User talk:Favonian

Danish barnstar

Now that is one I don't have!! Thanks for your appreciation! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I would call you an awesome Wikipedian, if that adjective weren't so overused in articles being speedily deleted. Noticed that you have a Nepalese barnstar; you sure get around :) Favonian (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah!! Thanks mate. Happy editing! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've always found that particular editor "irritating". As if 5 star hotels in London are not high priority for WP:Hotels... Most of them are amongst the top ranked hotels in the world. Why doesn't he just try to expand them? I'll just swipe away his spam messages, none of them stand a chance of being deleted... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

change of text

why is every change of text considered vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe1123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's do this from the beginning. You never provide edit summaries, so it's rather difficult to guess what your intentions are. In this edit you change a statement to its opposite—without explanation. In this one you remove parts of a reference, thus removing information and breaking the template—without explanation. Here you remove a video link—without explanation. Then, in this one you at least only remove a sentence, except the initial "S"—without explanation. Finally, here you remove a whole statement with a proper reference—without explanation. Now in the absence of (good) explanations I have to deduce your motives, and frankly I cannot see that your actions can be described by any other word than "disruptive". Was that clear enough? Favonian (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First Annual Wikiout

WuhWuzDat 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The withdrawal symptoms will be horrific, but I accept your kind invitation. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I love you, thanks

[[User:]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.177.15 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a new one. Thanks for the sentiments. Favonian (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, nicest response to a warning I've ever seen--Jac16888^Talk 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This !job is getting to me. I'm having trust issues :( Favonian (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Corcoran

Why is my thing tagged and suddenly untagged? KOF :) 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs)

If by "thing" you mean the article about Corcoran, it's because I thought her to be insufficiently notable to have an article here, but another editor disagreed. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess I have to agree with that other editor. KOF :) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs)

MyAlbum/MijnAlbum

I noticed that you nominated both MyAlbum and MijnAlbum for deletion. Maybe there could one be kept alive? MijnAlbum is the biggest online photo sharing service in the Netherlands (like Hyves is the biggest social platform in the country). If you do a google.nl search for mijnalbum.nl you will find a lot of relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambientchair (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that neither article documents this claim through reliable, third-party, published sources. If you are able to find such sources, the article(s) may survive, but I agree that they should in this case be merged into one. Favonian (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Photography in Denmark

As not only a new member of Wikiproject Denmark but also someone with an interest in history, I thought you might like to take a look at Photography in Denmark. Feel free to add your own edits or simply make suggestions on the article's talk page. Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulu vandalism

Hello Favonian,

Sorry to take some of your time, but you are much more an expert in fighting vandalism than I am.

An unregistered user who appeares using other IPs in the past is posting vandalism.

Since many weeks he constantly rewrites articles and talk pages regarding the Sultanate of Sulu. He rewrites all articles related to it, from Brunei, the Philippines etc. All one or two days I must delete this stuff. Even worse, he has rewritten former posts of other users in talk pages to give them a new meaning. See Talk page of Sultanate of Sulu.

He writes a different version of history, not in accordance with recorded history. He wants to support the claim of a claiming Sulu Sultan Carpenter Arpa V.

The problem: He states that his forefather replaced the recognized Sultan Jamalul Kiram II, who he calls an ursurper, by help of the American colonial troops in 1899. He says this was done by Maj-General. Jens A. Doe with the U.S. Army 41st division under his command. This is the fundament for his claims, as he states.

General Doe was born in 1891 and was an 8 year old boy in 1899 so I have serious doubts about the accuracy of this story. Furthermore, the 41st division was formed in 1917. Gen. Doe was on the Philippines during World War II in 1944. The website of this Arpa Sultan presents pictures of the meetings that can be made only during WW II not in 1899 as claimed. It is a simple lie. Otherwise, the US Army has a time travel device.

List of commanders of the 41th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/cc/041id.htm

Wikipedia itself has an extensive article of the 41th and of Gen. Jens A. Doe with many sources.

Although I asked him to, he does not cite any sources as proofs for his claims, just the websites of his Arpa Sultan.

The following articles are subject to this vandalism: Ahmad (Brunei) Bolkiah First Philippine Republic Hashemite History of Basilan List of Sultans of Sulu List of sultans of Sulu Maharaja Muhammad Hassan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II Muhammad Shah of Brunei Muhyiddin of Brunei North Borneo dispute Philippines Sabah Saiful Rijal Sharif Ali Sultanate of Sulu Sulu Sultanate

After deleting in the article, he started to add his statements in the Talk section.

Is there any chance to protect these articles from change by unregistered users?

Many thanks!

Greetings and sorry for writing such stuff here About the Sultan (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi AtS. Sorry for being so tardy getting back to you. I have noticed this editor and his peculiar contributions before and attempted to revert them, but I was not aware of the full extent of his activities. Looks like I'll have to extend my watch list, already at 16,000 entries :( I have removed his story about Gen. Doe and his alleged, precocious activities in the Philippines. In my experience, it's difficult to get a page protection against anonymous editors for any duration of time, unless we're dealing with massive, concentrated vandalism from several different IP addresses. Here we are dealing with more "scattered" actions by an editor who switches IP address. Our best bet at this point is to follow the usual procedures for dealing with vandals. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned out a fair amount of crap from the articles you mentioned, and I'll monitor the activities of the IPs involved. Incidentally, are you sure Hashemite belongs on the list? I couldn't find any Sulu-related vandalism there, and it seems a bit far from our friend's usual stomping grounds. Favonian (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MANY THANKS!!! Truly, many thanks for your help! Hope, we can keep out this guy, now. May be, the article Hashemite was a different topic. 16.000 articles... I would go crazy... Thats a giant contribution of yours to wikipedia!!! Best regards About the Sultan (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an administrator has also become aware of this editor's activities. The result is a three-day block, as may be seen at Blocklog for "121.54.47.53" . Favonian (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats good news! Thanks! He is changing his IP from time to time and then he starts the same vandalism as before. I wonder that someone is this hard and is spending his time, writing stuff that is deleted hours or few das later, for months. regards About the Sultan (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Norwegian Dictatorship

I've checked the sources for the the clam to be the best country to live in, and no such ranking are referred to in the sources.

As for Norway being a dictatorship, Norwegian government are currently working on a low making it illegal to criticize governmental employee, and Norwegian government are also currently working on a new law making illegal to post and document child abuse done by governmental employee. Dictatorship is the removal of freedom of speech and the rights to oppose illegal activity by the government. As such Norway IS by definition a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the best country claim, you can add {{Citation needed}} to the paragraph. If the citation hasn't been provided in, say, a couple of months, you may remove the claim with a suitable edit summary. As for your claims about dictatorship, that's very much your own personal analysis. Take it to the article's talk page and see if you can get a consensus to put the claim in the article. I rather doubt it, though. Favonian (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you already found your way to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. And the claim that Norway is the best country to live I've requested a verification. As Norwegian, I cannot verify that the claim is true, but I can verify the claim.--90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia article it's sufficient to cite a reliable source (and a major newspaper is considered such) which says that the country has been ranked. That the source in turn fails to cite chapter and verse from the UN report in question matters less. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, you better provide some sources yourself regarding the dictatorship claim. Favonian (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are only available in Norwegian, and they are not as easy to find, as the Norwegian government does not want the truth to come out.--90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian sources are OK; Google Translate should be sufficient to verify if they do indeed back your claim. Don't try to use the absence of sources as an argument in favor of your claim—that will just get you labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Favonian (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links to support my claim of Norway being a dictatorship Cecilie Rønnevik wishes to silence parents that record child abuse by Norwegian police and CPS. The government want to close unwanted sites better protection against unwanted use of freedom of speech. There was also a page at the same site that was more specific, but it looks like it has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.107.110 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is also a clear violation of the law, Cecillie Rønnevik talked about. In this case it is the government that displays children of parents in conflict CPS. The claim from the government is that such display are a violation of the children's rights and that any such display will be damaging to the children when they grows up. Obviously this doesn't seem to apply to the government, as there hasn't been uttered a single condemnation of the CPS and police displaying these children as they were criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.107.110 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And another, it is now illegal to support the freedom of speech in Norway, or at least in Oslo. Check Youtube. Note also that one of the cops states that the constitution is no longer valid.

Princess Marie of Orléans (1865–1909)

Hello! Have you noticed this article? It is actually two copies of the same article placed on top of one another: when one stop, the article continues a second time under it. I tried to fix it but it was reverted. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. I'll look into it. By the way, it was a bot that reverted your edit. I only removed the additional reference list you added. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I couldn't speak to a bot ;) I'm just a little confused about it, hope it'll be fixed!--85.226.47.128 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, the article is back to its normal, lean size. Thanks for catching the problem! Favonian (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

SURC

Hi there!

Yes I'm new to all this, so thanks very much - thats exactly what I was trying to do!

Cheers,

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timstickley (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll do it like this in future! - I appreciate all the hints and tips! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timstickley (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Favonian!

Great - thanks for all the hints and tips... do you know how to make those pages I created come up as some of the first hits in a google search? Cheers, Tim Timstickley (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

As a newbie, the Riboregulator page was quite a challenge. Your edits were incredibly helpful. At this point I wondered if I had sufficiently wikified and referenced the article to remove the "wikify" and expert warning. I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology (immunology), so I am dead certain of technical accuracy of the article. However, I am still learning how to write for wiki, so your input is very welcome.

Best regards, Psykl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykl (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Primrose Day

Hello Favonian. Do you think Primrose Day needs any more references? It's only a start article and the reference I put in just about verifies every point in the article. Northern Arrow (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: what's the best way to add categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern Arrow (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The current reference is to a personal website/blog and that's not usually considered a reliable source. Some sort of scholarly work mentioning the day would be preferable. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the online reference with one that cites a book in my own library. Unfortunately this is less accessible than an online ref, but what's the thinking on this sort of reference? Brewer's is a standard reference in these matters. Northern Arrow (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the right kind of reference, even if it's not instantly verifiable.

Regarding categories, what I usually do is locate an article about a similar topic, in this case some other day of observance, and then navigate around the categories to which it has been assigned. Not exactly an exact science. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks very much for your help and advice. Regards, Northern Arrow (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

European Universities Debating Championship

Hi,

Can you have a look at an article for me (European Universities Debating Championship) - I seem to be getting into a Edit War with another editor and would value someone else having a look.

In summary, I think the article has two main issues - firstly it is sourced almost exclusively from the websites maintained by a one Colm Flynn a long time debater for which I am not sure they meet the WP test of WP:RS - I have posted to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but no one unconnected with the article has responded. Secondly is the amount of detail about each event - even though this is a team event the other editor is insisting that the names of the members of the 3 loosing teams must be listed (setting aside the issue of the WP:RS) I think that this is not relevant and as these are not notable and the including runs contra to WP:NLIST. I offered to compermise and let him include the detail in the main table of winners but he felt that it did not work and needed a second table with team members.

The other editor has called be obstructionist - I don't think I am just trying to keep this article fit for an encyclopaedia.

If you think I am being obstructionist please let me know or if you can offer any advice it would be welcomed.Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Fairly lengthy discussion trail to work through. Favonian (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I finally did, though it was hard going ;) Regarding the reliable source issue, I have commented at the noticeboard that I tend to agree with you: the websites in question cannot be considered reliable Wikipedia sources.

As for the other matter, it is rather more difficult to decide. I'm afraid the most compelling argument brought forward is actually that of your opponent. If the debate is between two teams of two members each, then it is like a tennis double, and if it is customary to list both winning and losing players there, it seems reasonable to do it here as well. The precise structuring of the tables I cannot really comment on, being rather a poor layout designer myself. I see that the discussion has now turned into a sockpuppet investigation, but I prefer not to let that influence my opinion on the general issue. Favonian (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I will take that on board - the sockpuppet investigation has taken a most interesting twist with Singopo holding his hands up to running at least 4 other Debate related socks. As for the page - I will let it alown for moment and look at it fresh later. Codf1977 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Ok so I made a Page for Charles Kelley from Lady Antebellum, but when you click his name on the Lady Antebellum page, it doesnt go to the page i made. I'm new at this so if you could help me do this properly, there are probably some mistakes i've made. I would appreicate it. There are alot of referances and but i'm just confused on how to use them. Please if theres anything you can do i would be so thankful. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatsthewaytodoit (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the problem with the link on the Lady Antebellum page is that it is coded like this:

[[Charles Kelley|Lady Antebellum]]

In other words, though it is displayed as Lady Antebellum, it actually links to Charles Kelley. The latter is not the page you just created, which is called Charles kelley with a lowercase "k", instead it is a redirect, created June 1, 2009, which points back to Lady Antebellum. Pretty confusing

Now, about your new article, Charles kelley; I have read it and must say that it has too much overlap with Lady Antebellum. The question I have to ask is whether he is independently notable. If not, then the article should be replaced with a redirect similar to the one mentioned above. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not to sure what you mean when you say "The question I have to ask is whether he is independently notable." Although he is in the band Lady Antbellum, I think everyone that is a fan of Lady A. wants to know about him, and his life. That's why i created the page. Hillary Scott has one, so i thought he should too. =D! And thank you know i now how to fix it. =D!! Thanks Again! User: Thatsthewaytodoit

Regarding Speedy Deletion of 209.189.130.122

Hi there. That was actually an abuse report I filed for that IP address. I don't why it had to be deleted.... Did I somehow created an actual article by mistake. Bentoman (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bentoman. Yep, that's exactly what happened. I should have left you a "proper" note instead of the standard template. Sometimes things get a bit too automated. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Spondon

Greetings. See you have been having trouble with this page, more particularly our additions. Why ? What be your 'issue' ? Our notes be quite correct and in no way detract from the rest of the article. Marjoly takes a nerdish 'issue' with our lingo... methinks thnis says more about him (?)! Wikipedia has a 'reputation'... to live down to ! Deleting perfectly correct additions does its reputation no favours. ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "lingo" you mean the tone of the paragraphs you added, then we do have an issue with it. Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... 'wiki' be not a tourist brochure...but, it be a joke ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess the joke is on you. Gives you something to laugh about during your one month block. Favonian (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandeep Kamal

Be you advised to please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Kamal. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted and acted upon ;) Favonian (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Be you thanked! (I should say that in all-caps, probably. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<--Hey Favonian, I see you're into math and computers and all that, so let me ask you for some geek-expertise: look at the infobox in Speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's 10000 metres. At the bottom, there's a link to the 2006 event, but not the 1998 event (see the 2006 and 2010 events, where they are both there), and I cannot figure out why that is not showing up. The link as it is would be a redlink (the proper section is here), but that's beside the point: what's wrong in the code that the link doesn't appear? I hope you understand that speedskating, and especially the 10,000 meter, is a matter of the utmost importance to me. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of geeky assistance :) It was indeed a problem that required all my past academic and current software engineering skills: the relevant field in the infobox was entered as "previous" instead of the correct "prev". It has now been fixed, and the article links to the appropriate section for the 1998 event. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks a lot! You are a good Dane. (I've actually never met a bad one, not even the drunks.) Drmies (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Kongshengxin

Why sometimes the wikipedia web is not working in my country China,sometimes i can not open it,and until now,i still can not upload my images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnncff (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I can't help you there. Conspiracy theorists may ascribe it to the machinations of the Chinese authorities, but it could just be a bad Internet connection. I'm pretty sure that it's not due to any obstacle created by Wikipedia itself. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see,thanks! Wikipedia is already play an important role in my life!I hope wikipedia can do better and better in the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnncff (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Jakob Bro

Hi,

I'll show lenience and will let the article live :))

Have a nice day, must get back to deleting articles.....

Lectonar

Have thanks, oh Great Deleter in the Sky! Favonian (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all those godlike powers you get when you are an admin; they go to your head. But, no tarrying here, must get back to protecting articles :)). Lectonar (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spider man and his girlfriend

Well, I tried to contribute valuable information to this website; however, you simply can't handle the truth. Good day, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.107.10 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasta la vista, vandal. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SPA Truehannah

Re this tag - is Certainthing (talk · contribs) not a SPA then? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly (pun not intended) is. Tagged. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR in Ronaldo

I've reported the user already, but what the hell, there have been enough reverts for a couple more 3RRs, right? Anyway, the Latvian IPs are the unintended consequence of an indefinite block on Gigsons (talk · contribs), I've been dealing with them for the last couple of months. --Mosmof (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I was in the process creating a report myself without checking. Hope this nonsense will stop now. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk-page

Thanks for the cleanup! DMacks (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Looked like a repeat offender, so I figured it was OK to undo. Favonian (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage :). Airplaneman talk 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever been on vandal patrol (ever) using WP:IGLOO and I'm already a target. Airplaneman ^talk 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! Glad to see a new vandal fighter; your assistance is much appreciated. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for reverting my user page. I noticed you're getting attacked a fair bit, I can semi your talk page for a few weeks if you like--Jac16888^Talk 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, also for the offer of protection, but unless it gets completely out of control I think I can hold the fort. Currently, it's really just this character who, though he has announced his (somewhat forced) retirement in disgust, keeps coming back for more. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sasquatch

It is a film that is a Green-Star production, a small filmmaker that does not show in theaters and is open to a small group of a people. 4 PAGES CREATED TO DATE. KingofFilm, the mighty Wikipedian. 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs)

I see. Please have a look at WP:NF and tell us how this article meets the notability requirements stated therein. Favonian (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)