Jump to content

User talk:Favonian/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Dear mr admin did you delete an article called ?

sorry to bother, you but this 'birkenhead drishyakala' article is about a chenda band who was in the news of .co.uk last week since it's an online news paper the article that i created is within the policies of wikipedia. please undo what you have done

yours faithfully divine Alexabraham22da (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no assertion of significance in that article (Birkenhead Drishyakala (Chenda)), so it joined its predecessors, Birkenhead Drishyakala and Birkenhead Drishyakala (Chendmelam). Favonian (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding Drishyakala Birkenhead to the list. Just changing the name really doesn't make the ensemble more notable. Please have a look at WP:BAND. Favonian (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


thanks for the replay Alexabraham22da (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a cupcake

SwisterTwister has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That was both gratifying and unexpected — not to mention bad for my cholesterol level ;) Favonian (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

New to Wiki: Not vandalism! "Rottingham" is correct!

I'm a new user to Wiki. I became a user because I use Wikipedia a lot and often see missing or incorrect info. on topics that I may know something about.

The first correction I made was flagged by you as vandalism but I can assure you it is not misuse or incorrect:

In the Mel Brooks film "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," the character portrayed by Alan Rickman is not the Sheriff of Nottingham but the "Sheriff of Rottingham" (a pun on the Robin Hood character).

Classicalib (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My Bad! I see the problem.

I'm an idiot. I should have known that wasn't Alan Rickman. I was looking at two pages in a short period of time and corrected the wrong one. What I said about the film "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" was correct but Alan Rickman is in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." Thanks for catching my ridiculous mistake!

Classicalib (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the strongly worded template. Guess I should watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights to broaden my horizon ;) Favonian (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexabraham22da

Well spotted: User:Divineabrahamda is actually the puppeteer, and Alexabraham22da is just one of his puppets. Should I rename the SPI? Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's better left to the SPI clerks. Not sure about the precise structure of these things. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll just make a note for the clerks at the SPI then. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see you just have. :-) Gurt Posh (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Amano Corporation

What part of the page breaches copy right?

thank you,

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically: all of it. You copied this and this verbatim, which is a breach of copyright, even if (as indicated by your previous talk page comments) you work for this company. You have already been warned about the complications arising from conflict of interest. If you really insist on writing an article about your employer, you should read WP:CORP and locate reliable, independent sources demonstrating notability of the company. Favonian (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I do work for the company however what I am posting is factual, I am just presenting facts, I am the creator of the other pages that 'I copied from'. If I change the fact then it is no longer fact but fiction. I have read many of the Wikipedia pages on how to write a page and each time they get removed for another reason. I am presenting information in an unbiased way. How do I present the amount of employees other then saying we have ... employees?
Thank you,
Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Including some facts about the company and sourcing them to the website is permitted, mindless copy/pasting is not. Apart from the copyright issue, it's mind-numbingly boring (list of showrooms!) and just plain ugly. Filling in the fields of {{Infobox company}} is preferred. Regarding the company history, the issue is even clearer: the prose was copied verbatim. There too, the level of detail is rather excessive.
Most importantly, you haven't addressed the issue of notability. Unless you can do that, the article won't live long. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it being 'boring' should be an issue, when I use an dictionary I do not look for an interesting read but solid information, I have included allot of information to be comprehensive, if you find there is too much, I can cut it down but logically I thought more would be better? I can get a complete history about coke, so why not our company?
I do agree it wasn't the best looking page, however whilst changing this the article was deleted, so all the formatting I was in the process of doing was lost. I am in the process of leaning here so you have to expect a few edits and changes over the course of the day.
How do you define notability? I searched for Amano and found fictional characters and other people. As an organization we make a huge difference in peoples lives, not just those we employ. Our products are used world wide and can even be seen on hit TV shows including the US office... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:CORP describes what it takes to be considered notable for a company. If you decide to create yet another attempt, it might be prudent to do so in your user space, say as User:Luke Bonathan/Amano Corporation. That way you can polish it undisturbed, provided you avoid the mortal sins of blatant advertisement or copyright violation. Favonian (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking to advertise or breach any copyright violations. Once I have created the page as desired in my area (I will use your company info box and shorten the history and make it look pretty) how do I then move it to the general area of Wikipedia? Should I contact you for approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.255.154 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it is ready for the main site now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luke_Bonathan/Amano_Corporation#Profile

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't included independent sources asserting notability of the company as outlined in WP:CORP. Linking to the company website just isn't sufficient for this purpose. Furthermore, as I have mentioned before the corporate history is far too long.
By the way, to get a third opinion on the suitability of the article draft you can enter it at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, following the instructions at the top of the page. Favonian (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For blocking those incredibly troublesome Christ Church Grammar School vandals, and semi-protecting the article. Metricopolus (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Big star for small effort :) Favonian (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Poss Sockpuppet?

Hi Favonian, I have decided to ask for your help as you previously blocked a person who used sockpuppets, and I think he might be back. Someone who has not edited anywhere as far as I can see on Wiki has messaged me to ask for help, and that makes me wonder why me, as I am probably, in the whole Wiki experience, rather hard to find. I spend most of my time playing around with little hamlets and villages in Lincolnshire. This person User_talk:Kkumar123 has approached me, on both my page and his own, and previously I was contacted by User_talk:Brattley 36 who was a sockpuppet of User talk:Crouch, Swale. Many thanks if you can check that out. Panderoona (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a bit odd, but not quite WP:DUCKy enough for a block. I'll monitor the editors activities for a while to see if a familiar pattern occurs. Favonian (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - it could be totally innocent of course, but I just thought it best to be a bit wary. Its good to know youll be watching. Panderoona (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Endor2012

Thanks for blocking the above, would you mind revdel his edits to my talk page please. Mtking (edits) 09:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. What a creep! Favonian (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Mtking (edits) 09:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your continued co-operation in reverting POV edits on K2 and Kashmiri related entries. Qwrk (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Ahly

The real club name is Al Ahly not Al Ahly S.C. and Wikipedia do not let me do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzizoo (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, WP:RM is the place to state your case. Favonian (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
This is the suckup barnstar, for defending an asshole Wikipedian for no real reason! Good job defending the status quo! X883 (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Pest control activities much appreciated :) JRPG (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You there?

I'd like another opinion on a page protection I did and I think needs replacing - you'll need to see my talk page to understand. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Though Indian caste-related articles are my least favorite Wikipedia mine fields, I have commented. I suspect the edit war will break out as soon as the current protection expires, but aren't long-term full protections frowned upon? At the very least, a semi-protection will have to be imposed, and 24/7 admin guard of honor posted around the article. Favonian (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that one, the discussion with Ironholds who unprotected a page where I'd removed BLP violations and then protected it. But thanks for replying to the one you replied to! Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Not one of my better days, and to top it off I went AWOL for about ¾ of a day. I have weighed in at ANI instead. Favonian (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Favonian. Please do reply in Dougweller's talk page, for yet another message(a reply to the above msg) from me. By the way, i apologise to dougweller if i had posted it in the wrong place. I just wanted the guidance of some administrator. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hari, I really wanted Favonian to reply to a different discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Thank you for reverting back my talk page. It is time an admin steps in here, because one does not know the rules and is creating trouble and another knows the rules very well and he is damaging a whole group of articles with cited arguments on the lead sections. Hoverfish Talk 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a mess alright. Well, now one party has been given a day off to contemplate life in general and Wikipedia in particular. Regarding the other editor, it looks like they are stepping away from the dead horse. Favonian (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page question

I am doing some research into members of the London County Council - will update Wikipedia as appropriate. The question is - as Henry Percy Harris is a historical person and a presumably different person whose page has been deleted, what will be the situation when I get enough to write about the LCC person? (I can make use of Londonwiki as an intermediary if appropriate). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead and create it, assuming you can provide the article with the required, reliable sources. As an MP he is by definition (WP:POLITICIAN) notable. The version I deleted was a primitive attack on a different person of that name, whereas the first version—well, it was difficult to make head or tail of, but it certainly failed to mention the person's political status. Favonian (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Greetings! Can you impose temporary semi-protection on that article which appears to be persistently vandalized by an anonimous user? Regards, --Gligan (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear that the IPs' actions constitute vandalism. Looks more like (forgive the irresistible pun) a contemporary Bulgarian–Serbian edit war over contents. In such cases, there are two options: blocking the participants or imposing a full protection of what will invariably be The Wrong Version. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
So, how do you suggest we proceed? Ah, and also, that anonimous Serbian user is not adding anything to support his edits and most of them are the addition of a paragraph in the end which has nothing to do with the subject of the article... Anyway, proceed as you should in such cases. What I can do for now is to try adding more citations from English-speaking authors (Runciman and Fine) but even they are not detailed enough on Bulgarian-Serbian relations. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, you can request a second opinion by adding a request for protection to WP:RFPP. Otherwise, you should look at the options listed at WP:Dispute resolution. As you probably know, Balkan-related articles are notoriously contentious. Favonian (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, my problem is that I don't have much time in the next weeks; that is why I wanted to request some kind of protection - I neither want to see myself engaged in a pointless edit war, not have time to go in extended argues with anonimous user who does not even try to discuss his changes (and honestly speaking he has none, but I guess that this is classified as my POV). I will add the citations now and I would hope he will stop. If not, I will do as you advise me (a request to WP:RFPP). Best, --Gligan (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Your opponent has managed to convince me that semi-protection is in order, but as I have reverted them, I'm considered involved and have put in a request at WP:RFPP. Favonian (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
And behold! The article has been semi-protected for 10 days. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thank you very much for your help and commitment ;-) I wish you a pleasant summer. Best, --Gligan (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with User:IownKudzu

That user appears to be a sock of User:Idealisis, who created another sock (User:Milordass), as another vandalism-only account. Milordass just became active again as soon as IownKudzu was blocked. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've blocked Milordass, but as I'm headed for bed, I would recommend that you open a case at WP:SPI to get the mess cleared up. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

76.4.177.96

I observe that you blocked this address one month ago, and the editor at that time was systematically changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". I observed as soon as the block expired the editor resumed the behavior, making nonsensical changes, and turning valid "See also" links into red links. Considering that the editor has long-term access to this IP, I view it as the same as a registered account. I suggest an indefinite block. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled. The IP has been granted a three-month absence from Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Herbolzheim

Hi there; you recently blocked this editor for removing obscenity from another editor's talk page. I would concede that he should not have done so. It seems that this editor and his wife (user:82.11.178.239) have both been editing the same articles, and both are currently blocked; the IP by Fastily. They are clearly guilty of meatpuppetry (not, I think, sock) and of lack of understanding of wikipedia policy as it relates to user talk pages and to the absence of censorship here; I do wonder if the error is one of ignorance rather than deliberate disruption? Could I ask you to re-visit it and consider? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A moving tale. My oath of office constrains me from making cynical remarks, but if you believe that Mr. and Mrs. Herbolzheim can become productive members of society, I won't object to you unblocking them. I expect that they will take your reading of the Riot Act to heart and refrain from "improving" other users' talk pages. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Sorry about that, I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. Yes, I did indeed request a rename. I've redirected the pages to the new name, though there may be some utility to better fix it. Sowsnek (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! In case you wonder why I took an interest in the matter, I was evaluating Talk:Marth#Requested move, checking among other things for SPAs, and your (at that time) red-linked user page and talk page were kind of conspicuous. Favonian (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:KingofFilm

I sent an unblock email, but I haven't received a response (Sent on Sunday). 98.219.123.213 (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Favonian, have you looked into this? I don't mean to be annoying, but... 98.219.123.213 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Favonian? 98.219.123.213 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I reccently found you vandilized the article Brony and your edits have been undone. --80.78.77.224 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:VANDALISM in order to get your vocabulary straight. Any more of that crap and I'll block your IP and/or semi-protect the article. Favonian (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Herbolzheim

You blocked Herbolzheim, giving the reason in the block log as "Disruptive editing: same as User talk:82.11.178.239". Following discussion at User talk:82.11.178.239 and consultation with the administrator who blocked that IP (Fastily), the IP has been unblocked. Usually I consult the blocking admin before unblocking, but in this case I decided that there was no point in keeping the account blocked once the IP was open for the user to edit from, so I have unblocked the account too. I hope that is OK with you, but please tell me if you have any objection. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that decision, witness my previous reply regarding this account. Maybe somebody should emphasize that "We act and speak as one" isn't quite in agreement with Wikipedia's rules, and that the happy couple should use separate, named accounts for their future editing. Favonian (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice your previous reply on this. Thanks for pointing it out. I have gently suggested that they should each have an account, but if you think the point should be made more forcibly I see no objection to doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Nah, they've been yelled at enough. Thanks for being a nice admin ;) Favonian (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Knut Hamsun Centre

Thank you. This is all a bit confusing to me still. Wtfsvi (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for expanding the article. I've merged the edits you made to Knut Hamsun Center into the main branch at Knut Hamsun Centre, so nothing has been lost. Favonian (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Obnoxious and Insulting IP-Hopping Editor

Hello, Favonian! I notice that you blocked this charming fellow the other day, and I'm pretty sure that 94.4.123.182 (talk · contribs) and 94.2.177.166 (talk · contribs) are more IPs used by this person - they all use Easynet out of London and all are harassing the user TreasuryTag. At the very least, the first IP mentioned should share a one-week block for personal attacks/harassment for calling me a "interfering moron" who needs to "get a life".[1] He's clearly only here to harass, and is probably a blocked user. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

IP jumping troll, no doubt, but since it has moved on, there really isn't any point in blocking the discarded addresses. Perish the thought that I should be handing out punitive blocks ;) Favonian (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Favonian - I just saw your warning to me regarding vandalism. I'd like to discuss and clear the air. Cheers, RealAuroraGuyRealAuroraGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? So far, your account has been dedicated to removing another editor's comment from a talk page; well, almost: you also did this, which doesn't speak much to your credit, though you removed it yourself. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. A friend of mine was being insulted unfairly, and I tried to right the wrong, albiet poorly. The comment removals were based on a long story about a town divided by a very strange set of events involving blogging pains, protecting the rights of anonymity, and a very vindictive ex-mayor - but, it's a long story. In my (only) defence, I was brand new to Wiki, and didn't take the time to read the rules before I started changing things. I know them now. For what it's worth, I have a great deal of respect for democracy and rules, especially in cyberspace. I appreciate good debate and try to never make it personal - most of the time, anyway. Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAuroraGuy (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bing (search engine)#Requested move

Out of interest, what was the rationale here? To call the move arguments weak would be an understatement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It hinges on the likelihood of anybody typing in "Bing" looking for something other than the search engine. Just looking at page hits, the only serious competitor is Bing Crosby, with the cherry on a fairly remote third place. It was argued, in my opinion correctly, that those looking for Mr. Crosby will type in his full name—and for that matter, when you type "Bing" in the search box his name shows up on the second line for easy clicking, obviating the need for a visit to the dab page. If one accepts this reasoning (and I know that these matters can be discussed endlessly) then "promoting" the search engine to the status of primary topic seems the obvious choice. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Qatar IPS vandal reversed this. It needs a Silver Lock at least.

{{COI|date=August 2011}}{{POV-lead|date=August 2011}}{{format footnotes|date=August 2011}}{{Copy edit|date=August 2011}}{{Expert-subject|date=August 2011}} {{Use British English|date=August 2011}}

(cur | prev) 10:47, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:26, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,129 bytes) (rm incorrectly used {{shortcut}}) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:23, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,152 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk): Admin tags removed without addressing issues. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 06:50, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (→Arabian Plate) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What a ghastly mess. I've reverted the removal of maintenance tags and issued a warning. By the way, you might consider collapsing the numerous issues into one box using the {{article issues}} template. At present it looks a bit "overwhelming". Favonian (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not collapsing anything. I am not editing the article or the Discussion page unless there is at least a Silver Lock on it. The topic of Haplogroup is complex. Haplogroup R seems to have a page for every sub-haplogroup and every individual family has a sub-haplogroup. Haplogroup J is one of the youngest and most of it is at the edge of antiquity, as opposed to pre-historic. Every issue becomes a Jihad/Crusade conflict. I just wanted to put together all that we know in one place and it has turned into a Voyage to La Puta. Having eight hours of yeoman like work trashed in 15 minutes is enough. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the same one from the same company at the same hotel in Qatar. http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=78.101.35.243 He did not even edit out the text. He just reverts it. You are engaged in a Sisyphean task until a Silver Lock is put on the article.:

  • (cur | prev) 20:08, 7 August 2011 78.101.35.243 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 12:53, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) m (17,129 bytes) (Reverted edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk) to last version by Favonian) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:47, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:26, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,129 bytes) (rm incorrectly used {{shortcut}}) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:23, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,152 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk): Admin tags removed without addressing issues. (TW)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 06:50, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (→Arabian Plate) (undo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
I do not respect personal attacks, tolerate antisocial behavior, or push rocks up hill well. I am just going to monitor the behavior of this unsigned vandal and whether User:Andrew_Lancaster takes steps to deal with it. Until then, my editing is done. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

He, she or it is toying with the Discussions as well:
(cur | prev) 20:02, 7 August 2011 78.101.35.243 (talk) (69,132 bytes) (→Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1 List of Vandals
2 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
3 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
4 78.101.53.167 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
5 178.152.109.94 Range: 178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
6 78.100.170.235 Range:'78.100.160.0 - 78.100.191.255'
7 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
8 89.211.50.131 Range: 89.211.50.128 - 89.211.50.143
9 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
10 78.101.35.243 Range:78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Remark. I am not involved in these tagging reverts, but have been trying to get the editing on this article up to some reasonable level after I was asked to look at a related article and realized how bad this one was. The above editor has been doing incrementally more extreme tag bombing and is also involved in edit warring and talk page silliness, and it seems clear enough that the tags are being accumulated as a way of making a WP:POINT. So I would question whether this is a case for giving the benefit of the doubt to keeping all tags. Of course the article is awful, and most of the tags are justified in that sense, but why so many, both inline and at the header, and doesn't the constant tag bombing and reverting simply postpone the day when normal editing can happen?
  • The article remains bad while the editors are in a constant tit for tat, and I think no other significant reason. It is actually not a very complex or controversial subject compared to many I have seen handled much better.
  • Just on one particular tag, the COI tag, I have tried to get an explanation about this on both the article talk page and the above editor's talk page, without success. It appears that the claim is based on the fact that one of the editors is an IP which is located in Qatar, and nothing else? So I do not think the COI tag is appropriate. It seems indeed to be inflammatory and the last thing this article needs. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the IP editors deleted the tags again, so I used your proposal above of a general issues tag.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Update. Having taken a more active role, this article, Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) now appears to be in a version which meets the demands of everyone, and is more stable. But I note indications on both the talk page, and in editing acts, that JohnLloydScharf is planning to start the edit war again. His last edits all describe counter proposals as vandalism for example (and was then reverted by another IP) and his talk page posts appear to be threatening that he is going to be less cooperative with very odd arguments or non-arguments. His draft version of the article also does not bode well as something that will be accepted by other editors, or by Wikipedia in general (although it is clearly also playing the role of notes and does not appear to be a literal draft). A practical problem I now have is that while this user was happy with my advice about following WP policy for a while, this seems to have ended. So before things spin out of control requiring RFCs or whatever, I am wondering if you could look over his recent contribs and make any advice to him, me and any others that you think might help. I will post a similar message to User:Gfoley4 who has also been in discussion about this article and related ones. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Block reconsideration

Hey, Favonian. Considering that:

  • Anders Breivik has been fully protected,
  • Polozooza had promised not to edit the page further before they were blocked,
  • Polozooza is a relative newbie,
  • The other edit-warring party is not blocked,

I don't see how a continued, lengthy block is of benefit to the project. Could I ask you take another look and consider unblocking or shortening the block duration? Thank you, Swarm u | t 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

After careful deliberation, I have decided not to unblock Polozooza. This user may be a "relative newbie" (some 250 edits in three months), but has nevertheless managed to accrue a significant number of warnings (up to level 4) for copyvio, attempts to retain an obvious hoax article, and now edit warring. In spite of two warnings about 3RR, he/she crossed the line. I'm not in favor of punitive blocks, and they are against policy, but when a user isn't able to understand very explicit warnings, then a connection between acts and consequences has to be demonstrated. I was tempted to block Hogbin as well, but decided against it, as he has at least managed to stay on the right side of the bright line. The block, which can hardly be considered "lenthy", has another three hours before expiration, and I think Polozooza can wait that long. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the well-reasoned reply. Regards, Swarm u | t 16:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lucien Laviscount

Hello. I noticed that you have deleted the Lucien Laviscount page in the past. I have now re-written this page to prove that it passes Wikipedia's notability rules. Please could you view the page in the link below and copy it into the Lucien Laviscount space? I would do it myself, but unregistered and newly registered Wikipedians are, apparently, unable to do this. Thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=445681110

188.220.151.140 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Dolovis took care of it. The previous attempts were due to the sock puppets of a notorious sub-stub creator and BLP transgressor, but the present version seems entirely "respectable". Thanks for your contribution. Favonian (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: Do get yourself an account. It'll make life so much easier. Favonian (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dolan move

If I withdrew the request for a move at Timothy Michael Dolan, then could I submit it as an uncontroversial request. It's not actually "being discussed" there, just kinda sitting. I guess I was just surprised that it was enlisted considering the move logic and standards seemed to be fairly in the norm, and it's a frequently enough trafficked page that it wouldn't necessarily slip under the radar of those who are waiting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if there are any rules (for or against) converting a requested move to an uncontroversial one. Vegaswikian recently relisted the request with the rationale "since both forms appear to be in use", so you might want to contact that editor, who, incidentally, has much more experience with the renaming process than I. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Please help me sir, i think he is a vandalist and aims to crash wikipedia [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urmate (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be a little beyond his powers, but they're definitely sockpuppets of MascotGuy (talk · contribs) with one exception: 74Elderwood (talk · contribs). What evidence do you have to incriminate that one? Favonian (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up

FYI, I just unblocked User:118.137.0.0/17, due to an email on the unblock mailing list. Normally, of course, I wouldn't unblock the entire range, and would deal with the individual separately instead (e.g. pointing them towards acc). But I decided to unblock here, since the block was set to expire tomorrow anyway, and I can't see how unblocking a day early will increase the potential for damage at all. If anything, it should decrease, since it brings to our attention the block expiring, which is basically what I am posting here about. Just thought you knew more about this particular vandal(s) than me, and may want to keep an eye on it, in case a reblock is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. History is not exactly encouraging, but we'll hope the best. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Favonion,

I am an investor in Texas Family Magazine, a statewide family values publication, whose Wikipedia page you have been helping to protect during the past two weeks from vandalism attacks by a sock puppet. We believe this attacks are resulting from a private dispute between our ex-publisher (who is being attacked in the attack, not the magazine itself) and his wife/current boyfriend regarding custody issues and personal disputes. Each attack has preceding one of their court hearing by a day. The current publisher has requested that I contact you and req — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Favonian,

I as writing to thank you for defending our Wiki entries, Texas Fami1y and Texas Fami1y Magazine. TFM is a statewide parenting publication in Texas.

We believe that these attacks are resulting from a private dispute between the ex-publisher's ex-wife and her boyfriend, regarding custody issues and their private disputes. Each attack has preceded a court hearing by a single day, and they are clearly against our ex-publisher (Jesse) and not the magazine itself. As we expect these hearing to continue for 2-3 more months, the current publisher has requested that I ask that the padlock be extended for 2-3 more months. The current publisher can be contatced at Misha@texasfamilyonline.com for verification.

Further, we would like to request that the Texas Fami1y entry be dissolved as we are not generally referred to by this name. We had put in a request a month or two for this correction, which never occurred -- that is, our entry should simple show up under "Texas Fami1y Magazine" without any other entries or redirects. Texas Fami1y could also refer to a range of other entities including the Texas Fami1y Foundation, Texas Fami1y Law Foundation, Texas Fami1y Musicals, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

you want censore? Ok

I submit a claim to arbitration on you... if you block me...89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) 89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I revert Nicosia article to start expanding its history section considering what is right or wrong discussed in the Discussion board. I am a Historian - professor in University in Erzerum. You missunderstood me my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindoutNicosia (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions and credentials, you're edit warring, and one more revert will result in a block. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

...for blocking Cyber 2000 promptly. bodnotbod (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Very tasty Favonian (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Close request

Could you look at this discussion and see if it isn't time to close it? It has degenerated into canvassing [3], [4] and personal attacks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I know from bitter experience that closing a discussion prematurely causes more problems than it solves, so we have to wait another two days. Miscreants should be reported to WP:ANI. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Steve Davis (musician)

There are multiple musicians with this name who have Wikipedia articles, so this needs to be a disambiguation page. The Steve Davis that is currently on the page is a drummer. I attempted to move it to Steve Davis (drummer), but that article already exists for a different person working in the same genre. I think there needs to be a consensus about what this article should be called. I find the current article title unacceptable. This person's article is briefer than many of the others, and many people may be inclined to link to it erroneously, thinking the others are too specific. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have juggled things around so that the two drummers' articles are named Steve Davis (Northern Irish drummer) and Steve Davis (American drummer). Their previous names are now redirects to Steve Davis (disambiguation). Hope that works. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Kyle Lafferty

Why am I being accused of vandalism when all I am doing is deleting horrible bile and false information that was added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this? Get lost! Favonian (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I think you need to check the history again because all I did was delete the accusations of him being a racist and the wrong transfer fee. I am a Rangers supporter and a big fan of Lafferty so if you are trying to insinuate I wrote derogatory comments you are way off the mark!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did check it: "Your Maws Athletic", "Cockmilk". Now be a good little vandal and crawl back under your rock. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but there is a mistake somewhere there, why would I delete bad comments then add some more in the same post? It just does not make sense, can you check into this please. I honestly did not write those comments and being a Rangers supporter I am a bit annoyed I am being accused of it but I am telling you this now so maybe you can find the bug or whatever has done this. Please do not just be rude again as this is a genuine problem and I am even willing to prove my identity if it is need as I feel that strongly abut it.

As I said it seems a bit strange that it is saying I put those comments in at the same time as I deleted other bad ones. Could you maybe look into this please, I know you are just doing your job and going by what you see and for the record you all do a great job. Surely the fact that I am sending you this message says a lot as well, if I was just some random vandal I would not care.

Thanks,

Gary Welch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Summoning all the good faith that I can muster, I conclude that there was a mistake, but you were the one making it. With the edit, which I've linked to twice above, it appears that you undid another editor's action. Thereby you re-added the rather offensive material I quoted. In the future, please be a good deal more careful and proofread your changes. Incidentally, if you check the article's edit history, you'll see that I reverted to a version without the racism remarks and the ludicrously inflated transfer sum. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for looking into it and getting back to me, as i say all I was trying to do was delete the bad comments but next time I will look more closely. As you can now see it was not me that wrote those comments originally which is why I was annoyed at being called a vandal, I appreciate it was my mistake and at least now I have learned to have a closer look even when just reverting a post back to a previous edit. Perhaps you could also check things more closely next time before coming to a conclusion that the editor is a vandal, not having a dig or anything there but I am sure you can understand why I was a bit annoyed as clearly I never fully understood how things worked and clearly it was not me that orginally wrote the offending words.

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me and have a good day :)

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Please accept my most humble, sincere apologies, I was only working with my peers in attempts to block my school from editing Wikipedia AS A JOKE!! Tombuk1 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious. Don't do it again. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

fuse

Hello great knowledgeable One

In which English is 'fuze' the correct spelling for 'fuse'???

Graham 58.165.76.181 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Any English you like, if the "fuze" you mean is an ordnance component. This isn't a regional variation. Please read the many discussions of this on the various talk pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, be careful when you change a name "wholesale". For instance, changing the spelling of File:MK53 fuze.jpg breaks the link to the image. Please remember to preview change before saving. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FUZE Actually only Canadian English. Not GA nor UK nor SA nor Aus nor NZ Englishes. He who thinks 'any English you like' is WRONG. Get out of Wpd and join the WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.6.177 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jneil

Hello Noticed that you blocked Jneil, but is it really appropriate that Jneil gets blocked for being litigious? Seems like it was something he just said in the heat of the moment and he will take it back. And then he will evade all the other charges that he is guilty of like(quoting Admin JamesBWatson) "disruptive editing, including personal attacks, removal of all content from articles, edit warring, attempting to exert control over articles, violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and using Wikipedia for promotion".

I have another question regarding Jneil. I have no interest in starting a personal war with him digging through all his contributions(I've had enough with it from two articles already) but I have noticed that he only have edited/created articles he somehow had a personal stake in, and he was in a COI-dispute on the article for agorism as well where other editors said he hijacked the article trying to make him look more important in the movement than he was. At the least I would like to put the COI-label on it. But is it really appropriate that I continue to clean up Jneils mess(cause at this point I must be pretty biased) and could you perhaps look into it(I'm pretty new on Wikipedia and don't really now the etiquettes how to post on admin boards etc)? Or should I just put the COI label on the agorism article and let somebody else sort it out? Cheers! CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock of the abusive editor you just blocked

Could you block User:115.241.247.223 for block evasion? In this diff xe admits to being the same person who you just blocked. Qwyrxian (talk)

Looks like it has already been taken care of. Favonian (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Having blocked this IP

Hello. I'm HannibalBarcaXXI, and you recently indefinitely blocked my account (IP:178.53.90.113) for 'Multiple Accounts'. I would like to know where have I abused Wikipedia and used multiple accounts? I can't access my page, and can't do anything at all. Please lift the block immediately, because I'm innocent.

HB21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.53.90.113 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bokan995

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

He is now. Noticed it right after issuing the 3RR warning. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

IP sock-puppetry

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

Oh, it's definitely the same person switching IP address. CheckUser can't really do anything, and as the article is now semi-protected, there is no risk of disruption for the next three days. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Ezekiel53746's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Turkish cousin is back again

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

The previously blocked vandalist IP has indeed resurrected, check this lad [5], compared to previous star [6].Greyshark09 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No one compares to NawlinWiki when swift execution is called for. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Re. SRESQ

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

Dear Favonian,

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

Wikipedia:Wikiquette

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

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

  • Work towards agreement.
  • Do not ignore questions.
  • Be prepared to apologize.

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

Thanks for the wall of text and the numerous references to Wikipedia scripture, with which I am quite familiar. Not the first time you've practiced this art, at witnessed by this splash on your antagonist's talk page. Whether ModWilson truly possesses the (low-level) language skill claimed by the user box is of no great importance, and if the person chooses to ignore your somewhat condescending message, nothing more should be done by you or anyone else, as it hardly violates any of the commandments quoted by you. Favonian (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You'll note that SRESQ has been blocked for continual edit-warring on another user's userpage. Wish I didn't have to do that, but they don't really appear to get it here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! In spite of the eloquent admonition above, I was having a hard time assuming good faith. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yalta image identification.

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

Thanks! I'll do so after dinner. It annoys me that I cannot identify the last Soviet officer. Since it's basically a "photo op" for the chiefs of staff, he ought to be Sergei Khudyakov, but it looks nothing like him if you compare the picture to ru:Худяков, Сергей Александрович and this picture. Favonian (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it Ivan Stepanovich Yumashev? Best image I can find of him is here(Hohum @) 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The mouth looks wrong, but more importantly: I haven't been able to find a source that places him at the Yalta Conference. Favonian (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure I have him now: Stepan Kucherov. He was at the conference and deputy to Kuznetsov; and this picture looks right. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Determination paid off! Good job. (Hohum @) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The Detective Barnstar
For tracking down all of those elusive officers in the Yalta image.


Nicolas Berggruen

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

Full protections are invariably on The Wrong Version. Furthermore, it would be easier if future requests were made in English. I had a hard time deciphering your message. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
WELL THIS IS THE CORRECT PAGE AND THIS IP NEED TO BE BLOCKED RE VENDALISM 71.172.245.177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioplus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the "correct" version is not something I'll commit myself to at this point, and I won't just take your all-uppercase word for it. The discussion should take place on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
okay the correct version is on the Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. pls upload and use this page we develloped by consensus and then you need to block this IP :71.172.245.177 --Bioplus (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't copy versions of the article to this or any other talk page; they can always be retrieved from the article history. I won't block the IP, as their actions do not constitute vandalism. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
well repeted "undo" is vandalis,,,,, pls upload the proper page now thanks --Bioplus (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It may constitute edit warring, but in that case you're as guilty as they are. The article will remain locked for a week or until agreement can be reached on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. You may present your arguments for the inclusion of for instance the phrase "party animal" there. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
look at the elements added Talk:Nicolas Berggruen , this article has several problems you can correct based on the disscussions, ref and elements in the talk page.... --Bioplus (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_19&oldid=1221627208"