User talk:Favonian/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Enrico Fermi

Hallo Favonian,
can you please have a look to the article about Enrico Fermi ? I think that there is a trolling problem there (again :-( )...Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alessandro. I have noticed the debacle. Though I don't think much of this most recent enthusiast's contributions, I'm not sure they can be labelled as trolling rather than just another (groan!) content dispute over this subject. I'm also prevented from taking action against the user, as I recently reverted one of their contributions, laying myself open to accusations of being an involved admin. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK Favonian, I understand. :-) In the meantime another user explained on the discussion page, where the problem about this 2 edits lays. Instead of answering to him, the guy reverted again to his version. I reverted twice, so I am out of the game too. What can be done? Poor Enrico, depicted as a fascist with black shirt... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Grammar Guy

Favonian, thanks for the tip re: collective nouns in British English from the Led Zeppelin page. I read the header indicating that the page was written in British English, but I didn't know that the British often employ plural verb conjugations with collective noun subjects. I'm an editor in the US and usually correct this "mistake." Thanks again for the tip! -Dave Davidjwinter (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I feel a bit silly, giving lectures on English usage to native speakers of that language, but fortunately Wikipedia has articles about nearly every nook and cranny of that subject. :) Favonian (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Walled Garden full of SPAs

I recently found the articles Sadie Kaye, West of Thunder, Sailing Miss Sadie, and Art Saves Lives. While they appear to have numerous citations, analysis shows the vast majority are press releases, trivial mentions, self-published, do not support claims made in the article, and in some cases do not exits. Removing these "sources" and adding tags has been met with deleting the tags and re-adding the 'sources'.[1] [2] [3] [4][5] [6], [7], [8], [9]. Users Cinderspictures [10], Alysium [11], Daveyjosephjones [12], Mimikasra [13], Rollingstone79 [14] and IP 90.211.17.95 [15] have no eidts outside these pages. User Judgegeoffrey has virtually no edits except to these articles [16] Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Does look rather ducky. A couple of remarks: operating more than one account is not a violation per se, only when they are being used disruptively, and ganging up to remove legitimate templates could be construed as disruption. Just to nail the case, I would suggest submitting a proper SPI with a request for CheckUser, but before doing so you might want to reduce the number of templates. Some admins frown upon the "saturation bombing" of new articles. Favonian (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Art Saves Lives and West of Thunder are new. Sailing Miss Sadie was created November 2010. Sadie Kaye is from October 2010. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Chimney sweep

Favonian, in your role as an historian and multi-linguist, is there anything you can suggest to get the Chimney sweep article going? Child sweeps were the first recognised victims of an industrial disease AND the very dangerous work caused early UK legislation on employment of children. Yet the article just sits there languishing in category low importance home articles! Regards JRPG (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a tempting suggestion, even though it's a bit outside my usual hunting ground of dead kings and lost wars. Haven't done any real article work in ages—if ever. Let me think about for a day or two. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry of the removal i think i accidently did it

i am really really sorry for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinotom (talk • contribs) 17:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini

Hallo Favonian
there is a guy who apparently has a personal problem with Mussolini. He added his personal opinion about fascism, referencing it (after my second revert) with a link to a google search page. I asked him to go through the discussion page, but he keeps reverting...another user now reverted him, but hopelessly. Can you please do something, at least warn him? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction: now he fixed the link, which now points to the Enciclopedia Italiana article about fascism written by Mussolini himself and Giovanni Gentile (one of the most important Italian intellectuals of last century). But this article does not support at all what he writes: "Fascism is a collection of academic nonsense to give Mussolini and his thugs an excuse to takeover and misrule Italy." At least, this is POV and OR. Moreover, I am not sure whether he violated the 3RR rule. Alex2006 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Favonian, I think that time came for me to take the chestnuts out of the fire with my hands (Italian proverb):-) . Therefore, I will bring the issue to a noticeboard, but I am undecided among WP:ANI, WP:AN3 and WP:NPOVN. Since I have no experience about noticeboards, I would like to ask you what is the most suited one for this case. Thanks, ~~

Is REVDEL appropriate for this ?

Can you have a look at this and see if REVDEL is appropriate, the IP has not edited since or I would have reported it to AIV. Mtking ^(edits) 09:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowolf certainly thought so, and I concur with the revdel. The item had no lasting place on Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Factual Items

User:24.188.197.33 has been conducting vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franklin_Square,_New_York, and appears to be a sock puppet of User:Factual Items. Can you block this user for some period of time? Thanks! Factothy (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Since he changes IP every so often, I have instead semi-protected the article for a month. Favonian (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!Factothy (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yazid I Article

Hello Favonian,

I apologize for not reading through the guidelines about what is termed an "edit war". I certainly do not desire to be blocked on Wikipedia. However, I would like to inform you that I am no amateur historian. I noticed that in the evalution section of Yazid I that the author of that paragraph quoted on the single Maulana Mufti Taqi's opinion. First of all, I am an Islamic scholar with extensive background and research on standard Islamic historicity (not just history). The general consensus about the historical figure of Yazid I in the Islamic community as a whole for the past 1300 years is that he was viewed as the Islamic equivalent of Nero or Commodus. You can refer to any of the classical annalistic historians such as Abu Mikhnaf, Tabari, Ibn Al-Athir, Beyhaqi, Ibn Katheer, etc..To more modern historians such as the pre-eminent Maulana S. A. A. Maudoodi and his monumental Khilafat Wa Mulukiyyat (The Caliphs and the Monarchy). Those editors who are supporting this misleading article such as Toddy and Edward probably have NO KNOWLEDGE of Islamic history whatsoever. They probably cannot even READ the languages of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, (which I can). They further probably have never even HEARD of the names which I have cited to you. The one source of Maulana Mufti Taqi is an obscure author from Pakistan who has no prominence whatsoever in the academic or scholastic circles of Islamic professors or scholars. Please. I request you to take the initiative and at least return the few edits I had made to the Historical Evaluation portion of the article on Yazid I. There is a small minority of revisionist pseudo-scholars such as MEDICAL DOCTORS (not historians) such as Zakir Naik, Shabbir Ahmed and this obscure Maulana Mufti Taqi who adovcate this Saudi propagated Salafi REVISIONISM of standard Islamic historiography. The OVERWHELMING majority of Islamic scholars down the ages (for the past 1300 years) have recorded Yazid I's historical persona as that of a corrupt and cruel despot. Again, please refer to the work of Maulana Maudoodi (a Sunni btw) for clearcut evidence of this general consensus on the historical persona of Yazid I.

Sincerely, Flagrantedelicto Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In other words, we have a classic content dispute, so the right approach is to stop reverting and start discussing. Please make your case, as above, on Talk:Yazid I and see how it plays out. If consensus is not achieved there, WP:Dispute resolution lists a whole range of increasingly formal venues. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

mistake

sorry bro, i did it by mistake. i tried to edit that, but i got problem n that remained unfinished. again sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr9mahmud (talk • contribs) 19:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Evolution

I know you guys are not creationist but you should let us creationists edit and not call it vandalism. Visit my user talk to see evidence for creationism and please repair your creationist article because it gets of topic or I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asldfjk (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the revision. It actually was me from my phone, but thanks for keeping an eye out for me. ceranthor 20:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My redirect

Why you deleted that redirect? It does not meet speedy deletion criteria R2. I am recreating that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahahohoho22222 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Loriga again

Good day Favonian. It seems the malicious IP editor on the Loriga may have returned. Could you kindly monitor this webpage and/or take action accordingly, rather then any attempts by myself that may denigrate into an edit war? ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No reason to beat around the bush, so I've renewed the semi-protection. Favonian (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Perihan S.

You indeffed Perihan S. 217.248.149.26 has posted to my talk page, claiming to be Perihan S[17], which is clearly editing around the block. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ignore the last, I see you have already blocked the IP. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

AstroTurf misinformation

Dear Favonian,

I apologize for any misunderstanding as to my intentions regarding the editing of the AstroTurf section on Wikipedia. I am new at the Wikipedia editing process and perceived the reversion of my edits as someone trying to just be difficult. My goal is to get the facts clear on the ASTROTURF wikipedia page. The edits are not a conflict of interest as they are intended to properly use diction vis-a-vis communicating the ASTROTURF mark as an adjective--not a noun (unless, of course, if used with respect to the company AstroTurf, LLC). ASTROTURF is in fact a world-famous trademark (as I stated in my edits) that is registered in many countries around the world including the United States of America. Any use in any other manner is in fact an improper use (as I indicated in my edits). I have no conflict of interest with AstroTurf, LLC as I legally represent them. I have no "conflict" with the facts because I am intimately familiar with them, and what I have stated in my edits is accurate. I encourage anyone who believes otherwise to independently verify the veracity of what is included in the edits.

Please unblock my access to this particular page and, if possible, please use whatever influence you have to encourage the other person(s) disagreeing with my edits to verify the facts I have attempted to clarify in the ASTROTURF wikipedia page. Thank you and best regards.

Patentman72 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Mr. Favonian, can I apologies for the editing which you reverted. I did it in good faith but understand your views on it and endeavor not to make any edit like it again without being sure.

Regards, Fred Smithson

213.105.6.44 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bal Thackeray

defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/43872-bal-thackeray-dead.html this is the source of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfindia (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a discussion forum—not a reliable source. Wait for it to hit the news media. Favonian (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. I was checking to see if Wikipedia was really as open to deliberate false information as I have heard. I'm glad that you caught it so fast, and am very impressed. I'm not sure if it is an algorithm or what, but that was lighting fast. Good work. I now have much more faith in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enictobi (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No algorithm, just a WP:WATCHLIST. Favonian (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user photo

Just recently, you blocked indefinitely User:WickyLicky from editing Wikipedia. Shouldn't then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Son_Phan_November_3,_2012.jpg, which appears to be a photo of the blocked vandal, be deleted? I don't think it's of any use. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss it, but I don't think it meets any of the conditions in WP:CSD. Favonian (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What about A7? If an individual is not notable, then the article about them gets deleted, and the same seems to make sense in the case of such a photo. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not. The "A" category of criteria only apply to articles. Favonian (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi

Thank you for anti-vandal action on this article. Most of the IP editing of this article is unconstructive so perhaps semi-protection would be worthwhile. There is also this item from User:14.96.185.148 a few days ago: it needs a warning but at least level 3 perhaps: it would be more appropriate if an administrator issues one I think.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! I agree that the level of persistent vandalism to this article is too annoying to be ignored, so I've semi-protected it for a fairly long period of time. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am very grateful the page now has protection; verifying the content is quite difficult enough without getting malicious edits as well.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nnemo

User:Nnemo appears to have very limited English, but he is making a lot of what appear to be senseless large-scale changes (like the St. Louis -> Saint Louis one). I don't have time to try to discuss his changes with him, but if you can spare the time for a quick look, or know someone who might... LittleBen (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Gladiator

Thanks for protecting Gladiator. I was just about to request that. It's a pretty well-watched article, but over the holidays likely to be less so. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Its time had definitely come. One can only wonder what goes on the minds of the little darlings that they are so strongly attracted to this profession. Do they identify with Russell Crowe? Favonian (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Favonian, our admin corps are probably a little depleted right now due to US Thanksgiving. I know that you have an interest in anti-vandalism work and wonder if you'd briefly step into the black hole that is Indic caste articles? Specifically, could you take a look at User talk:Theoppulent, the entire page of which is warnings, attempts at advice etc. I'm getting nowhere fast: they've even had the general sanctions notice plonked there and are still both not communicating and continuing on their merry way. It is very rare for someone displaying this pattern in that area ever to come good but I think you can probably work that out for yourself! - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning and will try to monitor the situation. Because of the general sanctions, I could probably put my foot down right away, but I have never tried that particular aspect of Wiki-policing, so I've opted for the well-trampled path. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and I also notice that you've spotted another problem! That one must have happened since my last note on their page. Salvio and Blade are hot on the sanctions - per the log - but they're more familiar with the subject area & the typical behaviours than I suspect you are. I'll not draw you into any more situations but if you could monitor this one during the US holiday period then it would be appreciated. I mean, I can do the watching and report back to you if necessary, but just having someone else signing stuff on their talk page is a positive. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanksgiving has not yet become a "thing" in my country, as opposed to Halloween, so I only have Real Life to distract me from Wikipedia ;) Favonian (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to mither but I think they or a sock/meat are back as an IP. Can the article be semi-protected? That would at least flush out any connections. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi'd for two weeks. Can't tell if the latest IP is a puppet of some sort, but there's no reason to let anonymous "enthusiasts" muddle the picture. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ta. Sometimes these people organise themselves via a caste Facebook group or a forum on Orkut, hence you get a series of geographically disparate IPs hitting the thing to make the same radicla and unsourced changes. We'll find out soon enough. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

David Greener

Thank you Favonian for your helpful comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Greener and quick response in blocking other Sockpuppets. The case investigation has been completed with the same result which I had also expected. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. He did make quite an effort to attract my attention ;) Favonian (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That edit was probably a silly grudge mistake to do which did cost him! I wonder if he might create more Sockpuppets, which actually many people do to evade blocks. I'm just waiting for the day when I eventually become an Admin and block obvious vandals (A great feeling yet to feel). Anyways good job :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hello Mr Favonian, Glad to see the removal of "Matty888" and his persistent vandalism, I was tiring from trying to revert all of his nonsense. Thankyou. (Sn1sn1sn1 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

You're welcome. Rather uninspired, juvenile vandalism. Favonian (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For blocking a school IP address. Thanks! :D Qbgeekjtw (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Seems I block them by the truck load these days. Favonian (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Pemulwuy

Seems we were both trying to revert the vandalised Pemulwuy article at the same time. I found I didn't know how but you have now done it. Spathaky (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for helping out! Favonian (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rani Lakshmibai (cont'd)

Hello again, (1) In the talk page for this article there is (in the same section on War of independence which I edited today) some text called "frivolous entry" moved there lang ago from the article. Is there any need to retain this nonsense ?
(2) The infobox has been reverted recently to a photograph which is problematic. The editor asserts it is the "best known" but that could be true without it being genuine. Since I removed it the first time evidence against it has been collated with good sources. Could you please consider what to do with it. (Another point against it is that the dress looks more like that of a Muslim ruler; John Lang's account of the Rani described her as dressed in a plain burqa with pearl necklace; for a formal portrait she would wear much more jewellery.) The portrait that was there before shows her in Maratha cavalry attire &c.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

1) It's "frivolous" alright, so by all means get rid of it. 2) Since there's reasonable doubt regarding the photo and you have initiated a talk page discussion, I have reverted the change and suggested that the other editor joins the discussion. Favonian (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; Unless one of the authors of biographies of the Rani accepts this photograph it should not be used. I have not been able to refer to any of them but Allen Copsey's website used them as sources and includes information from 1910 asserting that it shows another Indian ruler.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking User talk:143.207.14.97

Since then this IP has vandalised my Talk Page. Please consider an indefinite block. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the IP vandalized your talk page seven minutes before I blocked it. For various reasons, we practically never block IPs indefinitely, but in cases of repeated vandalism the blocks can escalate to several years. This one is a first timer, so a short block was imposed in anticipation of the culprit a) seeing the error of his ways and repenting, or b) moving on to a different IP address. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Explanation, please

Dear, Mr. Favonian, Could you please explain me why you have blocked my account Doraterra? I am not Dilek2! I'm just trying to write article about something that I know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.45 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Very similar edits to some of the same articles frequented by Dilek2 and its socks, plus you have edited the same non-English Wikipediae. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not mean that I am Dilek2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.207.66 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AIV Bot

It doesn't seem to be working. Would it help/hurt to turn it off and turn it back on? I assume if I turn it off, I can turn it back on, but I've never done it so am reluctant to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather embarrassing thing to admit for an old geek, but I really don't know :( I fear we may only be able to turn it off, not back on again. Reporting the problem to the bot owner's talk page is, I believe, the recommended approach. Favonian (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comforting to know I'm not alone. I noticed you manually removed the blocked accounts/IPs. I started to do it, but I was going to do it one by one to record it, probably more than necessary. Your approach was certainly faster. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd bots, quite willing to express an opinion on the vandals, but not to clean out the attic. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, there are two different bots. #7 (opining) is working; #5 (cleaning out) is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm wrong. They're both doing things, but neither is cleaning things out. Very confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So hard to get good bots these days. I'm off to bed in disgust. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Confeti tothless

I note this user appears to be a confused young visitor unfamiliar with the web site. Whilst I don't disagree with the block persay, I don't think it's fair to say it is/was a vandalism-only account. I feel like a preventative block (i.e. a temporary block) would have been more suitable. Whilst the user might not be familiar with Wikipedia yet, it seems reasonable to think they might return in future with something to contribute. They clearly (from their talk page, some of which they've cleared) feel bitten and confused. I can't help but feel it appropriate to draw attention to this. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia clean, mind. I know from my lesser experience it's tough to pay close attention to every single account that causes disruption on the site. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Vandal" may not be the correct term, but the person is either extremely clueless or pretending to be. In the former case, the temporary block would have to be of several years' duration, I'm afraid. I appreciate your effort to communicate with the user—to me it seems we don't even have a language in common. Favonian (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Blocks are explicitly not for use "as punishment against users" so there is no appropriate 'sentence'. They are to prevent disruptive behaviour. "Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future". These are all based in policy. Furthermore WP:BITE is clear that "ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer." It is clear that this user does not comprehend, as opposed to having any malicious intent. The user in question shows, in my mind, all the trademarks of a young person who isn't aware of the site's purpose (who is used to frequenting chat rooms). The sort of person whose ability to understand and contribute to a project such as this may change dramatically in a short period of time (say, a year or two) and they will remember their previous experience.

(Anecdote warning!) I say this as somebody who used to be disruptive on web sites (forums, chat rooms) at a young age, for no reason other than I couldn't see or understand anything better to do. I did not understand the consequences of my behaviour but I certainly remembered the people and places which were hostile (even if I never understood why) and which were welcoming. These strongly defined the communities I then joined when I was older. I feel WP:BITE is all about these cases. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion?

TopCashBack2 (talk · contribs) just created a userpage with "Don't block me again. Stop blocking me." I'm leaving in a minute, gone all weeakend, but thought I'd drop this off with you before I left. Sorry, made no effort to dig deeper. Thanks in advance. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 11:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on their contributions. Not exactly off to a good start. If enough evidence accumulates, I shall ignore the user page admonition. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you were right. He has just been blocked as a sock of Callump90. Favonian (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Just seemed a too obvious sock, to not tell someone. I was late to hit the road that morning when I ran across it. But I had no idea nor time to find out who he was. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI reporting

Hi there, I was trying to file a sockpuppet investigation using TW but it doesn't seem to work. Can I file the report some other way? -SFK2 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. If you go to Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting an SPI case, there is a form you can fill out. Favonian (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you check if I submitted it properly? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonesManorFarm-SFK2 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Favonian (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on this I think this is a case of widespread refspam or vandalism. I'm not sure how to proceed. -SFK2 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for...

...the revert on my talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Anytime! Looks like the same comprehensive whackjob that's haunting the Norwegian School of Economics article. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Michelb924

Thanks for blocking them. They're an abusive LTA should probably have email/talk page access revoked, and have the talk page posts revdel'd. Legoktm (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

His talk page privileges will be revoked the minute he abuses them. I'll see about the revdel'ing. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Except he's already abused them under other accounts. And you wouldn't find out about email abuse until its too late. Legoktm (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Reaper already did it. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fegelein

I changed it again, but this time I cited a source. It has attracted attention from a number of news sites, and the one I posted was BBC.

I hope you don't have to change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfdjk (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's certainly an improvement—and a lot better than your recent "contributions" to the Adebayo Akinfenwa article! Favonian (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is the wrong place for this (article Talk page, anyone? but, sorry, I can't agree that it should be in there even with a ref. It seems too incidental and irrelevant to the real Fegelein - all a bit "so what"? You might as well write the same paragraph for all the other characters in the oft-spoofed scene ... and then start on the tables and chairs. I feel. It's all just incidental, and has precious little to do with Fegelein. I do think, though, that if it needs discussing further it should go to the article Talk page. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you. "In popular culture" sections are mostly a waste of bandwidth. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

1974

How much must we remove each others text to come to an agreement? Can we not have both on the same page? I cited the information from 19.org by Edip Yuksel. I did not remove your information first, I simply added mine. Do you have a personal problem with it? Or do you falsely believe it is not truthful? Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onsaphi (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The text you added is sourced only to some website, which hardly qualifies as a reliable source. It has already been removed by another editor, so if you try to add it again, you will be guilty of edit warring and risk being blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel is a scholar to say the least. The information is sourced on his website directly at 19.org, or you can read the actual book free online at Quran: A Reformist Translation. Again, do you have a personal problem? What needs to be done about you removing useful information?

"A Great Prophecy is Fulfilled and the Secret is Unveiled

The miraculous function of the number 19 prophesized in Chapter 74 was unveiled in 1974 through a computerized analysis of the Quran. Though, in retrospect, the implication of 19 in Chapter 74 traditionally called Hidden One, were obvious, it remained a secret for 1406 (19×74) lunar years after the revelation of the Quran. Ironically, the first words of the Chapter 74, The Hidden One, was revealing, yet the code was a divinely guarded gift allocated to the computer generation; they were the one who would need and appreciate it the most. As we have demonstrated in various books, hundreds of simple and complex algorithms, we witness the depth and breath of mathematical manipulation of Arabic, an arbitrary human language, to be profound and extraordinary."

"On it is Nineteen". Edip Yuksel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onsaphi (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Onsaphi (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

I have included the reference, you can go back and check it if you can help improving anything wrong.. thanks. also some facts you deleted are in Louise of great britain article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurfelipe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't, and no, they aren't. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

answer:there were references in the references section, like the website where this was found for example, the part of the info where cite the dead child can be found on the biography subject's parents, and some info based in dates presents in both article, so I hope you correct the omissions by yourself , thanks!

Please see

A user violates the 3RR, I warn them with the template and the answer I receive is this. You may see in the article's TP that I am trying to discuss an issue while this user only imposes their choice, even without an edit summary. The edit summary they use is to tell me "spare that warning for you", while I have not made even one revert of the type. Thanks and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Except for a few cases listed in WP:BLANKING, users may remove items from their talk pages as they see fit. The edit summary, while not exactly friendly, is not rude enough to be actionable. Favonian (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

2607:F348:1008:0:0:0:0:140

...actually is very likely to be an open proxy, being a webhost IP address.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised, but I'd rather hear it from you ;) And the {{checkuserblock}} was definitely bogus. Expecting a CheckUser to tell me that it was a true confession. Favonian (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

Doraterra's edits [18] seem similar to Dilek2's. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure looks that way. Sent off to join the other socks. Favonian (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And in a fit of originality, there's Doraterra2.[19] Edward321 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Dorraterra2 is still going.[20][21][22] Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry to interrupt) Are you sure she is only interested in the royal families? Do we know for sure she does not also have a liking for quantum physics? I know, all the shouting and the use of an English worse than mine are not enough clues to relate two passionate users but I have a feeling it could be worth to give a chance to see if the fighter against lies is also transmitting from Germany. (The VoA used to transmit from there during the Cold War, no? :-) Best and sorry again. --E4024 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with regard to this one. Firstly, this person's English doesn't seem to be quite as rudimentary as Dilek2's and secondly, their contributions on other Wikipedias don't follow the same pattern. I also received this message from Doraterra logged out, and the IP locates to Serbia, while Dilek2's usual haunt is Germany. In this day and age, that doesn't necessarily prove a lot, but on the other hand it doesn't add evidence to a case of sockpuppetry. I'll try to monitor this editor's actions, but real life tends to keep me rather busy these days. Favonian (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just pointed out Doraterra2 because they are clearly a sock of the indefinitely blocked Doraterra. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dizzzer

What's your problem? I was just trying to make edits interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzzer (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You were deliberately, and not for the first time, trying to insert incorrect information. Do it again, and you'll be shown off the premises. Favonian (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Draghi

Hallo Favonian, I have a problem: An User added to the article about Mario Draghi info about his two children, and, what is more interesting, about their current positions. The reference about his son comes from LinkedIn, that about his daughter from a conference website. In both reference there is nothing about Mario Draghi himself: this means that these 2 people could be just homonyms of Draghi's children. I think that this is OR to the nth power, so I reverted the edit. After some time, another - brand new - user reinstated the info, this time adding as reference a blog, but keeping the ref of linkedIn. I reverted again, but this time I think that an admin is required. Alex2006 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, Bwilkins beat me to it. The sources were too weak, LinkedIn is self-published and so, I suspect, is the Italian one, which at any rate doesn't mention Mario Draghi. The Telegraph reference looks like stray tweets from a staff member, and I'm not sure that's quite up to the mark, BLP-wise. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! BTW, there is a place to signal problems like this in Wikipedia, without harassing you :-) each time? Alex2006 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we have noticeboards for any occasion. For the Draghi article, WP:BLPN would probably be appropriate. If we are talking vandalism, then WP:ANI, aka. the "drama board" is the correct venue. That place is always an experience! Favonian (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to know! Yes, I know ANI, long time ago I was denounced by an Uzbek guy (NOT Karimov :-)) since I was trying to protect the Uzbekistan page that was in the middle of an edit war between Uzbeks and Tajiks. Since then, I think that I am banned from Uzbekistan (the country, not the article :-)). Alex2006 (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Taken in speed

Hi Favonian, sorry for the double template at User 80.193.75.162. I was taken in speed by you :) SchreyP ^(messages) 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just glad I still have it in me :D Favonian (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of Wstreiff

Hello,

I am concerned about the reason why you blocked User: Wstreiff indefinitely from Wikipedia. The account is obviously not a sockpuppet of Jackiekong, since he himself introduced himself as Kong's personal secretary; thus the similarities between their edits and IP addresses. If you note the legal threat, it was more of a good faith request than a threat. The first paragraph certainly made it clear that they simply wished intervention on part of Wikipedia. IMO the other threat is more due to ignorance of Wikipedia policies than anything else; and so cannot be held against him. Even the last So how and why is he blocked indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia? And since I did not understand how it was a BLP violation, it would be good if you clarified that too.

If you look at it from retrospect, it looks like this- Mr Kong comes to make an article about himself - He finds it vandalised - He reverts and asks for help - He is blocked.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry allegation was definitely a mistake (I got three sets of edits to the article messed up), but the rationale for blocking was legal threats, and it's difficult not to interpret this edit as such. Wstreiff will have to make a clear retraction to get reinstated. The impersonating vandal has been indeffed and the IP sent off for a week. Favonian (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you obliged to explain the WP position on legal threats before or during your blocking? There must be clear cut words explaining when would the block be reverted, and which policies apply, and how WP can protect the page [Semi protection that is] (Defending the quality of which was the only and the original intention {And presumably used as a last resort} of the threat) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Warnings are not an entitlement, and legal threats are as a rule taken very seriously. I am, as implied above, willing to unblock if the editor retracts the statement, and Floquenbeam has offered them further guidance on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe AGF supercedes NLT, isn't it? (Correct me if I am wrong here). There was very obvious implications of good faith, which you messed u with a simple overlooking [thus incorrectly classifying him as a vandal; Please redact that word from your help desk comment too]. Warnings before blocking may not be necessary, but surely you cant justify giving no warnings to someone who knows absolutely no WP Policies! [Even the difference under question was most certainly a last resort (note the time difference between that, and the help desk comment - My imagination gives an obvious picture of someone trying to find help during this time, which is pretty likely to have happened)].

As for the implied unblock, I dont think so that its that obvious to the user being blocked that he/she can be unblocked through this method. A comment explaining the situation would have made more sense.

I am happy that Floquenbeam did post those guidance on the page. Without him, the user would have been absolutely helpless on what to do. [Note that this does not change the fact that what you did was unreasonable and you ought to have posted a warning, whether before or during the block] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not use the word "vandal" in my help desk comment. To my knowledge, we don't have "ranking" between AGF and NLT, so I await the editor's unblock request. Favonian (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously just a regular vandal.".

AGF is a major part of the fourth pillar. NLT is not a major part of any pillar (AFAIK. please correct if wrong). AGF is written in clear cut words "to consider ignorance of policies before acting againt the user" (and never asks to not assume good faith, AFAIK). NLT hints at using other methods before actually blocking. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, meaning this one? I thought it obvious that I was referring to the "Jackiekong" account. As for the rest, I have nothing more to contribute to the discussion at present. Favonian (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasnt. I suggest you rephrase.

Please also explain how this was a BLP violation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking years

Hey Favonian. I was curious: is there a policy on "wikilinking" years? I have noticed that Portuguese Wikipedians tend to overdue this linking, and some users on English Wikipedia revert excessive wikilinking of this type. If you could please direct me to an appropriate guideline I would really appreciate it. I recently saw a newbie user from Portuguese wikipedia do some editing in a couple of pages I watch, and before I send him a sermon, I wanted to have appropriate justification, if any. If there is no policy, then I will leave him/her to it, and be a little more wiser. Thanks. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia: we have policies and guidelines for everything! In this case, MOS:UNLINKYEARS applies. Favonian (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

haha. Thanks ;) ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some copy and pasting that needs revision history trail

Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place. I'm bring this to you for the sole reason that you are an admin. I was surprised to find the page Can Xue recently which is a copy and paste from a userspace draft at User:Metal.lunchbox/Can Xue. Naturally I don't mind that my work was copied, as I was writing the page for the whole purpose of moving it to mainspace, eventually, but it was just a single paragraph. The copy was made by User:2sc945 and I believe it was a good faith effort to improve wikipedia, but it doesn't fit with some copyright stuff and my ego-driven desire to have my username in the revision history of so many wikipedia articles. Can you fix this, or should I just forget about it? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having a healthy ego, and you are certainly entitled to attribution for your part in building the article. I merged the edit histories of your sandbox version and that of the other user. Please let me know if this solves the problem, though I may be editing infrequently today due to other obligations :) Favonian (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good.- Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 10:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill, May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, Merry Christmas To U & Ur Family. BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The same to you and yours. Favonian (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Favonian! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, GU. You too! Favonian (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Thanks a lot. Hope you're having a good time as well. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mr Favonian, What about vandalism happening in Nawaz Sharif by Imran Khan fans since 25th December 2012?? plz reply. See the history

Thanks.

The actions of others cannot be used as an excuse to commit vandalism. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

4 tribes of Bavaria

Dear Favonian, I do not understand, what's going on. Bayern.de are official web sites of Bavaria. You shall read corretly. On http://www.bayern.de/History-and-Historic-Figures-.631/index.htm is ni quotation marks only the 4th tribe (Sudeten Germans), because that are refugees after 1945 (so called New Bavarians). Deleting of Saddhiyama was Vandalism (???) and Nazi (???). Deleting of Erikeltic was no comment. Return my version, please, like your good manners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.190 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2012‎ (UTC)

It is in fact the only occurrence of the word "tribe" that is quoted, showing that the authors of the web page don't mean for it to be taken literally. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter. It may be the official website of Bavaria, but it is written by the droids of the state's marketing department. The concept of tribe belongs to history/anthropology/sociology, and for it to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article would require a scholarly source, which I think you'll have a hard time locating. Your previous attempts have been reverted by several editors, therefore doing it again without prior consensus on the article talk page will amount to edit warring and lead to you being blocked temporarily from editing. Favonian (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

May be the 4th tribe of Bavaria is not tribe in in traditional scientific meaning. But, the 4th tribe of Bavaria is tribe in official/bureaucratic meaning. In detail: The "Fourth Tribe" - A fourth ethnic group, the Sudeten Germans, who constituted the largest number of refugees that made Bavaria their home after 1945, have joined the other three tribes. The Free State took them under its protection. "The Bavarian State Government regards the Sudeten Germans as one of the ethnic tribes of Bavaria", reads the Certificate of Investiture of 5.11.1962. Grateful to their new homeland, the "New Bavarians" have substantially contributed to rebuilding the State after the Second World War.

P. S. Who is Vandal and Nazist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.190 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I never used any of those words. Since you have willfully ignored repeated warnings, I have reported the case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Favonian (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Help Please

The User:Nymf makes all undo what I edit in Wikipedia Article. I need help please. He undo all just annoy me. Without reference or without reason.

examples:

for example a new picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Walker

list of Albanian americans delete he withot references and grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Albanian_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arta,_Greece&action=history

from older revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Belushi&oldid=530122564

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Belushi&oldid=530035768

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masiela_Lusha&action=history

it can not go on like this.

Yours truly User:Anthony.al 22:59, 28 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Castle of São Jorge

Hello Favonian. I was kind of hoping you could clear-up a series of confusing actions at "Castle of São Jorge". One of my colleagues moved this article to "São Jorge Castle", without discussions, and had a change of heart. But, he then compounded the problem by moving the article to "Castle São Jorge". Is it possible for you revert the content back to the old "Castle of São Jorge" title, while maintaining the content? Otherwise, could you direct me to the correct path for resolving this strange turn of events? Appreciate your constant assistance. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ruben. I have moved the article back to its original name, since everyone involved agreed to it. When I'm not around, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is the place to request uncontroversial page moves. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Srinivasa Ramanujan

..is in the news currently, I have gathered few references here. It seems to be an important event. Your opinion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting! It's probably legit, since Ken Ono is quoted. The problem is how to present the material with the proper balance between rigor and accessibility, and how to distribute it between the Ramanujan article and that on Theta functions. You might ask the good folks over at WT:MATH. Favonian (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! I am not a contributor there, just a reader! I couldn't understand how to (and where) present this information? A new h2 or h3 section "Deathbed theory (of Ramanujan)"? "Of Ramanujan" will not be needed since the article is on him. And this will not be a cup of tea for me, it begins with a dream, some unheard functions and ends with blackhole..

Today, someone has posted in talk page, I have posted there Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Surprised_for_the_high_number_of_readers.3F --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it has started rolling. We need some sources that make more of the actual math and less of the dreams and divine inspiration. Regrettably, the media just love that stuff. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Czechia

I've been called a lot of things on Wikipedia, but this is the first time for "deviant onanist" [23], probably for you too. Machine translation's a wonderful thing. Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He must have thought long and hard to come up with that one. I'm still mulling over this epithet, which I acquired nearly three years ago. ;) Favonian (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The most creative in my experience was a threat directed at me: "Then im (sic) going to fill a sack with swallows and throw it at your car while you are driving to work." The event moved Tonywalton to create an alternate account, User:Sackful of swallows. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Favonian, I'm Slurpy. I was wondering if you can do me a favor, you see, I have been dealing with some vandalism in this article:Cicero. And I am worried that it is exposed to vandalism and since vandalism in this article had happened before, I am worried it will happen again. I was wondering if you could put a semi-protection to the page, and since it is an important article, I'm asking if you could semi-protect it from vandalism, Thank you for your attention :) (Slurpy121 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC))

To you

Favonian, I sent you a message but you didn't respond. I needed your help but you instead tend to threaten me, that is not in your position as an administrator my friend. I have two computers and two people in this location are wikipedia users, only i have an account. So like i asked again, Can i talk to an administrator?? (Slurpy121 (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC))

Favonian, I need a favor, please! (Slurpy121 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC))

What on earth are you talking about? As far as I can tell, I have never interacted with you, let alone "threatened" you. Regarding the Cicero article, the level of vandalism does not merit protection. Rather than badger me, you should take such requests to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Favonian for the recent messages, I'm Slurpy but the actual User, the one you were talking to yesterday was supposed to help me rearrange and do my to-do list on Wikipedia, I see he didn't make a very good job, so I will be on the alert. Anyways, regarding the Cicero article, I believe it might run the risk of vandalism, but since you and I've seen the level of vandalism is low, I guess the semi-protection wont be necessary. Anyways, I will save you any troubles and just came by to leave you this message. Happy new Year. (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC))

Same to you, but I really must draw your attention to WP:NOSHARE. Accounts are for use by one person only. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The first part of the following post is a joke, don't take it seriously

Hello, Favonian, I am (also) Slurpy, the actual user. he he! sorry.. anyway, I have posted the Ramanujan issue at WP:RD/MA --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC) strike-through signed Tito Dutta (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Careful there! I'm a geek, and as such very literal-minded. You nearly got yourself blocked for that confession Favonian (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert and help on Limerick CC and my tp. Murry1975 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Always fascinating to watch such single-minded editing as that of Limerick City Council's most faithful foe. Favonian (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

remove extra marital affair from agakhan

Its not proved, content says affair with the air hostess but its the divorce case you can say she argued the affair in the court but its not proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.51.150 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports rumour rather than truth. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)