User talk:Favonian

This is Favonian's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58: 31 days

Ip's

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

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

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

Good ol' Special Cases

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

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

Samsung Electronics

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

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

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

just checking in

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

Korean Air Flight 902

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

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

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

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

Istanbul

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

Hi Alessandro.

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

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

Hi, why remove bindb from References from List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

German Brazilians

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

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

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

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

IPs at neo soul article

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

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

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

Hello - Strange problem

Hello,

I saw that you had contact with User:Ljuboni. There is a strange problem with this user(again at the Vlachs of Serbia article), if you have the time and will please take a look at this [1]. Also I am confused after this [[2] and not participating in the ANI discussion if already active thread exists. If you could help clarify this problem. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Long-period variable

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

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

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

Wikipedia polices :?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong Information at Wikipedia About Kashimath

Kindly try to add correct informations in Wikipedia Mr.Favonian You can check and verify in various sites: http://kashimath.org/, http://www.gsbkonkani.net/Maths/SHRI%20KASHI%20MATH%20SAMSTHAN.htm , http://www.gosripuram.org.in/KashiMutt4.htm

The Information which shows in Kashi Math wikipedia is absolutely wrong. HH Raghavendra is got Reveled form Kashi Math. Current Utharadhikari is HH Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji. Whenever we add details of HH Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji you people are removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashimathorg (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Berstabit and NU DOE and User:Nemont, thank you to ElKevbo for finally deleting the Controversy section from the page, our prestigious university doesn't deserve these attacks on our reputation. President Obama and Steve Forbes have both declared Neumont is the best computer science program in the United States. We are not a sham. Lymani (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]