User talk:Favonian/Archive 42

Why are you deleting my edits? They are pop culture, and historical references to a DIRECT DESCENDANT. not uncles aunts cousins but direct from great grandfather's to prominent historical kings. It IS referenced to a reliable source. Information contained in my edit, was proven fact by the office of The Coat of Arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.249.165 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Very ephemeral pop culture, and you have now been reverted by three different editors. Furthermore, saying that's something was mentioned in a TV program doesn't qualify as a verifiable source. Favonian (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a point of historical reference. Because of direct connection to a living person. Which is widely shown on other Wikipedia pages. Yes, it was a tv program, but the facts come from the curator at the official office of The Coat of Arms. Which was shown, his voice, his likeness. Being there is No authority higher on the subject of lines of decent, it is absolutely a verifiable source. Print is not 100% correct, video/audio is. Not arguing, or trying to cause one, are you an official Wikipedia certified editor(or what ever they may have), or just part of the masses as I am. I have supplied much information to Wikipedia and many other sites in the past. I belong to our town and county historical society. I am not a professional historian, but work with many. We always give as much information to the public as we can, and all legacy info if available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.249.165 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it would be the article on Courteney Cox, so long as the claim is supported by a reliable source (such as a news item). But it's not a relevant fact to be included on the pages of the kings. Many people can claim them as ancestors. clpo13_(talk) 19:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That too was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.249.165 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's still there. In answer to your previous question: I'm an administrator, for what it's worth. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) University of Durham says: From There is an extremely high probabilty that a modern English person with predominantly English ancestry descends from Edward III, at a very minimum over 99%, and more likely very close to 100%. The number of descendants of Edward III must therefore include nearly all of the population of England, and probably much of the populations of the rest of the UK and Eire, as well as many millions in the USA, former British colonies and Europe, so 100 million seems a conservative estimate.^[1] So for our purposes, not being cognatally descended would be a bigger claim of notability :p — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 20:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. But direct lineage, father to son/daughter, is less rare as to uncles aunts and cousins. Just saying. Thank you for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.249.165 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Favonian

I'm sorry for my addition. I felt that it was interesting and wanted to add it. I haven't been a member for long. Could you maybe clarify the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Your anti-vandalism is admirable, as is your promptness.

Thank you.The Jesus Beast (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You should start by checking the links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page. In the concrete case, you added rather dubious looking contents without any sort of reference to verifiable, reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request a clear reason for the deletion of my edit on the Noah's Ark wiki, a short google reveals that there is solid evidence for a global flood^[1][2][3], please reinstate my edit, as deletion would be considered vandalism according to Wikipedia's official rules. 10a-182g-129d-28f (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Your contributions to Noah's Ark as well as Tower of Babel have been challenged. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's principle of "bold, revert, discuss" you must stop edit-warring and instead present your arguments on the relevant talk pages. You will, however, find it something of an uphill battle, as the matter has been discussed repeatedly. Favonian (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Både du och jag gör detta på wikipedia frivilligt, jag vill inte ställa till problem men jag raderar vandalism och personangrepp när jag ser dem, som vissa användare gjort tidigare. Och när en användare (i detta fall) en admin förolämpar en annan användare . Min sak är klar att lika behandling ska gälla för alla. Förstå detta då det är grunden till problemet. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia; please communicate in English so that everyone can understand you! You have repeatedly, possibly deliberately, misunderstood the messages that I and others have left on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, earlier this month you blocked DONALD BOY for abusing multiple accounts. Now there is a new account, DONALD BOYS, editing the same page (Finding Soul), as well as the older account DONALD IS A GOOD BOY. Would you consider this duck-like enough for an immediate block, or should I go to SPI? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Wiae! No need for additional paper work when the quacking is so convincing. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Re the small print here - I was temporarily Danish last night, when I enjoyed an excellent (Russian) stout from Midtfyns Bryghus. Highly recommended. Signed, Dept of Random Information and Beer Appreciation. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, bonadea! I know it well. :) Favonian (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a bunch of lies on Mark Levin's page and you changed the protection of the page so editors cannot remove it. Why? BravoLima0341 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Because of the highly nonconstructive way in which you and others chose to express your sentiments. Learn how to use a talk page! Favonian (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about that. --Devwebtel ^(query) 20:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why you removed my definition of the "verb" meaning of "soldier." It is a valid verb and has the meaning of "malingering" and may be found in numerous dictionaries. If it offends you, that is not sufficient reason to remove it, so, please explain!

Wiktionary: Verb

soldier (third-person singular simple present soldiers, present participle soldiering, simple past and past participle soldiered)

1 To continue. 2 To be a soldier. 3 To intentionally restrict labor productivity; to work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished. Has also been called dogging it or goldbricking. (Originally from the way that conscripts may approach following orders. Usage less prevalent in the era of all-volunteer militaries.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NM Remote (talk • contribs) 03:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm hardly "offended", but your modification of the lead turned it into a dictionary entry, and as explained in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (to which I linked in my edit summary) that's not what Wikipedia is about. The etymology of the word is explained in a separate section. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Favonian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Isananni (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As previous discussion, old friend returned here. Eagleash (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing if not punctual. See you in June! Favonian (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comes with age. You'll find out soon enough. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's going to get worse? (Today I was reading from this book, in class--a student remarked that our door was open, so I read even louder.] Drmies (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll soon be making headlines. Will your old country take you back? Favonian (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope. If they ask, I'll come right away, but there will have to be either a job or a government position for me there. HA! I was going to say you all (NW Europeans) don't know how good you have it there, but you do. Good for you all, Favonian, and well deserved. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You had to rub it in, didn't you? Lost first place to the Norwegians, of all people. We're waiting for their oil to run out, and then Winter is Coming! Favonian (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, since you are rightly very sensitive on the issue of vandalism, would you please kindly have a look at the edit war going on on the MARIA REYNOLDS english page and related talk page. A user is repeatedly trying to remove the protection that others than me quite wisely added after the Hamilton show made it a target for repeated juvenile vandalism. Please help me.... sigh...Isananni (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem partially solved, I have finally been given instructions on how to submit a protection request. Sorry for disturbing you. Isananni (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You blocked a couple of socks at NBA 2K17. Here is another by the same user. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Right you are. It has joined its predecessors. Favonian (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Good morning. Would you please take a look at this and then caution this editor not to insult people? In addition to repeatedly changing IPs in order to push his POV in Scorsese-related articles, he leaves abusive messages on my alternate talk page when I revert his edits. I've asked him repeatedly to stop, to no avail. Perhaps a warning from an administrator will have an affect? Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Already handled by my colleague. The Scorsese "fan" is a frequent customer, who should be processed with steel-toed boots. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, good. Many thanks! And, yes, I agree with that course of action. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there. I'm really sorry to bother you, but an apparent WP:VOA committed a serious amount of deletions and vandalism in the Battle of Baiji (2015) article. (The WP:VOA has since been blocked indefinitely.) He also moved it from its original title, Battle of Baiji (2014–15) to the current title, Battle of Baiji (2015), based on his own opinions. Since I am completely unable to restore the article to its original title, can you please revert the page move? Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: It's back to where it was. Bit surprising that you couldn't move it. Didn't require awesome privileges. Favonian (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Really? Whenever I tried reverting page moves, I always got a message saying that I couldn't, because "the page has changed since then." I might have managed to revert only one page move, but if I did, it was only before anyone else made any edits. Do you have any ideas as to what may have caused this? By the way, thanks for the help. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, this wasn't meant to be passive aggressive at all. I misread your block datestamp. Sorted now, thanks! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No harm done, Mark. A long marriage made me immune to P-A. :) Favonian (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

For some gnomish careful antidrama work you've done in the last few hours. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, NewsAndEventsGuy. The effort even seems to have had the intended effect – assuming, of course, that we are talking about the same thing. ;) Favonian (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Check the contribs of EditorINspace. Don't they quack, a bit? Or am I seeing phantom socks? --bonadea contributions talk 06:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quite loud quacking, blocked. Widr (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Widr! --bonadea contributions talk 06:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Concur fully with the ornithological observation. Favonian (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Anas platyrhynchos, this was one of my favourite April Fools jokes this year. I think I'll appropriate the phrase "to see the incredible Duck outline" for future use. --bonadea contributions talk 13:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone should write a Wikipedia essay. :) Favonian (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just catching up with the doings on your talk-page and accidentally touched the revert button. I'm a vandal. I'll just go stand in the corner. In an orange jumpsuit. Haploidavey (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Remember to upload the picture to Commons! :D Favonian (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No picture could possibly contain us all. We quack, and are legion. Haploidavey (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Recently you edited the Peter Tordenskjold page and reverted my change of the given nationality from Dano-Norwegian to just Norwegian.

I edited the page again, as I was unable to undo your change on my mobile. If you check the history of the page you can see my explanation of the change, and I would like to to discuss further if you wish to change it as I really do disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grikiard (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I came across this and this edit while patrolling recent changes. The comments made by the anon. are grossly insulting and the revisions may be suitable for deletion (I'm not quite familiar with revdel policies but as far as my knowledge goes, this could come under the violation). Thought I might bring this incident to your attention. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 16:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jiten Dhandha! It's an old "acquaintance": Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nipponese Dog Calvero – quite deranged. Since I've blocked several of his socks, he lashes back at all things Danish. Rather absurd. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I see... Quite sad that people go to such extents as to make numerous user accounts or change IPs to vandalize Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed the edit summary - didnt know that was possible! Its nice that you can do that. Anyway, happy editing and hope to see you around more often! :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

...And completely walks all over our policy against personally attacking danish pastries *mmm* :o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

Personally I find it cute to see children at play. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, ArbCom does not believe you are a "corrupt motherfucker administrator". I've heard some muttering about your username being a bit frivolous and showing a lack of the letters "e" and "u", as if you are signaling that you are biased toward the EU and wish for its failure, but I do not think that is a credible accusation, and I want you to know I'm in your corner. For the committee, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, esteemed member of the Cabal! Regarding my username, its distinctly Latin flavor is a discrete homage to the Treaty of Rome, subtlety being ever my hallmark. Tell the IP, next time you meet it, that the least it can do is to spell my name correctly. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Absofuckinglutely, sir. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As a typical admin who is currently active (per my perusal of Special:Blocklist), can you give me your opinion on a short-term use of extended confirmed protection on this article? Say, one month? People are engaged in a dispute about O'Leary's Canadian military service which would otherwise merit full protection, and I'd prefer not to tie up the article if possible. Two editors are recently blocked per AN3, but others are continuing the fight. Those who are fighting happen to have less than 500 edits. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Never actually used that protection level. Hang on a minute+ while I catch up with my reading. Favonian (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, EdJohnston, I'd say use of this protections meets In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. (WP:BLUELOCK) Favonian (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "typical" – seriously?!

Thanks for your reply. I've done the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This editor whom you recently reverted at ANI has made further disruptive edits, removing a lot of information and text of others. I would like to revert him, but I don't know how to do it without removing the comments made after his edits. Individually adding them would be too long. So if you could do something, it would be highly appreciated. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reverting disruption of this sort can only be done in tedious, paragraph-by-paragraph fashion. The otherwise awesome powers vested in admins don't help. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. Thanks anyway. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I am new to editing here and I found that you reverted my edit. Why did you remove the text about the Convervapedia joke on Uncyclopedia? It is a recurring part of Uncyclopedia, at least the parts that has the same subjects as Conservapedia. ^[1] GreedyRaven (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You failed to include a reliable source in your contribution. Apart from that, it's of dubious notability. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright just paste the same link I made here in the edited article,

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Conservapedia_logo.png

it includes the number of times it has been used.

Apart from that, a caption from your link:

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

GreedyRaven (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

193.61.48.26 (talk · contribs) I'm kicking myself for not realising this is Mikemikev, editing as usual from Birkbeck. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the same clever deduction minutes after I imposed that puny block. Favonian (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My edits are completely factual and directly and properly cited. I will dispute your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You replaced well-source content with you own, slightly incoherent and and weakly sourced, text. Now that I have reverted you, WP:BRD says that you must propose your changes on the article talk page. If you merely persist with you current behavior, I will (in view of your nonsensical, deleted "articles") block you. Favonian (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. I see. This is the process. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Snap! I've told him the same thing. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." :) Favonian (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your 3-month semi-protection of Hebrew calendar has expired and User:Vote (X) for Change has returned with his POV at the article. The IP is 80.44.91.91 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • Blacklist hits • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) and I've just reported it at SPI. I propose rangeblocking 80.44.88.0/22 or semi-protecting the article for preventing further POV pushing. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Luis150902: This person uses several busy IP ranges, so range-blocking is usually infeasible. Semi-protection, on the other hand, is used liberally, and I shall be happy to renew it. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I sent User:Elockid the following message, but since the user is possibly currently unavailable, I have decided to come to you about this:

"Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that there was this new SPI investigations log revolving around User:UnderArmourKid, who was a known sockpuppet of User:IPhonehurricane95 (the account was not tagged back in July 2014, due to WP:DENY). His contributions and "unblock request" edits pretty much give it away. However, I think that the new SPI case page could be distracting from the true sockmaster in a potentially detrimental way, so the UnderArmourKid SPI should probably be merged into the IPhonehurricane95 SPI case page, given the fact that the sockmaster was active as recently as only 2 weeks ago.

Concerning the evidence, in the UnderArmourKid SPI archives, the 19 July 2016 case saw a Checkuser link 5 of the accounts named to IPhonehurricane95 (all 5 were confirmed socks of the same user, and at least one of them openly admitted to being IPhonehurricane95 ). That being said, at least 4 of those same accounts were also apparently linked to UnderArmourKid, an older, known IPh95 sock. The latest sock, User:Bausha Vortex, openly admitted to being UnderArmourKid. M&M Kid also appears to be another IPh95 sock. Lastly, these edits pretty much tie the IPhonehurricane95 sock family to the UnderArmourKid socks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Earth100&diff=prev&oldid=632819886] (the last edit provided here was performed by a confirmed IPh95 sock, which also links several of the different socks together). Also, a number of those socks expressed interest in the talk page of UA rocks!, another IPh95 sock, and they also liked to frequent User talk:Earth100 (Earth100 has been a frequent target for harassment by IPhonehurricane95 in the past). Some examples of how their disturbing "unblock requests" match up are right here: .

That being said, the sock tags on the accounts listed under UnderArmorKid should be corrected to IPhonehurricane95 tags, and UnderArmourKid should also be tagged as a sock of IPh95. Given the evidence presented above, can you please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid and its Archive into the pages for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95? If you still have any doubts, you can run a Check on any of the accounts I mentioned, or found in the UnderArmourKid SPI archives. I think that it would be a lot more beneficial if all of the accounts were listed together under the correct sockmaster. Thank you." LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can't move the SPI pages, then could you please notify another Checkuser and have them examine the evidence? The 2 SPI pages existing independently presents some contradictions and what looks like a mess. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: Merging SPI cases is actually the privilege The Clerks. CheckUsers (to which category I don't belong) and lowly admins cannot perform this job unless they have been anointed. Turf and union rules! Favonian (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll see if I can ring one of them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have again found an instance where Bertdrunk has removed references(s) and/or referenced information.

• Case #1.This change was made, under this edit summary, "Copyedit (minor); Removing unsourced content; Removing linkspam per WP:EL". Hardly a sincere explanation for deleting referenced information.
• Case #2.Removal of referenced information, simply reverting an IP. Clearly did not verify what the source stated.
  

Granted these are only two instances, but Bertdrunk has been editing multiple battle articles throughout Wikipedia in this exact same manner. I will be posting more information as it becomes available. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's mostly a content dispute with some sub-standard behavior thrown in, so unless it escalates, I'm not going to step in. Oh, and using "LMAO" in what is supposed to be a discussion isn't cool. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not asking for any action, simply notifying you of less than sincere editing. Bertdrunk has been removing the word "Decisive" throughout a multitude of articles, clearly some of which are referenced.

Also, it appears Doug Weller has posted on Bertdrunk's talk page concerning their editing habits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As for TitaniumCarbide, said editor's statements were far from constructive;

• "no, dude, the previous claims were ridiculous to anyone with even a casual knowledge of how international humanitarian law works"
• "you're literally inserting entirely unsourced and obviously false claims back into the article while you complain about the source"
• "you are continually re-inserting obviously erroneous info that has no source at all, my dude"
• "it is ridiculous to expect me to real all this rambling garbage. congratulations, you have successfully bluffed off a more knowledgeable editor with your passive aggressive idiot wiki bureaucrat routine. this article will continue to feature childishly ridiculously claims that it's a war crime to attack weaker forces."

CLEARLY, my "LMAO" hindered this editor's sincere attempts to explain their concerns with this article. In contrast to TitaniumCarbide's comments of "rambling garbage", passive aggressive idiot wiki bureaucrat routine, childishly ridiculously claims.

This is the result of trying to understand, in good faith, what TitaniumCarbide's concerns were with the paragraph in question. Up until their last PA laden post mentioned war crimes, there was no real way of knowing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, this editor is definitely here to build an encyclopedia, proof. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Am starting to lose track of all these contributions suddenly coming from Bury St Edmunds. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Rerouted to Uncle Joe's favorite track. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Some folks just won't give up, will they? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither will I. Favonian (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Pattern looks a little familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: More than likely; blocked and reverted accordingly. Favonian (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Favonian, I made a request to have Talk:Michael White (author) protected due to the repeated sock posts there. My request was archived because NeilN wrote that you had already protected the page. However the main page is protected, not the talk page.

I think the talk page has seen enough vandalism, we're justified in protecting it too. Let me know if we can protect the talk page.

Best Darouet (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Not a lot of legitimate traffic from IPs, so I've semi-protected the talk page again. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: thank you! -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to alert an administrator about a user who writes many things that are not impartial.

The name of the user is Lescandinave

User:Lescandinave

1. The user adds the information with the intention of discrediting this person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Uribe&diff=776007480&oldid=775957836 - (This article wasn't impartial and it looks like writed by a left follower) - This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy.

2. In this article the user changed the ideology and replaced it with the word democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19th_of_April_Movement&diff=775775531&oldid=768932346 -

|ideology= Revolutionary socialism
Populism -> |ideology= Revolutionary socialism, Left-wing nationalism,Democracy

--ControlCorV (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@ControlCorV: At present, this appears to be a content dispute and the proper course is to raise the issue on the article talk page. If this fails to resolve the matter, consider the BLP noticeboard. Favonian (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent blanking of a recent edit to Dalai Lama confuses me, in that the edit was only an opinion, rather than a suggestion, yet I understand that we don't modify others' Talk edits. Would you please fill me in?--Quisqualis (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We're talking about this revert, which was done with reference to WP:NOTFORUM. The section was clearly not about the article or its improvement, but rather a rant against – whatever. In view of the IP's other, similar utterances, I judged this to be the appropriate course of action. Favonian (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw your revert here. Damn it! I didn't notice the edits made by TalkPageArhiver - thanks for taking care of that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Page does need archiving, though, in case anyone needs a displacement activity. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was contacted by someone at the Rollins College Library asking for advice regarding an apparent school block (with account creation disabled). Staff there planned to work with some students on a Wikipedia project at the end of this week. I thought it was odd that it wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks, but now I see that it wasn't a range block but a sock puppetry, etc. thing. I asked for a screenshot from one of the library computers, which included the IP 66.195.118.5. My presumption is the entire library uses that IP. That probably means the rest of the school isn't blocked, so they could tell students to register from an account before showing up? Will the accounts be autoblocked when they log in at the library? Regardless, that doesn't seem like an ideal solution considering the short timeframe between now and then. Perhaps at least a temporary unblock through the weekend, with instructions for staff there on how to avoid this in the future? Sorry if these are newbie questions -- it's not something I've dealt with before and I haven't had admin tools. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Auto-blocks are fickle things, but I guess I'll try unblocking the IP and we shall see what we shall see. The puppeteer is very active (in a non-academic sense) with weekly reappearances (most recent one), so maybe you should tell the school to chastise him. Is caning still used? Favonian (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What an odd vandal MO to have for such a long time. Thanks for the unblock. I've relayed that to library staff and linked to the SPI and most recent account. Not sure if that'll actually help to catch them, but we'll see I suppose. :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, user EOATP3 seems to be a sock of the user you just banned as they immediately reinstated the same vandalism at Hammerin Hank, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 April 2017 /UTC) (UTC)

Thanks! Has already been hammered by one of my colleagues. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo Favonian, re. This, St Claire's Fire is the master account, as it was created in November. Take care! 🍔 — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Verily, verily! Full credit now goes to the master. Favonian (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Forsooth, and all that :) cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• 70.90.45.9 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• Johncenadeeznutsgoty (talk · contribs)
• Ug lee (talk · contribs)

Hi there. FYI, these two users are clearly the same person or team that were using the IP before you blocked it. I'm not certain that this is specifically WP:EVASION, as they may have created an account to hide from my level 4 warning given to the IP, rather than your block. Clearly WP:NOTHERE any way you look at it (and the usernames are questionable as well). Just to let you know, totally your discretion to do anything.

Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: Gone, all gone. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey! This is regarding the anon who persistently attacked editors (such as and ). This seems to be a long-term abuse case, and matches quite a lot with this existing one. Do you know if these two are somehow connected? If so, I took a few mins to prepare a list of IP's that were involved in this case, which could be added to the already standing long term abuse case. Thanks in advance! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Low-brow, foul-mouthed vandals are a dime a dozen. Not much point classifying them in great detail. Favonian (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll keep the list with me just to have it as a stand-by. Back to reverting vandal edits :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, seems you made (or have) some rather aggressive enemies, who vandalized your user and talkpage on Commons. Has been reverted and partly rev-cleaned alreay. However, you might consider protecting at least the userpage. P.S.: Due to continued vandalism, I've semi-protected your talkpage on Commons for 1 day. --Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely response, Túrelio! I'd happily protect the user page indefinitely (as I've already done on this wiki), but my admin privileges don't extend to Commons. I'd be grateful if you would do the deed. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably this (a first edit) suggests another addition here. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JBL! Guy's not even trying to hide it. Favonian (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you protect my talk page through the end of the week? I don't think Nate's gonna give up anytime soon. And maybe protect my main userpage permanently? 'Cause there's no reason IPs should be editting my user page. Cheers! --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 22:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: A colleague already took care of your talk page and I've protected your user page indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Muchly appreciated.  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 05:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello and my greetings. I am in no way harassing anyone out here. I have tried to add some valuable information on an article available on wikipedia. But the user named Sitush keeps reverting them back and keeps threatening me. How is this fair to me. Where and to who should i complain to about harassment. I wasn't attacking anyone personally. I do not have any agenda. The page Reservation in India is an incredibly biased page. Either we should be allowed to improve it or we should remove the page from Wikipedia completely. This page is based on sentiments of someone and its not neutral. I understand that this topic is a controversial one among Indian population but we can be civil and remain neutral on the subject at least on the internet. I am sorry but if I am blocked I would refrain from using Wikipedia, I would blacklist it completely, I would complain about it on any platform available and complain to any person I could reach out to with proof about how I was treated on the website for my edits. Thank you and I hope you guys would not abuse your powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.202.37.47 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)

Once a user has decided to remove the wall-of-text you plastered on his talk page, you may assume that it's been read. Putting it up there again constitutes harassment and will get you blocked if you persist. Discussion belongs on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Favonian, sorry about the rollback, it's just that person's MO is well-tuned to our natural instincts. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for currecting my blunder! I should have known better, considering how many times I have RBI'ed that dingbat. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)