User talk:Favonian/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

EcoDisc in Template:Optical disc authoring‎‎

Hi, Favonian

I've noticed that have prevented the entry of EcoDisc into Template:Optical disc authoring‎‎, having crossed WP:3RR line in process. Would you please kindly explain why do you oppose this edit?

Thanks, Fleet Command (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time, the EcoDisc article was nominated for speedy deletion as advertisement, a nomination I found reasonable. I can see that the nomination has meanwhile been declined, which of course makes my actions seem overly hasty. I apologize for not being able to count. Favonian (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Favonian; luckily, no real harm seems to have been done this time. I hope you'll excuse me if I take the liberty of writing this piece of advise: An article that is nominated for deletion or speedy deletion is analogous to a man who is sent to a court of law for a crime; both are not to be stripped of their rights until their verdict is issued. Therefore, would you please refrain from unlinking any article before it is deleted?

Again, Thank you.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Great job

Just wanna say I think you're doing a terrific job with Huggle --Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so do you. Many a time have I noticed that you reverted the scoundrels ahead of me. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Count#Equivalent

Hello Favonian,

I thought I was editing it properly by linking back to a Wikipedia page on the edit I had performed.I am sorry, I did not realise it. Please note that the reason for my edit was Indian princely state system does not view the Chatrapati as a Count, rather the Thakur or Sardar is a better translation. The Chatrapati is more akin to a King [different evolution of the word] when you compare the power wielded. While the Chatrapati might by translation seem to be an equivalent, the power and land under the Chatrapati is beyond comparison larger than under a tradional Count. A Thakur on the other hand seems to fit the definition better. Wikipedia has a decent page on Thakur, which I had linked back to.

Please inform me as to how I can rectify the same.

Regards, User:Cowboyroy

My reverts might have been a little too drastic, for which I apologize. Now to get the right information into the article, the best thing is to find a reliable source which documents the status of this particular Indian title. A short term solution is that you make your case on the article's talk page and then make the change in the article itself with an edit summary like "Please see talk page" or words to that effect. Other editors might object, but there is a good chance that the discussion will take place on the talk page and not through reverts. Favonian (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral?

My edits to the earth page were making it more neutral. Why remove them? They were not a form of vandalism as you claim? Wikipedia needs to be neutral by accepting all view points on dates for ages of the earth. ABTCCC (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This issues of science vs. creation, or whatever you want to call it, come up rather frequently. The consensus in an article like Earth seems to be to keep it scientific. If you disagree, you should take the discussion to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:168.150.237.230 and vandalism to Drill

My apologies for the vandalism. It was done by a silly employee who now knows better. It will not happen again. Grumpyoldgeek (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I trust the employee in question is now scrubbing the office floor with his toothbrush ;) Favonian (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:109.111.197.68

When you issue a final warning, do you maintain a watch thereafter, or do you want to be advised as I am doing now?
Unsure of procedure in these instances, Varlaam (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Wish I could maintain a watch on all the IP miscreants that I admonish, but the sheer magnitude of the problem precludes that. Huggle keeps me informed if the user has been warned within the last few days, but not beyond that, and I'm pretty sure there is no procedure for this. Favonian (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Sheer magnitude". It's really that bad, eh?

I think I have seen people receive 3 or more "final warnings" in the past. Is it intended to be that way?

Varlaam (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Regards, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to it. Thank you for what you did to incur the wrath of that little vandal! Favonian (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent warnings?

Hey, I've noticed that on some of your recent warnings, they go to Level 1, even if there's a Level 1 already, or a Level 2+. Is this Huggle or something? (I'm a Linux user, and I've never touched huggle so i have no idea how it works) Pilif12p 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Darn! That must be Huggle. Thanks for telling me. I'll watch the generated messages to see if I can report a bug. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that Huggle will not "increment" the warning level if the previous one is more than a couple of days(?) old. Favonian (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason for deleting all brehautism

Hello i am michael brehaut founder of brehautism. I got told by someone a few days ago that i could not have brehautism on until there was proof that it is valid. According to my religion only my scribe is allowed to write infomation about the religion and i know for a fact that this is not him putting it on wikipedia. I would much apreciate if you would delete the page until a further time when we have made the religion valid. It would be a great help if you could do this for me. PS i am sorry for the spelling misstakes i am dyslexic.  — [Unsigned comment added by Brehaut10 (talk • contribs) 22:34, April 24, 2010 (UTC).]

It was nominated for speedy deletion (and has now in fact been deleted), so there was not much point in blanking it. In the future, you and your acolytes are invited to keep the secrets of your religion to yourselves. Favonian (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, just happened to be strolling by. RashersTierney (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes, I just can't keep it in. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed!

As a frequent editor, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Huggle help

I just started using this, and am not totally confident I am doing it right. Don't want to mark an edit "ok" just because I was unsure so skipped it. I find the documentation a bit terse. Is there a good write-up somewhere? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not a very frequent user of Huggle, mostly because it's so easy to make mistakes when using it, so you're probably better off asking your question at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. Happy huggling ;) Favonian (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a whole new world to me - the constant flood of dumb vandalism. Sort of intriguing but sort of depressing, and it does seem easy to make mistakes. Is there a better tool? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very depressing—the only relief being the number of editors (like yourself) willing to fight forces of darkness. I use Twinkle for most of my work as it suits my temper better, but it's not nearly as efficient when it comes to finding and reverting the waves of seemingly random vandalism. Favonian (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Melanie

Thanks for the note. As you say. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Regards. Leaky Caldron 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. That was one very attentive fan you got yourself there. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Geography jokes

so if a famous comedian were to quote that then it would be a verifiable source? Wow I'm not a real person and neither are the posters on reddit in your mind. Kind of screwy that commentary about this topic from people that originally had no understanding of it are banned from adding this common confusion about what jewish geography is on wikipedia. For that matter, non-people are banned from adding a relevant misunderstanding of the topic. I find this debasing and ringing of censorship considering if you had followed the link (which I doubt you did) Then you would see at least two people who made the same comments about the topic. Oh well, now I know that wikipedia followers are uptight and are not interested in the misconceptions of others. Go ahead and ban me if you want, I know my contributions are not welcome.  — [Unsigned comment added by Nathism (talk • contribs) 14:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC).]

If a comedian had indeed been quoted in reliable sources as having used this meaning of the term, then it might merit inclusion. Random jokes on blogs are not sufficient reason. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for proving the point that bloggers are not famous and therefore are not worthy of having their misconceptions about a topic known.

I'd like to point out that the entire Analysis section of the Jewish Geography is not cited and therefore by your point should also be deleted.

Rathmines, NSW Page

Hello, You restored vandalism on this page. Please pay careful attention to the content and the link, as they are fictional! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher72 (talk • contribs) 15:25, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are joking! I performed this edit on said file, and that's a revert of a very clear-cut vandalism. Favonian (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the below from the article paragraph. Do you think Maradona would use that quote? And who is Luke? And why does it link to "Santa Claus". The rest of the paragraph is equally as flagrant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher72 (talk • contribs) 15:36, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Rathmines is the home of aspiring young footballer Luke Remington, who for many years played at the local club the Westlakes Wildcats. Luke is now a star player in the Australian U17 football team. The footballing great Diego Maradona was quoted in 2009 saying "This guy is good". Lukes footballing, and life, motto is "Run the ball, hit it hard, hit it low". Luke enjoys playing Backyard soccer and always has a fun time. Luke is the cousin of the great philosopher Andrew Fuller, and the brother of Callum Remington, who is the only man to cart-wheel around australia, both of whom also live in Rathmines and enjoy the fresh air. Lauren Winn also likes to think she is a loved guest at the Remington house in Rathmines, but is in fact, an annoyance.

You are quite right about this paragraph being bogus, and I just reverted another editors revert of your deletion of it, but my original edit removed vandalism from the following paragraph, which as far as I can tell is bona fide. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Royal House of Osman

Removing information, since will start new topic and bio. so far can't get it right. Need help of Wikipedia admin who is available (Arch-TRHO 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

That does not entitle you to remove talk page comments posted by other editors. To get help from administrators or other editors, put a {{helpme}} on your talk page followed by your question(s). Favonian (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Feinoha

how was my edit to fehona vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Force101 (talk • contribs) 20:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

By writing on the user page, in this case a question of a rather too personal nature. The edits to this page came on top of the other ones that had been reverted, so I was not inclined to be tolerant. Favonian (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

well it was only a question for i had no idea who she/he was;on my talk page i give a description About me --Force101 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Force101 look at my talk page and you will see what i am talking about;anyways i usually see other users talk pages have info on them selves aswell.

Wikipedia is biased

Although wikipedia claims to be neutral and truthful its content on the Israeli-Palestinian cause are far from neutral and aid the israeli side in its missleading propaganda . it also reverses editing revealing the truth (as in facts without taking a side or showing any personal feeling). Israel occupied the Palestinian territories , continues to massacre and mass murder the Palestinian people. Just check out the statistics, and please do tell me who the terrorist is. Wikipedia refers to every single palestinian defending his country or dying for it as a terrorist , these are defenseless people armed at most with nothing more than a home made bomb. Please compare the number of victims, the strength of each side and do tell me who needs a defence army. Israel's millitary may be called defence forces, but please open your eyes and if you have an answer explain to me why israel has a top-millitary army defending itself against helpless civilians who have only killed one israeli for every 100 hundered killed of them while the palestinian people get nothing to defend themselves against zionists controling everything including when they leave their country and come back to it or if they even get to. controls their air water and lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvrdyingspirit (talk • contribs) 20:48, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What you did was to remove text, including references, from articles and in one case even blank the whole thing. That is not acceptable. If you disagree with the contents of an article, take it up on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Tidal power

I noticed you put a final warning notice on 167.128.102.78. I just reverted several more of his edits to Tidal power. Thanks. Jmartinsson (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

He has indeed, so I've reverted and sent him off to be blocked. Thanks for the note. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Favonian for his efforts to protect mu user page from vandalism. Thank you, and keep up the good work! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking out for my user page like that. Thank you very much; I hope you'll accept this small token of appreciation. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's what we are here for (among other things), but I accept the star with gratitude! Favonian (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mesa High School

I was in the Mesa High School class of 2001, and the BAM shirt listed on the wiki page was indeed said to mean "Bad-Ass Mormons" by the LDS members of the student council who instituted it. Why is it being removed? I believe it has relevance as the BAM shirt itself appears to be relevant to the traditions page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkwardsaw (talk • contribs) 15:17, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source documenting this, by all means add it to the article. Otherwise don't. Favonian (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Robinho Page

Hello Favonian, The link I have added to Robinho's Page is the most complete data of Robinho's player career, you can check if you would like to. Although you have mentioned as inaccurate, it is the most accurate data's of him in entire web. I hope you would reconsider. My goal is not to put unrelated links to pages and I am aware of that the these links do not appear on Search engine's, of course. Thank you, have a great day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekingunel (talk • contribs) 17:39, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Does indeed look like I was overly hasty. New users adding lots of external links without edit summaries (hint, hint) bring up the worst in me. I'll revert my reverts. Go in peace! Favonian (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven A. Garan

Could you take a look at the history of the Steven A. Garan and see if you think there's something questionable about the timing of the most recent edits? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a WP:DUCK with a WP:COI whose IP recently got blocked. Favonian (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So I would not be out of line reporting this as a potential sock? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be entirely appropriate, especially in view of his most recent edits, like this one. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for this! Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Somebody has to stand up for the rights of the robots. Favonian (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive

Not sure if this is the right place to reply, but I recieved the message:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Bushido. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits I made were not unconstructive. They corrected factual misinformation that plagues a generally inaccurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.201.74 (talk) 23:07, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Several things. Your edit removed references and lacked an edit summary, which tends to make other editors suspicious. Immediately before, you had made another edit to the same article, which had been reverted by a bot. I see that started a new section on the article's talk page. That is fine, but before making major changes you should await other editors' comments, and at any rate you should include an edit summary like "see talk page", or words to that effect. Favonian (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

relevance of article on term pitbull

I Dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Wikipedia is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. 118.210.116.181 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This belong on the article talk page, where you have also posted it. Personally, I don't care either way, but your should refrain from major, undiscussed edits, especially if they involve copyright violations like this one. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

pitbull article relevance

This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. john 118.210.116.181 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually proposing that this be scrapped.

I'm actually proposing that the article on pitbulls be scrapped as it isn't really any good at all and any thing that needs to be said can be said on the American pitbull terrier page. Is there a process by which this could happen? Please take the time to care and read my previous messages properly as i do make very good case. thanks John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.116.181 (talk) 16:15, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several ways of getting rid of articles, all described in the guide to the deletion process. In the present case, the way to go would be through the articles for deletion process. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

18:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Any more where they came from? All the accounts are indef'd and I blocked the three IPs for a month each. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup! Two more going back in time. I think that does it, as 196.12.179.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be legit, even though they have only edited this article. Interesting fact: all but one of the IPs are Sprint customers from Kansas, and there is an entry in the controversies section about a dentist in that state. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your recent help with my user talk. See ya 'round :) Tiderolls 04:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Uganda

Blimey! - thanks for stepping in. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. That guy just doesn't take a subtle hint. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hilda Jerea

Whoops, wasn't paying proper attention when I did that. Thanks for catching it--Jac16888^Talk 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Guess our letters crossed ;) Cheers, Favonian (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

YES link removed

Received a message about your removing a link I added to the Young Epidemiology Scholars page. I think the entry is enhanced by a profile - including a YouTube interview - of a student that participated in the competition. Please advise on the best way to do that - the link wasn't spam as it was directly related to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DublinRanch (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally we view YouTube links with some suspicion. They are no good as reliable sources and not infrequently they are copyright violations. I won't revert your addition of the link, but personally I think you should invest some time in finding proper sources (media references for instance) to assert notability of this organization. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Death of Lynn Redgrave

Sorry about that last edit, sometimes my arrogance and impatience (to do the necessary research) gets the better of me. Thanks for cleaning things up for me Georgebrown92 (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You are certainly not the only one to have made that mistake today. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Favonian, for removing the vandalism from my user page. It has been a battleground recently. Pinethicket (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! I know the feeling, but a friendly admin semi-protected my user page a while back, so now I only get the occasional hate mail delivered to my talk page. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)