→Thanks for deleting the soapbox from ANI: beautiful! |
→Divineabraham: not certain |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 583: | Line 583: | ||
:Wow! That's a new one. Thanks a lot! [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
:Wow! That's a new one. Thanks a lot! [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Divineabraham == |
|||
I don't know if you've seen the latest on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Divineabraham|this case]]. I don't think I have anything to offer regarding the latest suspected socks that Hersfold found, but perhaps you do. Cheers —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 11:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Though these (nominally) three accounts would be missed if they were sent off, I can't say with any degree of certainty that they are reincarnations of Divineabraham. Sorry! [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian#top|talk]]) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:54, 13 September 2011
User talk:KingofFilm
I sent an unblock email, but I haven't received a response (Sent on Sunday). 98.219.123.213 (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Favonian, have you looked into this? I don't mean to be annoying, but... 98.219.123.213 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Favonian? 98.219.123.213 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The Qatar IPS vandal reversed this. It needs a Silver Lock at least.
{{COI|date=August 2011}}{{POV-lead|date=August 2011}}{{format footnotes|date=August 2011}}{{Copy edit|date=August 2011}}{{Expert-subject|date=August 2011}} {{Use British English|date=August 2011}}
(cur | prev) 10:47, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:26, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,129 bytes) (rm incorrectly used {{shortcut}}) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:23, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,152 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk): Admin tags removed without addressing issues. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:50, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (→Arabian Plate) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- What a ghastly mess. I've reverted the removal of maintenance tags and issued a warning. By the way, you might consider collapsing the numerous issues into one box using the {{article issues}} template. At present it looks a bit "overwhelming". Favonian (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not collapsing anything. I am not editing the article or the Discussion page unless there is at least a Silver Lock on it. The topic of Haplogroup is complex. Haplogroup R seems to have a page for every sub-haplogroup and every individual family has a sub-haplogroup. Haplogroup J is one of the youngest and most of it is at the edge of antiquity, as opposed to pre-historic. Every issue becomes a Jihad/Crusade conflict. I just wanted to put together all that we know in one place and it has turned into a Voyage to La Puta. Having eight hours of yeoman like work trashed in 15 minutes is enough. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the same one from the same company at the same hotel in Qatar. http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=78.101.35.243 He did not even edit out the text. He just reverts it. You are engaged in a Sisyphean task until a Silver Lock is put on the article.:
- (cur | prev) 20:08, 7 August 2011 78.101.35.243 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 12:53, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) m (17,129 bytes) (Reverted edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk) to last version by Favonian) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 10:47, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 10:26, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,129 bytes) (rm incorrectly used Error: no shortcuts were specified and the |msg= parameter was not set.) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 10:23, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,152 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk): Admin tags removed without addressing issues. (TW)) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 06:50, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (→Arabian Plate) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
I do not respect personal attacks, tolerate antisocial behavior, or push rocks up hill well. I am just going to monitor the behavior of this unsigned vandal and whether User:Andrew_Lancaster takes steps to deal with it. Until then, my editing is done.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
He, she or it is toying with the Discussions as well:
(cur | prev) 20:02, 7 August 2011 78.101.35.243 (talk) (69,132 bytes) (→Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
1 List of Vandals
2 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
3 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
4 78.101.53.167 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
5 178.152.109.94 Range: 178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
6 78.100.170.235 Range:'78.100.160.0 - 78.100.191.255'
7 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
8 89.211.50.131 Range: 89.211.50.128 - 89.211.50.143
9 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
10 78.101.35.243 Range:78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Remark. I am not involved in these tagging reverts, but have been trying to get the editing on this article up to some reasonable level after I was asked to look at a related article and realized how bad this one was. The above editor has been doing incrementally more extreme tag bombing and is also involved in edit warring and talk page silliness, and it seems clear enough that the tags are being accumulated as a way of making a WP:POINT. So I would question whether this is a case for giving the benefit of the doubt to keeping all tags. Of course the article is awful, and most of the tags are justified in that sense, but why so many, both inline and at the header, and doesn't the constant tag bombing and reverting simply postpone the day when normal editing can happen?
- The article remains bad while the editors are in a constant tit for tat, and I think no other significant reason. It is actually not a very complex or controversial subject compared to many I have seen handled much better.
- Just on one particular tag, the COI tag, I have tried to get an explanation about this on both the article talk page and the above editor's talk page, without success. It appears that the claim is based on the fact that one of the editors is an IP which is located in Qatar, and nothing else? So I do not think the COI tag is appropriate. It seems indeed to be inflammatory and the last thing this article needs. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- One of the IP editors deleted the tags again, so I used your proposal above of a general issues tag.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Update. Having taken a more active role, this article, Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) now appears to be in a version which meets the demands of everyone, and is more stable. But I note indications on both the talk page, and in editing acts, that JohnLloydScharf is planning to start the edit war again. His last edits all describe counter proposals as vandalism for example (and was then reverted by another IP) and his talk page posts appear to be threatening that he is going to be less cooperative with very odd arguments or non-arguments. His draft version of the article also does not bode well as something that will be accepted by other editors, or by Wikipedia in general (although it is clearly also playing the role of notes and does not appear to be a literal draft). A practical problem I now have is that while this user was happy with my advice about following WP policy for a while, this seems to have ended. So before things spin out of control requiring RFCs or whatever, I am wondering if you could look over his recent contribs and make any advice to him, me and any others that you think might help. I will post a similar message to User:Gfoley4 who has also been in discussion about this article and related ones. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
hinch
I'm getting the stranger and stranger notion that Nicosia is infected by socks. wtf?. Created today. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not unlikely. I think you should open an SPI with a request for CheckUser. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't seem to sort it out... who's who? *scratch head* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet another new account and 2 IPs descending on the article right after protection expired. Might need another round of protection (at your discretion, of course) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, good grief! If I protect it once again, it will look like I'm taking sides, so could I ask you to post a request at WP:RFPP? Favonian (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- sigh... I'll consider... the issue is I don't have enough evidence for an SPI-case ("yet" I hope) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
nailed'em Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with User:IownKudzu
That user appears to be a sock of User:Idealisis, who created another sock (User:Milordass), as another vandalism-only account. Milordass just became active again as soon as IownKudzu was blocked. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've blocked Milordass, but as I'm headed for bed, I would recommend that you open a case at WP:SPI to get the mess cleared up. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
76.4.177.96
I observe that you blocked this address one month ago, and the editor at that time was systematically changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". I observed as soon as the block expired the editor resumed the behavior, making nonsensical changes, and turning valid "See also" links into red links. Considering that the editor has long-term access to this IP, I view it as the same as a registered account. I suggest an indefinite block. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it's been handled. The IP has been granted a three-month absence from Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; you recently blocked this editor for removing obscenity from another editor's talk page. I would concede that he should not have done so. It seems that this editor and his wife (user:82.11.178.239) have both been editing the same articles, and both are currently blocked; the IP by Fastily. They are clearly guilty of meatpuppetry (not, I think, sock) and of lack of understanding of wikipedia policy as it relates to user talk pages and to the absence of censorship here; I do wonder if the error is one of ignorance rather than deliberate disruption? Could I ask you to re-visit it and consider? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- A moving tale. My oath of office constrains me from making cynical remarks, but if you believe that Mr. and Mrs. Herbolzheim can become productive members of society, I won't object to you unblocking them. I expect that they will take your reading of the Riot Act to heart and refrain from "improving" other users' talk pages. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Signature
Sorry about that, I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. Yes, I did indeed request a rename. I've redirected the pages to the new name, though there may be some utility to better fix it. Sowsnek (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that! In case you wonder why I took an interest in the matter, I was evaluating Talk:Marth#Requested move, checking among other things for SPAs, and your (at that time) red-linked user page and talk page were kind of conspicuous. Favonian (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi, I reccently found you vandilized the article Brony and your edits have been undone. --80.78.77.224 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:VANDALISM in order to get your vocabulary straight. Any more of that crap and I'll block your IP and/or semi-protect the article. Favonian (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Herbolzheim
You blocked Herbolzheim, giving the reason in the block log as "Disruptive editing: same as User talk:82.11.178.239". Following discussion at User talk:82.11.178.239 and consultation with the administrator who blocked that IP (Fastily), the IP has been unblocked. Usually I consult the blocking admin before unblocking, but in this case I decided that there was no point in keeping the account blocked once the IP was open for the user to edit from, so I have unblocked the account too. I hope that is OK with you, but please tell me if you have any objection. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that decision, witness my previous reply regarding this account. Maybe somebody should emphasize that "We act and speak as one" isn't quite in agreement with Wikipedia's rules, and that the happy couple should use separate, named accounts for their future editing. Favonian (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't notice your previous reply on this. Thanks for pointing it out. I have gently suggested that they should each have an account, but if you think the point should be made more forcibly I see no objection to doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Knut Hamsun Centre
Thank you. This is all a bit confusing to me still. Wtfsvi (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks for expanding the article. I've merged the edits you made to Knut Hamsun Center into the main branch at Knut Hamsun Centre, so nothing has been lost. Favonian (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Obnoxious and Insulting IP-Hopping Editor
Hello, Favonian! I notice that you blocked this charming fellow the other day, and I'm pretty sure that 94.4.123.182 (talk · contribs) and 94.2.177.166 (talk · contribs) are more IPs used by this person - they all use Easynet out of London and all are harassing the user TreasuryTag. At the very least, the first IP mentioned should share a one-week block for personal attacks/harassment for calling me a "interfering moron" who needs to "get a life".[1] He's clearly only here to harass, and is probably a blocked user. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- IP jumping troll, no doubt, but since it has moved on, there really isn't any point in blocking the discarded addresses. Perish the thought that I should be handing out punitive blocks ;) Favonian (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hi Favonian - I just saw your warning to me regarding vandalism. I'd like to discuss and clear the air. Cheers, RealAuroraGuyRealAuroraGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is there to discuss? So far, your account has been dedicated to removing another editor's comment from a talk page; well, almost: you also did this, which doesn't speak much to your credit, though you removed it yourself. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. A friend of mine was being insulted unfairly, and I tried to right the wrong, albiet poorly. The comment removals were based on a long story about a town divided by a very strange set of events involving blogging pains, protecting the rights of anonymity, and a very vindictive ex-mayor - but, it's a long story. In my (only) defence, I was brand new to Wiki, and didn't take the time to read the rules before I started changing things. I know them now. For what it's worth, I have a great deal of respect for democracy and rules, especially in cyberspace. I appreciate good debate and try to never make it personal - most of the time, anyway. Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAuroraGuy (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest, what was the rationale here? To call the move arguments weak would be an understatement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- It hinges on the likelihood of anybody typing in "Bing" looking for something other than the search engine. Just looking at page hits, the only serious competitor is Bing Crosby, with the cherry on a fairly remote third place. It was argued, in my opinion correctly, that those looking for Mr. Crosby will type in his full name—and for that matter, when you type "Bing" in the search box his name shows up on the second line for easy clicking, obviating the need for a visit to the dab page. If one accepts this reasoning (and I know that these matters can be discussed endlessly) then "promoting" the search engine to the status of primary topic seems the obvious choice. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Block reconsideration
- User:Polozooza
- Block log
Hey, Favonian. Considering that:
- Anders Breivik has been fully protected,
- Polozooza had promised not to edit the page further before they were blocked,
- Polozooza is a relative newbie,
- The other edit-warring party is not blocked,
I don't see how a continued, lengthy block is of benefit to the project. Could I ask you take another look and consider unblocking or shortening the block duration? Thank you, Swarm u | t 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- After careful deliberation, I have decided not to unblock Polozooza. This user may be a "relative newbie" (some 250 edits in three months), but has nevertheless managed to accrue a significant number of warnings (up to level 4) for copyvio, attempts to retain an obvious hoax article, and now edit warring. In spite of two warnings about 3RR, he/she crossed the line. I'm not in favor of punitive blocks, and they are against policy, but when a user isn't able to understand very explicit warnings, then a connection between acts and consequences has to be demonstrated. I was tempted to block Hogbin as well, but decided against it, as he has at least managed to stay on the right side of the bright line. The block, which can hardly be considered "lenthy", has another three hours before expiration, and I think Polozooza can wait that long. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Lucien Laviscount
Hello. I noticed that you have deleted the Lucien Laviscount page in the past. I have now re-written this page to prove that it passes Wikipedia's notability rules. Please could you view the page in the link below and copy it into the Lucien Laviscount space? I would do it myself, but unregistered and newly registered Wikipedians are, apparently, unable to do this. Thank you
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=445681110
188.220.151.140 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like Dolovis took care of it. The previous attempts were due to the sock puppets of a notorious sub-stub creator and BLP transgressor, but the present version seems entirely "respectable". Thanks for your contribution. Favonian (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Dolan move
If I withdrew the request for a move at Timothy Michael Dolan, then could I submit it as an uncontroversial request. It's not actually "being discussed" there, just kinda sitting. I guess I was just surprised that it was enlisted considering the move logic and standards seemed to be fairly in the norm, and it's a frequently enough trafficked page that it wouldn't necessarily slip under the radar of those who are waiting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if there are any rules (for or against) converting a requested move to an uncontroversial one. Vegaswikian recently relisted the request with the rationale "since both forms appear to be in use", so you might want to contact that editor, who, incidentally, has much more experience with the renaming process than I. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please help
Please help me sir, i think he is a vandalist and aims to crash wikipedia [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urmate (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that may be a little beyond his powers, but they're definitely sockpuppets of MascotGuy (talk · contribs) with one exception: 74Elderwood (talk · contribs). What evidence do you have to incriminate that one? Favonian (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up
FYI, I just unblocked User:118.137.0.0/17, due to an email on the unblock mailing list. Normally, of course, I wouldn't unblock the entire range, and would deal with the individual separately instead (e.g. pointing them towards acc). But I decided to unblock here, since the block was set to expire tomorrow anyway, and I can't see how unblocking a day early will increase the potential for damage at all. If anything, it should decrease, since it brings to our attention the block expiring, which is basically what I am posting here about. Just thought you knew more about this particular vandal(s) than me, and may want to keep an eye on it, in case a reblock is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. History is not exactly encouraging, but we'll hope the best. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonion,
I am an investor in Texas Family Magazine, a statewide family values publication, whose Wikipedia page you have been helping to protect during the past two weeks from vandalism attacks by a sock puppet. We believe this attacks are resulting from a private dispute between our ex-publisher (who is being attacked in the attack, not the magazine itself) and his wife/current boyfriend regarding custody issues and personal disputes. Each attack has preceding one of their court hearing by a day. The current publisher has requested that I contact you and req — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi Favonian,
I as writing to thank you for defending our Wiki entries, Texas Fami1y and Texas Fami1y Magazine. TFM is a statewide parenting publication in Texas.
We believe that these attacks are resulting from a private dispute between the ex-publisher's ex-wife and her boyfriend, regarding custody issues and their private disputes. Each attack has preceded a court hearing by a single day, and they are clearly against our ex-publisher (Jesse) and not the magazine itself. As we expect these hearing to continue for 2-3 more months, the current publisher has requested that I ask that the padlock be extended for 2-3 more months. The current publisher can be contatced at Misha@texasfamilyonline.com for verification.
Further, we would like to request that the Texas Fami1y entry be dissolved as we are not generally referred to by this name. We had put in a request a month or two for this correction, which never occurred -- that is, our entry should simple show up under "Texas Fami1y Magazine" without any other entries or redirects. Texas Fami1y could also refer to a range of other entities including the Texas Fami1y Foundation, Texas Fami1y Law Foundation, Texas Fami1y Musicals, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
you want censore? Ok
I submit a claim to arbitration on you... if you block me...89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks :) 89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
I revert Nicosia article to start expanding its history section considering what is right or wrong discussed in the Discussion board. I am a Historian - professor in University in Erzerum. You missunderstood me my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindoutNicosia (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever your intentions and credentials, you're edit warring, and one more revert will result in a block. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
fuse
Hello great knowledgeable One
In which English is 'fuze' the correct spelling for 'fuse'???
Graham 58.165.76.181 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any English you like, if the "fuze" you mean is an ordnance component. This isn't a regional variation. Please read the many discussions of this on the various talk pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- On a related note, be careful when you change a name "wholesale". For instance, changing the spelling of File:MK53 fuze.jpg breaks the link to the image. Please remember to preview change before saving. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
FUZE Actually only Canadian English. Not GA nor UK nor SA nor Aus nor NZ Englishes. He who thinks 'any English you like' is WRONG. Get out of Wpd and join the WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.6.177 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
...for blocking Cyber 2000 promptly. bodnotbod (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
Close request
Could you look at this discussion and see if it isn't time to close it? It has degenerated into canvassing [3], [4] and personal attacks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I know from bitter experience that closing a discussion prematurely causes more problems than it solves, so we have to wait another two days. Miscreants should be reported to WP:ANI. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There are multiple musicians with this name who have Wikipedia articles, so this needs to be a disambiguation page. The Steve Davis that is currently on the page is a drummer. I attempted to move it to Steve Davis (drummer), but that article already exists for a different person working in the same genre. I think there needs to be a consensus about what this article should be called. I find the current article title unacceptable. This person's article is briefer than many of the others, and many people may be inclined to link to it erroneously, thinking the others are too specific. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have juggled things around so that the two drummers' articles are named Steve Davis (Northern Irish drummer) and Steve Davis (American drummer). Their previous names are now redirects to Steve Davis (disambiguation). Hope that works. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Kyle Lafferty
Why am I being accused of vandalism when all I am doing is deleting horrible bile and false information that was added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? I think you need to check the history again because all I did was delete the accusations of him being a racist and the wrong transfer fee. I am a Rangers supporter and a big fan of Lafferty so if you are trying to insinuate I wrote derogatory comments you are way off the mark!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I did check it: "Your Maws Athletic", "Cockmilk". Now be a good little vandal and crawl back under your rock. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but there is a mistake somewhere there, why would I delete bad comments then add some more in the same post? It just does not make sense, can you check into this please. I honestly did not write those comments and being a Rangers supporter I am a bit annoyed I am being accused of it but I am telling you this now so maybe you can find the bug or whatever has done this. Please do not just be rude again as this is a genuine problem and I am even willing to prove my identity if it is need as I feel that strongly abut it.
As I said it seems a bit strange that it is saying I put those comments in at the same time as I deleted other bad ones. Could you maybe look into this please, I know you are just doing your job and going by what you see and for the record you all do a great job. Surely the fact that I am sending you this message says a lot as well, if I was just some random vandal I would not care.
Thanks,
Gary Welch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Summoning all the good faith that I can muster, I conclude that there was a mistake, but you were the one making it. With the edit, which I've linked to twice above, it appears that you undid another editor's action. Thereby you re-added the rather offensive material I quoted. In the future, please be a good deal more careful and proofread your changes. Incidentally, if you check the article's edit history, you'll see that I reverted to a version without the racism remarks and the ludicrously inflated transfer sum. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it and getting back to me, as i say all I was trying to do was delete the bad comments but next time I will look more closely. As you can now see it was not me that wrote those comments originally which is why I was annoyed at being called a vandal, I appreciate it was my mistake and at least now I have learned to have a closer look even when just reverting a post back to a previous edit. Perhaps you could also check things more closely next time before coming to a conclusion that the editor is a vandal, not having a dig or anything there but I am sure you can understand why I was a bit annoyed as clearly I never fully understood how things worked and clearly it was not me that orginally wrote the offending words.
Thanks for taking the time to get back to me and have a good day :)
Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Please accept my most humble, sincere apologies, I was only working with my peers in attempts to block my school from editing Wikipedia AS A JOKE!! Tombuk1 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Jneil
Hello Noticed that you blocked Jneil, but is it really appropriate that Jneil gets blocked for being litigious? Seems like it was something he just said in the heat of the moment and he will take it back. And then he will evade all the other charges that he is guilty of like(quoting Admin JamesBWatson) "disruptive editing, including personal attacks, removal of all content from articles, edit warring, attempting to exert control over articles, violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and using Wikipedia for promotion".
I have another question regarding Jneil. I have no interest in starting a personal war with him digging through all his contributions(I've had enough with it from two articles already) but I have noticed that he only have edited/created articles he somehow had a personal stake in, and he was in a COI-dispute on the article for agorism as well where other editors said he hijacked the article trying to make him look more important in the movement than he was. At the least I would like to put the COI-label on it. But is it really appropriate that I continue to clean up Jneils mess(cause at this point I must be pretty biased) and could you perhaps look into it(I'm pretty new on Wikipedia and don't really now the etiquettes how to post on admin boards etc)? Or should I just put the COI label on the agorism article and let somebody else sort it out? Cheers! CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sock of the abusive editor you just blocked
Could you block User:115.241.247.223 for block evasion? In this diff xe admits to being the same person who you just blocked. Qwyrxian (talk)
Having blocked this IP
Hello. I'm HannibalBarcaXXI, and you recently indefinitely blocked my account (IP:178.53.90.113) for 'Multiple Accounts'. I would like to know where have I abused Wikipedia and used multiple accounts? I can't access my page, and can't do anything at all. Please lift the block immediately, because I'm innocent.
HB21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.53.90.113 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Bokan995
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bokan995. I am at a loss to understand why this editor isn't blocked yet. I don't want to have to do it myself, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- He is now. Noticed it right after issuing the 3RR warning. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciated. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
IP sock-puppetry
Hello, I was watching this article and noticed two IP address that were blanking the page. I checked the WHOIS and I think there is sock puppetry taking place. Is it necessary to report it to WP:SPI? I decided to ask you because you're the administrator who protected the article. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it's definitely the same person switching IP address. CheckUser can't really do anything, and as the article is now semi-protected, there is no risk of disruption for the next three days. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please protect this page again - the 93.94.xxx.xxx vandal is back and active. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please protect this page again, again - the 93.94.xxx.xxx vandal is back and active, again. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yalta image identification.
Hi. Great work identifying the people in the Yalta image! Perhaps you should update the commons page on it too? (Hohum @) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll do so after dinner. It annoys me that I cannot identify the last Soviet officer. Since it's basically a "photo op" for the chiefs of staff, he ought to be Sergei Khudyakov, but it looks nothing like him if you compare the picture to ru:Худяков, Сергей Александрович and this picture. Favonian (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is it Ivan Stepanovich Yumashev? Best image I can find of him is here(Hohum @) 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. The mouth looks wrong, but more importantly: I haven't been able to find a source that places him at the Yalta Conference. Favonian (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I have him now: Stepan Kucherov. He was at the conference and deputy to Kuznetsov; and this picture looks right. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. The mouth looks wrong, but more importantly: I haven't been able to find a source that places him at the Yalta Conference. Favonian (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is it Ivan Stepanovich Yumashev? Best image I can find of him is here(Hohum @) 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The Detective Barnstar | ||
For tracking down all of those elusive officers in the Yalta image. |
Turkish cousin is back again
149.140.34.124 . Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The previously blocked vandalist IP has indeed resurrected, check this lad [5], compared to previous star [6].Greyshark09 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- No one compares to NawlinWiki when swift execution is called for. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Re. SRESQ
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Dear Favonian,
It is with a good deal of regret that I find myself to write to you to explain my displeasure which, by your intervention, has but only increased, however you have chosen to leave me with no alternative but to put an end to my silence. Your gross and potentially deliberate (although deliberate in good faith) misunderstanding of the situation has now only inflamed a minor issue into an exposition of the rot that takes place when good men keep quiet. Perhaps, to begin with you should read this rather handy little guide to etiquette before the thought of giving any sort of response enters your head:
However, this is quite aside from our issue. My main issue is now not factual inaccuracies, but indeed your misunderstanding of the concept of a user page. You referred to the user page User:ModWilson as his "home page". However, the article Wikipedia:User_pages, which, I hasten to add, bears greater authority than yourself in such matters, states that "[User pages] are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". This is in direct conflict with all the implications and insinuations of your message regarding user pages. If you claim the authority of justice, of banning and blocking, then you must learn to wield this power with a sense of responsibility and accountability before the community. You have, with all in good faith, made no attempt to understand the difficult situation or resolve it fairly and justly, but have twisted your alleged authority to suit your own ends (in good faith). My original edits, which you heavily implied constituted harassment (thereby refuting Wikipedia's great policy of good faith), were in fact made with the good intention of improving the project. As the article Wikipedia:User_pages states, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." My edits were minor and not substantial, and they were most certainly with the intention of facilitating the project, especially those good editors working on the French Wikipedia who rely on integrity in the Babel Userboxes pertaining to French. However, where is integrity in the French userbox of ModWilson? He has no such skill in the French language and by making a claim to possess this skill which he has not, he is hindering the efforts of myself and other good editors. You also understand some French, I understand. Try a simple conversation with him about this current situation in French, and the falsehood (made in good faith) will become all too clear.
I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I came here hoping to find the values of assumption of good faith here that I had read so widely about. Instead I have been now confronted by both ModWilson and yourself, neither of whom has attempted to perceive the good faith in my actions and neither of whom seems to have any intention to follow any aspect of Wikipedia's etiquette policy. Should you be doubting whether my issue is truly worth your time, I call to your attention these simple principles of "Wikiquette":
- Work towards agreement.
- Do not ignore questions.
- Be prepared to apologize.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that I dislike your tone. I feel your tone was deliberately aggressive, abrasive and non-constructive. Please try to follow The Golden Rule in all future correspondences. SRESQ (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wall of text and the numerous references to Wikipedia scripture, with which I am quite familiar. Not the first time you've practiced this art, at witnessed by this splash on your antagonist's talk page. Whether ModWilson truly possesses the (low-level) language skill claimed by the user box is of no great importance, and if the person chooses to ignore your somewhat condescending message, nothing more should be done by you or anyone else, as it hardly violates any of the commandments quoted by you. Favonian (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Nicolas Berggruen
sure thks for the block i called ,,,you need to block two steps back..... as per my last pasge thks --Bioplus (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Full protections are invariably on The Wrong Version. Furthermore, it would be easier if future requests were made in English. I had a hard time deciphering your message. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- WELL THIS IS THE CORRECT PAGE AND THIS IP NEED TO BE BLOCKED RE VENDALISM 71.172.245.177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioplus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is the "correct" version is not something I'll commit myself to at this point, and I won't just take your all-uppercase word for it. The discussion should take place on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- okay the correct version is on the Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. pls upload and use this page we develloped by consensus and then you need to block this IP :71.172.245.177 --Bioplus (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't copy versions of the article to this or any other talk page; they can always be retrieved from the article history. I won't block the IP, as their actions do not constitute vandalism. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- well repeted "undo" is vandalis,,,,, pls upload the proper page now thanks --Bioplus (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- It may constitute edit warring, but in that case you're as guilty as they are. The article will remain locked for a week or until agreement can be reached on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. You may present your arguments for the inclusion of for instance the phrase "party animal" there. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- look at the elements added Talk:Nicolas Berggruen , this article has several problems you can correct based on the disscussions, ref and elements in the talk page.... --Bioplus (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- It may constitute edit warring, but in that case you're as guilty as they are. The article will remain locked for a week or until agreement can be reached on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. You may present your arguments for the inclusion of for instance the phrase "party animal" there. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- well repeted "undo" is vandalis,,,,, pls upload the proper page now thanks --Bioplus (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't copy versions of the article to this or any other talk page; they can always be retrieved from the article history. I won't block the IP, as their actions do not constitute vandalism. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- okay the correct version is on the Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. pls upload and use this page we develloped by consensus and then you need to block this IP :71.172.245.177 --Bioplus (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is the "correct" version is not something I'll commit myself to at this point, and I won't just take your all-uppercase word for it. The discussion should take place on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- WELL THIS IS THE CORRECT PAGE AND THIS IP NEED TO BE BLOCKED RE VENDALISM 71.172.245.177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioplus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The Crazy Italian Biologist is back
Do you remember this user? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.5.238.156 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_G._Edwards&diff=prev&oldid=447689299-- he did it again...Tyrannobdella rex (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. The long-term disruption has resulted in a longish block. I was a bit surprised to see this hint coming from a freshly created account, though. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I know who makes this changes because he did it in the italian wikipedia, but he was blocked for ever... see here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/79.5.238.156 and here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:79.5.238.156 you can see what he did for 3 years on italian wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannobdella rex (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow! Indef block of an IP. That wouldn't fly on this Wikipedia. Not that I'm not tempted from time to time. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe he is not the same man ( i don't believe it because he is an italian IP), but he says, like the other, that Robert G. Edwards had a degree in biology and not in agricolture, and he makes again a change. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_G._Edwards&diff=next&oldid=448007670 I'm sorry for this man, but, Robert G. Edward had a degree in agricolture, it is sure: http://sla-divisions.typepad.com/dbio/2010/10/robert-g-edwards-2010-nobel-prize-winner-in-physiology-or-medicine.html http://healthzone24x7.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-g-edwards-great-physiologist-to.html I don't know why he makes this changes... Sorry for the noise--Tyrannobdella rex (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, I noticed it—in fact I reverted their first attempt. Since you have the source handy that refutes the IP's change of Edwards' education, I would encourage you to undo the latest change, noting the reason in the edit summary. I'll monitor the IP's activities, and if they persist, a block will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
did it^^--95.245.8.234 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw, he started again on italian wikipedia too, as you can see here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/87.30.187.203 I know who he is, because i did a lot of researches about his identity, and i spoke with him on some sites, it was easy found him. I don't have his ip, but is too easy, for some recurrent "phrases" and writing ways, and because he gave me a lot of confirmation during the discussions. I wonder if there is a way for shutting him down maybe with legal ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannobdella rex (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not. He's a pain in the neck, but not guilty of criminal acts. So far, I have semi-protected the Robert G. Edwards article for a month, which will at least present an obstacle to his disruptive behavior. Favonian (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies
Sorry, I thought it had been a work of a vandal. I didn't mean to precipitate myself. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Single-edit IPs who don't leave edit summaries tend to make me revert-happy too ;) Favonian (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Any idea why this isn't showing up at SPI? Does the bot take a while? This guys a pain. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like the bot runs every 15 minutes: Special:Contributions/Δbot. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- And we have confirmation :) Favonian (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that explains it. How do you do the diffs as you've done above? Is it explained somewhere at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide and I've missed it? Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's something I picked up quite recently. The relevant templates are {{diff2}} for "one-step" diffs and {{diff}} for more general ones. A good deal more compact than pasting in those very long URLs, but you have to dig out the relevant version id(s) manually. Favonian (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Should those be added to the Complete guide? Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's something I picked up quite recently. The relevant templates are {{diff2}} for "one-step" diffs and {{diff}} for more general ones. A good deal more compact than pasting in those very long URLs, but you have to dig out the relevant version id(s) manually. Favonian (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that explains it. How do you do the diffs as you've done above? Is it explained somewhere at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide and I've missed it? Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations
Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Time flies. I passed the 100 K mark, and my daughter just created her first Wikipedia article :) Favonian (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Roman IP vandal
The IP vandal who insists on removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" is back, using 76.4.176.205. I've left a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Just a small thank you for being so on top of admin tasks (especially the RM of The Short-Tempered Clavier and other dysfunctional works for keyboard oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks a lot. I'll munch my cookie now and leave the RM backlog for later ;) Favonian (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the backstory, but I came across User:Abraham.divine on a weird post at RFPP. You blocked the original account, so alerting you. Seems ducky to me. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Very ducky indeed! The master account has been quite prolific, so I've requested a CheckUser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Divineabraham. Favonian (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
User Robertistheman
You might want to check out the contributions of Robertistheman (talk · contribs). I suspect somebody has a beef with you. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly looks that way. I'll keep an eye on him to see if his obsession manifests itself further. Thanks to the sad fate of his so far only article, I now know for sure that I'm not notable :( Favonian (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Robertistheman doesn't look notable. But I think Favonian IS notable. :) Elockid (Talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for those kind words :) Meanwhile, it looks like my latest epigone has left us, but my monstrous vanity made me conduct a search for others of that ilk. Looks like User:Corfiot58 ran out of steam after one sentence. Favonian (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Robertistheman doesn't look notable. But I think Favonian IS notable. :) Elockid (Talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
LouisPhilippeCharles
I added some socks of his that I stumbled onto after you blocked a couple, which you may not yet have noticed. FactStraight (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been editing this file several times today. Unfortunately, it's kind of futile because the file is regenerated from scratch every 15 minutes by an automatic script, which extracts entries from the relevant article talk pages. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I hope I corrected my request to change the article name again to 8x57mm IS and the the automatic script works now.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Genocides in History.
Please explain not accepting my addition to genocides in history. It is hardly "original research" or not adequately sourced. Here it is:
According to Hebrew Scriptures, during the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, Moses and Joshua ordered several genocides. "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods... And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host...Have ye saved all the women alive?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"(Numbers 31:7-18). At the conquest of the City of Jericho,they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:21).
These actions, on their face, meet the definition of genocide. Why is another source required who called them genocide??
So if I can come up with an "authoritative source" who labels these Old Testament actions as genocide, you will accept the edit, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGrady (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are drawing your own conclusions based on the Old Testament, which is a primary source, and that's what makes your contribution original research in Wikipedia terminology. You'll need to find a reliable, secondary source, preferably a scholarly work, that attaches the "genocide" label to these events. At any rate, the statement has been contested twice, so you should take the matter to the article's talk page to get consensus. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
page moves
I've noticed you've handled quite a few of my requests. Thanks so much for doing this; sorry there are so many; but some areas of WP really need a lot of cleaning up. If it's too much, tell me and I'll stop or slow down. Tony (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- No problem at all. Just keep them coming. The requests regarding various titles are very easy to deal with, in fact so easy that you might consider posting them under "uncontroversial requests". No real point in having them go through the whole one-week cycle. Regards, Favonian (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks; I wasn't aware of the shortcut, or the one-week cycle. Sometimes people do object where capitalisation and/or typography are concerned, although thus far it's a vanishingly small proportion. The move request at Chief Mechanical Engineer seems to have taken on a life of its own, and at least has prompted great improvement to the article. One thing I do want to ask: I see the occasional title such as "Tough love", which turns out to be a book title. Am I right to move it to "Tough love (book)"? And I haven't got the hang of italicising parts of article titles, although I notice that this is sometimes done in FACs, so it must be possible. Can't say I like the look of italicised article titles in large size, though. Tony (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh dear! I should have known better than to recommend "uncontroversial requests". Seems like any request has the potential for being controversial, witness Talk:I Can't Be with You#Requested move. Regarding Tough love, that particular article is about a general term, and though it does mention a book in which the term was supposedly coined, you shouldn't try to rename it. If you look at Tough love (disambiguation), you'll see a list of the various other articles with that or similar names. Regarding the italic titles, they are mandated by the style guides of the projects to which the subject of the article belongs. As a general rule, titles of works like books, films, operas, albums (but not individual songs) are italicized. Sometimes this is managed by the relevant infobox, for instance {{Infobox film}}, but in other cases you have to force it using {{Italic title}}. Favonian (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, Favonian: in haste, I just chose "Tough Love" as an example off the top of my head, and I've sent you on a wild-goose chase in the process; I had no idea there really was an article with that title, damn it (I was too lazy to go back and find a real one to provide an example, not expecting you'd follow it up).
Truth is, in long category lists I've encountered more than a few article titles I took to be concepts or processes, and found they were actually book titles when I clicked. Business, accounting, management—there seem to be a lot of articles on single books; I know this is allowed, but it's not the most satisfactory when it becomes a habit in a field (one big danger is cut-and-paste plagiarism, which is so hard to detect when it's a hard-copy book at issue).
Yes, I must explore the italicisation thing—thanks for the template—since that would be a solution for the book-titles-as-article-titles issue, at least some of the time. But I'm starting to see article titles italicised in category lists apparently because they're piped to a section: this is something I hadn't ever noticed, and perhaps it's a recent developer innovation. Kind of interferes with the italics as a signal that an article title = book title, and I'm not sure the message behind this formatting, as it were, gets through to ordinary editors like me, let alone readers.
One more thing, if you can bear with me: a title such as "X Y Agency" that turns out to concern, solely, the federal US agency by that not very distinctive name—should I add "(US)" if the plain title seems to claim generic status? WP:TITLE doesn't seem to be helpful on how specific article titles should be, although it prefers them to be short, naturally.
Non-controversial list ... yeah, I think I'd rather not assume that, even though I try to avoid anything that might be controversial or that I'm unsure of; for example, an uppercased title ending in "Model", "Framework", "Theory", or "Protocol" I steer clear of for the moment. Tony (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- No harm done ;)
- The category member items displayed in italics are redirects—and not just those pointing to sections. It is indeed a bit confusing when two formatting conventions collide.
- Adding a disambiguator, for instance "(US)" should only be done when there actually is an article about a non-American agency of the same name. Unnecessary disambiguation if frowned upon. It's kind of the same with the book title vs. general concept problem: only if an article about the general term actually exists should we consider adding "(book)" or whatever suffix to the other article's name. It depends heavily on whether the general term is truly the primary topic, and that always leads to long, if not fruitful discussions. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, Favonian: in haste, I just chose "Tough Love" as an example off the top of my head, and I've sent you on a wild-goose chase in the process; I had no idea there really was an article with that title, damn it (I was too lazy to go back and find a real one to provide an example, not expecting you'd follow it up).
- Oh dear! I should have known better than to recommend "uncontroversial requests". Seems like any request has the potential for being controversial, witness Talk:I Can't Be with You#Requested move. Regarding Tough love, that particular article is about a general term, and though it does mention a book in which the term was supposedly coined, you shouldn't try to rename it. If you look at Tough love (disambiguation), you'll see a list of the various other articles with that or similar names. Regarding the italic titles, they are mandated by the style guides of the projects to which the subject of the article belongs. As a general rule, titles of works like books, films, operas, albums (but not individual songs) are italicized. Sometimes this is managed by the relevant infobox, for instance {{Infobox film}}, but in other cases you have to force it using {{Italic title}}. Favonian (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks; I wasn't aware of the shortcut, or the one-week cycle. Sometimes people do object where capitalisation and/or typography are concerned, although thus far it's a vanishingly small proportion. The move request at Chief Mechanical Engineer seems to have taken on a life of its own, and at least has prompted great improvement to the article. One thing I do want to ask: I see the occasional title such as "Tough love", which turns out to be a book title. Am I right to move it to "Tough love (book)"? And I haven't got the hang of italicising parts of article titles, although I notice that this is sometimes done in FACs, so it must be possible. Can't say I like the look of italicised article titles in large size, though. Tony (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
kk
okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollage:D (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
That'll end one drama for now but I'm seriously just wanna stay off here is there anyway to get my account blocked by request? I don't want anything more to do with Wikipedia for at least a month just to get away from the drama. Please if there's anything you can do please do it. I gotta get away from here for awhile or at least till I get things in my life under control. JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please.... JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- We don't usually block accounts by request, but you might look into the script Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Favonian (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay thanks. JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I don't know if I'm doing it right it's at User:JamesAlan1986/vector.js can you fix it? JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't follow the instructions. The entire script should be copied into vector.js; you only added the date and time specifications. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh my bad sorry I didn't know. Thank you. JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I need some help
I need some help sorting out this mess. On August 31, Mnealon moved Cocaine Blues (western swing song), splitting it from Cocaine Blues, saying "Multiple songs share this title, and the current article conflates them." He made this move without discussion or consensus. The fact is, all of the songs sharing this title are related, and cannot be easily distinguished from one another, as is often the case with folk songs of uncertain origin. The "Red" Arnall song, as the article says, is "a reworking of the traditional song "Little Sadie," a ballad with multiple alternate titles. As all of these songs share a similar origin, it is best that they all be discussed in one place. I want to revert Mnealon's edits, but I am not sure exactly how to go about it. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Complicated one. I'll look into it, though it may take a little while. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, here is my take. Mnealon carried out a bold split of the article. My knowledge of the subject matter is too scanty to assess whether the split is a good idea, but the current Cocaine Blues is a strange sort of hybrid between a disambiguation page and a "proper" article. You would be within your rights to revert the split and tell Mnealon that it should only be redone as the result of a proper discussion, using the process described in WP:SPLIT. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. The only thing he split was the "western swing" song, giving the impression that it, alone, is distinct. This is not helpful. I have been studying this, and related topics, for years, and I can tell you, as I said above, that these songs are too closely related to deal with separately. Is it as simple an issue as reverting his move, or is it more complicated than that? To move Cocaine Blues (western swing song) back to Cocaine Blues, Cocaine Blues will have to be deleted first, correct? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies
Favonian. I notice that recently there have been a plethora of disruptive edits from our IP address under the name Dust429. I will do my best to look into this and see what can be done. It's a real shame because our College is a real oasis of academia, and I believe it would have much to offer in the way of content and contributions. It seems that the perpetrator is vandalising other wikis as well: is there anyway of blocking him from all wikiprojects? Once again I apologise on the school's behalf. Sincerely. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. The problem with blocking him is that he currently uses mobile access from a major provider, so the "collateral damage" would be substantial if we set up a range block. Good to see that you still teach your students Latin ;) Favonian (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Adriana Ferreyr
Dear sir / madam,
Since August 2011 I have attempted to add text to the biography of the above.
I referenced several articles to prove my points. I admit that the text entered reflected negatively upon Adriana Ferreyr, however it was corroborated. ie truthful.
People have constantly reverted the article to its original text. One of these HAP791 has previously been warned about their posting. This user has also misrepresented an image, which has only been corrected once I informed the real rights holder today. They also misuse the image as representing 2009 when the picture was not taken until the next year.
None of the text in the article is verifiable. It is all taken from either IMDB or Linkedin. IMDB and Linkedin are non-verifiable sources of information.
The complete article is nothing more than an advertisement. Hence, one presumes, its being flagged for speedy deletion. Something I can only support.
I ask that you re-open the article and then lock it to allow a full representation of Adriana Ferreyr.
Yours faithfully William de Berg (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- The article will remain locked for at least three days. All discussion should take place at Talk:Adriana Ferreyr. If agreement cannot be reached there, you and the other editors should follow the directions in WP:Dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Pennsylvania
Hello - the move wars at Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania and Horton Township, Pennsylvania have resumed. Would you mind re-protecting them? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm hesitate to protect them once more. I was the admin closing the requested move on the Bensalem Township, and if I protect the article again on the same name, somebody may accuse me of bias. Better to file a request at WP:RFPP. Favonian (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the soapbox from ANI
WikiMedal for Janitorial Services | ||
For the prompt removal of crates of detergent VanIsaacWS 09:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Divineabraham
I don't know if you've seen the latest on this case. I don't think I have anything to offer regarding the latest suspected socks that Hersfold found, but perhaps you do. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)