Jump to content

User talk:Favonian/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Images and privacy

Do we have any policy or guidelines relating to privacy and using images of people? Or can an editor just upload images of their friends and stick them into articles? Not sure where to ask this but you've edited a relevant page. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Still interested, but the incident that caught my attention has been dealt with at Commons.[1] And the editor has agreed to stop mucking about. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not fully up to speed on the policies etc. regarding this issue. Plenty of personal opinions, mostly amounting to: "NO!", but that's of little importance. Favonian (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. Doug Weller talk 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

To say thanks

Thanks Mate, for reverting the vandalism on my user page even before I came to know about it. Your diligence is laudable. Thanks once again!! --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure! :) Favonian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

More time edits from 77.98.244.158

The IP you blocked has resumed editing time related articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I missed all the fun.

Thank you for the protection. They're in love with me and just can't control it. ;) Amaury (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good to know you have friend in Hong Kong. Were the geo-location more exact, one could look him up bringing a spiked bat. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm just joking, of course, and I know you are, too, haha! Amaury (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes .... joking ... ha ... ha ... ha. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Muhammad Umair Mirza

User is constantly changing Pope info boxes without sources, discussion etc. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe someone should challenge his current activities. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IP 209.66.197.28 and IP 76.176.22.252

You recently blocked IP 209.66.197.28. Now there's IP 76.176.22.252 who makes exactly the same strange and disruptive edits to articles Bopomofo (history) and Wuxi (history) as the former and seems to be a sockpuppet. I have no idea how to handle this. Anyway I'm fed up with this user and have more important things to do than to revert their nonsensical edits time and again. Can you help? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: It's certainly block evasion, so I've sent the second IP off for two weeks, just like the first one. Favonian (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps revdel

Hello, I noticed your recent edit at User:Ironholds and wondered if the connotation left by the edit summary, "Favonian moved page Giant douchebag to User:Ironholds over a redirect without leaving a redirect: rvv" ought perhaps be revdeled. In my opinion it should; it seems rather disparaging to me. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When I realized you were apparently finished editing for the day, I discussed this with another admin and came to believe my initial opinion was wrong. I hope you'll pardon my error as well intended. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@John Cline: Had I been around, I would probably have revdeled per your request, but if another admin has made you change your mind, who am I to contradict? Favonian (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Favonian for that reply, and for the expressed empathy therein. For what it's worth, I haven't exactly changed my mind, though I have accepted that my opinion is not widely held as it was met with some contention. Perhaps I am more cautious than most; a stance I am poised to maintain. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How too...

Hey Favonian, long time no talk. ;) I was curious about a situation I ran into. I was trying to move a page (Castelo de Chaves), but I couldn't since the name I wanted already existed. When I tried to follow that link, I found that it was a link buried within the article on Chaves, Portugal, which I was totally surprised in discovering. How is this possible? Further, should I follow any particular process to have article on the castle delinked from the article on the municipality? Appreciate whatever info or suggestions you could provide. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Zeorymer. Does indeed sound strange, but to diagnose the problem properly, I need to know the proposed destination of the page move. Favonian (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it out by analogy with your recent page moves: we are talking about Castle of Chaves which currently redirects to the article about the town. I'll remove the redirect, enabling you to move the article. Favonian (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That is it entirely. I wanted to move Castelo de Chaves to the English equivalent (i.e. Castle of Chaves). As ever, you have been a great assist. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User attacking you

New editor User talk:SGK JamesBWatson SUPREME is engaging in a fit of vandalism, among other things he created a page (I speedied it & it's been zapped) accusing you of criminal acts. Thought you should know. JamesG5 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know, but thanks anyway. At least I'm not alone. The overcompensating little runt has a shit list a good deal longer than his – oh, well, never mind. Favonian (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

IP 59.96.135.65 evading block

59.96.135.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's at it again. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed he is. Blocked, if only to make a point. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion

I believe there is something odd going on at the Battle of Mu'tah article. I have seen 3 different editors remove referenced information from the infobox[2], while completely ignoring the discussion which I started 12 March 2016.

None of whom can seem to find the article talk page. I'm not wanting to push the SPI button, just yet. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems likely. Not quite WP:DUCKy so, tedious though it is, you'll need to submit an SPI. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Antonio Canova Nationality

Hi Favonian! I would kindly ask you if you can give your opinion here [[3]]. It is a talk about Canova ethnicity/nationality. The talk got a bit tumultuous, so a user asked for a third opinion. Since you are experienced in this field, it would be a pleasure if you join the talk :)--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Aww, shucks!

Looks like my talk page is protected yet again. I typically prefer it left unprotected so that vandals and trolls will just trash my talk page instead of doing it to somebody else. But, given the fact that it's probably less of a hassle to have it protected right now, I'll be okay with it :-P. Thanks for having my back. Cheers, and onward! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Should you decide to come over to The Dark Side, this will become a regular occurrence. Favonian (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've been considering asking for the power of the force, but I feel like I need to wait until August/September. That way, it'll be about a year since my first RFA (I withdrew due to the opposition for lack of content creation, something I've long since fixed), and editors won't scream that my second RFA is a "mad dash for adminship", that I'm "admin hungry", or whatever it is that they say. I really don't want to wait, but I know that I should. Oh well... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

OK, SORRY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please share your views about an article proposed for deletion

Hi, I saw your user pages with all those badges, I was hoping if you can share your views about an article which has been proposed for deletion here. I'm asking this because it seems to me that the article do have notable references but the sequence of activities seems that a couple of editors might just want to delete it out of vandalism. Esparami (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In spite of the badges, I don't have an educated opinion on the article in question. Do, however, be careful about making accusations of vandalism. The word has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia (WP:VANDALISM), and spurious accusations are considered personal attacks – a blockable offense. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sufficiently funny

LOL. Just had to get around to letting you know as every time I scroll down Sanders's talk I run across it: "Not done: Insufficiently funny". I laugh every time. Warm greetings and best wishes to you and anyone that spreads good cheer around this so often dreary place. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The same to you! This year's campaign does offer its share of laughing moments. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice... ;-)

Nice catch and swift blocking of Editing Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories. Thanks for doing that so quickly. Shoot, you beat me to reporting it! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hope you feel honored by all the attention this specimen is bestowing on you. :P Favonian (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Favonian, I can't thank you enough and give you the number of fist bumps that you deserve for your diligence with watching the AIV reports page, and your quick and attentive efforts in blocking the sock puppet accounts that have been repeatedly (attempting) to cause havok. Your dedication has not only saved a lot of frustration and headache by other users, but has kept Wikipedia protected from harm. I might run for RFA again this August; I hope that I become as diligent of an Administrator as you have been. Props, man. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and good luck in the Colosseum! Favonian (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We'll see! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess I have finally 'earned' my place as a recent change patroller huh?--Cahk (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes! Favonian (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletions in years

As an admin, are you satisfied that a small discussion on a WikiProject talk page gives people authority to massively delete content? Even that discussion acknowledged keeping internationally notable folks but the anon you seem to have encouraged with deletions is using a hammer not a scalpel. I suggest you give him some advice before he gets himself into trouble. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a leading question. I'm well aware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS but on the other hand, I don't really know where to look for guidelines regarding what/how much to put into year-related articles, other than WP:YEARS. Personally, I have no real opinion on the matter, and if by "encourage" you mean that I didn't swing the clue stick, I can live with that. I'm sure you can dispense advice much better than I. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nipponese Dog sock

is back I see! I just wondered whether there is some sort of protection akin to the 30/500 available for that page? I understand that obviously the feller is not Indian sub-continental or Middle Eastern but it would be very useful all the same. I just looked at the history- the last 'sixty edits are just his socks and us. It's incredible! Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to bring out the heavy, ArbCom-backed artillery. The article is a convenient honey pot, hopefully draining this person's energy and keeping him from being disruptive elsewhere. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Right. If he's here, he an't be elsewhere eh. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly MariaJaydHicky's sock

Special:Contributions/3LWfan, User:Annvarie and User:I loves Meghan Trainor are possibly MariaJaydHicky's socks. Destiny Leo (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Destiny Leo: Looks possible, but I'd prefer if you open a new case on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky with a request for CheckUser. Favonian (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Have a cup of tea to relax after fighting all those vandals.

Thanks for your help! SilverplateDelta (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Any time – and thanks for stimulant! Favonian (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm your sockpuppet

Look, I made friends with someone you must know. Ogress 20:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress: Meh. Bet he says that to a lot of people. ;) Favonian (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
How many people have they tried to impersonate so far? Me, Oshwah, anyone else? BethNaught (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Only the crème de la crème! Favonian (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Funny, but a serious answer would also be helpful, if you have the information, please. BethNaught (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Haven't kept tab, but Andy M. Wang has been targeted quite a few times – Endy W. Mang being the latest incarnation. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
And as we were engaged in lighthearted banter, this joker shows up. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you - that is helpful. BethNaught (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@BethNaught: The Referendum-troll? From top of my head...Winterysteppe, Oshwah, Andy M. Wang, Bonadea, Favonian, BethNaught, Chesnaught555, Adam9007, Widr, Smalljim, Mike1901, Lowercase Sigmabot III, C. Fred, Ricky81682, RickinBaltimore, GeneralizationsAreBad, Gilliam, Linguist111, Bbb23 and Bishonen. Pretty sure I'm forgetting another handful. Not all of them were used in the usual copy-over-userpage & leave fake warnings, wikilove or similar, but the majority was.AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
There goes my idea. Thanks for the info. BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And as of a few seconds ago, me. I somewhat expected as much would happen at some point, anyway—a fair few of his socks have hopped over to post on my talkpage—but the timing, combined with the joker listed above strongly suggests they're watching this page. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

Could you revdel this please. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
They seem to have taken this to their talk page. I could be wrong since I don't know what the previous posts looked like but I thought I would let you know just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, much of a sameness. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Louis d'Orléans, Prince of Condé

Just drawing your attention to an editor who reverted your edit at this article, leaving an aggressive remark. Since your edit comment suggested there was someone trying to evade a ban, I thought you might want to check it out as it may be happening again. I'm not able to comment on whether their changes are valid or not. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bermicourt! That was unmistakably the umpteenth sock of a repeatably blocked and emphatically banned user. Favonian (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Haha, thought that might be the case! --Bermicourt (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks! Bearian (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Bearian! Much appreciated. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy Thursday, Favonian

This nice gentleman needs his talk page access revoked ;-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least he did say "please". Favonian (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. He's a polite troll :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That Poopypantsfarts2124 tikeem ruler user

I've seen a lot of his other sockpuppets, and it is getting annoying. Would it be possible to do a rangeblock? Peter Sam Fan 19:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Only CheckUsers can answer that question. Favonian (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Maybe WP:DUCK doesn't always apply. Peter Sam Fan 19:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
In this case it sure does, bot to make a range block you need to know the underlying IP addresses of this Tikeem creep, and that's CU stuff. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ugh. Thanks for blocking the latest one. Should I contact a checkuser like User:kelapstick now? Peter Sam Fan 18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Judging from this well-informed comment, it would probably be pointless. Strictly WP:RBI from hereon. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If I can chime in, I've just been going to AIV lately and the accounts are getting blocked right away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nipp Dog Cav

= User:Francis Winestone cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Indeed, the daily sock. Thanks for your help cleaning up the mess he so habitually leaves in his wake. Favonian (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Proper?

Hi. Dunno about this. If not properly done, please advise. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURO and all that. I've sent the second IP the way of its predecessor. Whether it's worthwhile re-closing the case remains to be seen. Favonian (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Won't be. They change IP more often than they change underwear. Next one will be there within 10 minutes or so. - DVdm (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Favonian (vandal)

It is on the Internet, it must be true! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Ouch, the truth hurts! Better add Favonian (Visigoth) to my watch list while preemptively. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The prime numbers listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The prime numbers. Since you had some involvement with the The prime numbers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hiding edit summary

Hi, I come to you as you are a currently active admin and feel that ANI is a bit over the top. Once again user PeeJay2K3 is using bad language and threatening other editors. This time I am his target. Could you please hide his edit summaries at Luke Shaw? Qed237 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And his talkpage after edits like this. Qed237 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The utterances are certainly intemperate and in violation of who-knows-how-many rules and regulations, but in my opinion not quite severe enough for a revdel. This may of course be a cultural thing; American admins might well respond differently, were they awake at this hour. Favonian (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks anyway. I am just tired of this editor doing the same thing over and over again. And when he is taken to ANI (by different editors) he gets a "slap on the wrist" calms down for a week and then he is back at full swing again. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Just look at this search and see how many times he has been reported. Qed237 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Very "impressive". It is, of course, as special case of a more general problem and probably unsolvable. ANI remains the only forum for dealing with it, but I share your pessimism regarding the chances of any sort of outcome. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I just have to wait until he steps on the wrong toes and an admin decides enough is enough. Qed237 (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI

They haven't done anything yet, but I have my suspicions.[4]  ;) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoke too soon.  :( --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 21:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Mindless time sink. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I know, really. [5] --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
[6]. Why it skipped 0003 I have no idea.  :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Stay tuned. Incidentally, engaging in dialog with trolls is at best a waste of time. We even have an essay on the topic: WP:Don't feed the troll. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm off for the night, but it looks like a renewed request for a range block is in order. All niceties concerning this person's privacy went out the window with the repeated IP socking from Utah. See you all tomorrow! Favonian (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So much for being off for the night. What arbitration decision are we enforcing? I was about to block the IP myself but you beat me to it, but my rationale was going to be lame as I don't know - or don't remember - who the hell the person is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23:, it's User:Who R U? who has gone sockpuppet-happy. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ebyabe: I think we're talking about two different IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's possible. I'm often confused. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Oh crap! I really should have gone to bed. Wrong rationale, belatedly corrected to "harassment". Favonian (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Too bad, and here I thought you knew something about the IP I didn't. You didn't have a clue either..--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I got two admins to protect three articles where Who R U? was clearly socking. Any other measures that need to be taken? I am willing to help. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For tirelessly attending to administrator duties Saltedcake (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, SC. Bit of an up-hill fight at times. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've been extremely busy with upcoming semester finals lately, but I still find time to edit Wikipedia. It makes me glad to see that there are many dedicated editors around Wikipedia. Oh.. and make sure you get your sleep. --Saltedcake (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking the Telstra-sock, but could you please let this edit-line go "down the black memory-hole"? He often leaves edit-lines like that, so please check. Here is another one, could that one please go the same way? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Huldra, done. SarahSV (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin Mucho Gracias!! Huldra (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet case

Hello, Favonian. Good job on reverting edits in a "blink of an eye" at Arthur Conan Doyle. However, I do suspect a link that User:Celina13579 is a sock puppet of User:CLance180203. If you look closely, they are obviously closely related (hints: the C in CLance180203 could mean Celina in Celina13579, both are vandals on the same article (in a time space of only two days), both users have a bunch of random numbers are at the end of both users, etc.). This "Celina" user might in fact create more sleeper accounts, so keep that in mind. Thanks again! Redolta (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

MO and timing both fit, so the sock is in the drawer. Thanks for keeping an eye on the wider picture. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Deniz Toprak Kiziloz

Might I suggest some salting like the first article Deniz Kiziloz? Funny how I speedy deleted a revision a couple of years ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Done! Funny indeed. Maybe the world of Turkish celebrities is smaller than one might think. ;) Favonian (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't know why I didn't remember him from before. =) Bunch of SPAs creating the articles. Somebody really wants their biography on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

216.56.86.225

This IP seems to be back after your last 6 month block. I'm thinking that another one is warranted here. Thanks. Vensco (T | C) 16:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Vensco (T | C) 16:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Motion seconded! Favonian (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chris Kyle

I put 12 hours of semiprotection on the talk page. I noticed you blocked one of the IPv4s, but he came back with a different one from the same /16. Whatever. At present there don't seem to be any good-faith IPs in the discussion, so 12 hours may not do much damage. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just imposed a /24 range block to put the lid on the rampaging Texan. Favonian (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

ROCKSCOOLPEOPLE

Probably for the best given what they just did. This is Paul (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasn't the hardest call I've had to make. ;) Favonian (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter IP

217.42.28.59 - same MO, same location. BMK (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Business as usual: blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Immediately jumped to 165.120.157.34. BMK (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
And I jumped on him before you jumped here. :) Favonian (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Well done! BMK (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Jeez..Irondome (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a much better arrangement, and you don't even have to watch my Talk page for these IPs anymore. Many thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

One aims to please. Harvey of Bury St Edmunds is now part of my very select group of charges, like this one and that one. It's like watering the bloody plants. Favonian (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think I vandalize?

The Beit Hanina page is incorrect. It is a neighborhood in Israel, so the changes I did were correct. IsraelEnDirecto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise to you that this subject is controversial. In accordance with the Wikipedia's rules regarding arbitration enforcement, I have left a formal note on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise to you that this subject is not controversial. I live in Israel I travel to my house via Beit Hanina and I know that it is part of the State of Israel, the schools there are Israelis schools and the municipality is the Jerusalem Municipality (Israel). So if you don't know about the place you have no right to do arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelEnDirecto (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You may present your case on the article talk page, but if you continue your edit war, you'll be blocked, most likely indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I want to know why you decided Beit Hanina is a palestinian neighborhood? Were you here once? What do you know about the place? I think you are not a partial mediator. I started using Wikipedia yesterday, so please explain how present my case in the page as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelEnDirecto (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give a flying four-letter word whose neighborhood it is. As an admin, however, I have to try and keep people from tearing the encyclopedia apart with edit-warring and general riding of hobby horses. How you wish or can present your case is entirely your business, but it has to be done with the use of reliable sources – not your own personal beliefs. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin, Admin, you didn't read the four-letter word article. Because if you would read it you can see that the original author recognizes that Beit Hanina is part of Israel in other sections of the entry (that I didn't changed), so if the original author agrees with me that it is part of Israel, it is no my personal beliefs. Also the facts in the place are not personal beliefs. So I suggest you not to threat me with your power of blocking people and keep your interests in your own personal business. If you are happy blocking people, you can do it with me, no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelEnDirecto (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You've already made up your mind

I don't see you sending the same message towards those other guys. And they've been more interested in insults than in discussion. Or do you think you're a member of staff here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontChevalier (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The other two have been around a lot longer than you, and I expect them to be familiar with the policies regarding edit-warring etc. and not in need of reminders. I'm an admin and thus have the means necessary to enforce Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, but as I am an unpaid volunteer, the term "staff" hardly applies. Finally, trying to guess what goes on in my mind is a bit beyond your area of expertise. Favonian (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopper on Lombards

Hello, thanks for protecting the article. Would you mind protecting List of ancient Germanic peoples too, since the same IP-hopper is doing the exact same type of edits there... Thomas.W talk 16:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Thomas.W talk 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lombards

Your action destroys the page... The page contains misleading content.--151.43.34.233 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Per WP:NPOV the article should present the mainstream view, and the mainstream view among historians is that the Lombards/Langobards originated in Scandinavia. If you have reliable sources that support other theories, you can add those theories to the article (represented fairly and proportionately), but you can not just remove the mainstream view, as you have been doing. Thomas.W talk 16:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Rev POV : legendary origins is different from early history; history No Scandinavia origins for lombard ( no connection winnilli and longobards for archeology, this is reported on the sources); historia langobardotum Paul Deacon ( legendary origins for propaganda) this reported in the sources... This is britannica [7] .--151.43.34.233 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:Competence is required – if you can. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Encyclopedia britannica is very clear about the formation of the longobards . Archaelogy and History are different from the legend.--151.57.48.196 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you conceivably get it into your head that such discussions belong on the article talk page? Your current behavior of edit-warring with ever changing IP addresses won't convince anybody. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

wp:BURO at SPI

Re your edit summary here in answer to my question about my reopening an SPI, which was proper according to you, and de-facto to user Vanjagenije as well ([8]), please note this counter-example by user Bbb23 (talk · contribs). It looks like it was improper after all.

Question to all pinged concerned, what to do when an SPI is closed but not archived yet? How to report the next batch without reopening, which in this case happens about 5 times a week—and steadily increasing? - DVdm (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Good heavens! I won't ruin the rest of my weekend by discovering how many times I've broken that rule. Can't help feeling the need for a bot with expanded powers, but any such proposal will probably be viewed as a step towards instrumental convergence. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@DVdm: I never said it's OK, I just don't think is important. But, the proper way would be to open new investigation, not to re-open the closed one. There might be several open and/or closed investigations at the same time on the same page (example). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, good to know. I took your response as silent consent. My mistake. I'll reopen the proper way next time. Thanks y'all & happy weekend-end . - DVdm (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Chinook Sciences

Greetings again Favonian. I wonder if you could offer advice re how best to proceed. I've been editing Chinook Sciences -a firm near where I used to work. -It specialises in recycling but received very adverse publicity following an article referring to Chinook Urban Mining International in the Daily Telegraph. A previous section says "Chinook Sciences part owned Chinook Urban Mining Ltd." However I have an email from the firm saying that Chinook Urban Mining Ltd has no connection with Chinook Urban Mining International despite similar name, line of business etc though my correspondent believes there is a common director. Whilst I have my own feelings based on personal experience of venture capitalist behaviour, the firm has been very open and I have removed the paragraph. I've described the problem on the talk page & don't think I need to do any more regarding this section but is there an equivalent of the WP:BLP noticeboard for companies that I could send the emails too? Regards JRPG (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@JRPG: I have more experience with venture capitalists ('nough said) than with handling issues like the one you describe. One suggestion might be to use WP:RSN (as this is in a way a matter of finding a reliable source, one way or the other) or WP:OTRS to get an official statement "into the system". It's going to be bit of an uphill battle, given the existence of a reference stating the opposite, but that's Wikipedia in a nutshell. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Apparently we are best friends - I read it on the Internet, so it must be true! :-) Regardless, I thought you were overdue a beer, given that you spend your Sunday battling vandalism, malice, and silliness of the less-than-fun kind. You do sterling work, and I hope you feel appreciated. Skål! bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, Good Goddess! You show great fortitude under permanent attack. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Balkalk and HrHendricks

Hello Favonian, thank you for your swift action here. You may have missed out on User:Ulrich1234 however, whose edit history can be seen here. I suspect the puppet master to be someone else altogether, but can't really show a pattern. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, that was quick. Thanks again! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I have my moments. ;) Favonian (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hahahaha! You certainly have! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Have a peek at Lancalady (talk · contribs). May have seniority. Favonian (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure... the other were exclusively based on royalty articles and almost always included a visit to my talkpage (except for Ulrich who didn't live long enough). Which gave me some suspicions I can't really prove... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My thanks

For your actions on Battle of Mu'tah. I would ask that you keep an eye on the Talk:Battle of Mu'tah, since none of the previously involved editors have concerned themselves with discussion.

However, since the discussion has clearly shown Xtremedood's POV to be based on altered primary and/or outdated academic sources, I would expect either user:ItwasntSuperman, user:Thunderalam717, user:Kasif_the_great, or some IP to suddenly appear to support Xtremedood. This, in my opinion, would be proof of sockpuppetry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Humaninstitut for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humaninstitut is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaninstitut until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi, I have nominated a page you contributed to for deletion and wanted to let you know about it as part of WP:Good faith Menschpædia (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Black Power

You recently hid an edit at Black Power. I don't know what it's about, but I just reverted an IP with a big attitude, and you might like to check the article or think about semi-protecting it. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Yep, same troll. Its droppings had already been revdel'ed, so I protected the article for a couple of weeks. Favonian (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ye olde HarveyCarter sock

User:5.81.222.210 = MO and location match. BMK (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, these quaint old English customs! British cinema can be so exciting. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC) [9]
I wish they would bury more that just St. Edmund. Is it too much to hope that there will be no remake? Favonian (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe we need Ramblo on the case? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The usual deal: 86.133.254.113. BMK (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Possibly a bit late, but certain standards must be maintained. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. BMK (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This one only has one edit, but it's to a HC article, the opinion is a typical HC one, and the geolocation is the same old place: 81.135.14.5 Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Him alright, but duly reverted and quite stale. The ban hammer shall not need cleaning at this point. Favonian (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Understood. This one's from today: 81.132.48.40. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed – now blocked. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Salt request

Hi Favonian, is it possible to salt User:Supreme Genghis Khan? There has been two recreations within 24 hours. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Only one, actually, but that's one too many. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Hi, Favonian! Thanks for your help in reverting and blocking the Kingshowman socks on this talk page. Lately they have been coming so thick and fast I am wondering if we would be justified in semi-protecting that page for a few days. I know it's unusual to protect a talk page. And I am a participant in the discussions there myself so I don't think I should make that decision or impose protection. But I thought I'd ask an uninvolved admin (you) whether you think things have reached that point, or not. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the very same. Will give it three days to see us through the weekend. Favonian (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I see from their edit summaries that they realize I am going to be on vacation for a week - that may be why they decided to go on a rampage just now - so I would appreciate your continuing to keep an eye on it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll do my best. You seem to be cleaning house before taking off. ;) Favonian (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was by one of the socks but slipped by somehow. Your userpage now seems to be attracting the flies. Sorry about that. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm quite used to it. The verbal-diarrhea-afflicted troll has been good enough to dispel all notions of good faith. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm traveling and don't have access to tools, but what do you think about this guy 139.102.177.186? MelanieN alt (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: The IP has the wrong location (not that it means much these days) and "style". Quite useless, of course, but with the saving grace of being less verbose. Favonian (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I also thought the "pattern" was different, and the person so far has not been disruptive, so if we don't think they are a sock I have no problem with leaving them alone. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Added in timeline event of 1991s sonic the hedgehog. I feel it has a major impact as he is seen as one of the most recognizable icons in pop culture.

Hi.

I just wanted to know, do you really not see the release of one of the biggest franchises in video game history as notable? Sonic The Hedgehog is considered one of the most recognizable icons in pop culture, and media. I seem it's a little ridiculous to not have the franchise listed as a part of history, if the likes of Super Mario and Pac-man have a listing for their respective release dates, I feel Sonic should.

Please reconsider the edit. If the pages dedicated to important events in history can be influenced by their affect of culture, then Sonic the hedgehog definitely deserves to be listed.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.102.163 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A somewhat subjective statement, and my own (equally subjective) opinion is that it's irrelevant trivia. If you insist, you can try and re-add it, and as I have no appetite for edit wars, we'll see what other editors think. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I just feel if franchise releases like Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros are considered events, this franchise should have the same treatment. It's not a matter of my opinion, it's a matter of comparison upon other articles.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter1258 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

User:Class455fan2

Hi Favonian, Thank you for blocking this user. It was a clear impersonation of me and as also a sock of Profile101. in the event of a further impersonation, should i contact UAA straight away or any admin who is available? Thanks Class455fan1 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

UAA is sort of slow; AIV may be your best bet unless you see traces of a recently swung ban hammer in the logs. Favonian (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, Sorry to bother you again. I had been thinking previously of creating another account for use when I'm not at my own computer in order to safeguard my account, and was thinking of taking this username up but put them on hold when i requested to be self blocked (to avoid block evasion), however now Profile101 has taken it as an indeffed sock puppet. Is there any way this account can be deleted or brought under my control? Just asking because this was the case with Bishzilla who Bishonen indeffed because they were an impersonation of her, but then brought the username under her control. Thanks! Class455fan1 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Class455fan1: As far as I can decipher the logs, the impostor account is named BishZilla (talk · contribs), but it created the fake user page User:Bishzilla. The file was then renamed to User:BishZilla, and the one true Zilla stepped in and created the proper secondary account, Bishzilla (talk · contribs). In your case, it's more complicated and would have to go via WP:USURP – a process with which I have no experience. Favonian (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

PCA background

I've restored one of the paragraphs you reverted as it is needed to transition between the lengthy before-the-PCA-began paragraph and the shorter one-year-after-it-began paragraph. Thanks! YBG (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Favonian (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Carswell

Hi Favonian. Could you have a look at Douglas Carswell? His Wikipedia page seems to be getting screwed up -along alas with most of the UK economy -post referendum. JRPG (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Wish I could do the same for your economy. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the first part at least. JRPG (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello F. Just wanted to let you know that Vote X has returned as 86.167.223.152 (talk · contribs) and is making the same edits that you reverted earlier today. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, MarnetteD. Vote X has probably migrated to a different IP by now, so I pass on the pleasure of blocking this one. Favonian (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that is the pattern. Cheers and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_39&oldid=1221627782"