User talk:Favonian/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

About my test edit.

Hello Favonian, you have recently reverted my edit on the Memento mori page, citing that it was a test edit. I am writing to you that the edit was meant to be constructively, and was not meant to be a test. The reason I spaced it was because it was out-of-line with the rest of the text, hence my edit. I hope I have resolved any confusion that you have had. Thank you. Dismissed Cum Laude (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dismissed Cum Laude: I really must apologize for that totally inappropriate response. That being said, multiple line breaks are frowned upon by our Manual of Style, specifically MOS:BODY, as they generally look bad and behave unpredictably with respect to choice of browser and window resizing – and Heaven only knows how it shows up on a phone. I have now added the magic template, {{clear left}}, which seems to do the job. Happy editing, in spite of my attempt to deter you. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Dreamworks Animation reversions

What exactly was going on there?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a very persistent user from Italy making questionable edit on this article and related ones with edit summaries "075" or other numbers. Several range blocks are already in place, but this person is not easily deterred. Favonian (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

I placed two range blocks. Hope you're doing well--shouldn't you be going out on the town right about now? Drmies (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I place one as well. Hope that buries them. My town-going days are in the past. A cup of tea, a trashy movie and an early bed is more my style these days. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nsmutte's Axe

Hi Favonian. Per this, this is just a courtesy FYI.[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. Oh, how I wish people would declare their legit alt accounts. Favonian (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User 吳佩蓉

The user is already blocked in zhwiki as a sock of Nipponese Dog Calvero. I see the account edited redirect 國父 to change to the same redirect target: 1, 2. Can you take a look? -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey boss, hur mar du?

User:Drbigbooty needs a username check... 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Swedish, and WP:UAA/WP:AIV are thataway. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Favonian, just a little message to thank you with my own words for your intervention at Alans. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. The person will probably be back. Favonian (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If so, we'll be back to revert him again ;-) Bests.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Su-57

I removed wrong content, it was cancelled a couple of months ago and there is proof, but I don't know how to get links. WesternSpyKolya(slavic betrayer) (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@WesternSpyKolya(slavic betrayer): You'll need a verifiable, reliable source to back your claim, otherwise the current version stays. You should also consider changing your username. Favonian (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

WesternSpyKolya(slavic betrayer) It definitely wasn't cancelled. You should for example check the procurement section to get some basic clue about the latest happenings in the program before changing anything in the page without providing reliable references to your changes. Also, you may check the talk page where the issue with the misinterpretation of the program status, when it was called "cancelled", was disscussed some time ago and so the page has been properly updated according to it. BlackFlanker (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

thank you

for your indian ocean edits JarrahTree 23:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, JarrahTree. That particular vandal is, even by Wikipedia standards, quite disgusting. Favonian (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Heads Up

That one editor you blocked yesterday wasn’t block evading he was fixing up talk pages with links that go to revision edits that can’t be viewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B021:A134:3096:A234:AB5E:4DB4 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

They can be viewed by admins. Administrative templates should not be fiddled with, not even by IP-jumpers. Favonian (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicates in draft space

Hello, can I ask for some help in sorting a small muddle please? I reviewed (via 'AFC find a random article to review') a page after CEing it and moving it from userspace to draftspace and subsequently declined it. However, I tripped myself up (not unusual) by forgetting to change the pagename to what would be the article name if in mainspace. I then found that a duplicate page also existed in draftspace with a correct pagename. Both pages were created around the same time today, I think. The two pages are Draft:Netanel Cohen and (incorrectly) Draft:Encohen. I would think the duplicate, incorrectly named page should be deleted? G7 might apply if the Ed. would oblige, but what would be the best/correct way to proceed? Many thanks; trust all is well; F1 IP boy is seemingly kept quiet by the last rangeblock. Best regards. Eagleash (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I have merged the edit histories of the two version at the location Draft:Netanel Cohen, which I hope is the right one. Please verify that the currently visible page agrees with your expectations. (F1 fanboy will probably be back in January.) Favonian (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Not quite as muddly as I thought! However, I now see there is a third page at User:Encohen/sandbox. Can this be CSD U5'd or should it just be left alone? I would not be surprised if IP did return at block expiry... even more surprised he hasn't tried getting round it somehow or other. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Heavens – they multiply! I recommend ignoring the sandbox version. Hopefully, the author will focus on the grand, unified draft. Favonian (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite IP block?

Hey, Favonian, I noticed that, in response to the recent LTA spree, you blocked User:35.242.243.197 indefinitely as a proxy. Did you mean to block the IP user indefinitely, rather than for a year as with the other proxy blocks? I don't see any reason to block this one indefinitely, but wanted to check with you in case something else was going on. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; got carried away by my killing spree. Thanks for noticing! Favonian (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Whether Einstein said it or not this is a textbook example of it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm sure E. wished he had said it. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep! The link with your edit summary is great!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

More IPs to block, and a protection request

You blocked Special:Contributions/78.145.21.69 and Special:Contributions/31.53.53.217. They were responsible for this mess arguing calendars at Talk:Conquest of Mecca. After your block they immediately resumed that argument using Special:Contributions/82.14.255.206 (←block suggestion). I also see 82.14 closely matching the comment style of 31.53. They actually started the latest disruption of Talk:Islamic calendar using Special:Contributions/78.145.29.160 (←block suggestion), at Reference desk, a favored Duck nesting ground of VoteX, and I hear 78.145 loudly quacking in a minor calendar edit & edit summary.[2]. I verified that all of these IPs are a geolocation match, within the limits of a geolocation check. I can also clearly trace this user to several other IPs if you want, obvious matching including geolocation, but they're from a few months ago. I assume there's little point?

I was about to file request for page protection, when I tracked down how extensive the other connections are here. As you're familiar with the case I'll make a request here for semi-protection:

• Talk:Islamic calendar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

LONG semi-protection: The article page is already permanently semi-protected.[3] The talk page has been temporary semi-protected 8 times in the last three years[4] due to extensive and recurrent disruption. The focus of disruption is an image of Muhammad, specifically involving Muhammad issuing a prohibition relating to calendar calculations (central to this long term abuse fetish). There has already been excessive RFC discussion of issue. The image has also been a target of an offsite attack campaign. This disruption returns every few months, as well as forum-shopping to Commons as well as attempting to draw in unsuspecting editors from Helpdesk. They've been harassing this talk page for three years. Semi-protecting for a few weeks will not keep them away. I know that long duration protection on the talk page is undesirable, but there have been zero constructive IP edits to that talk page in more than three years (I checked, every single IP edit has either been reverted, is obviously the same user, and/or geolocates to the same place). Would it be unreasonable to request year or two semi-protect? I fear even that may not be long enough to keep this individual away. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have protected the talk page for three months and blocked one of the IPs for a week. 78.145.29.160 was only briefly active, three weeks ago, so it's probably stale. Favonian (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

IP socks

I'm guessing that these two[5][6] are the same, but are they also [7] the IP who edited Lionel's article? (and maybe GAB). Doug Weller talk 18:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I definitely concur with your first guess, but, regarding the second conjecture, I tend to doubt it. Wrong state, for starters (IA vs. OR) and not quite the same set of targets. Favonian (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it unlikely. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock master

Hi Favonian. Do you know who is the sockmaster of the refdesk vandal? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. Could be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll, aka. Soft skin, but I won't lay a wager on it. After so many years in this !job, all trolls smell alike. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I don't know much about these stuff :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

184.185.174.154

Hi Favonian. Could you have a look at this I/p who is actively vandalising First Battle of the Marne Regards JRPG (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a long time! Favonian (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks -he'd made the article unreadable. JRPG (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk:The problem with American education

Can you revoke talk here. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

122.128.111.44

Our mutual friend? Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The very same. That makes two IPs and one account today. Favonian (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Long-term abuse: WP:LTA/VXFC

On the 19th October, you were kind enough to block Special:Contributions/82.17.252.234 for a week because the IP was being used in connection with Long-term abuse: WP:LTA/VXFC. The IP editor has resumed editing in the same area now that the block is over. Please could you give the IP a much longer block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Three months this time. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing patriarchy

Good Morning. The editing of patriarchy has been blocked and much of referenced material removed. If you or anyone else would have spent some times reading the variations, You would have noticed that the content added contains not controversial material. Please, provide an explanation. Best regardsAristotele1982 (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Aristotele1982, I guess you got your explanation in the form of a block for sock-puppetry. I'll now lift the protection, but if you resume your antics, the next block will most likely be indefinite! Favonian (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...

I shouldn't try to do round robin moves when I first get up. Could you take a look at my request on AN? The history of Faithful World Baptist Church (note World not "Word") needs to be merged with Steven L. Anderson because of my screw-up. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw you request (which led me to move the talk page) but I'm a bit hesitant with the history merge. Those things are complicated and unforgiving. Favonian (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

'Tis done – I hope. Favonian (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry you had to do that for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like Anthony had to do a it of mopping-up after me. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Help please?

49.219.147.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is rapidly reverting edits / adding POV content. Edit summaries are typically "rv sock of User-4488". Not sure what's going on here. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently a sock of Witotiwo, in turn the sock of someone else. Anyhow, the IP got a well-earned rest. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated! BTW: the anon has rapidly changed IPs as can be seen with the page history here: Sino-Dutch conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Massive IP vandal wave

Hello! I see you're doing a lot of the blocking of the current wave of IP vandals, so maybe you might know what is going on. Is this a long-term abuse case popping up, or some fresh new vandalism by a pissed-off script kiddie? PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely long-term. Used to hit the refdesks, but as they are mostly protected, he's diversifying. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of figured as much. Hopefully there is a fix in the works, he's very active and very annoying. Is there any point to reporting the individual IPs to AIV? I just cleared up a couple more IP's worth of vandalism of the same sort. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You should definitely report miscreants to AIV. Unless we have constant eyes on Special:RecentChanges, some might slip through the cracks. Favonian (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Another reversion to hide

You might wanna hide [[8]] too. CLCStudent (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

LTA @Arb elections?

Vxfc? Hope all is well! ——SerialNumber54129 16:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes! – to both parts of your message. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Fadedbasket block

Hello, first off I want to be clear: I'm not objecting to the block. Obviously you did the right thing.

You blocked this user for abusing multiple accounts. Curious your reason for saying that in particular — do you have any reason particularly to suspect sockpuppetry to the exclusion of a compromised account? When we see vandalism by someone who registered in 2006 and who last edited in 2010, and who was making good-faith edits a decade ago ([9], [10], [11], etc.), I immediately begin to fear a password compromise. Sockpuppetry's no danger once we get the damage reverted and revdeleted, but if there's much of a chance that this guy's been compromising accounts, we can't merely WP:RBI as with sockpuppets. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Looks like the same dweed from the Isle of Man who has been plastering obscene images on today's FA and other pages. Following that one, there have been others with similar MO: Testcompte8o, Deruike, Bossmaine. Deep sleepers or hijacked accounts? Favonian (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

And UFC head. This is the image vandal, though there's no indication whether the accounts were compromised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there an LTA page for this guy? Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, but believe it or not this is surely the same user. Started around the middle of this year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sock of MRY?

Hi, could this 112.198.21.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) be a sock of My Royal Young? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 07:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. Already blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse Deletions

I just discovered my "Watchlist" and found that you made some deletions. From that, I cannot find the area showing what the deletions were. Further, the policy "RD3" was given as a reason, but the link to that "redirects" to RD2, which covers a lot of information, so at this point I have no idea 1) What I did, 2) What was deleted, 3) Why it was deleted, in to 4) avoid doing it again. Any information you could provide would be appreciated.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked around some more and think that because I am "watching" the tea house page, I get notifications for everything, whether it involves me or not. True?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: That page is among the favorite targets of an idiot, usually referred to as the "refdesk troll". The edits vary from moronic to extremely offensive and they are revdel'ed as a matter of course. Without more specific information regarding the precise revision, I can't say why you were affected. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't. I've been warned several times about making newbie mistakes and over-reacted to the message; thinking it was "aimed" at me. I've since learned it was not.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sock of Krajoyn?

Noticed another new user using Clodfelter as a source. Karlease. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Who knows? Clodfelter seems to be very respected, if one counts the number of users quoting him. ;) Favonian (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Clodfelter is supposed to be quite good - I need to read his The Limits of Air Power: The American Bombing of North Vietnam sometime this century. GAB^gab 03:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sabrina Carpenter discography‎

Hi, Favonian. As an uninvolved editor/admin, I'm hoping you could take a look at the talk page of the article and provide your two cents, as we have two editors—Lovi, who's uncommunicative, and Flooded—who think it's okay to violate WP:ACCESS, which happens to be a guideline. While guideline pages aren't top-down rules like policy pages, there are some guidelines that exceptions can't really be made for, such as this one, where violating it causes screen readers not to read the tables properly to those who are visually impaired. Additionally, there appears to be no strong consensus, in any case, to make exceptions here, despite one editor saying so in a recent edit, and their opinion alone does not consensus make. They're also making WP:OSE arguments.

In any case, I've only reverted once during this whole fiasco ones, and that was a little while ago, but other than that, I haven't really been involved in this. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Well, LOVI33 was edit-warring so blatantly (especially taking into account the contributions by 76.71.7.118) that I sent them off for tree days. Flooded, I like to believe, is not beyond salvation, and as he has not edited the article for a day and a half there is some slight hope that the sitation can be defused by talk page discussion. Nah, who am I kidding? This is Wikipedia. :( Favonian (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Favonian. (Courtesy ping for IJBall, as I know ACCESS violations is one of his biggest gripes.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

What about MPFitz1968 and IJBall? They've been reverting this editor for weeks, is that not edit-warring/tag-teaming? LOVI33's edits are not vandalism/disruptive in any way, they just refused to communicate. These editors' constant claim to WP:ACCESS is unsupported by consensus, there is no evidence consensus that rowspan affects the readability of the visually-impaired should be removed from discographies. @Amaury: where exactly did I say I "think it's okay to violate WP:ACCESS"? Flooded with them hundreds 18:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't wish to seem inhospitable, but could I ask you all to continue the discussion on the article talk page? Favonian (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure but just one question, the other two have edit-warred for weeks to repeatedly restore their preferred version without regard to the edit warring policy, so what makes you think they shouldn't be blocked too? Flooded with them hundreds 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily consider their editing to be sterling examples of conflict resolution, but it's not bad enough to be block-worthy, IMO. Unfortunately, the short protection of the article last week didn't help much, so people should read up on The Path. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I know you want discussion on the article itself to take place there, and that's of course fine, Favonian—it should take place there!—but I just wanted to quickly mention that both IJBall and MPFitz1968 have posted on Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography in an attempt to discuss the issue, which I don't know if you took a look at. As can be seen, though, and as I mentioned in my first message here, no effort to communicate whatsoever from Lovi. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Amaury seems to be reverting other experienced editors as well (e.g. Songsteel earlier today) to reinstate their preferred version. I've reverted them to restore the "long-standing" status quo version. Flooded with them hundreds 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

See also Special:Diff/868740071, seems like Amaury has been recruiting editors to take their side in this. Flooded with them hundreds 04:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you actually discuss the matter on the article's talk page, as Favonian clearly requested everyone do so, rather than continuing it here and being disruptive? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a behavioral issue regarding edit-warring not just a content dispute and since you brought it up here, it's best to discuss with the administrator who is slightly involved after their blocking of a good-faith editor despite there being several others who have edit-warred just as equally but have not been blocked. Flooded with them hundreds 04:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Good faith editors don't remain silent and uncommunicative to try to stonewall their changes, and they've already been blocked before for the same behavior. If that's the definition of good faith, then you need to rethink your definition of good faith. This will be my final comment on the matter, as I'm sure Favonian doesn't want their talk page turned into a wrestling match when discussion should all be taking place at the talk page. This discussion has gone way past my actual intentions of it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What's your opinion on this?

[12]. Seems like a close match to one of our regular customers, but I'm leery to pull the trigger on this one. Maybe you're better at reading the tea leaves here. I'm like 75%, but I wanted some backup... --Jayron32 00:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I did some deeper digging, and I'm pretty sure it was her. I went ahead and just blocked it myself. --Jayron32 00:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I concur: definitely that venerable personage. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

217.42.247.126

I was curious about what was redacted on 217.42.247.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s talk page. I have had a number of run-ins with that editor. Anything I might find useful there? Cheers Jim1138 talk 19:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Merely reverted, not revdel'ed. Routine WP:DENY of this mind-numbingly tedious troll. I probably violated a number of rules and regulations doing so. Favonian (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to post that I don't see any WP:REVDELs. Which wouldn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen, just that it's something that'd prompt WMF to call the police and maybe Chris Hansen. I recall there's something somewhere saying that IPs aren't supposed to remove block notices while they're still in effect. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Regrettably not. WP:BLANKING prohibits the removal of declined unblock requests while the block is in place, but that's about it. Favonian (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Eh, well, the removal falls under WP:Blocking_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_blocked_editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't get much sleep last night. Need an app that keeps me off Wikipedia so I don't sleep edit. Can't wait until that troll figures out how to rapidly change IPs. Cheers Jim1138 talk 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Compromised account

Hi , can you revdel,the edits by the compromised account you just blocked . Kpgjhpjm 16:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Parting shot

Holy crap! That's him all right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with the vandalbot 189.51.98.118 posting defamatory content. I would click the thanks button for all of your RevisionDeletion log entries, but that would flood your notifications, so I’ll just do this instead. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You just need a BulkThanks tool go go with the BulkRevDel one I used. ;) Favonian (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Changes

Sonia Gandhi was Born on December 9, 1946. I changed her age to 72. It got reverted to 71. I think bro u were poor in maths. You don't know simple addition. 1946+72=2018. Sonia Gandhi Former President of Indian National Congress turned 72 today. What is the issue with this edit I don't understand. This is absolutely Ok. Great Good times Akhilgtl (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Issue explained here by another editor. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

It looks like you have a fan Alex (Talk) 06:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, we go way back!. Favonian (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Followers of the series will find nothing new in this episode I definitely laughed at that one. I suppose you've got to get creative... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Amory! It is a bit challenging, especially since I get no help whatsoever from this mindlessly repetitive individual. Favonian (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've come back to haunt you, woo. No, just kidding- Stumbled across your userpage after you blocked that IP clearing Cobi's Userpages, and found those revisions were deleted. Geartooth (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Template Elections and referendums in Denmark

1993 Danish local elections and so forth have been set up. Thank you. But if one clicks on the bottom template:Local elections, they now show the wrong article (before the 1993 elections). The articles Danish local elections, 1900 and so forth, exist. I corrected them from "regional" to "local". They now have to be moved to "1900 Danish local elections", and so forth, and the template must show this.--Bornsommer (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bornsommer: Actually, the old local election articles have not been moved. With this edit, Number 57 (ping) changed a whole lot of URLs to e.g. 1989 Danish regional elections, but that article is still at Danish local elections, 1989 where you left it. As far as I'm concerned, you can just edit the template and rename the articles to fit the new naming scheme. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bornsommer: Ah, apologies about that. I hadn't realised that the bot missed these articles. They just need moving to put the year at the start of the title, then the links should work (I've fixed them on the template). Number 57 18:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how it works, but isn't it easier for the bot to move the articles with old headlines ("Danish local elections, (year)") to the articles with new headlines ("(year) Danish local elections")?--Bornsommer (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Very likely, but I don't know how to operate the bot. #57 is your best bet. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look

Hello F. Any chance of upping the protection on Laurence Olivier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to semi from PC. To my eyes the article is under a sustained enough attack to warrant the change. I also think it will send the person(s) on their way. If not no worries - it is on enough watchlists that we will just keep reverting. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would happily semi-protect TFA any day, but the prevailing spirit it to maintain pious illusions. In a few hours, the attention of the time-wasters will move on the next poster article anyway. Favonian (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep the nonsense seems to have died down. Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

VXFC revert

I noticed you reverted a 10KB addition by VXFC on WP:ANI. It's now revdel'd so I can't see the content. Can you tell me if it was a big paste about athlete's foot? I saw something like that on the page, then saw it was gone, and looked in the page history to figure out where it came from. I don't particularly want it back, I'm just trying to confirm, since that type of vandalism doesn't seem like a traditional VXFC thing. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, nothing about athlete's foot, just the usual tirades about various calendars and lashing out against people on the troll's shit list. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. Wonder what the deal was with that athlete's foot stuff. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Favonian, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Tove Ditlevsen

Hey Favonian, as my go-to expert on poetry, do you have any reading suggestions for me? And do you have article improvement to offer? I'll give you a peppermint cookie.... Drmies (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change at Conquest of Mecca

Please could you do a range block to stop the IPs that User:Vote (X) for Change is using at Talk:Conquest of Mecca? He/she has made another post today. Toddy1 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to, Toddy1, but it's a large, busy range and the collateral damage would we considerable. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Another clone/sock of Weatherditor back again

Few days ago you blocked @Weathereditor44 because he was a sock of weathereditor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weathereditor) with dozens of confirmed clones.

He is back under the name of @Weathereditor46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Weathereditor46

Can you ban this guy's IP too? He is going way too far, his number of clones is approaching 100. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.224.18 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

#46 was already blocked, but I whacked the 45 sleeper. Regarding the IP(s), that would require CheckUser intervention, and I have not been inducted into that fraternity. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

• PrinceofFrancia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would you be interested in dealing with this disruptive editor? User:PrinceofFrancia, and their logged out IPs, have been adding/changing years of birth to multiple articles.

I have told said editor that unless a reliable source states something that we, as editors can not change, add, or "give an estimate". Said editor is now readding the same misrepresented information(supposedly referenced by Britannica) to Theuderic IV. The unreliable source(per discussion Doug Weller's talk page, does not even state, 712-716, as seen here. "Theodoric IV, (born after 711—died 737)..." --Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Confirmed that user:PrinceofFrancia is IPs. And upon learning this information, PrinceofFrancia was banned from my talk page for a personal attack(per Greyjoy).

Said editor has had numerous warnings from other editors concerning their logging out to editwar, source misrepresentation, removal of sources, unsourced changes, personal attacks, and their original research and synthesis:

• Wikipedia:OR
• Addition of unsourced material.
• Warned not to log out to edit war
• Warned not to synthesize information into articles.
• Source misrepresentation #1.
• Source misrepresentation #2.
• Warning for personal attack. @kansasbear, it seems like you are too illuterate to read
  

Given the nature of this editor's behavior, I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia.--Kansas Bear (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive enough that I have blocked them temporarily. Hope it conveys the message. Favonian (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"Look-alike" inappropriate deletions

Happy holidays, Favonian!

I wonder whether you could help with a situation in the "Look-alike" article. The article comprises several sections, including "Literature" and "Film". User:Citizen Canine persists in deleting 4 films based on novels that are listed in the "Literature" section. This is inappropriate, as it will frustrate readers who may be interested in films incorporating look-alikes. There is no justification for his deletions.

Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a classic content dispute, so you should proceed according to the recommendations for such. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Glædelig Jul!

May the Christmas Goat bring you all you wish for. --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Tak i lige måde, kære nabo! Favonian (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Favonian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Greetings !

Hello Favonian: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Note

Thank you for suppressing the latest attack spree on the ref desk. Coming so soon after an obvious incarnation of the nazi troll was blocked, it supports the hypothesis that it's the nazi troll who's behind these attacks. For whatever good knowing that will do for us. :( (Feel free to erase this after reading.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It'll come in handy the day ArbCom authorizes the use of drones! Favonian (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Refdesk protection

What do you think of a proposal for some sort of more permanent protection? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for it, Anna, but it's bound to be resisted by the Old Believers. The RefDesk is something of a sacred cow. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You are probably right. Let's see how it goes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Good luck catching all the Sockpuppets against you, I'm keeping an eye on User Creation Log and reporting it on IRC as well. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice gesture, especially considering the unfortunate start to our acquaintance. Favonian (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on User Creation log and if I spot any I'll keep reporting them on IRC. I've filed a BRfA for the Bot. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2018 (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) 05:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editor

184.147.29.17 has been making a ruckus. False info and the sort. Targeting pages like Elle Ramirez and Choudenshi Bioman. It's another IP of a very persistent troll (see 184.147.48.152 and 184.146.207.74 for others). They've wiped away their talk pages twice, but they've been final warned twice. Help.Crboyer (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Dispatched. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

He's been busy. Bbb23 got one for disruption, here's another: 81.104.138.113 Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely someone with an ax to grind. If it's Harvey, he's gone on a day trip to the south coast. I'll lean back at watch'em. Favonian (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Protecting the refdesk and the post after about reducing the number of vandal warning levels

So little interest in the first, and all that interest in the second. Hmphff! Sometimes Wikipedians baffle me. Well, you know, with the strength of those supports, I'd say a good plan would be to start doing what you've done, and protect longer....and longer. Let the objectors speak up then. Maybe they'll get used to the longer protects like frogs in hot hot water. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Traditionalist Wikipedians react to Anna's very reasonable proposal.

So much for my subtle moves. ANI may be going the same way. Wouldn't be a bad thing if that nest of vipers had a barrier to entry. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous restoring sockpuppet's edits

Hi Favonian. I see you recently blocked a user called Eleganms as part of a group of sockpuppets and reverted its edits. Those edits focused on italian IPA transcription of italian names, a topic that seems to be object of unexpectedly high activity in recent times. Today I found that all of these articles have been modified by an anonymous user in order to restore the version of the sockpuppet (see here and here), in detail: IPA has been restored as before and relevant source confirming the previous version deleted. The IP is the same for all edits. I was about to revert those edits but I wanted to ask your opinion before on how to behave as the anonymous IP is very likely the same user as the one behind the sockpuppet group. What is your opinion? Horst Hof (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you all great GENIUSES haven't understood it yet (especially the OCD rollbacker newbie), I've only been trying since the very beginning just to REVERT AN LTA'S EDITS (that are still going on but the problem is me)! Your brains would take over even Einstein's if he was still among us, wouldn't they? TSK… P.S.: don't forget to block this other account too and keep on ignoring the "gay nishikori" troll unlike me, no disappointments >.< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Meterik (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What a shame! Another admin blocked you before I got a chance to do so. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

King Cnut coronation

Hi, buddy,

you have recently reverted my edit on the page of "6 january" - I have added time of coronation of king Cnut (1017), you have removed it citing lack of sources,

since I´m new here, I just want to be sure why you think there are not sources for this statement, or - how should I added these sources,

just to be sure, here are some of thouse, that tells my edit was good:

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_den_Store https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_janvier http://www.medievalchronicles.com/medieval-kings-2/early-medieval-kings/king-cnut-the-great/ https://www.totallytimelines.com/cnut-the-great-994-1035/

and many others...

thanks for the clarification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdoomm (talk • contribs) 13:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Template History of Egypt (Classical antiquity?)

Hi Favonian: You can help? The template contains errors. I corrected them but they have reversed. The errors I explain here Talk:History_of_Egypt#Classical_antiquity? See also User talk:73.15.114.246#Classical_antiquity? Greetings, JMCC1 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have warned the IP against edit-warring. If this doesn't help, WP:ANEW will be the next port of call. Real life demands my attention these days, so I may not be able to monitor the situation. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. JMCC1 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A forest of IPs

Hi Favonian

There's a lot of IP activity with a strong smell of meat at Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018. I see you have blocked several of the IPs involved as block evasion. Discussion of the RM is continuing at User talk:StraussInTheHouse#Move review for Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018.

China poses particular issues of course, and I'm not familiar with them but I imagine there could be sound reasons for the contributors involved not registering. So I'm on a very steep learning curve! Any further help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Favonian: How to file SPI for the above case? This Special:Diff/876949969 (old) certainly the same as Special:Diff/877205403 (new), by removing most the Qing emperor from infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And also this diff from another ip. Special:Diff/877264276. Matthew hk (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm on a steep learning curve here. SPI is relevant but checkuser is not, as we already have the IPs... there is nothing to check. Or that's as I see it.

I think that by precedent and ARBCOM rulings we can probably indef most if not all of them on the evidence of similar behaviour. But I'm not sure I agree with that precedent. That's one reason I'm after other opinions. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the the suspect IPs have been (range) blocked and the Qing dynasty article protected. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The relevant IPs are 123.150.182.180 which is blocked, 124.202.183.150 111.192.187.81 124.127.203.116 and 111.194.23.176. None of those last four show as blocked on their contributions pages, but do range blocks show there? Andrewa (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikinger. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I was slowly arriving at the same conclusion. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The apparent coincidences are a little too strong, methinks ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks!

I tried to get garbled sentence undone I clicked the wrong one my bad thanks for backing me up on that one @Favonian:Jack90s15 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I figured something like that might be the case. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hello! I was "warned" by a user, pingus for editing "Foreskin" but I've never been on that page and they've been banned.

I just want to make sure no one hacked my account and I'm good to go. :) MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock amok

Would you please take a look at recent edits to Princess Claude of Orléans? I believe that a banned user (may be a different one than I think, but both of the two who make these kinds of edits are under bans) is using a sock to make repeated edits to French royalty articles. I've addressed the issue "of Orléans" vs "of France" on one of these articles, here. Thanx. FactStraight (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@FactStraight: It's certainly the one I think it is. ;) Favonian (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused

Hi Favonian,

I'm confused about User:172.56.37.232. I found that from Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators. They had posted something that, when I clicked on it, lead to the page that would block you. I saw that you had blocked that IP on January 15, but I don't see any edits from them on that date and your block reason only said "anon block". I revoked their talk page access for abuse, and now I don't see your block in their block log, only mine. What's going on here? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Layers within layers... The IP is included in a range block, but once an individual block is imposed, it "hides" the range block. The truth is revealed by clicking "Current blocks". Favonian (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That makes more sense. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ineedisin sock?

Hey Favonian. User Healandn, created the day after Ineedisin was blocked, seems to have a near identical editing pattern in Spain. What do you think? Musicfan122 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Musicfan122: Most definitely him. Blocked and recorded for posterity. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Probable IP sock of User:G.-M. Cupertino again

See: this. Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked and reverted. Favonian (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nad, County Cork

Hi, if you have time, could you protect the above article. Thanks, Denisarona (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

How could you guess? :) Favonian (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on italian names of tennis players

Hi Favonian, on January 7th, I left this message on your talk page but a vandal soon popped up disrupting the discussion and my message didn't receive a reply. That issue has not been solved yet and, what's more, a new wave of sockpuppets (confirmed) restored once again the unsourced IPA transcription removing the sources that on the contrary confirm the previous version (see the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido for example). It's worth to say that the sourced version was also added by another blocked user. In my opinion, even if added by a blocked user, the version with legitimate sources should be kept. I only refrained from doing it by myself because I don't want to risk of being involved in an edit war. Do you think that this should pass through a consensus discussion before restoring the sourced version? I would like to read your comment about that. Thank's a lot in advance. Horst Hof (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've taken your word for it (don't read IPA myself) and reverted the confirmed sock. It would probably be a good idea to obtain a "paper trail" in the form of a discussion, so you have a reference point for future reverts. Favonian (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian for reacting so quickly, I will follow your suggestion. Regards. Horst Hof (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)