User talk:Favonian

Ragnar Lodbrok/Ragnachar

Greeting. A user (originally an anonymous user (193.212.189.197), now registered as user:AudunNilsen) keeps adding original research to the article of Ragnar Lodbrok, trying to tie the Viking to the Merovingian minor king Ragnachar and even the Arthurian legend... Not a single proper source is ever given which ties the two persons together. Not even when challenged. His edits thus violate WP:NOR. I'm afraid this might get out of hand. I tried to put my reasons of reverting his edits on the article's talkpage (Talk:Ragnar Lodbrok), but he/she just launches in a diatribe and keeps adding the contented subsection back into to Ragnar's article. Going as far as to accuse the people restoring the article of vandalism. You might want to join the discussion? Thanks! -- fdewaele, 27 November 2014, 18:31 CET

Looks like Sandstein and Yngvadottir have said what needed saying with sufficient weight. Judging from some of the caustic remarks on the article talk page, the Norwegian enthusiast would probably scream "involved Danish admin!" were I to intervene. :P Favonian (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I doubt she did the reading. I'll watchlist her talk page in case she wants to talk more about mythology as the lifeblood of scholarship. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicely put. Hope I don't step on some GGTF landmine, but I'm pretty sure Audun is a male name. According to no:Audun, its use as a female name is "svært sjeldent". Favonian (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh. Wny would they go and do that? I live and learn :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I second that. As to the matter at hand: I don't object as I think this has passed the stage in which his/hers edits could be considered to be made in good faith. It's become more a case of "mauvais foi". He has repeatedly been challenged to provide sources for his claims. He never provides them but only (rambling) accuses the editors to be small minded. He seems intent to keep pushing his personal opinion regardless of what the consensus, other editors or WP rules say, and has dropped any pretense of wanting to be constructive. PS: not being a scholar of Norwegian I have no inkling as to what "svært sjeldent" means :D-- fdewaele, 4 December 2014, 18:39 CET.

Oops! I'll treat myself to a fish inner and a {{contrib-da1}}. For the benefit of the occasional non-Scandinavian talk page stalker, it means "very rare". Favonian (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that didn't work out well. He called me lots of stuff and banned me from his page, and after 4 (?) unblock requests has now lost talk page access and e-mail to boot. :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Good Heavens, what a tragic loss to the community! I'll give him credit for a some colorful personal attacks, though. Favonian (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

More socking

See my comment here. Dkspartan1 keeps up a long and slow edit war using socks. They have been warned repeatedly by several editors, including yourself. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked Dkspartan1 indefinitely and the IP temporarily. Not taking a hint has consequences! Favonian (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You may want to log that block at the SPI. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Nah, I'll just get yelled at for incorrect use of the rationale "sock-puppetry", when the correct one would be somewhere in general area of "edit-warring" and "disruptive editing". Favonian (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Legal threat and impersonation of a LP. See User talk:124.150.122.130 --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Formally yes, but too ludicrous to be taken seriously. I've deleted the "contribution" as vandalism. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Good call. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Algerian War

There appears to be an edit war at the Algerian War article which has been going on since 1 November 2014. If you were so inclined, would you be interested in protecting said article? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Rather than protect all the articles affected by the edit-war, I have blocked one of the participants for sockpuppetry. It'll probably not go down well, but I need a wiki break anyway. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I just noticed a continuing edit war and was unaware of any sockpuppet(s). Sorry. Have a good break and enjoy a nice glass of Talisker. :) --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea! My remark about a Wikibreak was mostly inspired by certain recent activities in ArbLand, though they seem to have had less drastic effects than some had anticipated. Favonian (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For information, Historian Student is also using the account Andos55, as confirmed by a RCU made on the French WP.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked that one as well. Favonian (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For blocking a vandal with a silly username. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Brian. Out of curiosity: which of them? ;) Favonian (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

IAC

Thanks for being so quick off the mark. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. They were being kind of obvious. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

John Barbirolli

I'm tempted to semi this for a day or two. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I would find it within myself to forgive you. ;) Favonian (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet another creepoid vandalized the article, so I've semi'ed it for a day. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd blanket additions to articles

I noticed an odd addition to the Ghazni article.[1] Upon further investigating, this addition has sources but nothing mentioning Ghazni. The editor:Work number1987 appears to have made additions to numerous articles using the same paragraph, sources and wording. The only difference being the opening sentence:

• "The Logar province territory fell to the Maurya Empire, which was led by Chandragupta Maurya...."[2]
• "The Ghazni territory fell to the Maurya Empire, which was led by Chandragupta Maurya...."
  

Other similar edits,[3][4][5], etc, etc.

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look too promising. If they don't heed NeilN's advise, I guess measures will have to be taken. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jak Alnwick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jak Alnwick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 92.18.197.167 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think this page on Jak will now have to be re-created ASAP as per the second half of Chelsea vs Newcastle on 6 Dec. He is now very much notable due to that performance. Unfortunately very short sighted decision to delete it. 176.64.213.98 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jak Alnwick

(You were the admin that deleted this last so I'm bringing this to you.) I was accepting Draft:Jak Alnwick for the mainspace when the move failed because Jak Alnwick is salted. He made his debut for Newcastle United today, so he now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Could you accept/move/create it for me? Regards, Nevermind, it's been moved already. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, good for him. It didn't take long before the root cause for the salting manifested itself again. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Danish

Traviærisk Konvertation appears to me to be a hoax, but I'd like to make sure it isn't just my linguistic skills or my very poor science education letting me down.Yngvadottir (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I'd say you're doing better than the author of that masterpiece in both respects. It is no longer with us! Favonian (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan Duncan

Hi Favonian again. Could you have a look at the recent history of Alan Duncan and also the comments of 190.207.2.214? They don't seem to be friends. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather over-excited. I've semi'd the article for a couple of weeks and reminded the latest IP of our BLP policy. Favonian (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest sock...

User talk:Confabulationist. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure looks like him. Now that you have initiated the SPI, I'll wait a while and see how he responds. It tends to be amusing in its own, sad way. Favonian (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, quack!

Hello! On Dec. 5 you blocked User:‪95.88.219.104‬ for a month for block evasion. Today a different IP, ‪User:91.10.111.69‬, made two of the exact same edits previously made by the blocked user.

‪Edits by blocked user User:95.88.219.104‬‪: [6] [7]‬

‪Edits by possible sock User:91.10.111.69‬‪: [8] [9]‬

Just FYI! --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks Mel! It is indeed the same perennial pest, Kay Uwe Böhm by name. Easily recognized, reverted and blocked. Whatever makes such people tick, I'll never understand. Favonian (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Any idea who the IP was? Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Have you stepped on the toes on the toes of any Coronation Street fans recently? Favonian (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LeHappiste

Thank you. Just like everyone else, I focus on 1 topic for a period of time and will cease to concentrate on a new one, and sometimes re-check the old ones. Guess you did that before me. Cheer. Series of IP 86 addresses NOT only disrupt that article but also likely 10 others (if u check edit history of all those IPs). ༆ (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm keeping a "special watch" on 15 or so of his favorite articles. Favonian (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Gold is supremely important to most monarchs.

I do not believe that anybody can argue against the absolute fact that monarchy is associated with gold. If you can make a compelling argument against monarchs carrying gold, I will accept it.--173.61.92.134 (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to support that rather inane statement with reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand. Simply dismissing a true statement as "inane" does not suddenly make it false.173.61.92.134 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You made the assertion, it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources to support your assertions beyond you saying you said so. It is not Favonian's responsibility at all to formulate a counter-assertion because you have not bothered to support your own claims. In other words, a claim made without evidence can be summarily dismissed.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is common knowledge and is observable. I will not rest until someone has made a decent argument against the fact that monarchs usually carry gold. I do not understand how an undeniably true fact is "inane".173.61.92.134 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is textbook definition inanity if you insist on shifting the burden of proof onto others because you can't be bothered to support your claim beyond saying "because I said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think that monarchs do not carry gold. They show their beautiful gold possessions all the time. Looking at amonarch on news footage, photoes and other such sources definitively proves that most monarchs carry gold. There is absolutely no evidence to your claim that the do not carry gold. 173.61.92.134 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet, you still can not be bothered to support your inane argument with a reliable source beyond you saying so. Shang and Zhou Dynasty monarchs cared about bronze cauldrons, Mayan, Aztec, Maori and Chinese rulers loved jade. A lot of rulers loved Chinese porcelain and other finely crafted ceramics. Furthermore, I've seen lots of pictures of Prince Harry, and Queen Elizabeth and neither appear to be big on showing off of their alleged gold possessions all the time. So, yeah, your argument is both inane, and false.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Page moves by novice editor, page history a mess

Hi, sorry to ask you as an admin who I've seen be very helpful before, and I hope this won't be too irritating. I hope that you can advise me about a situation that I've manually fixed rather drastically, which means that the page histories are even more complicated and confusing than they were before. A novice editor has been moving pages in a way that I can't follow in the page history. There was a page, Brahmanbaria, about the city in Bangladesh that has been there for quite some time, but the page history is now very short, starting off with a page move "moved page Brahmanbaria to B-baria City, Bangladesh". The changes and moves are bad, the person is claiming that the official name of the city is B-baria, but that is just one of several abbreviations that are sometimes used on maps and other documents, B.baria and B'baria are others. The city always was and still is called Brahmanbaria. I fear that in restoring the information for readers, I've made the page histories even worse, and I wonder how this could all be rolled back. Sorry, feeling sheepish. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: No (permanent) harm done ;) In the future, you should avoid "cut-and-paste moves", such as this one, like the plague. It has now been reverted, and if you object strongly to the renaming, I advise you to initiate a "requested move" discussion. The process is described in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. It's all a bit laborious and bureaucratic, but it saves aggravation in the long run. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks. That disambiguation page is complete nonsense, as well as the page move being undesirable. Thanks for the pointer to the beginning of the laborious process. I think we'll have to wait a while to first establish the text for a page, countering the POV person, before attempting to move it back into the right place. In the meantime, people will be completely lost if looking for information about the city, but c'est normale as we say in wikipedia (or perhaps that should be set in Cyrillic, as was used for French on the page). I've been wondering if something has changed very deep down in the way page-move histories are presented, because I don't think it was always this difficult to see what had happened. Now there seems to be more danger than ever before that people will just give up in frustration after their past edits are presented as seeming nonsense. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Brahmanbaria

You may wish to participate in a discussion at Talk:Brahmanbaria. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the class of the military world

Another one quite beyond my limited understanding. 64.6.124.31 appears to be changing every military article! Could you pass an eye over it? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A navy enthusiast from land-locked Kansas. ;) From looking at their talk page, it seems to be a long-term issue with a previous block. I'll try a polite ultimatum. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response. I didn't believe the change he made to one of my regular military pages ..but was out of my depth with all the others! JRPG (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism in the Pope John VIII article

It appears that IP58.106.248.81 has copy and pasted material at least 3 times in the Pope John VIII article.[10][11][12] Would you be interested in assisting this editor? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No need for assistance. I will re-write all of these forthwith. Thanks for the gesture though.58.106.248.81 (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the issue has been settled amicably. Favonian (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagged you

Hey, I've tagged you on my talk page. Long story short, I think that there may be some sockpuppetry going on here when it comes to User:Mnaqvii or at least some hardcore meatpuppetry, since before you blocked Mnaqvii another account came to my talk page and cursed me out. It's a little too organized to be a coincidence and there appears to have been a lot of SPA or nearly SPA coming on to create pages about very specific people. I'm leaning towards meatpuppetry, but this may need to go to SPI. What do you think? Tag me back on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: My thoughts exactly! I had to speedy a copyvio created by SMusaRaza, whose user page had been renamed by Mnaqvii. Both accounts had edited the deleted article. I'll try to monitor the situation, as far as the holiday season allows, but I think we're headed for an addition to the awesome SPI backlog. Favonian (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I think that you're right. I may actually start this SPI tonight since SMusaRaza posted on my talk page that he has no idea who Mnaqvii is, which I find highly suspicious. Considering how many articles they've edited together, it's extremely unlikely that they are completely unaware of one another. Not only that, but it looks like SMusaRaza also re-created an oft speedied page for Nadeem Sarwar at Nadeem Sarwar (Noha Khwan). I'm going to have to AfD this due to a lack of coverage, but this seems to be a modus operandi of these editors: re-create articles until they have to be salted. I hate to have to add to the backlog but this looks like it may have to have a CU request because there apparently seems to be many of them. I'm leaning towards this being a set of people that were hired to create pages, though- the editing patterns are similar but this just feels like a paid editor sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I ended up just starting one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mnaqvii. I feel sort of bad since there is a backlog and I already have a SPI open on someone else (good grief, teh dramas in that one), but I just get the impression that there are probably more accounts involved with that. (sighs) If he'd just been honest about editing with the other user or having multiple accounts I wouldn't have had to do that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that went quicker than expected. Guess we should be prepared for the occasional IP and other models of socks. When and if I get through Xmas, I'll take a closer look at the Bohemia (musician) article. Looks like parts of the content are unduly "inspired" by other sources as well. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

an attack on me

you attack me with a threat with ban , its it against the rules?, you havent even asked me what I did? ,maybe I accidently did it or did it of fault, its very ignorant to judge a man before asking him out and having evidence and knowing him/her intentions, you seem to think that everyone here is a bad egg because a few dont follow the rules, so please, stop your accusations, or do something meaningful, its sad to see people here to do nothing else , I try to give facts from a objective perspective, people who even believe anything as long at it is has a source from a book, its very unprofessional , like you, Siktirgitir (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)kansas bear , Siktirgitir (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)edward123 or whatever his name was, and several others that start editing wars and dont respect other people despit the fact and in history there so no such mention of particular saying, its quite sad, anyhow , I hope some day maybe you'll get better , because even if you contribute you do it in a different way but the lack of respect for others as I earlier mentioned, as I am saying these words you will only delete these , which those you dont respect at all and reinforce cencorship, thats to sad, I edited in kansas bears and your talk site before but you edited it made me realize that you can learn from bad eggs, I am saying this with regret, anyhow good luck with editing and keep up threathing others, seem you are good at it,

Reliable Source?

Mark Strage, Women of Power: The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici. According to a review of his book, "Cape to Cairo:Rape of a Continent", Strage is said to be a magazine editor and free-lance writer.[13] Your thoughts?

I have posted this query on Dougweller's page, but since he has been promoted to the ArbCom I wasn't sure of his availability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed what it says, and I guess our RS definition does rather favor professional historians. I'm no fundamentalist in this area myself, and were I a Wikipedian of the content-creating kind, I would probably have been tempted to let the occasional Tuchman slip in. Good thing I devote my energies to slaying vandals and ironing socks, I guess. Favonian (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Favonian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Why was my edit changed?

I created an edit for the Neil deGrasse Tyson for where he was born and raised. The video I used as a citation clearly shows him referencing his birthplace where he states "born and raised in the Bronx". If the information isn't truthful from Tyson himself then what is truthful? Why did I receive a threat as well. I am not vandalizing I am simply providing information based on evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDFELIZ (talk • contribs) 10:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps I'm missing something here, but a 4im warning for an edit that actually tried to include a reference seems a little harsh. [14] also claims he was born in the Bronx, so there seems to be some legitimate disagreement between sources. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That was indeed an overreaction, and possibly even an error of judgement. Put it down to a knee-jerk reaction to the combination of "Nerdist" and "Wu-Tang" replacing The Science Network as a source. Sorry about that. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sore (given name)

Hi, you warned Omidkaveh (talk · contribs) the other day about his shenanigans at Søren (given name). Just a heads-up that he's at it again; another rv of the same material, no engagement on talk and no sign that he's getting the point at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! I've given him a level-5 warning. Favonian (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like he still didn't get the message though: [15][16] (and still no activity on talk page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

despite using shameful language by you (Favonian) and Fut.Perf. rather than constructive discussion and providing answers to my questions I have provided my answer to his points once again and this time on the page's talk. I hope s/he answers this time and do not refuse answering and then labeling people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omidkaveh (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Glad to see that the discussion is now at Talk:Søren (given name), where it belongs, though it still seems like O. has a hard time grasping the arguments. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

History of the Kurds

Can you protect this article? I suspect user:Kurdose is the IP82.22.195.4, who is edit warring. Now another "new user" has appeared to remove referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bermudo Núñez

Would you kindly revert the edit by Pietje96 in the article on Bermudo Núñez and protect the article to prevent another edit war? I suggested that he should write an article on the etymology of Vela rather than adding such a long note in this article which I created on this medieval individual, Bermudo Núñez, which should focus on him rather than becoming a treatise on the etymology which, some authors claim is Basque while others Visigothic. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Maragm. You're wrong again, as my source, according to Wikipedia Policies, totally fits in. Pietje96 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

After all your insults on the talk page of Juan Ponce de León, I would appreciate that you don't call me "Dear". What you added is a huge note, with bold letters, added bibliography which was NOT used when I created the article (and if you must, do it with the correct format and in alphabetical order). I again insist that if you want to expand on this, write an article on the Vela surname instead of adding this huge note in this article which is about Bermudo, not about the etymology of the name/surname Vela. --Maragm (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Maragm, after all your insults I still call you Dear. What I've added is just a small citation that according to Wiki policies totally fits in, why? because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. And sorry, but what you call "huge note" is a well-referenced sourced content. You're the one who has started an edit war, so would you please, stop reverting content that you don't like? Thank you. Pietje96 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)