User talk:Favonian/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

About the article Apprain

Dear Sir, I created a Page for my non-profit Open Source Project "Apprain" but it was deleted from the wiki pedia and it's may be for any of my mistake that I have done in the article.

Here is my project URL: www.apprain.com It's a project like Joomla, typo3, CakePHP etc.

Can you please tell me how can I create a page for this non-profit project "apprain.com".

Thnx in advancd Rubel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reazulk (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think you can. We strongly discourage editors from writing about something they are involved in themselves, because of the conflict of interest. The article was pure advertisement, even including the sentence "It will be a great help for us, if you donate fund to appRain team." Aside from that, there were no references to reliable source asserting notability of the product. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, I know we have type that sentence. But our plan is to use this only for the people who develop plugin for appRain. Please see our terms and condition (www.apprain.com/terms-and-conditions) and download (www.apprain.com/download) page and please see the official website(www.apprain.com) too, you can see what it is. This is a non-profit Project by MIT license. But according to Wiki regulation we have done wrong, we are really sorry for that. If you allow, we would like to re-write the with information regarding appRain and new CMF Concept that we have developed in Web engineering community. Your single positive step will help to get birth this little monster. Please advice us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reazulk (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks like I have to rain on your parade. From your description it appears that you want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about your new system, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We only include articles about topics that are already notable. If some day your system attracts sufficient attention to be written about in reliable sources, it could merit an article, but at present this does not appear to be the case. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No Problem, Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.36 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Northstar

Northstar2595 (talk · contribs) was blocked, came back as 69.164.204.168 (talk · contribs) that you blocked. I've just found this thread offiwiki [1] and his blog [2], see also his attempt to put it at the Village Pump [3]. I'm not sure if any action now is indicated, but it's indicative of his attitude. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the Village Pump thing and the blog entry referenced there. AFAIK, we usually ignore off-wiki utterances, and the Village Pump "contribution" was quickly reverted and the editor warned peremptorily, which means that we've stretched our good faith to the limit. I'm keeping a watch on the editor, and one more transgression will result in an indef block. Favonian (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we usually ignore off-wiki references, but in this case the Hall of Maat one was, I thought, indicative of his attitude/intentions. Thanks for keeping watch on him. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WHY

'Hey favonian I am grateful for your advice. I thouight it wouldn't matter but i respect your and others opinion. You are obviously very clever.

So then why did you ban my best bud JOHNNY ENGLISH PROPER. He was just putting his opinion online and he is really upset. I've told him not to do it again and he's agreed. So please unblock him

Thank you for reading

                      krazy krazy koala  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazy krazy koala (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 

Thorbjørn Jagland

Thanks for the revert - I think it's time for an WP:SPI to sort this out. Smartse (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Jagland's minions aren't being subtle. Favonian (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Two ways in which Canada has affected the rest of the world.

While New Pageing I came across this - Two ways in which Canada has affected the rest of the world. - thoughts on how to deal with it ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Felt rather like one of those trick questions that pop up at RfAs: does any speedy deletion criterion apply to this article? Fortunately, in this case the answer is yes, to wit G12 as it was a blatant copy of this website. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Was not meant to be, any way fixed. Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound quite that defensive. Guess the memory of being chastised for a faulty A7 still smarts. Favonian (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Van der Stricht

Thanks for deleting that. It's the second time it's been deleted today. Perhaps you could also consider blocking the creator, because he will only start the page again in a few hours. Two AIV reports have fallen on dead ears.--Kudpung (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you Favonian (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

For the incredible speed of your response. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. The swiftness of response was due to my talk page stalking. Let's see if the person's attention focuses on me now. Favonian (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very pleased to know that you have my talk on your watchlist. As far as you becoming the target of the IP it is a real risk and it takes courage to act the way you did. I'll become a tps for your talkpage for a while just in case. :) Thank you very much again. All the best. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi, you have heroically reverted so much IP vandalism on Mary (mother of Jesus) that you might as well semi-protect it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tempting! It might get me a place in Heaven, but at present the level of vandalism doesn't quite merit a block. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, that was a classy piece of humor, playing on salvation and temptation. And perhaps also subject to discussion, for the causative view of salvation may run into the statement in the Epistle to the Romans 9:16 which suggests another view. But that is another story. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock of user Megaproject

• Megaproject (talk · contribs)
• Riskrisk (talk · contribs)
• Rcfrcf (talk · contribs)
• Cheapskate08 (talk · contribs)
• Pilgaard (talk · contribs)
• flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk

What do you think? 85 links makes me think there might be others as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikiproject Spam. It's a big mess that will require much more time than I have just find the extent of the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick request

Hello! Some time back, I created a user subpage to work on an article, and now I am buggered if I can remember how to find it. I checked what links here, and that got me nowhere, and I tried every permutation of the article name I could think of. Do you have any ideas? I should have created a link on my userpage, which I will do, if we find the article. Anyway, your thoughts? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could it be on this list? The link to your subpages is found at the bottom of your contribution list. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell! Yes, I forgot about that. I knew I was missing something really basic, and would feel like a numbskull when it was pointed out to me. Alas... Well, thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It took me a long time as well to locate that link. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:71.178.152.143

Hello

I notice that you recently blocked this IP. I thought I should let you know that they seem to have taken to vandalising their talk page now :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, but Courcelles got there first, as always. Favonian (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for blank/privacy on Deleted page for living person

Hi,

I'm checking to see if Harvey Silverman's page can have the discussion items about deletion hidden, because he has had people look for him on Wikipedia and then find his page having been removed for unambiguous promotion. He's a dentist here in Cleveland and doesn't want people to think badly of him.

In the Deletion section, there's a listing for how to hide the comments, but I can no longer reach this article, so would it be possible for an admin to do it, or could I get a temporary access to the page to blank and hide the comments?

Thank you so much for your help! Lmitro2010 (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)lmitro2010

I assume we are talking about the deletion log for the article. To the best of my knowledge, this cannot be hidden, but if you have found evidence that it is possible, please tell me. Wikipedia is a complex system, and I don't pretend to know every nook and cranny. Personally, I don't see how this is such a big deal. Readers will have to make a pretty determined effort to see the log; especially since, according to this, no articles link to the deleted biography. Favonian (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi - Thank you for your reply.

He said someone clicked his name from the Washington University Alumni page and it said he had been deleted for self promotion. I tried to make a privacy link, but it seems there's no way to erase the deletion. I tried to make a blank page but within minutes someone deleted it again saying there was no substantive information. Can I remove the link on Univ. of Washington Alumni page? I'm also asking the person who just re-deleted things. Thank you! Lmitro2010 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)lmitro2010

Sure, you can just remove the brackets. The red link is useless anyway. Favonian (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you - it worked! Have a great day! :) Lmitro2010 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)lmitro2010

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Why? Because you're worth it *tosses hair* PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! (trying to toss my hair, but the result is not convincing) Favonian (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So who was he?

Clearly he was a sock, but I can't be bothered to think of who. HalfShadow 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Our new best friend, Zarapastroso (talk · contribs). Perfect waste of time and space. Favonian (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of him. HalfShadow 21:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of Ur0s

You blocked User:Ur0s for vandalism, apparently due to persistently posting claims that Lady Gaga's song "Bad Romance" was plagiarised from Mozart. However, this claim has been given some currency on the internet, apparently starting with a video which is shown at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=650r-bU7TNM. It is therefore entirely likely that Ur0s was editing in good faith, even though the claim shows every sign of having been intended as a joke. As far as I know the editor has no previous history of disruptive editing. You may like to consider reducing the length of the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. How about 24 hours for edit warring? Favonian (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Our eggnog editor is back

Hello Favonian. I hope that you are enjoying your wikibreak. When you return would you please take a look at this message User talk:MarnetteD#Eggnog and overlinking that I received. The new IP also geolocates to the Philippines so I am pretty sure that it is the same person so we can now and block evasion to their list of disruptive editing. Thanks for your time in looking into this and welcome back when you get back. MarnetteD | Talk 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the latest instance of this consummate whack job. Though activity seems to have stopped, I've blocked the IP for a month as a clear case of block evasion. Favonian (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. As I wrote on Colin's talk page the IP's vendetta against eggnog is odd. Maybe they had a nightmare about a cow, a chicken and a bottle of rum at some point in their life :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Found a new IP doing the same link removal today. Here is a link to their edit history page [4] Looks like they are going to be a persistant pest. Thanks ahead of time for looking into this new IP. MarnetteD | Talk 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeez! I'll end up having to develop a taste for that stuff out of solidarity. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Undelete the "Camaron Stevenson" Page

I saw that you deleted the page, "Camaron Stevenson" because there was no website backing who he was. Well, here is a legitimate website!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4093861/

So you can put the page back up. Thank you!

-camorama66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camorama66 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not creditably assert notability of the person in question. The IMDb link you provide states that a person of this name was a publicist for the film El extraño. First of all, that doesn't really match the brief description in the original article, and secondly it is not even close to the requirements for coverage in reliable sources. I therefore have to decline your request. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

Would be great if administrators could genuinely engage in discussion so that arguments are clearly set out in an open and transparent way. That way we can actually improve articles. I've demonstrated that JDP has had reasonable coverage in mainstream reliable sources and that he is notable for several reasons, one of which is that he is a prince with a papal title. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Sorry- Didn't know about the sandbox. I was teaching my 4th graders a lesson about using Wikipedia for research. Mssipress (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)mssipress

Great work!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless reverting of vandalism. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And, might I add, you've done a fantastic job cleaning up my trail of csd tags over the past few months since getting your mop. Keep it up! Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! Keep the deliveries coming Favonian (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Hello there Favonian, thanks for the feedback I am just perplexed about how Arthur's page has survived...

1. There seems to be very little which is notable in his profile 2. What has he actually ACHIEVED which is notable? 3. The statements used smack of peacock.... 4. There has been NOTHING since the 80s!

An outside simple cannot imagine any reason why this page has survived if he wasn't an administrator of Wikipedia...

So how do I go through the process once again to propose deletion? I'm having trouble figuring it out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Objective (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The instructions are at WP:AFD. Regarding notability, have a look at the three previous discussions, the latest of which is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (3rd nomination). Favonian (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Occupation of Gori was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Жека Михайлов (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this, but if you think that whole sections of the article should be removed, you had better discuss this on the talk page. If you delete contents again without seeking consensus, you will be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Other possible solutions?

Hi again. The eggnog delinker (is that a word? will it eventually be in the Oxford English Dictionary because of Wikipedia?) is back yet again. Here [5] is the new IP. Looking at this history page [6] I note that the first IP (and the one that hit the most articles) was 121.54.51.22. Since you blocked that IP the three block evasion IPs have all been in the 112.203 range (112.203.239.188 - 112.203.253.151 - 112.203.175.46). Is a range block is an option. I know that RB's are to be avoided due to collateral damage but I am wondering if a short one - two weeks say - might stop are pest. On the other hand it might not slow them down and the last two times that they have returned they have only hit the List of Christmas dishes article. Since I have that on my watchlist I can just keep reporting them to you if you don't mind. As ever thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Gleisinger Corporation

I was about to delete as a hoax - the sites they'd built included Battersea Power Station (famous, non-nuclear) and Springfield Nuclear Power Plant (from The Simpsons). The contact details looked really dubious, as well... TFOWR 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek while deleting. Author seems a bit unpleasant from looking at his messages to our colleagues. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous Mice

Ta for that. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Miauw! Favonian (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He's now blanked his own userpage (which makes a total of five altogether...). I think I detect a hint of COI, and he might have given up now. I'll put Goodbody on watch in case another one pops out of a hole. Peridon (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Template:Countries of Europe#England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daicaregos (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

92.29.112.82

Thanks for catching this IP - Can I revert the edits (inc the PROD removes) that this editor has made ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The PROD may be a little tricky, since Rangoon11 has "only" been blocked, not banned. Well, WP:IAR and go ahead. Favonian (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I will make sure that I link to the SPI in the edit sum of the undo. Codf1977 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Amit Kumar Khare

shake that salt! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete, salt, block! Favonian (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Salt can be "sweet".. dude. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Emraanhashmi

Hiya, that was quick! But please can you also check here, because something may have gone wrong with the report... Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emraanhashmi. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not as impressive as it looks. I have had this sockpuppeteer in my telescopic sight for some days, blocking and deleting as the puppets appeared. The report is in place and duly registered, but your rationale consists only of your signature. I've added a couple of entries and made a note about the naming of the case. Favonian (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

This person has been vandalising the Kendall Francois page [7]-Est.r (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And you have very appropriately reverted the vandalism. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I had already apologised for my disruptive editing. I'm sorry but I think it's a bit hypocritical about deleting various information. I'm a new member so I still don't fully understand the Community Guidelines of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweep12 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, though I'm not really sure how that was hypocritical. When you persistently remove entries from another editor's talk page after being told to cease and desist, then voices will be raised. That being said, there are indeed a lot of guidelines to learn, and I haven't mastered all of them either. Favonian (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Account Deletion

Could you please inform me how to delete my account as I admit I've had a bit of shameless behaviour recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweep12 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange as it may sound, you can't actually delete an account. You can stop using it, and if you are concerned about somebody else using it in your absence by, say, guessing your password, you can just change the password to some random gibberish which not even you can remember. Favonian (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your help in dealing with the fake sockpuppet accuser. JamesBWatson (talk)

My pleasure. Suspect we'll have the opportunity to deal with him in the future. Favonian (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And so it is: [8]. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What a great loss to mathematics! Favonian (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake

My bad with the Gigi Buffon edit, I'm new to this Wikipedia stuff and thought I was in sandbox mode. Could you show me where the sandbox is so I can work on my editing over there without screwing up other articles. Also, bro, could you hook me up with a link to where I can learn what special formats are needed in edits? I need to learn the codes for how to make links and all that good stuff. Thanks, bro BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The sandbox is at Wikipedia:Sandbox, and I've added a welcome message to your talk page with several useful links. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks broski, I'll have to thank you when I get nominated for admin haha. Happy editing! BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

Just a note to say thanks for protecting Oscar's page. I was online earlier when there were just a few edits going on so I was amazed at all that has happened since. This is his birthday (its my mom's too but she doesn't have a wikipage to protect :->) but in my five+ years here I haven't seen this happen on the other Oct 16ths. If we are both here next year I might drop a reminder note so we don't have to go through this again. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's theory versus Newton Law's

Dear Mr. Favonian: Please allow me to edit the text in the Newton's Law's section. The writing is extremely biased towards Einstein's General Releativity Theory. Granted there are many scientists that believe that this theory is a law, there are many the do not. I have not added any comments to the Einstein relativity wiki, only to the Newton section. There have been some recent papers that caste a doubt on Einstein's theory and reinforce Neton's Law's, so please allow me to point this out. I have kept in place any mention of Einstein as another theory in the interest of fairness, even though I believe that General Relativity has been invalidated, since it predicts a non-existant precession of Mercury.

Perhaps we can come to a compromise in the wording that doesn't make Newton's Law's sound like a "fringe theory". Afterall, these laws have been around for much longer than Einstein's theory, and our space agency uses these laws, not Einstein's for our satellite calculations.

Regards,

Dave Weber —Preceding unsigned comment added by D c weber (talk • contribs) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody refers to Newton's laws as "fringe". You need to present your proposal at Talk:Newton's law of universal gravitation to obtain consensus. Favonian (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DGG's unblocking of Rangoon11. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX

Re User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't. Sorry, I didn't realize it was transcluded in the draft banner. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Heymid and ANI

An incident with which you may have been involved, etc etc. Sad it came to this: WP:ANI#User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010. Thanks for spotting it and blocking so quickly. TFOWR 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Darn! I must work on my typing skills, but thanks for completing this unpleasant task. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof ataturk was a Yörük Turkmen stop edit about ataturk was a "albanian or macedonian"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOvaHyE4To

Atatürk's family tree

http://www.kanalkultur.com/yolalevi/i...

Yörük Turkmen in Balkan http://balkanpazar.org/yorukler.asp

His ancestors were Turcomans of Karaman who were settled into the Balkans in order to increase the numbers of Turkics in the region.

Profesori turk Enver Behnam Shapolyo shkruan: "Për gjyshërit e Ataturkut kisha pyetur një shok shkolle të Ataturkut, që ka qenë deputet, i quajtur Haxhi Mehmeti. Ai më tha: -Gjyshërit e Ataturkut janë nga komuna e Dibrës, Koxhshëk, të cilët kishin ardhur nga Konja e Anadollit dhe flisnin turqisht, për këtë shkak quheshin edhe "konjarë"...

Mustafa was born as the son of Mr and Mrs Ali Rıza Efendi Turkish and Zübeyde Hanım in Salonika, which was then a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was also home to various peoples in the cosmopolitan Muslims with Jews and Christians lived together peacefully mainly. Mustafa's paternal grandfather, Kızıl Hafız Ahmed was one of the Yörük Türkmen. His mother was the daughter of an old peasant, originally from Konya, Karaman-derived family of the little town Langasa (now Langadas) in Thessaloniki. The parents were married 1871,

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir " M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia is from the Turkmen Yörük " M. Kemal Ataturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Page creation

Hello. It was a different article with new references and search for attributions and notability. I checked all the rules and they said that it is possible to recreate an article as long as it is not exactly the same as the one deleted. It was not the same as it focused on poetry in recognised journals and journalism - two things that were not referenced very well in the deleted article. Also the other article was deleted very quickly before I had chance to prepare an argument showing notability. Alwayssoma (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

G4 says: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply.

It was not the same as the one deleted, I was at pains to re-source all the references and focus on only the things that could be proved as notable using adequate references. It was not identical as I made sure none of the things that were problematic were still there. I am sorry if I did this wrong, I thought it was adequate. Alwayssoma (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also - sorry I have messed up your talk page, I am still learning.Alwayssoma (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock of Daveygp?

Hi, there is a user Bradleybranning (talk · contribs) who might possibly be a sock of Daveygp (talk · contribs); I suspect this because he's recreated several articles on actors which were previously deleted, and I'm pretty sure that Daveygp, or a known sock of his was involved in those same actor pages prior to their deletion. What should I do? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's him alright. Thanks for catching it! Favonian (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you clear my article again?

Thanks for your help before. I had to take the Diversified Global Graphics Group page down to do some editing offline, and it needs to be cleared again. I put in the Request for Feedback last week, made the suggested changes, but it hasn't been approved. Do you have time to take a look? Backburnercomics (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I read the RfF is not so much that it hasn't been approved as that it hasn't been disapproved, if you see what I mean. The article isn't perfect and it needs some more work on the references, but I doubt that it would be deleted if it came to an AfD. In other words, I suggest you leave it in article space and keep working on it. Favonian (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I didn't have the RfF banner the last time the article was public, so it had me a little worried. Thanks.Backburnercomics (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Kate Middleton

Sorry to upset you (I am being polite) but I was only trying o bring a smile to the faces of those unfortunate members of the community who actually do something (I am being constructive).

Lighten up a little! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.211.3 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious — especially compared to your other contribution. There are other websites more suitable for making jokes. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

International Kissing Day

Does exist, but not in October =) GwenChan 13:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How sweet, but, alas, only a local observance Favonian (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I should strike that. It is now global. I can hardly wait. Favonian (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This IP needs banning

for destructive editing: 92.232.87.91. He has established a pattern of bad faith edits [9]. Should be blocked for a couple of days.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That IP has not edited in over a year; did you misread the year in the date? p.s. I'm not intentionally following you around, I just happened to look at your talk page a few minutes ago to see if you'd replied to my other edit. —Soap— 15:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, thanks for all the help.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

LouisPhilippeCharles Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Both warnings. His behaviour since his unblock in ignoring the second warning comes as little surprise, but I think he abused you good faith, as he knew there were two warnings and it seems he exploited the slight miswording by user:JohnCD to knowingly deceive you. -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is rather disappointing, and I'm sorry to have overlooked the other half of the conditions. He deserves to get reblocked, but thanks to his maneuvering we will now look a bit bureaucratic when we block him. Wouldn't ANI be the right place to get a decision with a broader base? Favonian (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am involved in my own ANI dispute at the moment, and the last thing we need is for that to get mix up in this, so it would be better if someone else took the lead on this. Will you do it -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for reviewing the 618th Tanker Airlift Control Center page and partially locking it due the recent vandalism issues. There is one specific person out there who has been making all of the changes, and while the vandalism administrators have been great about blocking his account, that person keeps creating new account names to continue vandalising the page. I appreciate your help! Brockhjm (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Basque Country (autonomous community)

Hi Favonian, I noticed you made a revert here the other day - that's why I'm writing to you. This page was semi-protected a while ago (by Lar, upon my request), now that the protection has expired drive-by mapchanges from various ip's has resumed. Could you please semi it again. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Sorry, I am not aware of any content or template from Wikipedia that I'm supposed to have removed or blank paged. Please explain Justus Maximus (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

You shmooshed Born2Cycle's last AN/I post -- could you fix it? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Gawd!! I hate when that happens. I have repaired the damage. Thanks a bundle for catching it! Favonian (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Should have fixed it myself, but I didn't want to encourage that line of discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

When are you going to use Huggle again? Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm sort of ambivalent about that tool. Very productive, but (for me at least) it's too easy to make errors that have to be frantically reverted. May I ask the reason for your inquiry? Favonian (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to admit...

... That was a pretty weird piece of trolling. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of violating WP:CIVIL, that's one genuine whackjob. It used to haunt Prophecy of the Popes, which I recently semi-protected, so now I get the pleasure instead. Thanks for the revert! Favonian (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My turn! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! That's what you get for being a good neighbor. Zzuuzz wasted no time stepping on it. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of Laser Elements

Hi Favonian,
The question was obvious trolling, and the editor was clearly not learning anything from the reverts, so I'm not questioning the block at all. Just asking your opinion: do you think it was a little bitey that no-one stopped by and explained why the question was inappropriate?
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been digging through the records, but I gather from some of the comments regarding the previous campaign at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities that it's been going on for a while. There have been literally dozens of sockpuppets, and I'm pretty sure that the first instance must have been informed about the inappropriateness. At this point in time, it's strictly WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And just for the record, when I first encountered this vandal, the usual contribution looked like this, and had a clear WP:BLP aspects. It seems to have mutated by now. Favonian (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I see. Thanks for your guidance. Hmm... this wasn't the first time I just assumed just a leettle bit too much good faith, and had a quiet chat with someone who more experienced editors less gullible editors already knew was a vandal-sock. To save time and resources, I will slap myself with the appropriate fish asap.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, no reason for breaking out the fish. Always good to be reminded that I should keep my teeth out of editors' ankles. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem child(ren)

Your problem child(ren), User:169.204.104.184, have been admonished again, this time for vandalising Grito de Dolores, fyi.Lyricmac (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They have been sent to their rooms without supper. Favonian (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My, that was fast! You're a hard taskmaster.Lyricmac (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the only thing they respect—or so I hope. Favonian (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

SyberGod

I've taken advantage of your offer/comment that you won't stand in the way of my giving him a second chance, in spite of the fact that you don't think it's warranted. Thank you. As time allows, I'll try to keep an eye out for any further trouble on his part, tho I imagine there will be plenty of eyes on him now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Que sera, sera. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Eşek = Donkey!

Eşek ne demek git öğren = Learn it! Böri (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson, but using the word "donkey" is not really offensive, especially not when it's a quote from a source. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Offensive! (and we know who are them!)Böri (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not really clear what you mean, but you must stop redacting other editors' comments when these are not vandalism. Otherwise, you risk being blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've been treated so badly on Wikipedia that I no longer give a damn about it. I went from being a well-intentioned editor who was trying to improve articles, to being someone who wants to close the site down. Wikipedia has become a bureaucratic nightmare run by cliques of editors who bully other editors. Nothing written on this site can be trusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.14.89 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to assess your statement since your only previous actions from this IP address have been to vandalize the talk pages of two editors. Under which name did have you edited previously? Favonian (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is over-run by deletionists and other people who are trying to shape the encyclopedia to their point of view. The deletionists work in groups, ganging up on articles and editors they don't like. And since the deletionists spend all their time on the site, they know how to manipulate the rules to their advantage. Consequently, the administrators usually back them up. This is a sick system, and it results in an encyclopedia which is incomplete and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.14.89 (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is hardly the right place to vent your general dissatisfaction with Wikipedia. I can only repeat that if you commit any further act of vandalism, you will be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent comment at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Hi Takabeg. Your comment has apparently upset Böri, who has tried repeatedly to remove it because it contains the word "donkey". Following a discussion at AN/I, I have reinstated it. Favonian (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment had not upset anybody. According to Cemal Granda, Atatürk said that. I dare say No more censor ! Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

Is 78.147.22.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a sock of Special Cases (talk · contribs) that you blocked? I found the IP accidentally, but seems like the user. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks that way, and I can see that you already pulled the plug on him. Actually, I didn't block Special Cases in the first place, just removed his talk page access when he couldn't control himself. Favonian (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just blocked, clear case of duck. —SpacemanSpiff 09:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate please

Please would you put in my user space Terence John Arbuthnot. I don't think he has become noteable but I need the info elsewhere. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. The article is now at User:Kittybrewster/Terence John Arbuthnot. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

and the talk page is at User talk:Kittybrewster/Terence John Arbuthnot, just for completeness. Favonian (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very helpful. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Clockwork Angel

Just so you know, this book is only mentioned in the Article "City of Fallen Angles" by it's title, no description whatsoever exists. Besides, even if a description had existed, either it should have been removed or the article's name changed to incorporate both books, as "The clockwork angel" is a separate book, which only slightly has to do with "City of Fallen Angles" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSCarlosXXVIII (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SRQ

Hi, Favonian! I see you've been handling this troll, who is really on a tear the last couple of nights. I just want to confirm that Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) is indeed one of the named duck socks, as the history clearly shows. Could you get this one too? I'd appreciate it. Thank you! :> Doc talk 19:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Smoked! Her style is really quite recognizable. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for reverting her on my talk page. She's been extremely active recently, and she's never attacked my page like this before. Her last one (again) erroneously assumes I'm trying to "run for admin" when I've stated I've no such intention. So I'm not worried for my own sake if my tagging has been appropriate: I want to do it the right way. Per Template:IPSock, I've been using the second one down, which says, "Proven (not always blocked)", and uses contributions (not CU) as the evidence. Plenty of distinguishing CU tags at Template:Sockpuppeteer, but not for IP socks or named socks. The contributions prove through duckiness who it is, so no reason to go the "suspected" route. CU doesn't seem to be needed to prove socks like these, I believe, esp. when contributions are referred to as the evidence. I did notice that the usertalk pages should be tagged instead of the userpage for IPs: should I switch these? There's a lot, and I'll do it happily. Thanks again :> Doc talk 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the WP:DUCK criterion is proof enough for me, and I have no problem with your tagging of the IPs in question. That SRQ has problems with this (and many other things) is not going to impress anyone around here. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

69.151.*.*

Currently I wouldn't believe this guy if he claimed water was wet... HalfShadow 23:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We should ask a rangeblock-savvy admin to investigate this. Too much manual labor involved in this Whack-A-Mole. Favonian (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The little shit is back again. HalfShadow 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And sent off again. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Too obvious

LOL! Too obvious!! Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. The devil is in the details. Favonian (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

86.178.141.82

86.178.141.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regarding this,[10] I wonder if LC has a new IP range. In any case, he wanted me to say something funny. I was going to say, "You're blocked. That's funny." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How many panda lovers do we have in our stable of vandals? At any rate, I'm sorry I didn't leave him to you, but surely that line can be put to good use in the future. Favonian (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't I know it. :) Another one I could use comes from an old B.C. strip, where the resident schlemiel asks the resident smart-aleck, "Say something funny", and he says, "I'm very pleased to meet you." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, there is a line I will keep for future use Favonian (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gears Keep Turning

Why'd you delete the page for Gears? He's the most subscribed video blogger from Wales. Is this not significant enough? He's the most subscribed and ONLY YouTube partner from Wales and you deleted his page? What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.192.171 (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article contained no evidence that the subject lived up to Wikipedia's notability requirements. Favonian (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely being the best and most successful in a recognised field, in this case, video blogging, from a small country and still having a huge recognition and following is enough. Even if it remained as the initial sentence of name, age and why notable and not expanded upon further. He still remains Wales' most successful and ONLY partner. He is noteable. (Also, please excuse my lack of knowledge in editing HTML etc. I didn't make the page or edit much, I think it was made as it is his birthday tomorrow and we believe he is notable enough to have at the very least a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.192.171 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can provide the reliable sources required by the notability guidelines, the article will be deleted. You should have a look at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Favonian (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So reliable sources? His own testimonials and his channel are not reliable enough? I'm sure HE knows his age and his birthplace, he's also Welsh. So what if we make the page in Welsh? Will you delete that even though you can't understand it? At the end of the day, son, he's notable. Just because no big time newspapers have talked about him doesn't diminish his impact or his notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.192.171 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:RS which defines "reliable sources". The important part is not his birthday but his notability, and we don't take people's own word for that. Favonian (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So the 2,600 people who consider him notable are wrong? You'll have to explain it to me simply, English ain't my first language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.192.171 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not decided by popular vote. In your case, you should be looking for verifiable media coverage. Blogs and such self-published sources don't count. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Report

I just made a report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/89.240.186.47 about the IP address that I just reverted on your this page saying that he's using another IP when he vandalized this page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mobius Bot

Thanks for your action to stop User:Mobius Bot at many various articles. I can't recall hearing about a Vandal Bot?...Buster7 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty scary, isn't it? Probably developed a personality issue. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Danger, Will Robinson, danger!...Buster7 (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask a favor

Hi dear admin. More than one week has passed since I asked help here and still there is no admin to interfere. Can you please interfere or at least tell me what I can do? --Aliwiki (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:67.159.45.96

Did you intend to block this IP indefinitely? I think proxies are more suited to be blocked for at most a year. Goodvac (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The length of the block was actually set by Ryulong a couple of years ago. I merely revoked talk page access due to recent abuse by a banned user. Regarding the appropriate length of blocks for proxies, I don't really have sufficient experience—a user like Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) is much more of an expert. This particular IP, however, has just demonstrated that it's not safe to be let back on the street. Favonian (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Thanks for the clarification. Goodvac (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For tidying up my userpage... I admire Michael Jackson's work, and am a Labour supporter, but am uncertain what a vagabon might be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help, and in spite of your confessed lapses of taste I shall continue do to so ;) Favonian (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• ...and again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• ...ditto. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You do have a lot of friends. Well, this one seems to be more focused on JamesBWatson. Have you given thought to semi-protecting your user page? No real reason why IPs and SPAs should edit it. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User:PsychClone

Should all this user's !votes at AfD be struck? I've seen one struck and one not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy San Dimas isn't. I'm not sure whether the ANI finished with a decision on this or not. And anyway, if it is the case that they should be struck, is it an admin matter or for anyone to do? Peridon (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly suspicious of 78.55.156.192 who has picked up a PsychClone comment about bomis in the above AfD. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Last vote struck as well. It was different from his other rants, but I gauge the consensus to mean that all his votes should be struck. I doubt that the IP is him. It's from Germany and if our assumptions about the sockmaster is correct, he uses 66.8.179.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which geolocates to Hawaii. Will keep half an eye on the IP, though. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Favonian, referring to this, I thought you might be interested in this new piece of OR-synthesis. I undid the edits and put a warning on user talk page. Perhaps I should have given a higher level warning? DVdm (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is OR, and in line with this editor's other endeavors. In my opinion, the warning level is appropriate. Even though it's kind of a continuation of the previous attempt, the editor actually showed a willingness to cooperate by stopping the edit war and presenting the case at Talk:Newton's law of universal gravitation#Newton's Laws versus Einstein's Theory. Regrettably, no replies have been forthcoming there. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

muhammad page

sorry you keep removing my correction suggestions to the article regarding muhammad.

im not sure if you are actually a muslim, but your actions are of one who is a disbeliever.

have you read the quran? because all of the points i have raised are written clearly in the quran.

why do you persist to hinder the truth?Daenumen (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are meant for discussing the article and its improvement, not for soapboxing. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nov 18

Hi, I received a message from you saying my edit for the Nov. 18 page was unhelpful or not notable enough. My edit stated that on Nov. 18,1985, the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes" first appeared in newspapers. This is, to many of us, a notable date in history, as Calvin and Hobbes changed the face of the comics. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I believe it is notable enough to appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakinbake22 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:DOY#What is not notable or not considered an Event. Calvin and Hobbes clearly belongs to the categories excluded. Favonian (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, is it cool if I take off the thing about the Clinton center in 2004, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakinbake22 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not object, though others may, but tit for tat removal does seem rather childish. Favonian (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not tit for tat. I just find it as irrelevant as some find Calvin and Hobbes- Clinton was one of 44 presidents so far, and did nothing more significant than any of the others. The center named after him seems not to be globally relevant either, but rather relevant only to Little Rock, AR. I reviewed all the other entries, and they seem historically relevant, but that one doesn't. Wasn't one of your own guidelines on this forum not to make personal attacks? Shakinbake22 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Shakinbake22

While the word "childish" may sound poor, we actually do have a formal behavior guideline that pretty clearly addresses this exact behavior: WP:POINT. DMacks (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but here I'm genuinely going with the rule- I'm not asking for my post to be put back up, I simply thought the Clinton thing was historically irrelevant. I didn't delete it before because I didn't even know about the rules- I figured that since Wikipedia is a fairly open website, I'd leave everyone else's posts alone. When I discovered that there were rules regarding "relevance," I chose to employ them. You can put the post back up if you want, and I'll leave it at that, satisfied that I'm not the one who resorted to name-calling. Shakinbake22 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)shakinbake22