User talk:Favonian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Favonian/Archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

RE:Many thanks!

No problem, you're quite welcome :) UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

72.79.80.198's edits

Dear Administrator,

SPAM User 12.182.80.222 has changed his IP to 72.79.80.198 and is again vandalising wikipedia and posting false information at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ramdasia. July 24, 2009

Bal537's edits

Dear Admin,

User Bal537 is indulging in vandalism by creating fabricated and fictitious stories and using wikipedia as a place to spread rumours.

The recent vandalism done by this user is by creating fabricated/false page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chamar_ramdasia to indulge in vandalism.

Some of his recent activities includes

1. Creating inappropriate pages
2. Vandalism
3. Adding spam links
4. Not adhering to neutral point of view
5. Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material
6. Introducing deliberate factual errors
7. Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons
8. Using talk page as forum
9. Not assuming good faith
10. Adding incorrect categories
11. Incorrect formatting of disambiguation pages

I would therefore request you to remove this page and block user Bal537 from making any future edits on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravinder121 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin;

My response. Ravinder121 is deleting my valid links and edits. He has refused to engage in any discussion and is not providing any valid links to back his claims. He refuses to provide any information why is deleting my information other than that it clashes with his ideas.

Here are my proofs regarding that Ramdasia are of Chamar origin: Castes and Tribes of Punjab by G.W Briggs written in 18th century lists Ramdasia as Chamars. How do you explain that? http://books.google.com/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=RA1-PA148&lpg=RA1-PA148&dq=ramdasia+chamar&source=bl&ots=qKY961jfa8&sig=wCi0nGW-9D0ddQ_Qio_OaPt_HyU&hl=en&ei=J7xoSvfVII6GMaC89M8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8 A research paper on scheduled castes of Punjab: Showing that Ramdasia's are Chamars http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf

Official Constitution of India: Scheduled Castes Amendment http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/THE%20CONSTITUTION%20(SCHEDULED%20CASTES)%20ORDER%20(AMENDMENT)%20ACT,%202002

I would request that you please Ban Ravinder121

Mind soup

Hi there,

This is just an FYI to let you know that I declined to speedily delete Mind soup, because the article claims that they have been featured on Echoes, which would make them notable under criteria #12 of WP:BAND. Now, that's not to say that you couldn't prod it or take it to AfD... Thanks, Mikaey, Devil's advocate 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

my pleasure

I think being attacked by vandals usually means you are doing something right, so keep it up! Shiva (Visnu) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hkelkar sock

You are introducing a pov pushers edits hes a sock of around 34 accounts the biggest sock puppet Hkelkar please remove his trash 86.158.236.235 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with this Hkelkar, nor am I anybody's sock. Favonian (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say you are a sock maybe you should actually read my post anyways hes a massive sock user with many accounts so please remove his edits from partition 86.158.236.235 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

86 IP is banned user Nangparbat. Hkelkar is a banned Indian POV pusher, while this guy is a banned Pakistani POV pusher. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. Why on Earth 86 IP gets worked up about a church meeting in 787 (Iconoclasm) I shall never understand. Favonian (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

AngelOfSadness has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For the user talkpage revert. It was very much appreciated. :D AngelOfSadness talk 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Love cookies :) Favonian (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

68.46.2.253

You should ease off the reverting. There is no rule against blanking your own user page even if it contains warnings. I've reported the account as a sock puppet, there's nothing more to be done. Matt J ^User|Talk 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My fingers were getting a bit sore :) Favonian (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks a bundle

No problem! Always happy to help. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here! Quantpole (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: D. Gotti

Hi Favonian! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on D. Gotti- because: the page is not nonsense - there is meaningful content. If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Redirecting to the band's article is the right solution. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Hi. I've been looking over your contributions and you certainly seem to do good work here. I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you read practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll revert.

You may wish to display {{User rollback}} on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! I'll try to remember that with great power comes great responsibility. Favonian (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You just rolled back my 2009 update, why isn't the release of the worlds biggest rappers (jay-z) album worthy of mention on the page? Thanks.

This was done according to WP:RY. You might consider 2009 in music instead. By the way, please remember to sign your messages. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

94.197.174.230

Hi Favonian,

I just noticed this, and your message to User:94.197.174.230. I think you should take another look at the edit. It isn't exactly suitable material for the encyclopaedia in its present form either, but I think it might be a mistake to call it vandalism. What do you think? Jakew (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

By Jove, you have a point. Some appropriate WP tags are definitely in order if this bit of folklore is to become encyclopedia material. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning Icoulduk

I noticed that you just warned User talk:Icoulduk. I responded to his {{helpme}} request by directing him to read the links in the warnings that you posted, which he has seemed to understood (after your level 4 warning). I say we give him a bit more time before requesting a block as his edits appear to be good-faith attempts, lest we scare him away. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 09:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger that, though I tend to doubt the goodness of his faith. He is clearly affiliated with the web site to which he is linking, and the account seems to be created for that very purpose. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed the username. I'm headed to bed, so you'll have to watch this one for me. It may warrant a post to WP:UAA.—C45207 | Talk 09:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Broad daylight in my time zone :) Favonian (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Robertovetz

I undid your edit on this page as I had just added the same template best BigDunc 20:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike ;) Favonian (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. BigDunc 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Re: The Hate Forest edit. The material that was removed from the article, but somehow identified as "vandalism", was adequately referenced. One was an academic source, published by a legitimate academic publisher, Palgrave, where the band is described by a researcher of the Black Metal genre National Socialist Black Metal band. Participation of the band in the Kolovorot Fest, and evidence of the bands that play in these events, can be seen in YouTube. Therefore, I do not think the additions that were removed (themselves restorations of referenced material) can be fairly described as vandalism. Vandalism would be if the assertions being made were malicious or unfounded fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hart, aber ungerecht (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tough, but Unjust. Terribly, terribly sorry! Must be the arrogance of old age which made me conclude that associating a reference about Habermas with a black metal band had to be a hoax. I have reinstated your contribution. Favonian (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD and schools

Hi Favonian. Just so you know, the speedy deletion criterion "A7" distinctly does not include schools as eligible, potentially "non-notable" subjects. I ended up deleting this article that you tagged, though, since it had very little context and met the A1 CSD reason. Notability of specific schools are usually decided through the AFD discussion process, which is why schools are excluded from the realm of speedy deletion. Best, JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie. Thanks for the advice! I'll make a note of it for future use. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Let me know if you ever have questions, and I'd be happy to help. JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

22 July

Thanks for reverting for me. Just wanted a quick screenshot, but computer froze before I could revert. Good looking out. Cmiych (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thought it looked a bit unlike our average vandalism. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So do you watch all the "date" pages or just have a particular interest in this day? Cmiych (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, tempted to say it's a trade secret, but no, I maintain a "sliding window" around the present date. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Smart. Cmiych (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Osijek (city)

Hello Favonian, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Osijek (city) has been removed. It was removed by 76.230.228.43 with the following edit summary '(Plausible search term; don't prod for redirects)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 76.230.228.43 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

"Vandalism"

See here. This is not vandalism, and is not appropriate use of such edit summary. If you look over the page history (which you should, unless it is blatant vandalism), you'll see why this is simply someone attempting to correct unverified, unreliable information about themselves. Keep up the good work, but do look for the big picture. Keegan (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Keegan. I have indeed looked at the big picture. The user in question reverts other users' contributions, sometimes with such choice phrases as BAD THINGS, THIS IS WRONG INFO! THIS IS MY ARTICLE!!!!, yes, i can!, and before undo, follow the links and read MF!!!. I have taken exception to his assumption that he owns the article, and that was the topic of my warnings. You may have a point, namely that I should have pushed the simple rollback rather than rollback (VANDAL) in Twinkle, and I shall strive to choose more carefully in the future. Regards Favonian (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my note. Good to see that you were looking at the history, I was looking over it and I made the false assumption that it was being drive by reverted since several editors had just hit the page once; so apologies for my accusatory tone. Good idea about simple rollback instead of vandal. We're dealing with a severe language barrier in dealing with a user that just wants the correct and updated information. The method undertaken just not seems to be working. We'll sort it out. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I resisted the temptation to warn DIMA285 about WP:3RR which he violated. Right now it seems that everything's quiet on the eastern front, but the article is not in a good shape. Glad to hear that it is receiving attention. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, let's remember the last page of that book :) Keegan (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

24 July 2009

User Bal537 is posting false information to misguide users and indulging in SPAMMING on Wikipedia. This user has previously masquaraded as User 72.79.80.198 & 12.182.80.222. He is just vandalising by posting false information again and again.

Dear Administrator, My only purpose is to stop users from indulging in vandalism. User Bal537 is indulging in vandalism and spamming.

12.182.80.222's edits

User 12.182.80.222 is posting false information and vandalising on wikipedia

Bal537's edits

Dear Administrator,

User Bal537 is using fake alias I.Ps and indulging in extensive vandalism.

This user does vandalism using various I.Ps and Proxies. Recently, he has posted false information on Ramdasia section.

This user has a history of vandalism.

Thank you :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! [midnight comet] [talk] 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(Sniff) Thank you! It's been a very long time since anyone referred to me as angelic. Favonian (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ok

Ok u can delete it but i need to know how that infobox works . Piz respond ASAP thnx --Taiwan Dude 00:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)TaiwanDude —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwanman1 (talk • contribs)

Ramdasia and user Ravinder121

Dear Admin;

My response. Ravinder121 is deleting my valid links and edits. He has refused to engage in any discussion and is not providing any valid links to back his claims. He refuses to provide any information why is deleting my information other than that it clashes with his ideas.

Here are my proofs regarding that Ramdasia are of Chamar origin: Castes and Tribes of Punjab by G.W Briggs written in 18th century lists Ramdasia as Chamars. How do you explain that? http://books.google.com/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=RA1-PA148&lpg=RA1-PA148&dq=ramdasia+chamar&source=bl&ots=qKY961jfa8&sig=wCi0nGW-9D0ddQ_Qio_OaPt_HyU&hl=en&ei=J7xoSvfVII6GMaC89M8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8 A research paper on scheduled castes of Punjab: Showing that Ramdasia's are Chamars http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf

Official Constitution of India: Scheduled Castes Amendment http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/THE%20CONSTITUTION%20(SCHEDULED%20CASTES)%20ORDER%20(AMENDMENT)%20ACT,%202002

I would request that you please Ban Ravinder121 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Another sock?

Perhaps? I've already tagged but can you help keep an eye out please - I'm done for the night. Cheers.--VS ^talk 12:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like it. I'll see what (s)he's up to. Favonian (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

188.80.33.222

Could you see my remarks on my talk page, with regards to your unfair warning?188.80.33.222 (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That remark has been answered by Chillum on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Skool with Terry and Gita Deletion request you did

Hello my brotha, as i could see when i was just browsing, you put a deletion request in an article i just created, this one[1]. as i see the reason is that the article is like one line longer (= . i am really gonna expand it with all the requirements, links, citations and such. but man, here its 1:33am and i am kind of sleepy (i live in the pacific time zone). Could you wait for tomorrow for my expansion of the article, please? (= . A brotha gotta rest before researching, u know what im sayin, by the way the tag said something about importance of the article, and this is a Vh1 program, watched worldwide and shit, plus the actresses that were the one starring in the reality were really important in their time, i mean, terry did a load of movies and she shagged Howard Hughes (=. so whats up my brotha, can u wait a few hours while i rest, and then i'll gladly improve the article. please reply to this as soon as possible, my eyes are closing themselves without my permission. good night :)--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your reply my brotha, i gotta sleep, thank you (= --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's up to an administrator to decide whether the article will be speedily delete or not. At any rate, I recommend that you study the guidelines for showing notability. Another bit of advise is not to mingle the writing of articles with sleepwalking :) Favonian (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. ok. i feel you, and yeah, i've read the notability thingy, i think this article is notable, but if u think its not, well, what can i do, delete it (=, as i said, i can expand it and put all the required stuff in it tomorrow (=, now, i will go to my bed and have a good night sleep, have a good night, day, afternoon, or whatever day time it is where you reside, see ya--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Chamar Section reverts

I have added links backing up what I have wrote. Why did you revert it?

Bal537 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)bal537

In a recent warning you were instructed to "gather consensus for your edits and sources on the article talk pages". Instead of waiting for such a consensus you have again carried out the same modifications to the Chamar article. Favonian (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet case

I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oropos. Triplestop x3 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Considered doing it myself, as a new clone seems to pop up every day. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"great attention to precision"

I find your comments on my talk page about "great attention to precision" to have no merit at all. I've commented at length at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhappe

Hi, there is a term called Bhappe and/Bhappeya.

Please do a check in goolge it is simply a nickname for professions relating to banking Analtap (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a racist term used in India to descride people from the trading profession, that emigrated from Pakistan. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. From reading the article (which has now been deleted) I got that impression as well. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for undoing vandalism to my talk page. Much appreciated. 99.0.83.41 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. That was one very persistent vandal! Favonian (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:200.215.222.195

Hi!

I saw that you had reverted a number of edits on User talk:200.215.222.195. Whilst removing insults on a User's talk page is a good thing, restoring of warnings on a talk page should not be done, with a few exceptions. Have a read of WP:UP#OWN for more details. Thank you! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the advise — guess I got carried away in the heat of the chase ;) Favonian (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Use care

Please be careful which button you use to make reverts. This was not a reversion of vandalism. There is no reason not to assume good faith in this case. We don't want to bite the newcomers, even anon IPs. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Knew it the second I hit the (wrong) Twinkle button. It was the second in a series of three reverts of POVs. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to alter my own edit comments retroactively. Very contrite. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We can dream. See this. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cultivate the habit of proofreading the edit summary ..." — that's crazy talk :) Favonian (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources?

I edited the Democratic Party page to correct a falsehood on Affirmative Action. You reverted my change, saying I needed to cite sources. I notice that the paragraph as it stands cites no sources... is it Wikipedia's policy that liberal edits are always permitted, but conservative edits have to cite sources? 98.197.130.3 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, this is not the case. I cannot, however, correct every transgression that has occurred in the past, but that does not free you from the responsibility to provide sources for your statements. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So I can remove the incorrect statement with no citations, then? 98.197.130.3 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You do love rhetorical questions. If you remove statements without providing an argument in the edit summary, it'll definitely be considered vandalism and reverted. Otherwise, it'll be up to the Wikipedians at large, and I suppose there's a good chance your deletions will be challenged. At this point, I should remind you to study the guidelines for editing, e.g. WP:NOTOPINION. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so then the situation is this:
1. The paragraph currently has a clause which could be described as an "opinion", but is more accurately a "lie" or "falsehood".
2. The paragraph cites no sources.
3. Because of 1 and 2, the paragraph is against Wikipedia regulations, but
4. Because nobody caught it when it was edited (likely because of liberal bias, which you cannot reasonably deny exists on Wikipedia), it now is an allowed part of the page.
5. Changing the lie to a truth (that not all accept but can be easily proven), whether sources are cited or not, will be struck down and claimed an opinion.
6. Removing the lie will also be reverted because of popular opinion.

Wikipedia's gonna have a lot of credibility if these are its standards. 98.197.130.3 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bogus warning

I received your message. I deleted the section labeled "Border" under Cherry Hill, New Jersey because it was nonsense- completely false. There is no "moat" being built between Cherry Hill and Camden, New Jersey to keep the criminals out. How ridiculous. And, Cherry Hill shares no border at all with Camden. Why do you accuse me of vandalism and why do you say that you can revoke my editing priveleges? Aslc72809 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We've both been had. A more detailed answer is on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhappe

Hi, I don't think its fair to say bhappe is racist term, if you ask anyone with knowledge, I would suggest google as a good search engine for further information..

For arguments sake, let us assume it is a racist term, does that mean Paki, Nigger, Fenian, skanger should be deleted? I will delete the dubious date-prod as you suggested and ask other editors to discuss the article in the respective talk page, thank you Analtap (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do feel many people will be canvassing to have it deleted, but the term is perfectly valid. Analtap (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5