User talk:Favonian/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Our old friends

Probable HarveryCarter sock:

User:Mnc, mc

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Looks likely, but I'll give'm a little more WP:ROPE, just for sports. Meanwhile, how about 2A00:23C4:6388:7300:85F1:8BD2:8AEF:3552? Favonian (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You've reverted, I've blocked, and we're done for now. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

And now comes Special:Contributions/2a00:23c4:6388:7300:25fc:1906:c2f5:74f9. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Japan did declare war on the US on 7 December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor: Japanese declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire (5.81.194.113 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

The above IP, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Gone and gone. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Christopher

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For keeping up the never ending battle against Aaron Christopher, apparently! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It is indeed one of the more enervating tasks that come with the !job. Favonian (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They're at it again. Adam9007 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. "Single-mindedness" is about the closes thing to a polite word I can come up with. Favonian (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hi! I'm dealing with the UTRS appeal by User:95.49.120.11 ([1]). I don't understand the reason for block. I don't see any problematic edits from the IP. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: A person from this ISP in the Warsaw area has been making virtually daily, usually highly disruptive edits for several months. I and several other admins block them routinely. I grant you that this particular manifestation wasn't obviously disruptive, but the bigger picture shows either a troll, somebody who needs growing up or a person with – never mind, we are not supposed to diagnose people. For a sample, check out 95.49.111.218. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, have a look at history of the Quinary article. The person has an unrequited love for math. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for info. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RevDel requested

Please revdel all the contributions from the "Chinese user" you just blocked. If you haven't already. He's posting other people's medical files. Thanks. Yintan  13:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Already done. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism at article Marie Antoinette

Hello Favonian,

Would you mind removing the paragraph *Josie Laws frame before decapitation* [2] and reinstate Prelude to the Revolution: Scandals and the failure of Reforms (1786–89). Vandalism was done on 30 November.

I know how to fix it, but since you are used to deal with vandals & give them a warning, I think it is better for you to do it.

Thanking you in advance, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done – I hope, please double-check. Favonian (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! Merci beaucoup! --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Religious vandalism at The Price to Pay

Hi Favonian Small article had possible religious vandalism/OR section put in by 110.174.16.154. I've reverted it, but may need a block. It may be genuine, but had no source, over five days. scope_creep (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Revertible, but hardly blockable. Slap a warning on'em and see what happens. Favonian (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Aye, I had a second read of it, after half an hour. He seems in earnest. scope_creep (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Shankar Shesh

Hi Favonian,

I am trying to create Dr. Shankar Shesh page who was an acclaimed writer. I didn't understand the reason why it was deleted?

Please help me.

I am using his official site for citation.

Warm Regards, Hola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hola2435 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hola2435: The article failed Wikipedia's criteria for notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). Favonian (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I went through through the Notability People criteria for Wikipedia.

Dr. Shankar Shesh has written 32 plays and 10 Novels in his life time and has been awarded "Filmfare Award for Best Story(Dooriyan)" apart from being nominated twice. Shall I give different citations of newspapers which have cited work of Dr. Shankar Shesh. Does that work?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hola2435 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Citations from reliable sources are absolutely essential! Furthermore, you should keep the tone neutral and avoid such puffed-up language as "multi-facet persona" and "The journey started". Favonian (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Favonian,

I have created a page "Dr. Shankar Shesh" and added citable sources to it. By mistake I created a duplicate page "Shankar Shesh"(could you please delete it). Thanks for guiding me through. How do we add a picture to the page? Warm Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hola2435 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

New Nipponese Dog Calvero sock

In the mood for mass rollback? See Special:Contributions/C6428H9912N1694O1987S46. Sro23 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Looks like him; certainly the same as China19890604. Favonian (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Egbert Phan must be part of this too. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, and now that I have a second opinion, it's time to swing the old clue bat again. Favonian (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not forgetting Paul James Weinstein. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Mădălin02 and Mădălin1

Hello! Can you explain me why you blank pages User talk:Mădălin1 and User talk:Mădălin02??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.16.235 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2016‎ (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia is not a social networking service. Favonian (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Most recent deletion

I mistakenly tagged the wrong page, I wasn't looking between tags - the hoax page I was trying to tag was Benism: Not Just a Theory, It's a Religion Based On Bananas sorry! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

edit well I guess it doesn't matter looking back at it, both qualify! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, and they are both gone. The "Royalty" piece has been attempted before. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Joey Yung vandalism

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Joey Yung. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. You restored it back to the user "Real McCo*k". That version was still vandalized, so just be careful when reverting. Obviously the two users are sockpuppets. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 00:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted. Now, please read and comprehend Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Favonian (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter??

Given their recent edits to German declaration of war against the United States (1941), which, while sourced, contained fundamental errors which make me believe that it's possible that the editor is perhaps not accurately reporting the book cited (which was published by Harvard), I have to ask: have you ever checked the user "The PIPE" against HarveyCarter? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have ordered the cited book, and once I receive it will attempt to verify the edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Your phrase "have you ever checked" could be read as a promotion to the CheckUser ranks. I don't have that honor. Regarding the two editors: both are WW2 buffs but Pipe's main interest seems to be air force hardware, not ideological speculations like Harvey's. Though Pipe has reinstated Harvey's questionable statements, I doubt that's enough to make conclusions about long-term sock-puppetry. Favonian (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I had examined The PIPE's edits in the past and concluded that they were sufficiently different from HC's so as not to be a problem. This latest edit simply picqued my suspicions. (And, yes, I guess I did think you were a CU - you might consider putting your name forward the next time they're looking for more of them.) Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I/P edits

Greetings Favonian. Could you have a look at recent edits by an I/P on Jacob Rees-Mogg ? Regards JRPG (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism. My esteemed colleague blocked it with the more diplomatic rationale "BLP violation". No matter, long as it's gone. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! JRPG (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Vote seems determined to stalk me, but thanks to you and others, he won't succeed! RedPanda25 18:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Vote and I have a long, tedious history. Favonian (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Amazing how they even quoted me in an attempt to get their LTA page deleted. And then they left this on my talk page. They really think that they can convince me to believe them... PikachuRP25 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's what it does, time and again. Can't blame a troll for trying. ;) Favonian (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's often confusing what they are trying to do. Get unblocked/unbanned? Spread (mis)information? Make people angry? Maybe all of these? PikachuRP25 21:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Attention is what the species craves above all. Apart from that: malice is its own reward. Favonian (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, he left this on my talk page, telling me about incorrect information on his LTA page, and he was correct. See Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. If anything, this tells me that his comments aren't all nonsense. RedPanda25 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic IP at it again

Hi, looks like another Australian IP has popped up, 49.196.6.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) editing the talk pages of previously blocked IP's. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the usual suspect. Blocked for a couple of days with a range block coming up if he starts jumping. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, another one has popped up at 49.196.13.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

I had just asked User:Pacerier to create a discussion page for his proposed merger of Truth and Theory of justification when I noticed you had complained of test edits (ironically on test). Later another editor pinged you, flagging a similar issue to mine. Is Pacerier a low-level vandal? Is there any reason to create the merger talk page, or should I just remove the tags? Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  07:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iadmc: After nearly 9 months, I'd say it's acceptable to remove the tags, in particular as the editor seems to have gone AWOL. Vandal? Nah, probably too harsh as would be WP:CIR, but not a very memorable editor. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. And I agree with your assessment. Cheers — Iadmc♫^talk  21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but Hm...

Thanks for the preventative block here (Special:Contributions/178.43.14.30) and here (Special:Contributions/95.49.48.119). FYI, Special:Contributions/83.31.171.183's geolocation and ISP is also the same (blocked by Zzuuzz). Reflecting on your block entry summaries "perennial problem from this ISP"... I can definitely see that here (vandalism on my talk page) (seems like IP hopping to me). Edit summaries have been rev-del'ed already. --JustBerry (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. For a bit of history, see User talk:Favonian/Archive 41#Block. Getting frisky, possibly Xmas-related. Needs spanking! Favonian (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking 166.137.96.0/22. I was tired of them vandalizing User talk:RickinBaltimore and this was a better option than semi-protecting the page. Maybe that will stop the nonsense for the next two weeks. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Favonian! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~

Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Favonian! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia!
Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

86.128.163.247

Needs talk page access disabled too. I tried adding {{db-vandalism}} but they keep removing it. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you do the same for User talk:86.174.63.241? IT seems these trolls always need talk page access taken away. Sro23 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Iced! Sorry, irresistible pun. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

A) Thank you for sweeping away that troll, and B) Don't you just love how some people get it into their heads that some inane attack page on a half-forgotten website is the alpha and omega of insults?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandal pinging you

A vandal is operating from 83.0.0.0/13 and is requesting unblocks while pinging you. For example, [3]. When I'm seeing the requests, I'm removing them. I've found three so far and I expect to see more. Sorry, this will likely be disruptive for you for a while. It's probably unreasonable to block talk page access from a /13 range, though. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. I was blissfully unaware of this, as his knowledge of how ping works appears to be limited – one of several areas where he's found wanting. It's WP:WIKINGER, by the way, but I guess you already figured that out. We'll just whack the moles as they come along. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(thumbsup) Thanks! I was happier in blissful unawareness. :) --Yamla (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow, a LTA with its own wiki shortcut. Now there is a goal to aspire towards - or not, as the case may be. Glædelig Jul! --bonadea contributions talk 16:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Tak i lige måde, BD! There are indeed very few perma-pests with that distinction. Another one, WP:ARARAT, just sprang to life, which is why every Egyptian god and pharaoh (and there are many) is now headed for semi-protection. Somebody should mummify that guy. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for blocking the IP I warned! Since I'm not an admin, it is really helpful when people like you do the stuff that I can't.

RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We are to Wikipedia what vultures are to the savanna. Favonian (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings! Favonian

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you. May our faithful trolls grant your wish. Favonian (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The return of HarveryCarter

This time as 81.159.7.136. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Back home in Bury St Edmunds after an intrepid foray into the wilderness of IPv6. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, as always. Happy holidays! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Heinrick

Greetings Favonian. I expect you to be taking a well deserved Christmas break so wp:NORUSH applies & have a good holiday. If you have a moment, can you have a look at I/P editing on the above which appears to me to be trying to raise the profile of an otherwise not notable parliamentary candidate? The I/Ps edit reasons appear to imply bias on my part so I'm reluctant to simply revert again. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The contribution was unsourced as well as non-notable, hence reverted. You're right: I should be focusing on Christmas-related issues, so you have a good holiday too! Favonian (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Enjoy the holiday, whether it's Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, Quis separabit? 05:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

178.42.219.212

• 178.42.219.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP is clearly the sandbox troll, LTA. Could you please block? Thanks. 73.96.113.127 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

They're back now as 216.16.109.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same behavior as always. Regards. 73.96.112.169 (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, Materialscientist already blocked it... 73.96.112.169 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Redolta is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Redolta📱 ^Contribs 00:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

need talk

Please do something about restroring projects, translated and DYK history for Talk:Martin Schmeding. The pictured DYK is here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Terribly sorry about that, Gerda. The page has now been restored. Favonian (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, no problem ;) - look for him on Portal:Germany (until the next image comes) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks and best wishes from wet and windy Denmark. :) Favonian (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Block of 86.163.56.0/21

Could you please adjust your block of the range so that talk page access is disabled as well, otherwise I have a feeling pages such as this will start appearing every day. Also, I notice this range has been blocked a couple times in the past and yet it's still being used by the same troll. Wonder if you could get away with extending the block to be even longer than a month. Sro23 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked and block extended to three months. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Favonian!

Happy New Year!

Favonian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks and the same to you! Favonian (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Favonian!

Happy New Year!

Favonian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, C! Favonian (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Favonian!

Happy New Year!

Favonian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Annestorm

Hi Favonian. Please review Annestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s contributions and block if you believe it is warranted. Ze gamed WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED by making ~500 nonsense edits to User:Annestorm/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to insert copyvio into United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Probably up to no good, but not yet blockable. WP:ROPE. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Whaddayaknow; it turned out to be a sock. Favonian (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

deletion of page ashfaquenabi

hello, i wish to know why the page Ashfaque Nabi deleted?? I need help, plz help if you can dont discourage others in writing their articles. can you give your email Id?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No credible claim of significance. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir favonian , can i Have your email id?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No. This discussion should be conducted in public. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

can you please review my article now??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC) can you please review my article now?? Ashfaquenabi (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)ashfaquenabiAshfaquenabi (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's even worse, as it now falls under unambiguous promotion. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Sir Favonian? -that was the New Years Honours List, right?!  ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The closest I'll ever get. Sadly, our queen doesn't poke people with antique weaponry. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Favonian!

Happy New Year!

Favonian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Eye of Ra

Vandal IP sock is back, I suggest the protection of article maybe better. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

113.151.168.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has returned as 126.31.202.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please block. Thanks. 172.58.41.99 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that, WP:AIV may be easier, since you don't appear to be online right now... 172.58.41.99 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

44

Greetings Favonian! Could you please remove an antiquated move protection on 44? Apparently you protected the article from some vandal in 2010 temporarily but it remained protected against move forever. I am requesting this as part of a campaign to move years 1…100 to AD 1…AD 100 per RfC decision on Talk:AD 1. Thanks and kind regards. — JFG ^talk 23:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, JFG. Favonian (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Page moved now. — JFG ^talk 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again; could you unlock 69 for the same reason please? Thx. — JFG ^talk 21:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. You should be able to move it now. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — JFG ^talk 22:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hebrew calendar

Thanks again. I know we don't usually protect talk pages, but maybe we can SP that one for 2-4 weeks? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting a little tiresome. As the talk page is not all that busy (counting only non-banned users), I'll give it two weeks. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Favonian, would you mind reverting Hebrew calendar to my version, then SP the page and block the IP user? In his edit summary there, he is explicitly taking advantage of the fact that I'm about to go offline for the Sabbath. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alessandro Volta

Hey Favonian,

Thank you for responding to my request for this page at WP:RFPP. I saw that you had originally placed the article under semi-protection for 1 month, instead of pending changes, as I requested (and then you fixed it to my request later on), but now that I'm thinking about it, I think that a 1 month semi will still be needed along with the pending changes, in order to slow down the recent vandalism at that page. Sometimes, I notice that admins place pages under a fixed-time duration for semi-protection (e.g. 1 month) and also set it under indefinite, or long-term pending changes in order to mitigate the recent disruption, but still have some sort of long-term effect. I think that this article will probably need that sort of protection here. With that said, could you please re-start the one month protection that you originally had (but keep the indefinite pending changes on the article, too)? Thanks! Aurato (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The vandalism, though annoying, is fairly low-volume, which makes PC protection the appropriate solution. Should the problem grow worse, I'll certainly consider imposing a temporary semi-protection. Favonian (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

It looks like you've already had experience with this editor [4]. While some of their edits seem to be constructive, they seem to have no intention of stopping their practice of tweaking dates, including sourced ones, without providing a source, despite repeated warnings. Eperoton (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocked for two weeks. If they resume this kind of behavior, I'll be sorely tempted to make the next block indefinite. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor has been making different kinds of edits. There may still be hope of getting them to stick to constructive ones, so it's probably worth spelling out what the block is for. Eperoton (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Absolutely, and we edit-conflicted on the elaboration. Yours was much more diplomatic than mine, so it's the final word of this round. Favonian (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Geometry Dash: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. TheDasherLegendXD 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheDasherLegendXD: In addition to this comment, made on your talk page by Meters, I remind you that reverting obvious vandalism, in which category the Geometry Dash edit by the IP belongs, does not require an explanation. Had you bothered to check, you might have spared yourself, Meters and me some time. Finally, please do something about your signature. The current version does not meet the requirements of WP:SIGLINK. Favonian (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently blocked sock

This editor‎‎ was recently blocked as a sock. The template on his user page points to the SPI, but there is no mention of him in the SPI. Is this standard practice? It would be useful to have "blocked-as-socks" accounts listed in the SPI archive with the date of their block listed, even if they were not the intentional subject of a specific SPI. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello davidwr. Favonian will give you a fuller explanation but I wanted to let you know that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kingshowman is another place that you can go to find other socks of this editor. Now it isn't full-proof as some socks don't get tagged but I thought I would make you aware of this alternative just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the category, but by itself it provides limited information. See my reply to Favonian below for more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Davidwr: It's fairly common for "well-established" sock masters like the one in question, when CheckUser is not required and the decision has to be based on behavioral evidence. Favonian (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked because I saw no discussion or even statement that said "verified a sock by cu and blocked on date xxxx" or "presumed based on behavior only by [admin] and blocked on date xxxx" on any page associated with the underlying puppeteer. It might be helpful to change the SPI procedure and related tools so that someone looking at an SPI archive will see all of the cu-checked and non-cu-checked socks in one place, with the dates they were blocked, the reasons they were blocked, and the name of the person (admin or cu) who made the call that the account was, indeed, part of that sock farm. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

167.206.233.181

This site seems used principally for vandalism and has resumed the same behaviour after numerous warnings and a short block a week ago. Could you make it a year or longer, this time? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A year would be quite an escalation, so I gave the kids a one-month recess. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Further promotion :)

Emperor Favonian now! 👌 👑 O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, F! It's the closest I've ever come to appreciating that particular person. Favonian (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Melania KNauss

It seems a pity to remove this cute outing. Pinging @MelanieN: so she can enjoy it too. Check out the selfie on her page, where she jestingly claims it's not her! Bishonen | talk 22:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

Someone should slam a {{failed verification}} on that claim! Favonian (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings, both of you. It was a well-meaning new user who tagged me with a COI warning on the assumption that I was Melania. We all had some good laughs and I put the "not me" picture on my page. Who knew that Kingshowman was watching? As for the article, I was quite sure that creator was a sock but didn't know whose. I suppose this means the article could be speedied, but it has been sufficiently improved - rewritten really - that I think it should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, and look at that: "a poor excercise of partisan judgment." There it is again - I guess I must be a Trump supporter after all! --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the club of otherwise cleverly concealed Trumpists! It's my understanding that G5 can no longer be invoked once non-socky editors have contributed substantial contents. In any case, it's now at AfD and its fate will be decided there. Favonian (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the latest Kingshowman SPI (originally submitted as Jasonanaggie). Kingshowman is already back live at Talk:Donald Trump Russia dossier, again using rapidly changing IPs, this time 63.143.198.219 and 63.143.193.224. There were a ton of such rapidly-changing IPs listed at that SPI, including five at the 63.143…. address. He is still actively socking from that range. Any chance of a rangeblock? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked one range for a couple of weeks. Regrettably, he has others at his disposal. Favonian (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the socks ...

... but you may want to take a look at Special:Contributions/Peaceandcollol too, who seems to be the one "directing" it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

One might say that the thought occurred to me. ;) In the Holy Name of AGF, I decided to wait and see. Favonian (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, now I saw his latest edits. AGF has an expiration date. Favonian (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

121.7.85.187

Obstinate persistence in vandalism by this user. Would an exemplary block be in order? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, so a block would most likely be pointless. Favonian (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

192.146.190.162

OK, how about this guy, who has been consistently disruptive and has persisted after three warnings? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they've stopped after the third warning so blocking would be premature. With this kind of run-of-the-mill vandalism you'd be better off reporting them to WP:AIV. All evidence to the contrary, I'm not always around. Favonian (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Kauffner LTA page?

LTA has come up in two ANI threads on topics I am either interested in or knowledgeable of in the last week or so, so I thought about the concept for the first time in a long while, and I got to thinking ... why doesn't this guy have an entry? He's been sitebanned since 2013 and since then there's been an average of one new SPI every month or so. Seems more "long-term" than many of the cases that already are classified there; he's a "sneaky sockpuppeteer" (Humbert avoided identification as a Kauffner sock for close to a year after he started causing disruption, and Gulangyu was able to single-handedly overrule consensus on an MOS RFC long before CU happened to catch him out), and a "prolific troll", not to mention the persistent harassment of the users he blames for his original block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

He's an LTA, sure enough, but I don't think it would serve much of a purpose to create a "formal" page on his shenanigans. The SPI archive already contains a litany of his disruptive behavior and as he's community banned, we can block and revert him till the cows come home. Favonian (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way: Not sure if it's ever come up before, but I searched Kauffner's Conservapedia handle and found that there was a German Wikipedia account with the same name, that made only two edits back in 2004, and apparently made an account on English Wikipedia as well that was renamed due to SUL finalization, but has never edited.[5] Even if this was also him (what are the odds of someone else using that exact combination of a first name and the first two letters of a last name?), it seems incredibly unlikely that he even remembers the password at this point so blocking would be pointless. It's just a little weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I checked PeterKa's edits on de-Wiki, and I'm quite certain it isn't "our" Kauffner. The name is fairly common in German-speaking countries. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Three Magi

Hello Favonian, Could you please explain why you reverted my change regarding the biblical magi? The case for my edit is, I think, pretty cut and dried: The Gospel of Matthew (Matt) doesn't refer to three magi, and Wikipedia article linked to is called "Biblical Magi" (if memory serves). That article itself explains that the idea of "three" magi is an extrapolation from there being three types of gifts. Referring to a "visit by the Three Magi" is therefore patently misleading. Best wishes from SaintAloysius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintAloysius (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

a) Your change came with no explanation in the form of an edit summary. Be sure to include those in future edits. b) Three Magi links to a very specific article about the Biblical Magi, complete with discussion about their number, whereas Magi is a general article, mostly about Zoroastrianism. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

114.136.67.121 is a sockpuppet

Hey there, I saw that you recently blocked anonymous user 114.136.67.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 72h in terms of vandalism, but seems to have missed that it is actually a sockpuppet of 李水九‎, who you blocked indefinetly for sockpuppetry. In addition, his formerly used IP 223.136.38.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) should also be blocked. I'm not quite familiar with the topic of sockpuppetry-banning, but I was following this user due to their disruptive behaviour. Hope that helps! Lordtobi (✉) 14:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I did block 114 for block evasion. 223 is also NDC, but stale by now. Have reverted his "contributions". Favonian (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

HarveyC

Looks like 109.146.224.145 is our old friend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Actually my name is J. Piedmont Mumblethunder. (109.146.224.145 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC))

And now 2a00:23c4:638c:4500:c881:c539:72b0:49a2‎. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Merci. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Juggernaut

[6] Thank you. I thought maybe it was Jane, but I wasn't sure, and I decided "another character" was the most precise that I could safely say. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Very prudent. ;) I double-checked before naming the lady. Favonian (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

An unblock request

There have been several unblock requests at User talk:Gladysco ball, for an account which you blocked in May 2015. My feeling is that this is probably a young editor, and in a few months short of two years young people can change a lot. I am much inclined to unblock the editor and give her another chance. When I first saw this account, three months ago, I was concerned about the possibility of sockpuppetry, but it now looks to me very likely that there was no sockpuppetry. (The details probably aren't important, but if it's of any interest to you it seems to me that it's a matter of three different editors, who started editing Wikipedia together and chose related user names, all later agreed to change their usernames to remove the indication of connection among the accounts, and then improperly but in good faith re-used the old names of the accounts to request deletion of user pages and talk pages. The editor claims that one of the other accounts is her brother, and I think this is one of the rare occasions when that is probably true.) Would you care to express any opinion about the idea of unblocking her? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Looks like your assessment of the situation is correct, so, pending satisfactory answers to your questions, I think unblocking her is the right thing to do. Favonian (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Alcoholic drink

Hello. The IP-hopper you blocked is now using Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B018:B70E:94DD:763:33BD:20B7, so would you mind semi-protecting the article? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done: two weeks. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

copyvio

[7] take care, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can't have that, can we? Normally, what happens in the sandbox stays in the sandbox, but just to show off my awesome tools, I have rev-del'ed the egregious violation. Favonian (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Sorry about that- didn't realise the sandbox was exempt from THE CODE. Sorry to trouble you OH MIGHTY THOR, you can get back to your giants! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Environmental impact of nuclear power

Doing recent change patrol and I see that you tagged the IP 50.225.39.60 as being the same as a blocked user. They're at it again, and the bot reverted it. Home Lander (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that, I see you already got him. Home Lander (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mea culpa, sort of

Technically I shouldn't have done this per WP:TPO. Hope you don't mind. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You are forgiven, my son, and I shall trout myself for the typo. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

He's baaaaaack...

You've been doing a great job of identifying Kingshowman and swatting him down. Just so you know, he's been on a tear this weekend. I have blocked six seven IPv6's in the past 24 hours and not sure how many others he has up his sleeve. You and I are on different time zones so we can tag-team. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Good heavens! You have been busy, Melanie. I'll take it from here. Favonian (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused

This has got me scratching my head a bit. Am I missing something? –xeno^talk 18:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't blame you, xeno. Somebody should create an LTA, assuming a more civil name could be found than "The Neostrada Nuisance". For some months now, a highly disruptive IP from Poland has been trolling assorted math-related articles and most of the recent RfAs. It gets blocked routinely by assorted admins, including myself. Admittedly, the edits to the header page don't appear particularly disruptive, but the bigger picture is. Have a look at this listing. Several rather busy ranges from the same ISP are used, so range blocks probably aren't feasible. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this the one with the CAPTCHA on RFA questions. Thanks for filling me in. –xeno^talk 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Abusive editor

Is there some sanction that can be applied against User:TenPoundHammer for his foul-mouthed outburst here? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can gauge current practice wrt. civility, throwing the F-bomb is not sufficient cause for a block if the user in question has contributed to FAs or GAs. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Aus dynamic IP

Hi Favonian, looks like the Australian dynamic IP is at it again with 49.196.1.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalising previous talk pages and AFL pages [8], [9], [10]. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked by esteemed colleague. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it wrong by close discussion?

(223.182.109.123 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

I assume you are Kraker234 and that this closure is what we're talking about. Discussions should be closed by an experienced, uninvolved editor, and as this was your first edit, at least under that name, we have no way of ascertaining if you meet these criteria. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Andymccoy

This user, whom you recently blocked, has now apparently resorted to a sockpuppet: Davideianari. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way. Both are now blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A second sockpuppet: Saracicchinelli. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gone the way of its predecessor. Favonian (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)