User talk:Favonian/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Martin Atkinson

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

re:

Hello Favonian,

It was nice to see your message on my talk page.

At first I had no clue why I was suspected of being a sockpuppet of that user and felt quite mistreated by having been silenced even though I brought arguments to the table, which I thought to be reasonable.

After reading more, I understood my topics of interest might have looked quite similar to those of a person who had been creating lots of sockpuppets and had been a nuisance for a long while. Actually, my focus when I was editting was not French royalty, but the Abbey of Fontevraud and people (Norman, English and French) related to it.

I invite you to check up on me from time to time and be convinced I am not that person. My main interest is medieval history of Western-Europe and, as before, I shall strive to use a source when I edit.

Sincerely,

Peaceingalaxy —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Bankskarter

OMG y'all messed up i didnt do nuttin rong. I was discussing the thing with another one of you and you go delete it. For real like i better not see stuff bout me when i get more famous other than locally famous. (i censored myself a lot) (BanksKarter (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

You have tried creating your autobiography repeatedly, in spite of having been told here why it falls short of Wikipedia's requirements regarding notability. If you persist, you'll find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

You spoiled my clean block log! =) Actually, I thought I had accidentally blocked myself while trying to block somebody else. =\ No worries, mistakes happen from time to time. It was rather interesting, actually. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to return the favor. My block log looks like I'm just not doing enough. Favonian (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can do all my admin duties for the day so I can take the day off? =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am yours to command, but I may ruin Wikipedia beyond repair. Hm, Jimbo hasn't been blocked in nearly four years. Favonian (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, boy! Somebody to command! Ummm... hmmm... Well... Let's see... I haven't the vaguest idea what to do with you. =\ Eh. Shrug. So much for going rogue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Me in a nutshell: not even good enough for slave labor. Favonian (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, more like I just can't think of anything to do. Birds are not used to having slave labor. No worries, have some ice cream. It will make you feel better. Or if you happen to be lactose intolerant, some frozen yogurt, perhaps. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you! That's mighty civil of you, considering. I shall indulge. A good deal healthier than what I had in mind. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Man Murray

May as well semi-protect it. I knew this was going to happen the moment it was put back... HalfShadow 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I saw the discussion at ANI. Favonian (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there have been constructive IP edits while it was userfied, and so far only one twit. Guess the Spirit of Wikipedia demands that we wait a while. For me, this means going to bed. Favonian (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the bright side...

...this is raising the hell out of my edit count. HalfShadow 21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pure win-win! Favonian (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-anti-semitism"

Stop him; he's being nice towards Jewish people!

First laugh of the day. HalfShadow 19:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what makes this !job worth doing. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Nufc2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted ("and before I added extras" and so on) sockpuppet being used to evade the current block on Geordi2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The sock account has been blocked indefinitely. As it has only edited the talk page, I won't extend the block on the master account. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For a user who apparently doesn't know the requirement...

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think he is quite the expert, but thanks anyway. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...and blocked. NW (Talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just doin' my !job, sir. :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...and tagged. Thank you all! This sockpuppeteer has been very active lately. Keeps sending me "fan mail". Vaguely menacing, but mostly just rather strange. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

4chan vandalism

Hello. http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/88838428 This is where they decide which page to attack next, hope it helps. Madjura (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! A valuable source of insight in the lower reaches of the mind :( Favonian (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They're doing it again. http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/88843181 Madjura (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ho-hum! But thanks. Favonian (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:CobraGCU

Needs to be stopped. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding User:78.100.170.227

I think we've sort of been treading on each other's feet with the reverting with this person, s/he's re-added the same thing 3 times to that article now, so s/he's on uw-vandalism3 now. I'll keep a look out and let you know if they need admin intervention. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I retracted my (mistyped) warning, but I think they finally got the message. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Terdferguson2q1w

Hey, I was about to post this at the AIV but you beat me to it - this is yet another sock of User:Brucejenner. I'm requesting semi-protection for the page, but is there something else that can be done about this person? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Our only hope is really that a CheckUser may identify the underlying IP (range) and institute a block that will neutralize this guy without too much collateral damage. You should probably reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner. Favonian (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Filed. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Partthenon

I see you posted a warning for this user for their useless AFD notice on Alex Rodriguez. I had posted a warning for the user after they posted some non-useful opinions on Toronto Blue Jays, and the user responded with parroting the same warning template back on my talk page: User_talk:Echoedmyron#March_2011. Q: Since this is clearly a smart-ass / no-basis in reality warning, can I simply delete it (or can someone else) or am I stuck with a clearly unwarranted warning on my talk page? I mostly hate the optics of it. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. Apart from a few things listed in WP:BLANKING (most of which are only relevant for anonymous IPs) you may blank stuff from your talk page to your heart's content. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - have done so. I see the user has been trolling around, hopefully that was the end of it. Cheers. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

About edit warring

You're stating that I'm edit warring. If you could kindly look into the different discussions concerning the subjets, and the messages I have sent to the respective users, you would happily see that I'm not turning this into a silly war game. I sincerly recommend you to look into all the harrasment that is being done to the Turkey section by a well-organized group of Armenian and Greek users. If you just look at the history of the page and the discussion section you will see what I mean. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The 3-revert-rule is a bright line. If you cross it, you will be blocked. Among your contributions to talk pages I can see spurious accusations of vandalism. Please avoid that term unless it is really warranted according to WP:Vandalism. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I sincerly hope you have said the exact same to the Armenian and Greek users that keep vandalising the page. (Yes it's vandalism, look into "vandalism" in Wikipedia) More importantly what you said is NOT an answer to my complaint and I get the feeling you are another Wikipedia user blessed with Turkophobia. To be objective you need to address my complaints and look into what these people are instinctively deleting from the page. Or else, you just become a pawn and you may make a small group of vandals happy, but you put a dark cast over Wikipedia. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Such odd insults...

"Some middle-aged, bald, bearded folk-singing American hillbilly" -- I do believe this cheery person considered each of those to be insults. Probably "folk-singing" was intended to be the nastiest. By the way, User:KakMassoudMustHang is the same person as User:SecularHumanist1789, among others. Quite the charmer. He's right that it's a busy shared IP, but his socks there are real obvious. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Being myself middle-aged, though not much of a musician, I should probably have abstained from reviewing that request. Nah, what the heck, it felt good! Certainly a most endearing approach to editing. Can hardly wait to block his next sock! Favonian (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

4chan vandalism

Hello, this is where they discuss what to attack next: http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/89064735 Madjura (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your talk page. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Fleet Marine Force Ribbon

I did; I've been cleaning behind him; he just seems new and inexperienced (changing the piped end to match the front! for example) some have been helpful, he may have thought that all of his are "right"; he at least brought me along to find unrelated errors things that needed doing ;). I tried to get the help desk to just roll that batch back; they suggested I do it myself, which I did, but cutting and pasting from my typepad almost tipped me out of my chair, but at least it didn't take 20 minutes to undo manually, and I almost facepalmed realizing that doing so is actually easier than undoing strings. Dru of Id (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat belated thanks for your effort. I bulk-reverted his remaining edits simply as a matter of principle, though this may have been an error. When people carry out this kind of saturation bombing, they can't really expect us to go through the debris with a fine-toothed comb. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Semantic Technology Institute International

Hi! I wanted to create an Wikipedia entry for the global network Semantic Technology Institute International and the page has been deleted. I am working for STI International and I am allowed to use texts from our website. Otherwise I can use other texts to describe our network, but please re-activate the site that I can edit it again. Thanks. Matt.sti2 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright issue, it's not that easy. Please have a look at WP:IOWN. It may not help anyway, because what you wrote clearly reflects your conflict of interest (which has previously been pointed out to you), and it fails to demonstrate that your company is notable according to the guidelines set forth in WP:CORP. In particular, there are no reliable sources whatsoever. Favonian (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

An article you G10'd - Roshani Moorjani - is up again

An article you G10'd - Roshani Moorjani - is up again. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore, it ain't! And the author has been sent off. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just between you and me, as a long time captain of Mens Field hockey team, I got green, yellow and red cards galore for arguing with the umpires.

And yet on Wikipedia you have a clean block log. That could be — fixed. Favonian (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

70.33.19.52

70.33.19.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be the underlying IP for those two CoM impostor accounts. You might want to keep that info in your back pocket in case more of this nonsense comes along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Certainly looks like the same guy, but the IP didn't get auto-blocked when I whacked the named account, so they have moved on. Favonian (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

I saved the picture files and script to revert to the original post. I was going to change it back in a matter of seconds, I just needed a screen shot of it. I apologize for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSAUN87 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place for such experiments, jokes or whatever it is. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a breath my friend. I meant no harm and have no intentions of doing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSAUN87 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-"Roman" IP vandal back

The vandal who removes "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" is back with a new IP address, User:71.0.209.112. Could you please block them? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How tedious. I've given him time to repent. Favonian (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't blame him, those damn Romans, what did they ever do for us?--Jac16888^Talk 21:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, it's time for you Britons to let bygones be bygones. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Another sock of Mukesh

is reveting our edits - Jokesh crazy (talk · contribs). This is becoming tiresome. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Such energy! Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not cool.

Why were my edits removed? It's not like I ever did anything to you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitargod182 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did something to Wikipedia, namely this. It's called vandalism, and you are about one edit of that sort away from an indefinite block. Favonian (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Page you deleted is back

A page you deleted about 5 hours ago is back Rebecca Black. Its not as clearly a problem as the last version, but it is still an unreferenced WP:BLP, with the only notability claim being related to people making fun of her on Tumblr based on one of her songs that has become a meme. I was hoping you would take a look at it and decide if anything needs to be done. Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Very persistent crowd. Fortunately, while I was sleeping (Central European Timezone) another admin deleted it—twice. Favonian (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandals

Here's the thread. http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/89415335

They're doin' Deus_Ex:_Human_Revolution, Mario_Kart_DS, Dwarf_Fortress as far as I can tell, but it's less than they did Metal Gear. --Gzalzi (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Looks like they are not happy with us. Favonian (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a regular (but obviously I have standards, unlike the vandals), so I'll keep you informed if I see 'em doin' anything in the next few hours. --Gzalzi (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! they just put porn on Ash Ketchum!! --Lerdthenerdwiki defender 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the edits and comments on the thread are actually pretty funny. They're doin' Gears of War and BioWare now. --Gzalzi (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for this.  -- Lear's Fool 13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

¡No problemo! Favonian (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For this block. Looks like you & I were posting almost at the same time. Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He had it coming ;) Favonian (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Favonian, for all you do on Wikipedia—especially keeping my user pages free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you. Looks like Wikinger is enjoying himself. Favonian (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rasmussen scale

Please would you remove from wikipedia the contributors to this article and the links to it. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Article gone as are the links. Blocking the contributors would probably be a bit too harsh, but their future contributions had better contain some reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Flag them as having created deliberate G3? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not worth it. I'll just do the Wikipedian rope trick. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done

For knowing what my name means - I include a link to the dictionary definition on my user page but hardly anyone spots it. Fæ (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that hard. Danish is my native language Favonian (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments

Removing talk page comments, including the initial welcome template, is prohibited per Wikipedia's talk page policy. Please do not remove any comments in the future. If you wish to clean old comments away, you should archive your talk page instead. Thank you! Mijzelffan (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to my removal of comments from my talk page, the relevant lines of Scripture are found at WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot III

Could someone block ClueBot III (talk · contribs), as it looks like it has a malfunction. It archives section multiple times from WP:FFU, because it don't remove these sections. (like [1], [2], [3] and [4].) Thanks. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it happening to other pages than the one in your example? And have you reported the problem to the bot owner? I'm a bit reluctant to shut down this bot as so many depend on it. Furthermore, I'm about to go on vacation and won't be able to take the flak, if I screw up :( Favonian (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem is moot now. No action needed. Have a good vacation. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0}20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Crazycomputers

Sorry about the vandalism. This IP is shared - it's a health club/gym. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

References with dash instead of hyphen

I noticed some dead links on the "Paul the Apostle" page, in the "Visits to Jerusalem in Acts and the epistles" section and changed the dashes to hyphens so they would work. Is there any way to back track to the user who first put the references in to alert that user to use hyphens? In the formatted version of the page the dashes are wider, but in edit mode with the fixed width font, dashes and hyphens look the same. Thanks.
Telpardec (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the hyphens. There is no easy way to identify the editor who contributed the original dashes, in particular as it seems they didn't just edit the specific section. Sorry! Favonian (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Message on Removing Pictures

With regards to the deletion of pictures; I had not read about any of the previous attempts to do the same. I have seen the orginals of the pictures myself in a museum.

Since I saw your message; I did some research on this issue and only have one question to ask:

"If so many (around 700,000) people does not want it; then why do Wikipedia insist on having it?"

Please note I am a contributer to wikpedia both financially and for contents; always have been a well wisher. This message by no means intented to attack anyone personally, only doing my bit as a believer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlub (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious new user activity using anagrams of your name

This [5] and this [6] look very suspicious to me. They are adding sock tags to old sockpuppet pages. I'm guessing you might know where to go with this. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! It's certainly a block evader, but I have no idea which of our "regulars" was enjoying himself. At any rate, both accounts are indef'ed and their actions reverted. Thanks for you vigilance!. Favonian (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for the reverts and block of the person who hijacked my username. Actually, I am amazed that it took six years for someone to copy a form of my username to be WP:POINTy. I appreciate your vigilance and time. Enjoy the rest of your April Fool's Day. MarnetteD | Talk 22:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. April Fool's just ended in my timezone—fortunately. As a parting gesture, I had to revert this bit of brilliancy. Favonian (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hah. As a longtime Doctor Who fan I can almost hear Tom Baker's voice saying "recursion has just been trapped in a recursive time loop" :-) Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

External links

I added external links to a new lebanese directory which provides far more information than the wikipedia page could offer like telephone numbers and locations and reviews and ratings (list of schools, list of universities...) the links were added appropriately according to each topic as external links not in the object of advertising but in the object of providing a completion to the info already provided or more so a better accurate and up to date referral site (that wasn't used as a reference)...

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariachi007 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Smosh

I see that you protected the article Smosh. I agree with the protection due to the amount of vandalism, but dose it need so auto-confirmed users can't edit? I have no problem with the protection either way I am just wounding. Cheers! Kyle1278 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded to a request at WP:RFPP, which stated that the vandalism on this page was a likely "overflow" from that on Ray William Johnson. The latter definitely required full-protection, involving as it did several auto-confirmed users heeding the call at a Facebook page, which has been taken down in the meantime. Since I could see some named accounts among the disruptive crowd on the Smosh article, I opted for the safe course and gave it full protection. It's only for a day, so I doubt it'll prevent valuable content from being added, nor will it deter constructive editors. I fully realize that such protection is a desperate measure, but this kind of concerted attacks (by the subject of one of the articles, no less) is IMO one reason to break out the heavy guns. Best, Favonian (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Cheers. Kyle1278 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Cork

Please bend User:Generalwar's ear. edit war looming. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor warned and article added to my watch list. Favonian (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Vlachs

Do not delete this page, please. List of the the references confirm my writing, while it is not case with the page that deals with similar theme. Thank you.

Answered on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But it is not correct at all. Maybe I have not done as it should, but I tried to give the facts and to substantiate the sources. That current page is full of false and malicious informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljuboni (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have problems with the existing article, you should raise your objections on Talk:Vlachs of Serbia. Under no circumstances should you start a fork of the existing article to suit your own point of view. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. =) And for not blocking me again. Sorry, I just had to tease you about that again =). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Darn! I missed ;) Favonian (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You had your chance! Slacker! ;) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Current event at Meinl (surname)

Administrator Kusma has noted that there are users and IP addresses that were evading blocks to edit the article Meinl (surname). As 114.180.228.56 appears to have been undoing admin reverts, I suspect block evasion from a small series of computers. Whether or not they're all shared, I don't know. But there's something going on. mechamind90 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Page has been semi-protected and the latest IP sock blocked and reverted. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

No sooner than I reluctantly decide to return than the same old trolls pop out of the woodwork. Thanks much as always. Owe ya one. Again.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a one-man welcoming committee. And welcome back, by the way. Glad to see that retirement doesn't have to be forever. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Nice job scrubbing that Cumstain. What'd you use, Vim? Drmies (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Inferior Norwegian brand. Having been raised to some extent on German television commercials, I know that only Meister Proper is powerful enough to remove such blights on Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I've been compared to Mr. Clean--in terms of looks, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Must be them pecs ;) Favonian (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

new guy

hi. i am new to Wiki and would like it if someone showed me the ropes. i was told by a friend that administratos could help. could u contact me on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichigo kurosaki4321 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai

Hi, yesterday you have blocked IP (108.74.117.141) for a month and soon after he came with this new one (108.72.200.182) to put the same POV political propaganda edits in the same page[7]. If it's easier you may protect the page because another propagandist User:JCAla is also putting in his political propaganda. The BBC News clearly states that about 3,000 Taliban were executed by Abdul Malik Pahlawan and JCAla removes it and instead writes that Taliban massacred 4,000 civilians, which I didn't see mentioned in the source provided. Thanks.--She has a bird brain (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Favonian,

be aware of this investigation and this investigation, since User:She has a bird brain is more than likely connected to the banned pro-Taliban User:Lagoo sab.

Best regards, JCAla (talk) 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What a bloody mess! Since the SPI has resulted in "She" being blocked, I won't take any steps at present. Favonian (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin help

{{adminhelp}}

Hello. When I typed in the search box for Crystal Mangum, it was redirected to Duke lacrosse case. Shouldn't it redirect to Crystal Gail Mangum? I tried to do this, but the page is protected or some such. On second thought ... better, yet ... the main article about that woman should be entitled Crystal Mangum (without her middle name) ... and Crystal Gail Mangum should actually redirect to that. No? In other words, people know her as Crystal Magnum, and not by her middle name. Can someone fix all this? Or explain to me why it's set up the way that it is currently set up (if, indeed, its current set-up is correct). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks like someone's done it. (Wasn't me - beat me to it...) Peridon (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it was "fully" done. Specifically, this part: On second thought ... better, yet ... the main article about that woman should be entitled Crystal Mangum (without her middle name) ... and Crystal Gail Mangum should actually redirect to that. No? In other words, people know her as Crystal Magnum, and not by her middle name. Can someone fix all this? Or explain to me why it's set up the way that it is currently set up (if, indeed, its current set-up is correct). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks like you're right, so I have moved the article to the short name. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro by the owner of said talk page. Not entirely clear why. Favonian (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Please semiprotect. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I need to study the matter a bit more carefully, so it'll have to wait until I'm done shopping. Favonian (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's quiet right now. As I know absolutely nothing about Monckton and his work, I'm somewhat reluctant to step into the breach on the side of the named editors in what could be viewed as a content dispute. The article is now on my watch list, so I'll postpone making a decision until shooting recommences. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Beccabone AIV comment

Wow! That is maybe the second time in twice as many years that I've seen that response to an AIV report! Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I've seen it a few more times in the puny three years that I've been hanging out at AIV. Best way to avoid dealing with a persistent CSD tag remover once the article has been sped along. Or to put in a more PC lingo: blocks are not punitive—though meeting out punishment sure feels tempting at times! Favonian (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Malachy McGreevy

What do you mean the result was delete? That's quite arbitrary of you. There was no discussion so to speak. Who is paying you to go after that subject and how much $$$$ is enough to sell out your fellow beings for another few hundred years? You claim historian yet you will tamper with the record of this. Mr. Favonian do you not realize what you're doing ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachymcgreevy (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion which went on for two weeks, and where the consensus was that not only had you failed to demonstrate notability of your product, but no one else was able to locate independent reliable sources supporting such a claim. Based on this, the decision was easy to make.

Now, regarding your edits in general it seems clear that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote yourself and your invention in spite of being told repeatedly that neither is notable. From there you have moved on to making personal attacks, or at least that's the only way I can interpret your unhinged rambling above. Continue down that path, and you will soon find yourself blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your note

Hi again. I am trying to stop an IP that is currently adding this info to numerous articles. My apologies for not checking each article more closely. Most of them do not have sourced info regarding this but I got caught up going too quickly. I will try and slow down and do the job properly but it could be nice if the IP could be stopped or at least slowed down. Again my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift action. I can now slow down as I check the other edits by this IP. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries. I can well understand your frustration with the IP and they have now received an unmistakable message. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have caught up with things (whew). I am not sure what to make of this IP or what it thinks it is doing. While the edits don't seem to be malicious most of them cannot be called helpful. This [8] is the most worrying one as it directly contradicted info in the article. I seem to have a vague memory of another IP from the Chicago area messing around like this but it is too long ago for me to be sure. Hopefully your block will bring good results but they may bear watching for a time. Thanks for all that you do here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on him, but (hopefully) I'll be asleep when the block expires. Thanks for your diligent work, by the way! Favonian (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome and pleasant dreams when the sandman finally reaches you ;-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apologies for tickling you again. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Other users' talk pages

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that rule—I assumed it would go against the interest of transparency to just be able to censor your own talk page, especially as, judging by BigMattyO's recent POINTy contribs, he's going to run into some trouble again sooner or later. JonChapple^Talk 09:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply! Transparency is there, if you know where to look ;) I'm also rather concerned with this editor's activities. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Cameron Webb

Please read. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Zzuuzz took care of it. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not worthy of ANI, but a little help would be appreciated

Getting a bit exasperated with this topic. Also see recent comments. I'd appreciate a weigh-in from you (or anyone else). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Heavens! I have contributed my DKK 0.02 worth, though I doubt that it'll convince him. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. He's aware of WP:THIRD now, so if he decides to pursue it further there, he'll get more of the same. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Alleged_Zionist_agenda

Dear Favonian

It seems that you are adverse to the editing of the aforementioned article on wikipaedia. The changes made by myself and only through reading the said person's website, Daniel Pipes, I thought it would be in the publics interest to bring up such a point. Considering that the subsection itself pertains to "Alleged...", would it not seem appropriate to add the paragraph?

Furthermore your mute point of "That guy's own website is not sufficient" seems rather a dishonest attempt to remove the update. Daniel Pipes ir a renowned right-wing neoconservative speaker and academic by his supporters. His own website should be sufficient enough as evidence to warrant it as a reliable source.

Thank you Regards

Veritas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.193.58 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Woxbridge

Yes, I agree that Woxbridge is a mess. Hopefully either the PROD or an AFD will deal with it. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 13:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks...

for that. Boy, a year is a long time to nurse a grudge. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And they claim that our youths are shallow and ephemeral. Kind of reassuring to see how dedicated and persistent they can be. Favonian (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps just following sage advice. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Ashraf Ali Thanwi

Photographs of our akabir Posted on January 10, 2009 by 'abd

A brother inquired about the availability of photographs of our pious predecessors (akabir), especially Hakim al-Umma Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi (may Allah have mercy on him).

The response, Our akabir do not approve of photography of living creatures. They acknowledge the fiqhi dispensation for essential governmental requirements. But without a genuine reason they consider it impermissible.

However, it can not be denied that their photographs do exist . These were taken without their knowledge and permission. If they would have known they would have vehemently disapproved of it and urged the perpetrator to destroy these pictures.

The following incident is an example for us, A person brought a rare picture of Hakim al-Umma Thanawi (may Allah have mercy on him) to Mawlana Hakim Akhter sahib (may Allah preserve him) expecting some reward and appreciation. Immediately after listening to his introduction and prior to having a glimpse of the picture Hakim sahib tore it into pieces . He commented that Hazrat Thanawi would have never approved of it.

How can we claim to follow our akabir when we practice against what they taught?

http://www.ashrafiya.com/2009/01/10/photographs-of-our-akabir/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.224.65 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not censored. We have similar discussions regarding images of Muhammad and others, as can be seen at Talk:Muhammad/images. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

86.147.163.115

Please execute him with extreme prejudice. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Only had a level 1 warning, so I issued a final one. Will keep an eye on them for a while. Favonian (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're such a softie. :) Kittybrewster ☎ 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that a lot. Favonian (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi-lover vandal

Thanks for reverting and blocking that stubborn donkey. Is there anything we can do to stop him? I am loath to do a semi-protection of the article, as there are some valuable IP editors, who do a lot of work. Do you think a rangeblock would help? How would we have to request such a range block? noclador (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm no great expert on range blocks, but looking at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SuperblySpiffingPerson doesn't make me optimistic. User:MuZemike or User:zzuuzz are better informed than I. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert in rangeblocks either... I will ask MuZemike to come and join our discussion here. noclador (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No one single rangeblock will be possible here. I'm afraid you'll have to go the protection route. –MuZemike 02:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to avoid that as this IP [9] is doing an amazing amount of work on sorting and perfecting all the references given. Is it possible to do a semi-protection and except this one IP? noclador (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Mujahid Ahmad

Well, thanks a lot--I was almost done filling out that tedious 3R report! Later, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They really are tedious. Hope the young man gets the message. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note of appreciation

Hi, Favonian! I noticed you've been keeping Defenestration in good order, and I just wanted to express my thanks. So thanks! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Further "activity" on that front, and I think it'll be time for an SPI. Oh, and thanks for your note! Favonian (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Denis19 aftermath

There must be hundreds of inappropriate categorizations he/she added. Is it possible to roll back all those edits? Thanks! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have bulk-reverted the whole lot of them. What a pain! Favonian (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's easier to revert by using the rollback feature, but I was reluctant to vdo so, as someone might start screaming that rollback button is meant for simple vandalism. Also, his previous categorizations seem similarly pointless. He included all the recipients of German awards, including Walęsa or an actor from the Bond movies who surely have hundreds of awards, rendering such a categorization totally useless. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am half expecting to be pilloried for my actions. Oh well, I could use a Wikibreak ;) My fingers are sore from the ordeal, so I think I'll leave the older misdeeds alone for the moment. Favonian (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll actually initiate a WP:BAN proceeding one day, as I'm the prime target of his more vandalistic acts. Thereafter, all his edits can be officially reverted as vandalism, per banning policy. But I think we'll wait with that. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@Favonian, thanks for that. I started reverting one by one but ran out of steam after a while! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Justin_Tamerlane (talk · contribs) is almost certainly yet another Dodo19 sock. --Sander Säde 17:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, quacked like him, so I have blocked and bulk-reverted. Does wonders for my edit count :-/ Favonian (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Sander Säde 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors for your attention

User:George Armstrong Custer and User:Ginko Biloba have reverted a number of your edits, they look to be editing the same kind of pages as each other. I dug some history on the prev edits on those pages and they look to be sockpupptets of User:Dodo19. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind looks like User:Tnxman307 got them. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks! We really should have an instructional video explaining how much easier it is to block an account and bulk-revert its activities than it was to create it in the first place. Favonian (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob minney

I was looking into that one as it seemed an odd attack. I couldn't find any evidence of any of it. Not like one yesterday, where the allegation against someone of being part of a gang of washing powder counterfeiters proved to be quite true (but probably non-notable). Normally I delete after a quick glance, but some I have doubts about... Peridon (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the run-of-the-mill kind of attack page, but accusing a named person of arson without a very reliable source puts the article into G10 territory. Now I'm curious: where is the article about washing powder counterfeiters? Inquiring minds want to know! ;) Favonian (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Fake-washing-powder-cheat-denied-appeal/article-2681927-detail/article.html (a misspelt version of the youngest was the article name). Google "washing powder counterfeit". They had 25 tons of the stuff - wonder what's been done with it? Boing! said Zebedee deleted it. I've tried to remember how the name was spelled here, but can't find it. Peridon (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! The secret to success is supposedly to find a niche. Maybe Her Majesty's Prisons have bought the powder at a good price, so Mr. Brayford use it to do his laundry. Favonian (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Cambridge

Hi Favonian, I saw you reverted the blocked LPC's edits, as an admin could you also delete the categories and templates he created as Little Cambridge in accordance with Template:Db-g5? Thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion

After a decent lull, there is another sockpuppet of User:Factual Items named User:Bluskee who is making the same edits on pages Franklin Square, New York and West Hempstead, New York. Would you be able to block this one indefinitely (yet) again? Factothy (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bluskee

I had added a user template message to User:Bluskee, but left the window open (while searching for an appropriate template). I noticed that in the interim you had blocked the user, haha. Well thanks for that. The edits to Franklin Square were getting annoying. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Annoying is a mild word with which to describe this tenacious sockpuppeteer. He's been hibernating for a while, but now spring is in the air. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Factothy (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

3 month block review

I reduced it to one week because of my misreading of the block log, and edit-conflicted with you as I tried to revise the notice on the talk page. If you think 3 months is appropriate, better upgrade it yourself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he'll be back and can get his three months then. Meanwhile, you can add "right wing bonb thrower" to your resume. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Oh, he'll be back and can get his three months then" this quote clearly shows that you were hasty in the block, and i would like to note here that you behaved imporperly and hastily and unfairly, and i will be following the appropriate measures necessary to get this unfair block removed from my record.96.38.173.3 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you were right [10], [11]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Verily! A most peculiar editor. I see that he got off with another single-week block, so I guess this thread won't make it to the archive before the next outburst. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't help commenting on his latest eruption: "Judophobic"? I have nothing but the highest respect for judo. As for "anti semetic", I'm still trying to figure out what that means. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You causing endless trouble

Im sure you know who it is but I just wanted to ask why do you INSIST on creating various problems for me. Half of those supoosed puppets are NOT EVEN ME! God sake, have you no life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.192.47 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note for the casual talk page stalker: this is the umpteenth IP sock of indef blocked user LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs).

Even if what you say is true (and frankly, you don't have a lot of credibility left), the other half are sockpuppets which you have used to evade your block. You have been told repeatedly that being blocked means that you as a person are not allowed to edit. Furthermore, because of your conduct you have been blocked from several wikis and are in fact globally blocked. To reiterate, the only way you can hope to be allowed back in the fold is to contact ArbCom via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank-you for teliing me about Ipswich. I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbysuffolk (talk • contribs) 12:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

No harm done. Just another lesson in the endless Wikipedia learning process ;) Favonian (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Runtshit socks

Hi Favonian

You have just tagged two IPs as suspected socks of Runtshit. I don't think that they are. Runtshit (whose likely real-life identity is known to several editors) has several characteristics which these tendentious IPs do not share. Runtshit concentrates on the Middle East and socialism, follows my edits, obsessively attacks me, uses scatological and pornographic language, and frequently disrupts the formatting (possibly as a result of using a non-English language keyboard).

The two IPs which you tagged, and several others, are apparently being used by an editor (probably in Britain) obsessed with Press TV, Republic and Syria. Since I have edited none of these before reverting this vandalism, s/he was not following me there. This is certainly a different vandal. I won't remove your tage, since you have expressed this concern; but I suggest that you rethink this. RolandR (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly the expert in residence on Runtshit, so I'll undo the tagging. Incidentally, I just blocked another instance of new customer. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to those you have already blocked, you may want to look at User:81.148.221.119, User:86.152.108.77, User:81.156.184.94, User:86.158.103.72, User:84.20.248.154 and User:81.156.193.229, all of which have ben making the same edits, and one of which made a particularly egregious attack at Peter Tatchell, which should probably be hidden. RolandR (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the same guy, but the edits are from yesterday, so imposing a short-term block is kind of pointless. I'll revdel the unpleasantness from the Tatchell article, though. Favonian (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at the edits of indefinitely blocked BLP vandal Ihateantisemites. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly a similarity there. Good sleuthing! I have semi-protected the article for a while, so he'll have to make do with posting inane comments on my talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

More socks on these pages: User:86.158.100.192, User:86.141.5.127. Probably deserve blocking for a while. RolandR (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Both sent off. Mostly symbolic, given his jumping abilities. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Press TV again. Jumping abilities? It's just DHCP and Squid. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.127.228 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello. FYI, regarding this, I'm not sure they are entirely machine translations. In some cases, both Indonesian and English articles were created by that user. LordVetinari (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are. Compare for instance this version at en-Wiki with this Google translation of the id-Wiki article. Sure, the two articles were created by the same author, but (s)he machine translated the Indonesian version—and mangled the layout in the process. Favonian (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Nonetheless, I must admit to a little frustration with that user. S/he appears to be part of a group of inexperienced editors who regularly create poor quality articles and don't acknowledge the rest of us, let alone the notifications and advice we put on their talk pages. Ah well, I'm monitoring it, and it's not as if their edits are bad faith. LordVetinari (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Noob

Another Noob was acting up again and didn't listen to what you told him to do. And he refuses to admit that. After you told him not to go back to that IP user page, he wan't back and said YOU GOT PAWNED! So he didn't listen so I suggest he gets blocked. Thanks TheBradford msg Bradford 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed, but chose to assume good faith as he may have been writing the message while I sent my warning. My advise to you is to stay away from Noob's talk page. Neither of you is achieving anything useful with your squabbling! Favonian (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I know he got that message before he did it. because when you wrote that message, he edited something on his talk page right after that, and then he wrote that to Ethan, I'm pretty sure he knew you wrote that. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let it go! And stay away from his talk page. This has to stop now, or you'll all get detention! Favonian (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What did I do? I am explaining how he wasn't following orders, and I'm not going on his page cursing him like he did to other people, I'm only trying to enforce Wikipedia's rules, you are acting like I'm the bad guy. I don't mean to show no mercy on him, he just isn't following the rules. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean well, but you also feed the quarrel. Ignore the Noob and everybody lives. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if I went to far in trying to correct him. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)