Jump to content

User talk:Favonian/Archive 17

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

Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

64.206.54.130 and 79.71.84.17

Please kill. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The first one has edited once (admittedly an act of vandalism), several weeks after their block expired. The second one has no previous record and stopped editing when a level 3 warning had been given. You really must try to restrain your blood thirst ;) Favonian (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been watching The Walking Dead (TV series). Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That explains—a lot! I, on the other hand, was watching Miss Marple. So much more conducive to AGF, consensus and policy. Favonian (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Argh! A lethal pun. Have you been taking lessons from Bugs? Favonian (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hell no. He's been learning from me. HalfShadow 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Proper attribution—an essential feature of Wikipedia. On this sobering note, I'm off to bed. Favonian (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing!

afd's have never been a strong suit. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Joeman360

You might consider changes it to a block where he cannot edit his talk page too.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent idea; so good in fact that Jpgordon already implemented it ;) Favonian (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Autoblocks

I've no idea why that didn't work for you to be honest. I just did the far more rudimentary "Ctrl+F" for "Meth..." on Special:BlockList and found it that way. Always seems to work for me...! Woody (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'll add that low-tech, but effective, tool to my collection :) Thanks a lot! Favonian (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

the May 21, 2011 page

Please don't delete the changes made to May 21. by doing that ur violating a persons 1st amendment right to free speech (includes writted). plus you have no right to delete a persons beliefs if people believe it doesn't mean it's real just means it's possible or not, so please don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.168.33 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:First Amendment and the guidelines for inclusion of entries in date-related article at WP:DOY. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"Ur?" "Writted"? Oh, where to start... HalfShadow 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do Americans think that their constitution and laws apply to the whole world? Just because most of Wikimedia's servers are located in the good old US of A does not stop Wikipedia from being an International project.86.149.12.117 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please tell me how to add references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniarulez (talk • contribs) 09:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's explained in Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you are thinking of editing the Alexander the Great article, linking him to the present day Macedonian people and language, I would strongly advise you to discuss it on the article talk page first. It is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim. Favonian (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

You are definetly doing a good job.Saw your recent responses to some of the questions and requests,including the hilarious one from a blocked user who claims Jimmy Wales says its ok for him to edit now!! Keep up the good work.

Cheers and Regards Pseudo 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacki Moon (talk • contribs)

Indonesian vandal alert

Sorry to disturb you, but it seems that Mr. Indonesian misinformation vandal is back again, and for the third ever time, he is using 110.136.113.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please act ASAP because he's active right now. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just too slow. Edgar181 took care of the miscreant. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, all I can say is even in his dormany (he "rested" for over a month until a few days ago or so), he is still persistent. Just look at the range of articles he vandalized today. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A slight concern about a patroller

Hi, I understand that you may not wish to comment but note that you have recently edited Felix Somary. I got to that article as a consequence of some dealings with User:Djc_wi today. That contributor is patrolling and, in my opinion, is perhaps being a little hasty with some of his actions. I've had a couple of long-ish discussions on his talk page but think that he sees this as being "me against you". If you have the time to review the situation then I would appreciate it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does indeed look like an overenthusiastic young new page patroller. I'll try to keep an eye on him and clear my throat significantly if there are more problems of this nature. Favonian (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Sometimes it helps to have another viewpoint. My self-doubt runs rampant on occasion! - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Know the feeling well. It's supposed to be healthy ;) Favonian (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like a cite for that statement please <g> I see that Dic wi has made another bad call this morning. All for the sake of a little patience/research - User_talk:Djc_wi#Re:_Minora. I wonder how many are slipping through the net. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Damn! You caught me in the act of original research. Young Djc hasn't been active since the Somary affair, so I won't pester him with stern messages right now. Let's hope he has learned something. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
He has now been active again and seems to be having problems understanding policy, specifically on this occasion with regard to COI and citing. He also continued to debate the notability of Felix Somary, the subject of the article that he CSD'd. I'll keep gently correcting him, as and when. I think that he is well-intentioned but somewhat misguided at present.
I do not want to start (or even be perceived to have started) some sort of stalking campaign with regard to him, so if you have the time and inclination to weigh in if/when you spot something then that would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking the IP address that was executing continued personal attacks and vandalism on my userpage. --Sonez1113 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"All in a day's work for Bicycle Repair Man." Favonian (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

Time to protect again? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Afraid so. I've given it 12 hours this time. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Pending changes would be nice right about now. :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed! But as they say: that's a different story. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk page as well. Violates everything that's sacred. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. And that's the vandal's intended effect I'm sure. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Abolition of Prostitution

Hey there! Can you offer some guidance and feedback on the above article? Pornography is a rather contentious subject, where individuals from both sides of the abolition issue continue to revert and edit war. I don't take a personal side here, but prefer to follow policy, guidelines, and consensus. An AFD resulted with a consensus to merge. However, one editor, User:TJ Black, continues to disregard the consensus of the AFD, essentially taking ownership of various articles addressing pornography and human trafficking. Rather than merge, he redirects the article. His rationale is that consensus at Talk:Prostitution_and_the_law#Abolition_of_Prostitution_merger overrides the consensus at the AFD. I would be happy to work on the merge, but I have found hostile response from others when working to balance out articles focused on pornography and human trafficking. I'm looking for guidance here. Any feedback on proper procedure? Thanks, Cind.amuse 06:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The AfD consensus was formalized after a debate involving lots of participants, whereas the discussion at Talk:Prostitution_and_the_law#Abolition_of_Prostitution_merger was unclear, with one out of (only) three supporting the merger. Considering the state of the Abolition of Prostitution article, I would recommend following Iamcuriousblue's advice and trim it before merging. There probably will be much gnashing of teeth and I foresee an ANI drama fest, but if you have the guts to do it, I applaud your spirit. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate your guidance. I am working on the merge. The article that I am working on is consistently being redirected, stating that nothing is to be merged, according to consensus. The editor noted above, disregards the AFD, stating, "Consensus at Talk:Prostitution and the law#Abolition of Prostitution merger was that nothing can be merged". I have written the following on the talk page, yet continue being reverted:
"There is no consensus to redirect or delete this article. The consensus in the AFD discussion is to merge. Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion in response to AFD outcomes specifically states, "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." Administrative actions direct us to mark both pages by adding {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}} to the top of their respective pages. Upon removing the {{afd}} notice (if still present), add the {{Afd-merge to}} tag to the top of the nominated article. This lets as many users involved in those pages know that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, rather than the closing administrators' job to perform the merger. The appropriate response when an AFD consensus results in a merge is not to circumvent the deletion policy and process guidelines through redirection or deletion. In accordance with the AFD consensus and administrative guidelines, the reinstatement of the redirection is inappropriate. Therefore, I have restored the article in compliance with community guidelines."
I have been accused of being disruptive, pushing a POV, and deliberately gaming the system to prevent removal of the article, which is certainly not my intention. My only goal is to uphold the AFD consensus. I have received warnings from the editor noted above. Yet, my actions here have been appropriate, according to my understanding of the guidelines presented. Is this the time for an ANI? I need administrative support with this issue. Thanks, Cind.amuse 07:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete George Fairweathers Page?

Today, The wikipedia page listing "George Fairweather" was deleted under "Hoax" This is obviously an immatture prank on your part and i would prefere it if you undid it immediately, thank you for understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catlover19234 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It was an obvious and not particularly talented hoax. Considering your own "contributions" to that article as well as Cucumber, you are one step away from an indefinite block yourself. Favonian (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please get rid of 173.86.32.188?

And I mean like, range-block him and inform his ISP, or something. Not for my benifit, but because if he continues after the current block is expired, then I'll track down his IP address and take matters into my own hands. Now, I really don't want to sound like a bad-faith assumer, but he SERIOUSLY should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia if this current motive is his intent. With kind regards, - Another n00b (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I already blocked him when I reverted his actions. If he keeps it up, I'll look into a range block. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you. But if he even touches my talk-page, his isn't going to be pretty. Rather like "Don't scratch my back and I won't scratch yours". Ok?? Just so you know. - Another n00b (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought I had made myself clear. You will not start a vendetta against that other noob, no matter how obnoxious he is. Leave it to the admins. If I'm not around (yes, that happens) report the IP at WP:AIV. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud! I've already threatened n00b and the noobs with detention if they keep it up. Sometimes, just sometimes, I would like to enforce a lower age limit on this place—like 40!. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Fishy-fishy-fishy FISH! HalfShadow 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I needed that. God, how I miss them! Favonian (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Noob WON'T STOP CURSING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

We are still having trouble with Another Noob, he started cursing us on User talk:The Stick Man 's talk page. Its no big deal, but the cursing has got to stop. Could you please talk to him. Thanks. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus h. Christ, I didn't flame him, I informed him. There is a difference. Oh, and why don't you get un-involved altogether? I have. And your still insisting I get blocked because I argued with some silly little fellow who just happened to be an IRL acquittance for you. Get off my trail! - Another n00b (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing that happened with that IP is over and done with, the reason I'm on your case now is because you WON'T stop cursing people. Wikipedia is for editing not cursing. TheBradford msg Bradford 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not cursing, it's called profanity. Are you completely oblivious to how to properly use the English language. - Another n00b (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm... sorry if you're sick of this stuff, Favonian. Bradford, leave it alone. It isn't worth it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Good. NAH SHADDAP!! - Another n00b (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Another n00b is now at w3 for this preceding comment, and TheBradford has also been warned to disengage. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, DMacks! Let's hope the message gets through. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It'll soon be the Comfy Chair for the impetuous youths! Favonian (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the amount of abuse you get, it's almost like some sort of Spanish Inquisition. Oh shit... HalfShadow 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like I can't talk people out of edit-warring, I can't talk them out of incivility, heck, I can't Torquemada anything. DMacks (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:207.157.181.254

Hi Favonian, do you understand what is happening at User_talk:207.157.181.254? They are apparently editing their talk page from that IP, even though they are blocked from editing for three years. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not any more they aren't ;) Normally, users are allowed to edit their own talk pages when they are blocked, in order that they may appeal their blocks. If they abuse that privilege, as this IP obviously did, it gets revoked. Favonian (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Yep, abuse of the privilege certainly describes what they were up to. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

von Trier

Yep--say one thing wrong, or perceived to be wrong, and you're out. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sad, but true. Not settling in the U.S. was probably a wise choice in my case. Hope you are better at staying on the straight, narrow and politically correct path. Favonian (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad

I was on my phone, didn't mean to press [rollback]. Sorry. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I've hit that one by mistake lots of times. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin Barlow

Thank you for the swift response. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what we're here for. :) Favonian (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's what he's here for; I'm here for the donuts. HalfShadow 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful...

That's twice you RV-ed on my user page. A bit too careless with the recent changes, eh? –HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

[Blush] I hoped you wouldn't notice. In my defense, the abominably slow rendering of the Wiki pages causes the whole shebang to shift by a line just when I'm poised to strike at some miscreant, and then it's time for "friendly fire". Must learn to breathe deeply before exercising power. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

*Tattattat* Helloooo...Anyone in there?

Ah yes, there you are. Good...good. Couldja drop the SP on my talk page, please? I'm feeling lucky. HalfShadow 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" Let's see how long you last. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What Price Glory (play)

Hi, I noticed there WAS a page for "What Price Glory" (play) but it has been deleted. I'm reading a biography of Maxwell Anderson and have some family background info on him because he is my great uncle. I'd like to write a new page for the play, because it was his first commercial success and began his career in drama.

Thanks, Max 9tmaxr (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead. The first article was deleted, because the contents was absolute bullocks, but there is no injunction against creating a proper article. Favonian (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

I noticed this edit summary and assumed they were talking to me as I frequently remove the image sizes. But from what I can see you never actually reverted any image sizes at Rebecca. So I asked them about it at User talk:Highdeeboy#Images. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he must have misread the edit history. I did perform one edit on the article yesterday, but it was a revert of some ordinary vandalism. Look like Highdeeboy couldn't be bothered to reply to your message ;) Favonian (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh well. 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Revdel?

As you blocked Uponlimit090 (talk · contribs) in response to my AIV request, I wonder if you'd consider revdelling his two edits, as they appear to satisfy criterion #3 of WP:CFRD, since they contained a grossly inappropriate attack, as well as a link to a shock page/virus-proliferating page. There seems to be no reason to leave this junk lurking for the unwary in the templates' histories. Deor (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any idea who this is?

[1] - I was thinking of an SPI but as this IP is blocked, as is Dougweltier (talk · contribs), maybe not worth while, but did you identify a puppet master? Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't name the original account. Might be worthwhile to start an SPI to ferret out sleepers. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of BB (2011) too, but as you say, imitation is quite the rage. A while ago I blocked MaIIeus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). Had to breathe deep and convince myself very rationally that I was not on my way to ANI. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And now that we talk about that one: he claimed to be a sock of a well-known nuisance. Possible candidate? Favonian (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you have better eyes for this sort of thing than I do (tools and all); I can only guess. HalfShadow 19:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Alas, the mop ain't all it's made out to be, and even the clairvoyance of CheckUser could only produce a sleeper (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.252.105.48). Maybe we'll never know, but in a sense all the banned creeps are isomorphic. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

neo-nazi vandalism on Lindemann page

I've nothing against KIA for Lindemann. The problem was that for some time the KIA template evoked, instead of the usual sign, the nazi flag with some antisemitic rubbish attached to it. Apparently, it's been cleaned by now.Braiman (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't think of that possibility. The template has now been protected indefinitely, and the culprit blocked. Incidentally, a sockpuppet of the one my attention was drawn to in the section #Revdel? above. Favonian (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have globally locked the accounts. Thanks for blocking, Favonian. --Bsadowski1 08:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Hope the global measures work. Favonian (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my User Page!! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orpheus amulet

The amulet is a 19th century fake. It was exposed by Dr James Hannam

http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristhehistorian (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Got A Warning From You Regarding Vanadalism On A Page I've Never Seen, Devoted to Someone I Never Knew Existed?

An historical figure named Giovanni da ????

All i can say is, it wasn't me. The last edit I contributed linked the definition of the term "straw dogs" to the Straw Dogs movie page.

As per the Wikipedia help pages, I should also point out that I'm not using an AOL page, nor am I using a shared IP. Beyond this, I'm the only person in this house who would have even the faintest idea of how to contribute to Wikipedia. We've had no guests in the time frame under discussion.

Frankly, sheriff, you've got the wrong man. Another Listlurker, perhaps? I've changed my account password, but since Wikipedia seems to accept all passwords, past and present, I'm not sure that will do any good, presuming this is more than a case of mistaken identity.

Thanks for your time and attention,

Cheers.

Listlurker (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite a puzzle you presented me with ;) I have never warned "you" (meaning the named account Listlurker), witness the fact that your talk page is quite empty. The most likely explanation is that you edited without logging in and got a message destined for the IP address that you happened to get. A previous user of that address presumably vandalized the Giovanni da Verrazzano article — I'm guessing here, since you didn't bother to complete his name, but that particular article for some reason gets a lot of vandalism. It really just emphasizes why we recommend that people use named accounts rather than anonymous IPs. Using the latter, you get lumped in with whatever riff-raff happens to be using the same ISP as you. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

TYVM

...apparently my fan club was busy on the weekend! Thanks for the help! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Where would we be without our loyal fans? Favonian (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I saw that you edited this article and I thought that it was appropriate to contact you.

This user looks like to be the puppet[2] of the Celebration81. Looks like Celebration81 may be the first user name of Stubes99. I don`t know what exactly should be done but if this user continues to disrupts Wikipedia maybe he should be banned. Can you please take a loot at it? Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99 is already banned, so there's not much more that can be done about him. Regarding MrMyronGuyton, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 could not confirm that he's the same user, and though he certainly looks like an editor "on a mission", we have to go through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Np. Sorry, to bother you again, this is another matter. Is this really you? [3]. I think this is my first message to you, don`t know if I contacted you in the past. Adrian (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize. That most certainly wasn't me, but some troll who got blocked for his efforts. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Lol :), for a minute he "got me" :). Greetings. Adrian (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned user:Iaaasi

His latest account is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nonairt

Hobartimus (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind it's already blocked, you can disregard the above. Hobartimus (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
user:LaszloBacs seems to have picked up the torch. Hobartimus (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the socks have already been blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An appreciation

Hello, Favonian. I just noticed you created an entry about Peter Henrici. Well done! Daniele.tampieri (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniele! Your own work is very impressive. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Heather Mills .... that was quick. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Four minutes—I'm loosing my edge. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
User:SoakCooker's edits are weird. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that looked like one of our steady customers. Blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry

Semi-protection until November? Seriously? Are you even allowed to do that? --78.149.103.77 (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - some articles have been semi-protected since 2008.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Template vs Article

Can a Template contain a full Article in it ? I am confused - see this, is it correct ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Spock%27s_Beard Bentogoa (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not the purpose of this template, which is supposed to be a navbox. I have reverted the change. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up Bentogoa (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

79.74.80.134

5 days? Isn't that a bit too much? Island Monkey talk the talk 15:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

60 hours = 2½ days :) In view of the fact that this person's focused vandalism has been going on for two days, I deemed it prudent to protect Wikipedia for a bit longer than the customary 31 hours. Favonian (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! Island Monkey talk the talk 15:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to add Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the articles you're semi-protecting, and may wish to keep an eye on User:Jessupmannheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for watching my talk page. I don't want to log in from the office.--Ben Ben (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem — and thanks for correcting my typo :) Favonian (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill121212

This user name is now causing trouble as shown on BLP/noticeboard. I think you blocked him. He seems to be posting under numerous aliases. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Never blocked this particular user, and his favorite article is not on my watch list. Which other aliases did you have in mind? Favonian (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
12Bill and at least one other. How do I search all user names starting Bill? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
With this query. Lots of luck! Favonian (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I give up. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For indef. blocking Natebooth (talk · contribs). Compliments on your always quick response! Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. This one was not a hard decision to make. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Can't imagine that it was. I'm just trying to figure out why he wasn't indefed sooner! Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that impression too from the vandal's contribs. Favonian, any chance of expunging those edits from my talk-page and user-page histories? Tony (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Text and summaries revdel'ed. The overly long survival was, I guess, caused by the fact that automatic tools like Huggle reset the warning level if the previous warnings are more than a few days old. OK for anonymous IPs, not so much for named accounts where the "big picture" is lost. Favonian (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My alter ego

Thanks for zapping that one! ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Wonder if thought he was being clever. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock investigation notice

You were previously involved in blocking one of the related socks; please see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy moley! Good work, Cirt. Favonian (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

US presidents

I just made sure that all 44 presidents are in their category, where they all belong and noted the inclusion criteria as being 'all'. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing order to the (partial) chaos—and for your work on categorization in general! Favonian (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC) PS: Aren't there 43 presidents? Dear old Grover Cleveland — causing trouble so long after his last term ended. ;)

Catherine Parr page

We seem to be having quite a bit of activity by users and IP addresses changing things/vandalizing on the Catherine Parr page. Is there anything we can do about it other then continually reverting their edits? -- Lady Meg (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the amount of vandalism to this article is greater than what the ordinary revert/warn/block process can handle. If it increases, you should report it to WP:RFPP. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. That's the second time that has happened and I still think it's strange, but whatever. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a vandal with a "theme". He even followed us to Commons where he managed to vandalize four talk pages before being keelhauled. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for de-trolling my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You do attract them ;) Strange "theme troll" that one. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comes with the territory. Speaking of which, somebody doesn't like you very much: Fittiesonkire29 (talk · contribs) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that :) Amazing how they can claim to be newbies when their first contributions are attacks on admins. Favonian (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lock on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page?

Hi Favonian, I recently saw your lock on the Daniel Tammet page due to edit warring there, and I'm wondering if you could help out on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page. There seem to be a couple of single-purpose editors (perhaps meat-puppets of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Special:Contributions/Neurorel, Special:Contributions/Edgeform and Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, one way to deal with this might be a lock for edit-warring for a while to at least force some talk page discussion. I've also asked a couple of other knowledgeable uninvolved neuroscience editors to chime in. Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed a slow-burning edit war on this article, and as you have probably noticed, you are at the bright 3rr line. I have, with some reluctance, protected the article for three days to direct all editors' attention to the talk page. Have you considered asking at the relevant project? I would assume this to be WT:WikiProject Psychology, but my knowledge of the subject matter is very limited. Expanding to project level, rather than individual editors, is a safeguard against accusations of canvassing. Favonian (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, and for protecting the page. You're right, I was aware that I was at the 3RR limit, and felt that more input and eyes were needed (as you can see from the history, there's only a few editors who are working on that page). Following your suggestions, I have asked both the neuroscience and psychology wiki projects. I do wonder if 3 days will be quite enough, given the slow motion nature of most of this (which is part of what has kept it from becoming an admin-bugging issue previously), but it's a start and my requests for input from other editors and from projects may make some progress happen pretty quickly. Edhubbard (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Favonian -- Thank you for intervening with a lockdown on the VS Ramachandran page. As you and other editors have likely noted, the person representing him/herself as "Edhubbard" has maintained a death-grip on that entry, reversing well-constructed and reasonably phrased editing changes in as little as four minutes. There is a degree of proprietorship assumed there that seems to me entirely out of step with the spirit of civil, scholarly, and intelligent discussion that is such a trademark of wikipedia. And, frankly, I think accusing other editors of being "meat puppets," which is her/his phrase, also violates the spirit of discourse. Editor "Edhubbard" is maintaining this page as if it were a doctoral dissertation (I don't know: Perhaps for him/her it is) and that makes the entry less than candid and less than useful to the general reading public. There are already extensive discussions of mirror neurons and autism under their respective entries— the Ramachandran entry needs to stay focused on Ramachandran's research and opinions. It is my view that wikipedia entries are not supposed to be hagiography, not as biographical entries of living people, anyway. But that appears to be the way "Edhubbard" is seeking to sustain the entry -- which isn't his/hers. As some other contributors to the page have noted -- and I have been interested in these matters for some time -- there are, in fact, ambiguities and uncertainties to some of Ramachandran's work, which should be noted -- as Ramachandran himself notes them, and as editor "Neurorel" pointed out in his/her last posting that was almost instantly reversed by "Edhubbard." So I am concerned that "Edhubbard" has gone off the reservation, in terms of good wikipedia practice. In science, recognition of ambiguity is good, and recognition of error is both salutary and solid practice. In the case of "Edhubbard," the phrase "helicopter mom" and "hovering" come immediately to mind. (Pfstarrs (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm happy to see that you are both willing to edit constructively, and I trust this attitude will prevail also when the protection expires. Meanwhile, I hope that the posts at project talk pages bear fruit. Oh, and one final thing: let's drop all name calling — "meat puppet" as well as "helicopter mom". Favonian (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PatakaZikatuna

is a regular cottage industry here. ;) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's rather sad actually. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ping Dlohcierekim 02:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I can only second what other editors have already told you at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Vell Baria. It may be cruel, but somehow you have to come to grips with the fact that as thing stand you just aren't sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Favonian (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IP jumping?

was this supposed to imply that I'm User:24.177.120.138? I'm not. I really don't see why two users should feel free to remove that ornament from the blocked IP's talk page. 222.124.91.230 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Tough! Either you are that user, in which case you are banned, or you're not, in which case you should refrain from decorating the talk page of said banned user. Favonian (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
a) I'm not that IP (I'm on the other side of the planet;), and b) I didn't add the decoration, I just restored it when others removed it without much more reasoning that adding a kick to a user they got blocked. 222.124.91.230 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The obvious question to ask is, how did he even know about it? And the reason that thing was removed because it was requested in ANI. Banned users don't need decorations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
He knew about it because he hounds his opponents and stalks their contributions. Always has. He's not that user: but his involvement is for drama purposes only, wholly against the restrictions he's under, and should be reverted on sight whenever questionable. It will eventually be sorted out, for sure. I'm on it because he brings it to me. It's called "negative attention". Doc talk 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Doc's nasty little game. 114.79.63.198 (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't hate the playah: hate the game. Doc talk 06:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Amen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical question

Will your re-block of 86 also have the effect of re-blocking Livesintheforest? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't. I have explicitly checked the "anon only" option, so he can continue. Favonian (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. What I found odd is that he was telling his "brother" not to edit under that IP or it could get him indef'd again. If it's his "brother", why doesn't he just tell him face-to-face? (I expect this question occurred to you also, and don't feel you need to respond in the open here.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Families can be strange! Favonian (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming Good Faith for a second, it's possible they don't talk. Which is odd since they presumably use the same router, i.e. that they live in the same house. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not unlike some geeks with whom I shared an office. They much preferred online communication to sound-based. Favonian (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I often send e-mails to co-workers sitting less than 6 feet away. Although in many cases that's to tell them something I don't want "advertised". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice that I found that an article (Metal objects (Out-of-place artifacts) Liveintheforests (talk · contribs) created through a sock while blocked turned out to be virtually all copyvio? I'm not clear why Liveintheforests's block wasn't extended for the block evasion, but maybe I've lost track of something. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm surprised as well. The amount of AGF extended to this guy is amazing, but as far as I'm concerned, he's one step away from an indefinite block. As an interesting detail, User:IntelligentUniverse is tagged as a sockpuppet of the "evil" brother rather than Liveintheforests. It's enough to cause a headache. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there's enough stuff to indef him regardless of any relationship to Anglo? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Tempting, but for the moment I'm doing the Wikipedian rope trick. Favonian (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Ti-i-i-ime is on your side. Yes, it is. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If you start crooning Satisfaction, I'll block you! ;) Favonian (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What if it's crooned by the Lovely Lennon Sisters? Sorry, very obscure Robin Williams joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Now you're upgrading yourself to indef status, young man! Favonian (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find the youtube, but it has Robin Williams imitating Lawrence Welk's speech pattern, "Wunnerful, wunnerful-uh! Let's get down and get funky!" Something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
My mind boggles! Jagger and Richards must have been thrilled. Favonian (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

i Hate Anti-Semites but NOT Peter Tatchell

Dear Faving Loony Tunes, I saw that your comrade RolandR thought that I had defaced (I assume) the entry for Peter Tatchell. Not guilty. He's a strange fish old Roland - my Israeli girlfriend would call him a self-loathing Jew. You should have a quick look at his user page. 2 quick questions: 1. why do you keep protecting Press TV? It is a fairly evil entity. 2. Why do people who cannot speak (or write) proper English (like yourself) try to edit English language entries when they (you) will never understand the nuances of the language? I am IHateAntiSemites, but I also hate apologists for fascists such as Press TV. You clearly aren't up to your self-appointed job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.241 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite a charmer, isn't he? Wonder if I should block him block evasion. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You are not allowed to block him, you are not english! Aus welchem Block ist der denn herausgeschlüpft?--Ben Ben (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ihateantisemites (talk · contribs) by his own admission. Similar foaming at the mouth. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this IP user has a very low learning curve. [4] Could you please? Thanks, --Ben Ben (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Off he goes. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Ali

Hi, the birth date of Ali in Hijri calendar in in this week. So there are many anonymous people who may edits the article without paying attention to wikipedia policies. Can you please semi-protect the article until the end of the week. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't usually protect articles preemptively, and the level of vandalism/over-enthusiastic editing is not unusually high at present. I'll keep an eye on the article, though, and if activity picks up, I'll consider semi-protection. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Géa

Hi. I understand why you semi-protected this but, appalling though the level of SPA ranting and personal attacks is, I think it's a serious mistake. It will add to their sense of persecution, they will complain of censorship, and if (when) it gets taken to AfD well-meaning persons will say "relist for a full debate." The closing admin (not me, thank goodness, since I propose to comment) will be able to see through it all. I won't revert you, but if you are not willing to unprotect I would like to raise the question at ANI to get more views. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely unwilling, but we need to include a couple more people. Please see User talk:Antiuser#Could use some advice here... Favonian (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see, I'll comment there - thanks. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

About the article "Aleksandra Wozniak"

You think she is no evidence that they are related with Caroline Wozniacki, but I'm not agree. They are Polish descent, their surnames are similar and they are also playing tennis. So they have a relationships. If you don't agree, please give me responsible reason at my discuss page. Pierce (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they both play tennis, are of Polish descent and have similar last names doesn't indicate any special relationship between the two ladies. There are many tennis players, lots of people with Polish ancestors, and Woźniak is, according to the article, the 10th most common Polish surname. Would you create "See also" entries linking any two actors of Welsh descent and named Jones? Hardly! There is, of course, the possibility of readers arriving at the wrong article, because they are confused by the similar names. That's why the very first line of the Aleksandra Wozniak article is a hatnote leading the errant on the right path. Surely, that must suffice. I have therefore removed the "See also" section. Favonian (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing Content

An editor is removing at Histrionic personality disorder, take a look Bentogoa (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully, they will come to their senses. Favonian (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, He was too fast for my slow internet (today) to revert Bentogoa (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Afd and G7

If a Article is considered for deletion (Afd) can the creator request deletion of page by blanking (G7) ?

Here is Asareh shayegan it is Afd tagged, as the creator name is same as the page it could be speedy deleted as A7 Bentogoa (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That is allowed, AFAIK, but only if no other editor has contributed to the article. The rather "socky" edits by Sara Shahmohammadi (talk · contribs) only mucked about with some link syntax, and that hardly counts. I'll ask the creator point blank if they want the article speedied. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they are not interested in that option. We'll let the AfD run its course. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What is up with this IP

Hello Favonian. I noticed that you reverted an edit by this IP 90.200.85.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Andrzejbanas userpage. The IP has since hit that page a couple more times. As I look at the IPs edits there is something odd going on. On the one handt seems to make legitimate edits to articles about wrestlers. On the other it seems to follow A around and mess with their edits. I have added warnings where appropriate. If the IP didn't locate to the UK I would say it was Pia de Chinelo (I know I spelled this wrong) but I dont know if there is anything else to do at the moment. If you don't have time to look into this then no problem but I was curious if you had any ideas. MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reported them to AIV, it's clearly the same person as 90.200.85.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for 3 months for disruptive editing.--BelovedFreak 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much. They are still at it so hopefully your report will be acted upon quickly. MarnetteD | Talk 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of the pages they hit are on my watchlist, so I noticed them pretty quickly. They've been blocked. Only for 48 hours unfortunately; I have no doubt they will come back straight away, as they have done time and again. It's weird how the wrestling related edits seem ok, but the film related ones are just disruptive.--BelovedFreak 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I slept through all the excitement. If this activity resumes, we can look into the possibility of a range block. Favonian (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition of an external link to Calculus page

Talk:Calculus#Addition_of_an_external_link was added to discuss whether my addition of the link is ok. No comments on it from anyone else. I have explained my viewpoint there - pl take a look & let me know if I can re-add the link. I believe the link will be more useful than some of the existing links; however I see no point in adding it, to have it deleted the next minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivsub123 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Colin Moynihan

Please full protect 1 week. Edit war. Encourage talk page resolution. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Unresolved. Zoecraig not using talkpage or providing refs. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Groan! Protected for an additional two weeks and stern words dropped on Zoecraig's talk page. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Amateur Historinan

Your user page states the subject line introduction. Ya know Favonian, history is not correct sometimes, sometimes history is wrong. Napolean once said that "History, is a set of lies; that are agreed upon!", I find that to be a maxim as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have been banned, blocked, and as persistant as I am to try and give historical accuracy to Charles Whitman, which I have all the records, interviews with many involved, and was POA for the officer who killed Whitman, there is a history on Wikipedia, that if investigated thouroughly, would show that the bans and blocks were invoked, because of previous blocks (or sock-puppetry, which has nothing to do with facts), and other contributors who took Jimbo Wales at his word previously, who stated that I was a problem user for a long time, and would continue to be, and to block on sight!?!

I have emailed Wales in the past. He has responded after a cursory review, and responded outside of the information that was requested within the emails. Why? Because Wales doesn't have the critical thinking skills to be diplomatic, based on my trying to communicate with him, and that same lack of skills, shows up in Admins and contributors, who have no clue as to why I was banned, their point is that because I was banned, it was justifiable - even if it wasn't. I know this because their responses do not allow for the time it would take to investigate the issues.

As an experiment, I started the Herb Ohta page. No complaints, no bans, no negatives. I return to the Whitman page as the same IP, and within 24 hours - I'm blocked again.

Now, I'm not targeting you specifically, however, your comments to your block of me, probably under under a different IP, shows the level of unprofessional conduct that runs rampant on WP on all levels, starting at the top.

My question is - How do I begin aknew, as a known sock puppet, who is entitled to the level of expertise he deserves? Thank you for a reply - though it will probably be a block! lol! 64.134.125.107 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you are Victor9876 (talk · contribs), you seem to be banned from Wikipedia altogether. How to appeal that is described in WP:UNBAN, but your incessant sockpuppetry makes it unlikely that you'll succeed. Favonian (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You've touched on the very essence of the problem - I am not Victor9876 just as you are not Favonian. The distintion is that people, act differently under a veil of anonimity, which is what the monikers are for. If I had known in the beginning of the WP experience, that exchanges among monikers can create hostile environments, I may have not used a moniker (though I did try to use my real name and it was rejected). Another issue, is that defenses I have (there are a few that I don't), are so far in the past, and require due diligence, that I'm sure no one would want to take the time to research them. Also, there have been many exchanges that led to responses, that were being resopnded to, only to have a block or ban already in place, when I went to save the response. The truth of the matter is that I am guilty of poor reactions in the past, but my reactions had some justification to them. Perhaps the one that stands out the most, was when Ramiro Martinez' page, allowed his vanity publication to stand in the article, which helps him sell books, where an audio history I had of McCoy, was not allowed to stand, which would possibly have helped McCoy as well. It was the double standard that caused the spiraling down of the conversation. Again, I believe the moniker scenario should go, as Sanger tried to deny the moniker system before his departure. It would make WP a better environment, without agenda seeking socks and monikers. Just my opinion, and everyone else I talk to. Thanks for the reply. 64.134.6.107 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_17&oldid=1221627159"