum. The question I have to ask is whether he is independently notable. If not, then the article should be replaced with a redirect similar to the one mentioned above. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not to sure what you mean when you say "The question I have to ask is whether he is independently notable." Although he is in the band Lady Antbellum, I think everyone that is a fan of Lady A. wants to know about him, and his life. That's why i created the page. Hillary Scott has one, so i thought he should too. =D! And thank you know i now how to fix it. =D!! Thanks Again! User: Thatsthewaytodoit

Regarding Speedy Deletion of 209.189.130.122

Hi there. That was actually an abuse report I filed for that IP address. I don't why it had to be deleted.... Did I somehow created an actual article by mistake. Bentoman (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bentoman. Yep, that's exactly what happened. I should have left you a "proper" note instead of the standard template. Sometimes things get a bit too automated. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Spondon

Greetings. See you have been having trouble with this page, more particularly our additions. Why ? What be your 'issue' ? Our notes be quite correct and in no way detract from the rest of the article. Marjoly takes a nerdish 'issue' with our lingo... methinks thnis says more about him (?)! Wikipedia has a 'reputation'... to live down to ! Deleting perfectly correct additions does its reputation no favours. ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "lingo" you mean the tone of the paragraphs you added, then we do have an issue with it. Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... 'wiki' be not a tourist brochure...but, it be a joke ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess the joke is on you. Gives you something to laugh about during your one month block. Favonian (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandeep Kamal

Be you advised to please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Kamal. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted and acted upon ;) Favonian (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Be you thanked! (I should say that in all-caps, probably. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<--Hey Favonian, I see you're into math and computers and all that, so let me ask you for some geek-expertise: look at the infobox in Speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's 10000 metres. At the bottom, there's a link to the 2006 event, but not the 1998 event (see the 2006 and 2010 events, where they are both there), and I cannot figure out why that is not showing up. The link as it is would be a redlink (the proper section is here), but that's beside the point: what's wrong in the code that the link doesn't appear? I hope you understand that speedskating, and especially the 10,000 meter, is a matter of the utmost importance to me. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of geeky assistance :) It was indeed a problem that required all my past academic and current software engineering skills: the relevant field in the infobox was entered as "previous" instead of the correct "prev". It has now been fixed, and the article links to the appropriate section for the 1998 event. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks a lot! You are a good Dane. (I've actually never met a bad one, not even the drunks.) Drmies (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Kongshengxin

Why sometimes the wikipedia web is not working in my country China,sometimes i can not open it,and until now,i still can not upload my images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnncff (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I can't help you there. Conspiracy theorists may ascribe it to the machinations of the Chinese authorities, but it could just be a bad Internet connection. I'm pretty sure that it's not due to any obstacle created by Wikipedia itself. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see,thanks! Wikipedia is already play an important role in my life!I hope wikipedia can do better and better in the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnncff (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Jakob Bro

Hi,

I'll show lenience and will let the article live :))

Have a nice day, must get back to deleting articles.....

Lectonar

Have thanks, oh Great Deleter in the Sky! Favonian (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all those godlike powers you get when you are an admin; they go to your head. But, no tarrying here, must get back to protecting articles :)). Lectonar (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spider man and his girlfriend

Well, I tried to contribute valuable information to this website; however, you simply can't handle the truth. Good day, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.107.10 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasta la vista, vandal. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SPA Truehannah

Re this tag - is Certainthing (talk · contribs) not a SPA then? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly (pun not intended) is. Tagged. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR in Ronaldo

I've reported the user already, but what the hell, there have been enough reverts for a couple more 3RRs, right? Anyway, the Latvian IPs are the unintended consequence of an indefinite block on Gigsons (talk · contribs), I've been dealing with them for the last couple of months. --Mosmof (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I was in the process creating a report myself without checking. Hope this nonsense will stop now. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk-page

Thanks for the cleanup! DMacks (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Looked like a repeat offender, so I figured it was OK to undo. Favonian (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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)

Thanks

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)

Sasquatch

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)

sockpuppet suspection

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)

Turiya hanover and your suspicions about notability

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)

Thanks

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)

Libelous? Disruptive?

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)

Another misplaced warning

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)

Parent

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

		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)

Little overboard, don't you think? =)

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)

Karen Green: Declining Speedy Delete nomination

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)

Rætur kynbundis ofbeldis

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)

how e-mail works on wiki?

—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)

Blanking

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)

Thank you very much!

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

Blocked Teutonic vandal

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)

Rio Ferdinand

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)

Hey!

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)

Put the wrong person

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