User talk:Favonian/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

General George Bingham Arbuthnot

Is there a case for undeleting this entry now that we have this fine picture of him? [1]. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a strapping soldier and the very model of a not-so-modern major general, but as I understand the guidelines, the existence of a picture doesn't really add to the notability of a subject. Sorry. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I add the picture which is on wikicommons to the page which is deleted and resurrected under my user-moniker? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the same way you would, if the page were in article space. Had the picture been uploaded as "fair use", it would be inadmissible on user space pages, but images on commons are quite OK. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

dot the i

Hello, regarding Dot the i and the request to move, it appears that the film's official title is "dot the i". Do you want to keep the article at its present location or move to "dot the i"? Link back to discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be pointless, given Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Software characteristics. Favonian (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed...

Sorry about that. If you think six months is better, I'm all for it. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 01:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No reason to apologize! The longer the article is protected, the better. Favonian (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cowan Dobson

Serious vandalism. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Too ancient to do anything about the culprit(s) though. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Favonian

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your recent contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for the quick reversion of new user page blanking of my user talk space - it's very appreciated! :) T.I.M(Contact) 23:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there

Favonian, I just saw you prevented an edit war in an article. I would like to ask your help, not as an admin necessarily, simply as an editor to come and see what is happening in Oktay Sinanoğlu article and add your input. Please do not tell me it is not an article whose subject-matter is not in your area of interest. The sources are there, the Talk Page is there, the "history" of the article is there. You can simply make a few edits, just as you consider correct, to put some fresh energy into something really very simple: To write a short article on a notable person, his life and works. This should not cause "storms" every now and then... Thanks for your possible help. --E4024 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Took me a while to parse the triple negative in your message ;) Not sure I care to edit the article, but I have a couple of comments regarding the recent mini edit war: 1) "according to both Turkish Republic and U.S.A public records" is not a verifiable reference; 2) a book that is "told to" a writer by the subject of the book is still an autobiography. I'll try and keep an eye on the article, but bedtime is approaching in my time zone. Favonian (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A7

Hello,

RBRO Solutions has been deleted various times and the last time...I followed all the rules. I would appreciate you reconsidering and reviewing the last submission as I did specify why the topic/entry was significant. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.103.36 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There were no independent, reliable sources to provide evidence of notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only references were to the company's own website and the contents was so close to advertisement that it was touch and go whether to delete it per speedy deletion criterion G11 or A7. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Would you kindly delete the entire page itself? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.103.36 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your request. The article in question, RBRO Solutions, is quite gone. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

my talkpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage :) 81M (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Probably won't be the last time, now that you're on this particular troll's "Christmas card list". Favonian (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You were right, two more instances, I'm guessing this is some kind of revenge for listing him on WP:LTA. Any chance you could semi-protect my talkpage for a few days (or is that not allowed?) 81M (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nawlin! 81M (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish there was something else we could do, enough's enough with this guy. I almost want to propose him for community ban - I know probably wouldn't accomplish much in the short run (and the sensible side of me says it will likely just result in more attacks), but would it at least open up other options to get him to stop (e.g. pursuing abuse response with his ISP?) 81M (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the possibility of a range block has been considered, but rejected because of the wide spread of the addresses used. Regarding the abuse response option, the way I read it, we need to know the IP addresses involved, and that would require CheckUser privileges. A community ban in itself wouldn't change much: no admin in his right mind will unblock this troll, and no revert of his actions is likely to be challenged, so I guess our preferred course of action is WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi Favonian, I just happened to stumble upon your page and i saw all the vandalism you have tirelessly reverted and corrected. Thanks for keeping wikipedia a safe and reliable place to get information out of! for this i award you the defender of the wiki barnstar. Manson35 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A semi-random thank you

Hey Favonian, I just happened to find your user page by luck when i was scrolling through the history of some wikipedia pages. I then happened to notice all the vandalism on wikipedia you have reverted/corrected! I decided to take the time to award you a barnstar and send you this message to tell you that people like you who draw the line for vandalism are not forgotten. Thank you and everyone else who tirelessly works to make sure wikipedia is a safe and reliable place to get information from!

Posted on behalf of Manson35 (talk · contribs) due to being wrongly caught in the edit filter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi

I requested for help here after second revert. I feel some portion in their edit like "Gandhi made "illegal" changes to Indian constitution" needs to be sourced or clarified! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but as it was I who blocked the IP for edit warring, I have to be a bit careful about undoing their contributions. Words like "involved admin" are used quite often in such situations. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have 2 reverts there! (joking) Should I wait for 23 hours now and revert then? --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:3RR says "must not perform more than three reverts", though WP:WAR warns against pushing it. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

... the vandal from my talk page. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Any time! Rather strange vandal, that one. Favonian (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Bledel semi-protect

Thanks for the year on this; I expected only two weeks but definitely a year should help shoo away all the minor vandals who change the slightest things in the article. Nate • (chatter) 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. The article has quite a long protection log, including a recent one-year semi, so this seemed like the right decision. Favonian (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal life of Mehmed II

Recently I had a discussion with user:Surtsicna on the page of Mehmed the Conqueror. The dispute was about the sentence of Mehmed being attracted to both men and women, based on the source on the book of Franz Babinger (Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time), because the sentence presented it as if it was a fact. There was also criticism against this claim so I added that. (the claim is not accepted by Turkish and Ottoman historians).

So the sentence was changed to "Franz Babinger asserted that ...." It was discussed in the talk page [here]

After that you protected the page and the dispute was kind of solved. Now, today the protection expired and immediately an anonymous and constantly changing IP is changing the sentence into "Mehmed was attracted..." and is presenting it as if it is a fact and he is also deleting that Ottoman historians do not mention it. And also deleting the criticism from Turkish historians.

Please could you add a protect from anonymous IPs template? For me this seems the only solution to protect the page from anonymous IPs. Also he personally attacks me by claiming that I am a "Turkish nationalist". [here]

I also reported him here : [[2]]

Furthermore I am planning to expand the entire article with more information, but I am now reluctant because it seems that many anonymous IPs are free to delete everything they don't agree with. Only registered users should be able to edit on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Please consider WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the talk page. And stop reverting sourced content. It was discussed several times and is not meant for nationalist pov.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the behavior I am talking about can you please say something to this user not to accuse my personal user. He or she is trying to manipulate you by claiming these lies on my personal user. If I did this to someone I would be blocked. I am only using sources to improve Wikipedia against bias and racism and I already explained everything on the talk page.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This user is also lying I did not remove sourced material and this user also never discussed himself I discussed with Surtnica and I am only reverting it back to the version of Surtnica, this anonymous ip accuse me of being nationalist pov and deletes material which was discussed. This person is in fact vandalizing the page by reverting, ignoring discussions and making personal attacks.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

DragonTiger, it is YOU who manipulates Articles. You try to push your personal view and nationalistic, neo-ottoman POV by avoiding arguments. Stop it, please. The fact that you are a user does not change the fact that you try to push your turkish POV since years. You delete sourced content withour real explanation. Try to reach consensus first. Stop edit-warring against SEVERAL users and be NEUTRAL.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a serious contributor for years and then an anonymous IP can accuse me all the time without getting warned or blocked. Is this normal I am very dissapointed in Wikipedia Admins. Yes this person can lie very good does it make him right. Where or when did I ever try to do the things he claimed?DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Another inappropriate username

Hello Favonian! Thanks for your quick response in blocking that inappropriate user account which I had reported earlier. Can you also possibly block User:Fuckingbigbollocks as this is also the one I had reported but it was removed by Edgar181 along-with the other account that you have already blocked. I have left a note on Edgar's talk page regarding this for any clarification. Also do you know what needs to be done with User:Themarines ? As this account is a sockpuppet which was created by User:Fuckoffbitch (see [3]) who was just recently blocked after being reported. Regards. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have soft-blocked the FBB account. With no acts of vandalism committed, WP:AGF dictates that they should only be reprimanded mildly for bad taste. Regarding the marines, the same rationale applies, and they can edit using the inoffensive name, if they stay on the straight and narrow. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mehmed the Conqueror, encore

Hi. I don't know if you're up and about, but the tedious edit-war has resumed at Mehmed the Conqueror. Might another padlocking be in order, until talk-page consensus is reached? Haploidavey (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the article's now locked. Cheers. Sorry for the fallout below. Haploidavey (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, what a mess. Hope it's of comfort to some that the article has this time been locked in The Other Wrong Version. Probably a good thing that my (paying) job kept me away from Wikipedia during those critical hours. Temptation to use forceful measures might have been too great—or as Mehmed would have so eloquently put it: "Some heads are gonna roll, you know what I'm sayin?" Favonian (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would have been interesting. And colourful. Meanwhile the other wrong version is sitting comfortably; at least it's "eating no meat", as the saying goes. Or heads. Yet. Haploidavey (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Asante90

I was looking on a WP:NPOVN thread and saw this user for the first time. As I said there, his edits seem to be impossible to deal with and just wear out reasonable users out of frustration. I see little hope of a remedy here. Given that you commented on his talk page, I would suggest some type of curb to stop the rugby game. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have summoned what good faith I could muster, but if they go on, I'll block them. It will probably be yet another temporary block, but the whole thing may end up at the drama board. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and as they say A journey of a thousand miles.... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A much appreciated ray of poetry in this vale of tears. Favonian (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said... vale of tears... But it does have its lighter moments. A week or so ago some user typed in some really strange new ideas and after I said it was OR he said it was all original thought and he was contributing it "in the spirit of Wikileaks"... I think he actually thought Wikipedia has something to do with that... I did get a chuckle out of that one. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I remember that one. A Freudian slip, I suspect. Sadly, he seems to have been discouraged from further editing. Favonian (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your memory must be better than mine. I did not even remember which page it was... Just remembered his comment, and did not even remember you were on that page. History2007 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science (book)

Hi Flavonian, thanks for moving it. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Favour

Hallo Favonian
can you please have a look at the article about Rome? since a couple of days there is a guy - professional wedding photographer - who keep inserting in the article a beautiful picture of the Spanish steps at dawn. Unfortunately, just in the middle of the picture there is - guess what? - a couple of spouses. I reverted it, since I suspect that there is a little bit of self-promotion here (the name of the picture is Destination Wedding Photographer Italy). He reverted again, another user reverted it too, and so on. At the moment the picture is away, but the story could go on. Five minutes ago I looked at his contributions: in the last few days he has been inserting wedding pictures everywhere (in the wedding article too :-)) . Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I just came back and removed the picture from the Rome article where it definitely doesn't belong. If he persists, you should take him to WP:ANEW. Unfortunately, I don't have time to check all his contributions now, but it looks rather like a concerted attempt to promote his business. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside to this, I also became aware of an issue a few days ago and received edit summary abuse for reverting images added to Photographer. I have also left him a message about his user-page which is a straight advert for his photography business. It could probably do with some admin muscle to get him back on the right lines and not treat WP as a promotional vehicle for his business. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Favonian, you have been reverted. :-) Now I reverted a last time his addition and posted a warning on his talk page. After the next reversion, I will follow your suggestion. Alex2006 (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? I have little hope that this person will get the message, but that's what assorted noticeboards are there for. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

um excuse me. those are not my personal thoughts. they are from a biography about him. its true information. geez dude. chill — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyNeck (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

you totally rock!!!

FuzzyNeck (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about what i said earlier. i was just kinda sad that you think that i would ruin Wikipedia. i sent you a WikiLove to make up for it. SORRY :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyNeck (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think he said you would ruin Wikipedia from his message. He gave you a standard notification that your addition, because it was unreferenced appeared to be personal belief/feeling. It also made very little benefit to the article as a whole, as that concept appears within the article itself - although not necessarily in so many words (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! Favonian (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

RMs

Nice kitten above. Thanks for all your various admining works. I just noticed on old Talk:Andre Miele RM which you closed that my nomination inadvertently missed off the first accent from Júlio Góes which was there in source (I was evidently focussing on the surname). What's the best way to fix this? A technical move template? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ordinarily, I'd say yes, but looking at the recent revisions I predict that someone will go apeshit if the article is just moved without the full and predictable ritual. Favonian (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm understatement. Yes, my question made rather redundant by response to attempt to correct the lead according to preexisting source. Anyway Mr. Góes can wait, there are a zillion other BLP issues out there. Incidentally, unrelated, any input on suggestion for WP:BRD technical request wording under WT:RM#Talk:Neve Şalom Synagogue is very welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Dear Favonian, there are two editors at List of child prodigies who apparently do not understand that requests for page protection should be posted at WP:RPP, and remain indifferent to comments on their talk pages. I must say I'm finding their behaviour quite tedious, and I would therefore appreciate your intervention. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They(?) seem to have stopped now, following stern warnings. I'll keep an eye on the article and use the stick if this nonsense continues. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Now the IP has created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Magdy Kamal, which understandably failed to get approval. I'm inclined to break out the popcorn and see what happens next. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a giant hoax. The article claims that the guy is a chess Grandmaster, but he is not found at [4]. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No kidding! As a lapsed mathematician, I derive particular joy from the news that this chap finally cracked the Reimann (sic!) hypothesis. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

banned IP sockmaster Oldhouse2012

Hi, now using 222.178.10.252 Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Now 41.78.124.53. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've semi-protected the articles for a week. Favonian (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Favonian, it look that Peacemaker67 blindly revert articles. User:Account2013 added category "Serb communities in Vojvodina" in many articles (example: [5]) and Peacemaker67 tracked Account2013 removing this category from articles (example: [6]). Now IP 190.42.128.248 remove category "Serb communities in Vojvodina" from articles (example: [7]) and Peacemaker67 revert and move that category back (example: [8]). Behavior of Peacemaker67 is very problematic if he in same time remove and add same category to articles (example 1, example 2). 62.168.66.60 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in becoming involved in the content dispute, but you have been blocked for sockpuppetry, which means that you, as a person, are not allowed to edit. I you wish to return, you'll have to appeal from your original account. Your present approach will only reduce your chances of ever being allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, man, but this is problem: I have proxies and I can edit. Can we have reasonable talk and solve this problem somehow? If we don't solve it, me and Peacemaker67 will have constant revert war in many articles and we all will waste our free time to this and most articles about Serbia in Wikipedia will end locked. I am not vandal and I can have reasonable discussion with any administrator. I just ask that you examine behavior of this person and stop non-constructive approach of that person. I will not leave Wikipedia and that is not an option. Do you have any other proposal how we can solve this problem? 62.168.66.60 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't negotiate with trolls, and just your behavior here gets you classified as such. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who ... performed a tedious but needed admin task. (plural) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! One of these days, I'll have to write a script that does it. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Maria Redaelli-Granoli

Would you agree that Maria Redaelli-Granoli deserves her own page due to being the oldest living European? If the oldest living from the US (Elsie Thompson) deserved a page, why shouldn't Maria Redaelli-Granoli? As you were the last to edit and protect her page I presume it's best to seek your advice/permission.

Yours sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The article in question went through an AfD less than a year ago, and the result of the discussion was to replace the article with the current redirect. I'm not hugely impressed with the notability of the other mortality-challenged person, but it too got an AfD, and the consensus in that case was to keep the article. The rule in AfDs is that WP:OTHERSTUFF cannot be used as an argument, so there we are. At any rate, the redirect is only semi-protected, so there's no technical obstacle to you creating an article, and since the whole subject is quite far up the rodent's posterior, as far as I'm concerned, I won't be the one to haul it off to a second AfD. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Aqueduct (water supply)

I suppose I should keep a closer eye on the talk pages. I just spent a bit of time on a disambiguation project involving roughly 100 articles, converting aqueduct to aqueduct (watercourse) (where appropriate), to find that the page is (today) redirected to aqueduct (water supply). No worries. At least Roman aqueduct, aqueduct (bridge), and navigable aqueduct won't have to be changed. Cheers Gulbenk (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No reason to worry at all. WP:NOTBROKEN comes to your rescue. Thanks for disambiguating all those links! Favonian (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

March 1997 edit

Hello. Since you reverted my changes to the 1997 page citing the notorious B.I.G was already mentioned in deaths, how come you didn't remove the death of The President of Guyana, Cheddi Jagan, from March 6th since it was already placed in the death's section as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.210.20 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Because I can't correct everything that's not the way is should be in Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexander VI

just thought the content was inappropriate for the length of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.205.5 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably debatable, but let it be a reminder to include edit summaries in the future. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Java (programming language)

Not all of these are on Wikidata yet. Could you please add them before removing the interwiki links. —Ruud 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTCo

Could you tell me which ones? As far as I can tell, the Wikidata file lacked only the Assamese, Samugitian and Yue Chinese links, and those have now been added. Having a bit of trouble getting the system to accept Belarusian Classical Orthography, though. Favonian (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I can only quickly see how many there are (and there currently still are less on Wikidata than there were on Wikipedia.) See Wikipedia:Wikidata#Semi-automated migration of links for a useful tool (you'll probably need to, at least temporarily, revert your revert of my revert, though.) —Ruud 19:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think be-x-old is the culprit. Is that one still supported? —Ruud 19:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Should be, but I'm not the only one having trouble with that language: [9]. I'll try the temporary revert, all for science and progress. Favonian (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That really didn't work ("Save error: The external client site did not provide page information.") Now I've added be-x-old locally, and that seems to work. There's nothing like a good compromise. Favonian (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange. The script didn't work for me, but I could add the missing links by hand to Wikidata. All solved, I guess. —Ruud 20:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And you remembered Kyrgyz—how could I overlook that one ;) We'll chalk it up as a victory. Favonian (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:GeneralColton.png‎

Hi! I noticed that there was only one image in Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry; the image File:GeneralColton.png. This appears to have been associated with protecting General Joseph Colton. That protection has expired, and there does not seem to be an ongoing vandalism / sockpuppetry problem with that page now. Should the image be unprotected as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Done. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jr. Ed J. Jr.

Sorry about that! --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Things got a bit heated ;) Favonian (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia (Greece)

hi for what reason was our edit removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.12.99 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Edits such as this one are blatant vandalism. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Bohemian Crown Jewels.

I see you did the moving (as a result of the RM) at Bohemian Crown Jewels. An editor has started another move request back to previous title, and I’m not sure the procedure for dealing with that. Please take a look. RGloucester (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an amicable solution has been found, so all is well. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Altiche - a page you deleted

How was Aaron Altiche an attack page? It described a footballer who plays for a pro team (Global FC) in Masbate in the Philippines. Admittedly, it was an unsourced BLP, but given that the man plays for a pro team, I think WP:ATHLETE is met and sources could probably be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The second half of the article was "he is a frustrated singer, dancer and actor as well. His favorite foods are Hotdog and Cheesedog. He wears high heels before his game", which crosses the line to unfavorable BLP. Furthermore, the author was obviously acting in collusion with LuckieBaztard, who created an even worse G10 article, so they've been sent off. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Missed that part. I only got to read the first sentence, which seemed legit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

last edit

i merely undid the last revision. i would edit again and put reason, that should be fine then.... regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.153.221 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Twice you have attempted to remove a fairly large chunk of text, replacing it with a reference to blog which doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. You have been reverted by two different editors, so if you persist you run the risk of being blocked for edit warring. Instead, you should present your case on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL (Basshunter album)

Hello! This is fatal error. Name is LOL <(^^,)> and this have to be in LOL (^^,).--Basshuntersw (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus to enforce Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically MOS:TM, was very clear, so the current name is as it should be. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Chamar

Hi, I think it might be best if you could apply full protection to Chamar once again, as you did on 10 January. There are rows going on involving me and another that basically seem to revolve around a content dispute based on WP:OWN. A week might do it, although I wouldn't bank on it. Based on the idea that protection is not necessarily to the best version and bearing in mind my "involved" note to you here, feel free to revert my last edit prior to applying protection: I just reinstated a prose introduction that did not affect the content of the table generated by the other contributor. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected for a week. The wrong version was chosen based on the fairly random time at which I got out of bed. Favonian (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Meh

I wrote [10] before I saw what they posted on DB's page. Sorry... I hoped it was a salvageable case. Oh well, worth a try. Can't win 'em all; good block. 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to be sorry! Good to see that there are still people around with your attitude. Favonian (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr Gopal Kundu

Hello Favonian, The reason why I am removing the Plagiarism controversy from Dr.Gopal Kundu's page is because it is fake and charges against him are droped. Clearly it is affecting his public reputation due to such false information on wikipedia. Please remove that section from his page.

Thanks & regards, Shrikant (Representative of Dr.Gopal Kundu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.197.160.4 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The material in question appears well-sourced, so unless you can provide reliable sources for your claim, the paragraphs should remain in the article. Furtheremore, in view of your affiliation with the subject of the article, I also need to remind you about Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflict of interest. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalising my talk

Thanks for the block. Of course I know that blatant vandalism is an exception to WP:INVOLVED, but I'm loth to block anyone who vandalises my userspace, since I don't want to lay myself open to someone saying "You were unduly harsh because it was your userspace they vandalised". Another IP came along afterward, and I happily blocked it for the same time that you blocked the first one, since I could tell any complainers that I was just following your course of action. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I rather doubt anyone would have complained about involvement, considering the trollishness of your opponent, but at the Drama Board one never knows. Incidentally, the whole range of IPs had already been blocked for 24 hours by Rschen7754. Favonian (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Awareness Center

Thanks for bringing the article back into compliance. If you look through the talk page and the article edit history, you'll see that I have had a long involvement with this page, going back to about 2007 or 2008. The recent editors look a lot like other partisans who have tried to re-shape the page before. WP:DUCK almost certainly applies. I'm not eager to re-engage. At a minimum, I suggest some admins put this on their watch lists. Page protection might be an option to consider, too. I'm going to recuse myself. This is the last edit I will ever make about the subject, on any page, unless invited by an admin. Even then, I'll endeavor to limit myself to answering questions about history. I really would prefer not to re-engage. David in DC (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Something is definitely going on. Do you have an opinion on the most recent edits? Look fairly innocuous, but I'm obviously less familiar with the subject than you. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Favonian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

David in DC (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Chilean People

In Chile, according to the sources of the article itself, there are two major ethnic groups the Spanish and mestizo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.139.236 (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You misquoted sources and removed a whole section of sourced material. At any rate, two editors have now contested your edits, so according to WP:BRD your next step is to propose and discuss the changes on article talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Rocky Dennis

Thanks, my edit was a mistake. =//= Johnny Squeaky 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) Favonian (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rolan socks

Have you noticed this user? Added same material to University and College Union as User:Rollie wet bed. PamD 13:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Have now. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ip's

I've seen you've protected both mine and your talk page due to vandalism from multiple ip addresses. We need to watch this as there is potentially another user or someone outside wiki who has the capability to change their ip adress at will. We should watch these in th next few days, I'm taking a not of them all if it comes to a sockpuppet case. Looking at the Whois, the IPs are from all over the shop. Using some type of good proxy or something. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been a dozen or more IP socks of this creep, so semi-protection is being applied with abandon. They are definitely proxies, and we have people who are savvy in the art of dealing with such, though regrettably I'm not one of them. Favonian (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nasty people/person. One thing which us for sure is that they don't like their edits being reverted Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good ol' Special Cases

I suspect indefinitely blocked user Special Cases is back as Dr. Cases. Is it sufficient to just mention it to you, or should I file a report somewhere? —mjb (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's not Special Cases then it's certainly a troll trying to imitate him. Either way it's cause for a block, and Peter the Cuban drug dealer went the same way. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Samsung Electronics

Thanks for your help on the Samsung Electronics page. Can you take a look at the activities of 220.132.192.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which looks like a sock of the already-blocked accounts that have been editing the article? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the same person alright, and I have in fact already tagged it as an IP sock. Probably not much point in blocking it, as the user has most likely moved on to a different one. At any rate, they'll have to wait two weeks before resuming their vendetta against Samsun Electronics. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, thanks again. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

just checking in

Over 50 now, you have popped 24 (this will make 25). See you around, maybe another note at 75? Good luck. And don't forget a pithy remark.It's Plutonese (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 902

I apologize for not giving an edit summary. I'm new at this and didn't realize it would result in all my changes being erased. I actually have to edit the page for my final exam grade in my editing class. If there is a problem in the future, please do me a favor and notify me before going in and erasing everything. This is for my final grade, and it's due on Thursday. Thank you. Mjelledge (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Though we appreciate the efforts of constructive editors, Wikipedia is not meant to be platform for doing school homework, so you will have to comply with our policies and guidelines! Favonian (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem, my professor said you're more than welcome to take it up with her. aengland@lander.edu.Mjelledge (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, you are responsible for your own actions. Please direct your professor's attention to Wikipedia:School and university projects. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hallo Favonian,
there is a problem about the istanbul article. There is discussion ongoing about the edits of a fellow Wikipedian , who refuses to wait the end of the discussion on the talk page and keep reverting to his version, although I explained that BRD does not mean BRD(R**N) :-). Can you please have a look at it? thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alessandro.

At present, it must be classified as a (heated) content dispute where both parties have reached, but not crossed, the bright 3RR line. I am therefore reluctant to intervene, but this could change if the conflict escalates—assuming it happens while I'm not off trying to earn a living. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why remove bindb.com from References from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers

Hi, why remove bindb from References from List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers?

Information is useful and many peoples use bindb search to add IINs to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.55.23 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit which has been attempted repeatedly and removed again by several editors. It makes a rather extravagant claim, completely without any reliable sources to back it, which leaves the reader with the impression that it's nothing but link spam. Please stop trying to add it. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, our software is used by hundred of peoples and companies. If you track data changes on List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers, you can see that data i added exactly that is from our search. If you already seen our website you can find a list of trusted companies that use our offline or online web software or may contact them for proof... and software like "Mars Banks Base Version 1.1" is very outdated it it is not spam? All external helpful links are spam?

Our data is 100% true, no generated like other websites and I can't find a reason why we can't help to people to fight again fraud and charge-backs (so that makes Wikipedia if this not a mistake - to help people)

Category:Recipients of the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade

Category:Recipients of the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

German Brazilians

5% of Brazilians are full descendants, but at least twice has German origins.

http://www.dw.de/brasil-alem%C3%A3o-comemora-180-anos/a-1274817

"Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão. Parece muito, mas é pouco, se comparado aos 43 milhões de norte-americanos (15,2% da população dos EUA) que dizem ter pelo menos um ascendente germânico, formando o maior grupo étnico do país. "No Brasil, esses números são bem menores, mas sem a sua contribuição é impossível entender a história, cultura e identidade brasileira", conclui"

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuser777 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

IPs at neo soul article

Hi. Since you're one of the editors who reverted one of those IPs at neo soul, I was wondering if you could offer some advice. The person who keeps using different IPs to introduce the same OR-trash to the article is not offering anyway of communicating, apart from poorly thought out edit summaries. How should I handle this, apart from just reverting this person under whichever new IP account they use in the future? Dan56 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted once again with more detailed (and polite) recommendations. If that doesn't work, we need to consider upgrading the protection to semi. Favonian (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, they have provided a reference to Rolling Stone which appears to meet the requirements, so I have accepted the change. Favonian (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello - Strange problem

Hello,

I saw that you had contact with User:Ljuboni. There is a strange problem with this user(again at the Vlachs of Serbia article), if you have the time and will please take a look at this [11]. Also I am confused after this [[12] and not participating in the ANI discussion if already active thread exists. If you could help clarify this problem. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like enough admins have already commented on this issue. Favonian (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Long-period variable

Hello - just to be clear, was your determination at the RM that there was a consensus not to move, or that there was no consensus, and therefore not a move? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a clear consensus not to move so, with reference to your !vote, there is no reason move the article back to Long period variable. Favonian (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - just wanted to make sure. Dohn joe (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia polices :?

Favonian >> i would like to know how come under the rules set out by wikipedia that "an article must be based upon factual information and link to appropriate referenced sites for verification. however what i am confused about is seeing other users submit information and being told its not 'verifiable' and dose not apply to the rules of wiki. but then having seen yourself along with others brake those rules by submitted/editing information that dose not reflect whats clearly within those references. eg. missing out key details or name abbreviations or position tittles or removing information from an article that's clearly referenced and been verified.

i understand copying of a reference is not permitted due to copywrite however leaving out details about a person or factual information of events is confusing specially if they are acceptable to the rules. it just seems the BIG boys here eg. Administrators and moderators automatically block anyone they dont like pointing out theres an issue with their information.

an email in regards to this matter has been sent to Wikipedia email (today 28.4.13). i am not sure if it goes to administrators but it involves a page that is misleading, has intellectual property violations and the issue at hand is clearly not verifiable via its references. a simple kind correction would fix this issue however if not fixed legal action is defendant.

as this is public "talk" we/i have not submitted information contained within 'the email' sent to wikipedia as refered to above due to legal reasons.

as your an administrator with respects to you on that i wanted to speak to you about it first.

KentAnsel (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

For an introduction to Wikipedia, in particular regarding who decides what, please see Wikipedia:Five pillars. You have now been blocked as an obvious sock puppet of ACE1234. If you want to be allowed to edit again, you'll have to request unblocking from your original account, but you will have to convince the reviewing admin that you will stop your attempts to replace an existing article with your autobiography and especially to desist from making legal threats. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Enrico Fermi to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Enrico Fermi, which has recently become a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Dilek2

They're clearly editing around the block again.[13] Edward321 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The range block expired, but has now been renewed. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Favonian could you tell me why you suppressed the data on the user page here? On Wikiquote we are discussing a similar situation, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the account, but as I don't have oversight privileges, the suppression wasn't done by me. Can't for the life of me remember if I revdel'ed it, and suppression would have removed the record of that. If I do remember correctly, it looked like a case of a minor revealing too much about himself—unless of course it's one of our habitual trolls. Favonian (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Arin Hansen

Hello, I tried to create an article for this person because it was on the requested article page (under Egoraptor) and it was speedily deleted because it was previously speedily deleted. I consider him a notable person in the YouTube community and there are outside references (interviews that have been conducted with him). Is it possible to have the article reposted so that I may finish editing it and describing why he is notable? Thank you. Ickygricky (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The latest speedy deletion was due to the article having previously been deleted through the articles for deletion process—not because of previous speedy deletion. For added good measure, there was a deletion review which endorsed the decision. The recent version added nothing to the claim of notability, so the deletion was quite in order and I see no cause for undeletion. Favonian (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked users coming "AGAIN & AGAIN " with another accounts

Hi Favonian >>

Administrators of wiki (including you) have blocked the users Hhsts, Shree Kashi Math Samsthan,Kashimathorg and Kashimathvarnasi, Dharmaguru & Shree Kashi Math Samsthan.....

But it seems that the same user is coming with a new account Kashimath justice....

Also pls go through his above comments.. He is abusing and insulting me by his comments "The user Granuator is fake Swami follower".... Where his intention is clear that he again wants disruptive editing and vandalism..

Granuator (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine Mr.Granuator, Can you please go through www.kashimath.org (The Official Website of Kashimath) Update the Wikipedia Page as per the details in that site. It is called Justice. Rather than putting some outdated information. Wikipedia is open for Edit by Anyone. How many Times I have updated the New Information about Kashimath. All the time, u did "undo" even without discussing me.

Kashimath justice (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi..Kashimath justice >>

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging.

Also in order to edit an article with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy, i need not to discuss to any one.. beacause if my edits are found wrong Administrators of wiki will revert it or undo it...

Also please follow wikipedia guidelines on discussion on user talk page...

Granuator (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Favonian >>

Administrators of wiki (including you) have blocked the users Hhsts, Shree Kashi Math Samsthan,Kashimathorg and Kashimathvarnasi, Dharmaguru & Shree Kashi Math Samsthan.....

But it seems that the same user is coming with a new account Kashimath justice....

Also pls go through his above comments.. He is abusing and insulting me by his comments "The user Granuator is fake Swami follower".... Also he is calling me as "Anti social element"... From all above his intention is clear that he again wants disruptive editing and vandalism..

Granuator (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yellow

Surely I must have been jesting or just simply mucked up [14]. Sorry about that.--Theda 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I've been there and done that as well. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Arin Hanson2

Hi, I really have not gotten involved in the wikipedia article making process before, and I would like to make a case for the creation of an Arin "Egoraptor" Hanson article, and I could not find a good place to do so. So if anyone would redirect me to a place where I can make my case, please do so, and I'll make my case there instead. I apologize if this is the wrong place. So having said that:

Arin Hanson certainly meets the requirement of 'cult celebrity'. He clearly has a dedicated fan base, one that repeatedly tries to make him a wikipedia page, at the very least. How many modern, currently active cartoonists have been popular enough to even have a fan base? That fan base is clearly large, making him the most popular artist on Newgrounds.com and give him over 1,000,000 subscribers on YouTube. He has created not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 successful web series on his own: The Awesome Series, Girlchan in Paradise, Sequelitis, and Lemon n' Bill. Each web series has collected over 1 million on its own. In fact, a majority of the series has made well over, to add up to a total of 163,404,275 views. All of these numbers, by the way, only include his YouTube account. The number grows much larger if you take a look at his NewGrounds account, where again he is the most favorited artist on the site.

All of these numbers also fail to factor in his most popular web series, which he hosts with comedian Jon 'Jontron' Jafari. This show is Game Grumps and it-on its own- has received 175,587,464 views. Of course the beauty of all this is by the time you read this, the number will have grown. How fervent is the Game Grumps fanbase, you may ask? They have created a sub-reddit dedicated to the show, and hundreds of fan made videos dedicated to the show. I'll leave a two links, one searching for animated Game Grumps videos and the other for remixes of their work. I'll leave it to you, person deciding credibility, to sift through the pages and pages of works that make up a fraction of the videos created by cartoonists around the world dedicated to the Game Grumps: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=game+grumps+remix and http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=game+grumps+animated. And of course, Arin himself has fan videos as well. One particular video entitled 'Egorapture' has been viewed 2,606,838 times and was featured on the front page on Newgrounds. That video was a fan made dedication to Arin Hanson. Game Grumps itself has its own fan wiki, too. He has also had success as a voice actor, voicing the protagonist in the Minigore video game series.

In summary, Arin Hanson is a celebrated and popular cartoonist and voice actor. He has a dedicated fan base reaching over 1 million, has created and worked on 5 very successful web series, with millions of views. He has considerable pull on the video game industry, with a near rabidness of fandom revolving around his opinions on video games, especially in his Sequelitis web series, which I have heard referenced and quoted in huge numbers, and even by other popular web series hosts, such as the 'The Best Friends' from machinima.com. His fan base was popular enough to have have him voted on to Sony's game show The Tester. He has hosted numerous panels and interviews in many popular video game conventions such as Magfest and Shadowcon. Finally, I'll finish this up with a few more facts and figures. He has created 49 videos with over a million views on YouTube alone. Including Game Grumps that number rises to 56 videos with over a million views. So, when you look at Arin Hanson's presence, don't look at him as an 'Internet Celebrity' because honestly, that's pretty dumb. Instead, consider the numerous projects and successful creations he has been a part of, on and off the internet. I understand that you do not want every guy with a camera to have his own wikipedia page. But do not limit Arin Hanson based on the medium on which he releases his works. Look at him instead on the notability he has reached with his endeavors. Consider a fan base so enamored with a man, that they would spend their entire morning creating a case for him. Judge Arin Hanson not as his popularity 'only being on the internet' but instead on the merit of being among the most popular and prolific modern cartoonists and voices in the video game industry. Then, when you finish, tell me that the man does not have enough credibility to be in this online encyclopedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.220.7 (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Very eloquent, but I have to agree with the outcome of the AfD from only two months ago: Hanson's internet fame doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)