Jump to content

User talk:Favonian/Archive 6

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

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Moweaqua

Only88keys (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Hey I got a bone to pick with u. I made a post on the article about Moweaqua, Illinois. You reversed it. I freakin live in Moweaqua. I know what the restaurant is called. I even gave you the freakin history of the building and why your article is wrong. I'm sittin here in Study hall next to the nephew of the lady that owns the restaurant. FILMING FOR THE INFORMANT TOOK PLACE AT "THE HOG TROUGH TOO," NOT "THE HOG TROUGH!!!!"

Thank you. I'm done now.

CHANGE THE ARTICLE!!

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, you are not a published reliable source. --King Öomie 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Nor for that matter what I would call a civil editor. Mind your language or you will be at best ignored, at worst blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Only88keys (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Here's whats gonna happen. I'm pulling out a piece of paper right now. I'm going to the "Hog Trough Too" and I'm going to get IN WRITING that the name of the restaurant is what I just said and not what the stupid article says. Jerk.

I reviewed the edit history and assuming that you are 12.23.104.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) it seems most of your edits involved more than just the name of some restaurant. For instance, this series involves a long (unsourced) story about who frequents the place plus an (unsourced) update of the high school enrollment from 300 to 301. I reverted this, as well as other, similar ones using the edit summary "not notable", which frankly it isn't. So in the future, stick to notable and sourced information—and provide edit summaries. Thank you! Favonian (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


I agree with Only88keys. It's the Hog Trough Too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.224.30 (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

How it not be neutral? Land be occupy by israel but not part of israel. Even israel admit this. How this not be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ani medjool (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to this you used the word "illegally", at that's not so very neutral. Favonian (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Accord to this http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5EDA05102FDE89548525757C00655B20 by united nation, under humanitary section, it be illegal occupation, that why i include. still be pov, israel flag not belong because land not part of israel. Ani medjool (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:J4V4

Hi there; I just wanted to let you know I made a mistake in reverting User:J4V4's blanking of his/her talk page due to my misreading of WP:BLANKING. I notice you also reverted them, so I wanted to make sure there was not an additional reason outside of that guideline. If there is, please let me know! -kotra (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes two of us on the mistaking team ;) On the other hand, I noticed that he managed to get "his" article on Aluminium borohydride deleted as a G7. Forgetting AGF for the moment, I can't help wondering if he is planning to recreate it with American spelling. Favonian (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Since he created it with the American spelling originally, and it was promptly (and justifiably) moved to the British spelling by two separate editors, I don't see what he would have to gain by trying that again. I think it's probably more likely that he would just prefer the article not exist than it use the "wrong" name... but it's probably not useful to speculate on the "why" (kotra says hypocritically). -kotra (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You are probably right. At least he hasn't tried it yet. Let peace reign, and the world can do without an article on this particular compound. Favonian (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Or, if it can't, someone else is welcome to create it at their leisure! Happy editing. -kotra (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It has returned. Would be kind of interesting to know who requested its resurrection. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Shoy, it seems. -kotra (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

help

i want have a page Pizdarije and i want to make a english version of it but i dont know how. can u help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzindzer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly I see no reason to attempt creating an article on something that would be classified as a non-notable website. Have a look at these guidelines. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Smit

Thank you very much! Rembertbiemond (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Have you had a look at the naming issue on Talk:Jörgen Smit? Favonian (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and gave my 5 ct of thoughts on the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembertbiemond (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a footnote about the skandinavian ø in the Smit article. Best Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay

I didn't mean to do that its not my falut that u idoits dont understand about characters and keep lieing, but hey its not my fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioToonlink7777 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't give you the right to vandalize someones userpage now does it? Momo san Gespräch 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Burfellshyrna

I added a non-Wikipedia source.

http://tierra.meteored.com/earth_Burfellshyrna_2632375_IS_ing.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerkeys (talk • contribs) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yongle Emperor

Thanks - we have a very persistent block evader. For a while I thought there was a language problem, but he posted through an IP address to my talk page this am 'Please stop', then opened a new account and carried on -- I keep asking him to discuss his unblock and agree to work with other editors, but no response except more block evasion. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The IP editor certainly was prolific during his brief career. Favonian (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Devin Griffin

HELLO, WHY WAS MY COMMENT ABOUT DEVIN GRIFFIN DISRUPTIVE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazza 1993 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It violates Wikipedia's rules regarding neutral point of view and appears to be part of a series of utterly useless contributions from your hand. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Friendly request: Sociology reviewer

Hey there. The sociology article has been greatly improved over the past few months and we are looking for reviewers! It isn't of featured status, but I certainly think it deserves higher than its current B rating, ie. GA status. Please be a reviewer, or lend further advice! --Tomsega (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East

Dear Favonian, Could I please enlist your help, should it become necessary, in an absurd edit war over the phrasing of a sentence of mine in the article Assyrian Church of the East. The issue is whether Christianity in India was founded by Saint Thomas. I, being a careful writer, have used the verb 'claim', as most serious scholars in the West treat the Thomas tradition as a legend. Some foaming fundamentalist with a history of bad faith edits has twice edited this hedge to a bald statement that Indian Christianity was founded by Saint Thomas. I have now reverted his edit for the third time, but have also suggested the tactful formulation 'the Christians of southern India, who trace the origin of their church back to the apostle Thomas', since he seems incapable of understanding the crucial distinction between a claim and a statement of fact. The background, with references to recent scholarship on the subject, is on the discussion page for that article. I would hate to see Wikipedia become a forum for the uncritical retailing of religious legends, so anything you can do to uphold the scholarly values of the Enlightenment in this case would be greatly appreciated. Sadly, superstition seems to be coming back into fashion.

Djwilms (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Djwilms; I have added the article to my watch list and will be keeping an eye on it. If a full-scale edit war erupts, we may have to involve administrators though. I have looked through this zealot's other contributions, and he certainly appears immune to what we would normally consider scholarly reasoning. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged. As I have discovered during the year-and-a-half I have been contributing to Wikipedia, constant vigilance is needed against the baleful forces of obscurantism. There's much to be said for the traditional top-down approach of Encyclopedia Britannica, where articles are written by people with a scholarly training who know what they're talking about. Sorry, what am I thinking about? That was heresy: I apologize.
Djwilms (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No reason to apologize to me! I'm at least as pessimistic as you. In addition to the obscurantists we also have morons galore and people, who are just plain malicious. Yesterday I stumbled across this guy, whose specialty seems to be changing numbers or years in random articles by just a decade or so—hardly noticeable, but systematically wrong. Favonian (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


The great thing about Wikipedia is that truth-seekers greatly outnumber morons, and the watchlist system enables the good guys to keep the forces of evil and chaos at bay. It's a rather comforting thought, really. Edit Wikipedia, and strike a blow in the eternal conflict between light and darkness, truth and the lie. Very Manichean.
I used to work as an administrator in the Hong Kong government in those far-off days of British colonialism, and I remember being struck by the way in which departments calculated how many staff they would need to enforce a new law. Basically, they assumed a non-compliance rate of about 5%. In other words, 95% of us are likely to be law-abiding citizens, and only 5% spoilers. Again, a comforting thought.
For the time being I'm going to let my one-man crusade against Saint Thomas drop, as the zealots have come up with a formula which I can (reluctantly) accept. I'm going to channel my energies instead into demolishing Thomas in my forthcoming book on the Nestorians, so that when I return to the charge in 2011 I can quote myself as an authority. Outflank the opposition, that's the best way.
Djwilms (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Nice patrolling, Fanovian. You are clearly very wikipedia dedicated. This may be a compliment to you or an insult, depending on how you view this hobby of yours. Jonny4026 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I take it as a compliment. Your contributions, on the other hand, cannot be assessed ambiguously. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the "s" I added on the end of "warning" which you have removed twice. In the name of English grammar, stop, you maniac! Jonny4026 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How the user chooses to spell words on her user page is none of your concern. Leave it alone! Favonian (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
...and now Jonny4026 is indef blocked. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Felt silly for even answering this little troll. Favonian (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You looked silly too. Paulmchisback (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ad Hominem attacks, Ad Hominem attacks, I like attacking Ad Hominem. I don't really know what it means, but I like it anyway. La la la la la... Paulmchisback (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel I'm being ignored. This is damaging my self-esteem. I hope you're happy. Paulmchisback (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I truly, truly hope* that the indef block he just got didn't further damage his self-esteem. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 14:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC) * = Not actually true. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 14:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It would indeed be too sad to even contemplate. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Only88keys (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC) It kind of upsets me that you pride yourself with being a great Wikipedia editor but here you are making fun of some random guy that was trying to make a contribution. This is aside from the contributions I made, which were stupid, but the way it looks this guy was making positive input. I used to have a lot of respect for you, Favonian

Now I'm a bit confused. Are you "you", or the alliterative "pen pal from Prague" mentioned in this entry, which disappeared shortly afterwards? At any rate, referring to the above editor(s) as providing "positive input" seems a bit odd. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Disregard. Blocked as both a sock and a compromised account. The former obviously and the latter by admission. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
My goodness, I feel quite surrounded. Thanks for another one then. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is going to get a whole lot more boring for us two before the chap in question finds himself a nice jigsaw or perhaps a magazine with more pictures than words and stops. Still, we'll let him have his fun as, ultimately, we can block him quickly and he... well, he will go and do something more productive with his free hand, eventually. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I, an impartial observer, feel horrified with the way you have treated these innocent Wikipedians. Please, cease your campaign of hatred! Jonny4027 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2005 Kashmir earthquake

If wikipedia got it wrong and you corect it and they change it back to its wrong form (it makes me SO mad) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj.robin (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about your recent edit like this one. Furthermore, I guess you are complaining about the conversion between US Dollars and Pakistani Rupees—apparently a difference of some 3%. It would help considerably if 1) you documented the purpose of your edits in the edit summary, 2) did not at the same time change the name of the included image map to one that does not exist, and 3) when your edit has been reverted once, you write the reverting editor politely instead of repeating the edit twice and then yell at the editor. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious about adding links...

Hello - I added some manufacturer links to the PADLOCK definition page, and you informed me that it was against policy. I understand why for the most part. But when is it OK to link to a manuafacturer? What if, say, the page was MASTER LOCKS. Would it then be OK to add a link to their website so people can learn more? Or would this still be a no-no? Any info would ge treat, as I don't want to make the Big Wikis mad!  :-) JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by NellsWiki (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all: thanks for the promotion, but I'm merely a small-to-medium Wiki, or more to the point: not an administrator. Linking to commercial sites is best not done if it can in any way be interpreted as an advertisement. If an article about locks links to a manufacturer, it can easily appear to be an endorsement. Of course, an article about a company may have a link to the company's website, at least if we can avoid having it wrapped in marketing prose. It will be easy to find examples in Wikipedia of these rules being broken, but we are only a thin gray line of officious editors fighting the forces of commercialism. Favonian (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

you beat me!

Thats why I "warned" you. lol, sorry A8UDI 15:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No problemo—my pulse is almost back to normal. Just glad I still have it in me. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

reverting for vandalism

Perhaps this edit deserves another look. While you probably made a good edit undoing a disruptive editor, I don't think it was WP:VAN. WP:TEND probably, but not not WP:VAN. No? Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done as you suggested and reverted myself. The decision to do so is based mostly on my profound ignorance of the music genres mentioned. Assuming good faith in the editor in question is, however, a bit difficult. The concrete edit was a repeat of one undone a short while earlier, which for added good measure was in defiance of a comment in the article saying specifically that the list of genres should not be modified without discussion on the talk page. The editor has meanwhile been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. But to return to the original revert, I shall strive henceforward to base the use of this potent mechanism on factual evidence rather than be caught up in the mass psychosis of vandal hunting. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Glad you didn't stick with your original message. That would quite have ruined my day :) Favonian (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot kill me, Saruman.

I am now Gandalf the mauve. Jonny4027 (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! As vandals go, this guy is really a waste of time and space. Favonian (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for cleaning up my talk page. Two of them, User talk:Lotaketchup and User talk:Jamie Wittis started gossip/talk pages together, but there's an interesting contrast in their reactions to having them deleted. We might get one editor out of it! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! This raises an important question: If Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were to edit Wikipedia, would they be accused of sockpuppetry? Favonian (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat Red Star

Repeat Red Star

Congratulations, Favonian! The first nine Red Stars of each cycle will consist of repeats from the previous cycle. The repeats will be users who did not receive the Orange Star. It's my pleasure to give you another shot at receiving the Orange Star today, on December 17, 2009! Keep up the great work! A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan the vanilla twilight 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


User:Moplord359 Is Offended

I did nothing wrong! I beleive you are confusing me with Moplord459! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moplord359 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? In this edit you blank another editor's user page page with a declaration of war as edit summary. That counts as vandalism. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bradjamesbrown

I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by me~

Diamondexpert

hi favonian

thanks for attention , i need help really if we can re instate the article i can fix it within one week time ,but i try to re-write it in my computer again its hard since i think each time , they will do the same deletions , so can you reinstate the article mohammed abugoush and give me one week to finish it then if its ok we keep going if not then i will drop the project ...--Diamondexpert 15:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)diamondexpert--Diamondexpert 15:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)--Diamondexpert 15:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs)

Apparently this article has been deleted numerous times, both speedily and as a result of an AfD procedure. To convince anyone that the article merits inclusion you should probably create it in "user space", for instance as User:Diamondexpert/Mohammed Sami Abugoush, and then, when you think it's ready for publication, send a message to one of the deleting admins to have him/her review it. Don't forget to include reliable sources documenting the notability of the subject! Favonian (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I now see that JohnCD has replied to a similar message on your talk page. I recommend that you heed his advice. Favonian (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks i will do your advice but in the main time wait for johnCD response too. diamondexpert--Diamondexpert 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs)

Mitchell Mann

Hi. Thanks for tagging, but I declined the speedy request, as it contains a notability assertion. You could try AfD? --Dweller (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Didn't bother to check what this "Pot Black" was, but I guess it passes for a major event in that game, so I'll let the article survive. Favonian (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mezzetta

Thank you for your help. Jim Heaphy (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Any time :) Favonian (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Googol

The Googol page was deleted because 2 dumbos tried to curse and remove the content --99.187.186.76 (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And a Merry Xmas to you too, Vandal. Favonian (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  5° 47' 15" NET   00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi, Can you please rmeove the images on Hasan bin Ali (RA) and Husayn bin Ali (RA) as: 1) The source does not exist 2) The source is not a valid book or historical source 3) Its offensive to the sentiments to a large number of people.

Thank you, Hope you'll understand. speedbooster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedbooster (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many, many times on the talk pages of Ali, etc. The consensus is to keep the images. As for the last of your arguments, please be advised that Wikipedia is not censored. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


You cannot consider everything from just one point of view. You have to consider the point of view of those to whom the title belongs. You can put depictions of the Holy Prophet Jesus. It would still be disturbing to Muslims, but because he belongs more to Christians, they can do whatever they please with their prophet. So, you must take into confidence the group or nation to whom the title belongs. Or atleast, consider the sentiments and point of view of the particular nation.

Thats all im saying, speedbooster! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedbooster (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The JPS...

...Will not get away with it!!!! 86.178.134.37 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So long, Vandal! Favonian (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone has been keeping you busy - glad it was you with the last laugh !!! Codf1977 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Just another day in the trenches. We survive on the difference in time between performing an undo and a rollback. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

England football

Oh, sorry. I must have tried to revert the same thing you did. I noticed it on Huggle but I was trying to get the last clean copy. Sorry! Don't know why we didn't e/c though...  fetchcomms☛ 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The edit conflict came later, when both another editor and I tried to re-revert. Favonian (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

fatima page

dear brother hi i think you are an ahle sunnat muslem. aren,t you? where do you study about fatimah and ali arguements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moradiali (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My religion is irrelevant. The problem is that you remove a section with references and offer only your own knowledge of Fatimah and Ali as explanation. If you wish to pursue this matter further, you should do it at the talk page. Favonian (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh

He was an innocent victim of the Chinese "justice" system. The hearing"trial" only lasted 30 minutes, and Shaikh wasn't allowed to present any evidence in his defense. Furthermore, the Chinese government didn't just claim that Shaikh wasn't mentally ill, they refused to even have him examined! Therefore, it's clear that the Chinese court system is one big joke and that therefore, due to China's human rights abuses, the PRC doesn't even deserve to be recognized as a legitimate country. --75.13.226.103 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your personal comments and analyses should be published elsewhere. Favonian (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your revert

I told people not to revert it for a reason, i did not want any rude comments on my review page. And it dosent matter if i dont own the page, that particular page is under my name also, so i should have the right to make any changes to it if i want to. Im sure you'd do the same if someone was making rude comments about you. So dont waist your time trying to revert it. Happy Editing,--GeneralCheese 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You have asked for comments, so you get them. As they cannot be considered vandalism, you must leave them in place. If you remove them, it will constitute vandalism. Favonian (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: The General

No problem. I don't have a problem with your actions, but GeneralCheese does appear to be new, so take it a little easy, maybe with more explanations.  IShadowed  ✰  01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do. In fact, I'll go to bed and sleep on it :) Favonian (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bdt1

why do you want to sabotage a legit page--Bdt1 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Be a little careful with your use of that word. I am not sabotaging anything, merely nominating an article for deletion because I question the notability of the person. Furthermore, I have reverted a couple of your edits which are downright disruptive. Removing another editor's comments from AfD is very serious. Lately, in this edit you modify the user's comments by introducing a spelling error. If I were you, I would undo that very quickly! I have not reported it as vandalism, simply because it's too ridiculous. Favonian (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have posted to Bdt1's talk page about some copyright concerns I have about pictures he has uploaded for his Tony Di Carlo article (File:Dcmodel.png & File:Tdcfword.png), but with no response - can you have a look and see what you think. Codf1977 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you're absolutely right. In fact all three images by this author at Commons look like screen shots, which are against the rules. Let's give him a chance to respond before we nominate them for deletion. The editor has not been active today, but I'll keep my eyes peeled. Happy New Year! Favonian (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - Happy New Year to you to ! Codf1977 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blace

I was thinking about this (Blace). Just find out that already exists. I wanted to revert it, as you did... :) All best, Tadija (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Does this mean that I can remove the reference to this name from the article? I'm always a bit weary of such potentially explosive issues :/ Favonian (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No need, in Serbian it is called and written Blace also. I will just place not to be confused info... Happy New Year. :) --Tadija (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Same to you! Favonian (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_6&oldid=1221626751"