User talk:Favonian/Archive 51

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Favonian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Another proxy?

Hi, Favonian. You blocked 203.187.238.36 today for a year as a proxy. The IP 203.88.145.59 took over the edit warring at Talk:Mars effect from your guy, and I blocked them for 48 hours (I hadn't looked up your guy when I blocked). Do you think they're the same person? Is mine also a proxy? I don't understand these things, I'm afraid. Should I block mine for longer? They have posted an indignant unblock request. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I strongly suspect that it is, but my trusty resource says not-yes. My go-to-guy (are we still allowed to say that?) in these matters is zzuuzz. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK.. it certainly acts like they're one and the same. What should I do, zzuuzz? Or would you like to do something? Bishonen | talk 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, the tool that I'm using does not show these to be proxies. Yes, they are the same editors (confirmed on two devices) along with 203.88.145.124 who was recently blocked. No accounts matching either of the devices seen in either range.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'd concur with BH - all from the same ISP in India. You can probably add 123.201.15.249 and 123.201.66.131 to the same list. My research indicates the IPs might have had a chequered past, but they're probably not currently being used as open proxies. They seem to switch within a day or two? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. I'll leave it as is, then. 203.88.145.59's unblock request has been declined now, and the admin (331dot) is aware that they're the same as 203.187.238.36. I can't in practice edit today anyway — Wikipedia is too slow for me. Apparently the usual "Amsterdam" issue. Now I'll have some fun trying to post this. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC).

Your recent edit to User talk:DESiegel

In htis edit you removed content from my user talk page. I have reverted it. Please do not make such editres in future, as per the notice on my talk page in the "Procedure" section. I will remove any content I choose to, and will revert on sight any removals by anyone else, unless they involve properly oversighted content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I shall do so, if I remember. Otherwise, as we are dealing with a community-banned nuisance, WP:BMB is part of Wikipedia's banning policy and that trumps any homespun dictum. As VXfC is nothing if not predictable, you'll now have attained status of their "new best friend" and will not be lacking for company. Enjoy! Favonian (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

2 time

Hi it seems like the same person that you tried to stop, is still at it again. I just wanted to let you know.https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Commissar_Order&diff=937966626&oldid=930744549 Gamergirl89 (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Good old, dependable Harvey. Blocked like so many times before. Favonian (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistence is not always a virtue

Hello, this looks remarkably like F1 boy; he can't resist can he? If he only edited soap pages I wouldn't notice: soon as he reverts to type something pops up in my w/list. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not impossible, but the gun needs to emit a bit more smoke before I block the account. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

New sock of U + 1F4AD

Back in December you blocked a sock of U + 1F4AD. Javed khan 980 is almost certainly another sock of U + 1F4AD, since multiple previous socks have had Javed khan in there names. Also this sock created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Emk9, so if that could be deleted as well that'd be great. Thanks, Emk9 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Emk9 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Up to no good and more than likely a sock. Blocked and be damned! Favonian (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seven Years War

Dear Favonian,

I did amend the article because I considered the first years of war of the Seven Year War as a part of the war. This occurred in Canada where the United Kingdom and France fought over domination and supremacy. Please excuse me for this offense.

Sincere WIshes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis-Augustin2803 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not including sources

Dear Favonian,

My humble apologies for what you listed as not citing sources. Actually, I did cite a source: the very text of Revelation. That is only only source I have. I did not quote anyone for no one in any book anywhere that I know of seems to read the text of Revelation the way I read it. For example, how anyone can believe the text at the 4th seal says that one fourth of the population is killed is beyond me. It is clear that the "one fourth" is not people killed, but the theater of operation allowed for seals two through four.

I guess, John has this copyright!

Thanks, Lyle E Cooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.184.188.115 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

IP BLP violation

Hey Favonian, hope all is well. I saw that 198.244.112.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has continued their addition of BLP violations on Sheriffs in the United States. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they have, and blocked swiftly. Thanks for watching out! Favonian (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

a WP:LTA

Hi Favonian, you blocked 31.10.170.156 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago, and they've returned for more of the same. No response to my report at AiV, so it occurred to me to drop you a line. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A very dependable editor without whose services we'll have to do for a while. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well phrased. Oh, I think they'll find a way to contribute to Calgon and Rexona before the three month block expires, given their history. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Lai Ching-te article

Hi,

Thank you for your fast reply. I am sorry, I did not know how to move or copy the article, I'll do as requested. Asoksevil (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to edit it but since there's already an article with his name "Lai Ching-te" and it only serves as a redirection to William Lai, can you make it so Lai Ching-te is main article and William Lai the redirected one?

Thanks Asoksevil (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Asoksevil: I have moved the article to the proposed name. Now that you (and I) have invoked the first part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, we should be prepared for someone going for part 2. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That was a first....

I have never had someone blank my user page before. Oh well. Thanks for reverting them. S0091 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You have lead a sheltered life. ;) Favonian (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha! I guess so. S0091 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

ok

Hmm... That seems like a bit of an extreme action to take but I guess your discretion has been shaped through years of dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia. You're an administrator after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

DieBokha

Hi, You blocked DieBokha as an LTA. They vandalised my talk page on meta m:Special:Diff/19790414 pointing to a declined request for permissions on pl for Zmiany Solarne, a sock of PaniRada. Should I be looking to link the SPI to an LTA case, or a previous SPI? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: With this particular specimen it's best to just WP:RBI. Above all, he craves recognition and it is best withheld. Favonian (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've no idea who it is that I'm ignoring, but I'm ignoring them nonetheless. I guess I'll learn their traits over time. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thought you might require additional sustenance after all those reverts. Pun intended. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Splendid pun, Ykraps! I'll add it to my collection. :) Favonian (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my revert of persistent unsourced editing

Hello. I recently reverted an edit on the English Americans page (regarding president James Monroe) by recently blocked User:Louis the phantom who persistently made an unsourced edit there (blocked by you I believe). However, I now see that one of my most recent edits (reverting that user's unsourced claim) most likely violated the 3RR rule (see: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=English_Americans&action=history). In your opinion, is is best that I revert my edit and wait 24 hours to reinstate it to avoid sanctions, or is it alright to leave my edit there because the disruptive user has been blocked? I may revert myself, but if I do it would seem unfortunate to leave unsourced (and likely inaccurate) information on the page. Thank you? Skllagyook (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just self-reverted to avoid violating 3RR (just in case) but may reinstate depending on your response (or perhaps should I may ask at one of the Wikipedia answer boards) (Unless you yourself wish to revert the unsourced edit at English Americans by User:Louis the phantom). Skllagyook (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Skllagyook: As far as I'm concerned, you can let it stand. Phantom Louis and his IP were being disruptive to the point of vandalism. Favonian (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

European colonization of the Americas

Per your reversion here, can you remember any specifics for "strangely familiar changes"? Your revert has been reverted by the new editor. And my glance at the material isn't throwing up any red flags to me. He iro 23:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: Based on several years' worth of tedious experience, I believe it's this one. I'll open yet another case to be on the safe side. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And ... behold! Favonian (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Right on. I just wondered what I wasn't seeing, before I jumped in. Seems like all solved for now. Good work. He iro 02:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add Saffron terror to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log

Per the terms of WP:ARBPIA, your recent application of WP:ECP to Saffron terror needs to be documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#India-Pakistan. Please don't forget this in the future Buffs (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Now I'm wondering if I have messed it up in at least two ways: secondly, by not entering the protection in said log and firstly, by not phrasing the protection edit summary in the proper, stentorian way required by true arb enforcements. I reinstated a previous protection that had been replaced by a temporary, full protection, and faithfully copied the original summary of the action, which (oh horror!) was not recorded in WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 by EdJohnston (now taken hostage). I conclude from the tone of your message that you have considerable experience in these matters and request guidance. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned (and I'm no admin), 1) you're only responsible for the most recent change and 2) the edit summary need not be any specific format as long as it includes the pertinent information. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Voilà! Favonian (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Though I did put EC protection on the article, I did not intend it as an AE action (requiring consensus to lift, and so forth). But it may not make much practical difference. Thanks for letting me know. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all *tips his hat* Buffs (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Louis the phantom editing disruptively again

User:Louis the phantom is making disruptive edits in the English Americans page again, with additions clearly not supported by their sources. See here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=English_Americans&diff=940903383&oldid=940482011. I reverted them, but they will likely persist. Skllagyook (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seriously tired of this one. Blocked him for a week with a solemn promise to make the next one indef. Favonian (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I did a good job!

I didn't think I was going to revert a vandalism edit on User:Jimbo Wales. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rite of passage for confirmed Wikipedians. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

{{edit extended-protected|User:Favonian}} Can you mention blocking of 93kid? I am a New Yorker so I was browsing I-87 and came across him or her. 107.77.226.118 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Favonian (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Mayonnaise

Hi , I am new on the platform and I was trying to fix a obvious mistake, it is even written in the page that is not original from France.

This is literally copied of the same article, so..., if the own wikipedia page says that there is evidence that it was made in the balear islands, the crown of Aragon before the french invasion, why I can not change the place of origin, if it is clearly stated that it is NOT France. If is because I made something wrong editing; might be because I am new; but if that is not the case, this is a clear cultural appropriation. Seeking an answer, thank you in foresight.

Mayonnaise sauce originates in France. Until recently, it was thought that the sauce did not exist prior to 1756[5], the year the French invaded the island of Menorca. However, the sauce appears in 19 recipes of a manuscript written in 1750 by Fray Francesc Roger, a valencian friar who published the recipe in the Art de la Cuina, llibre cuina menorquina del s. XVIII (The art of cooking. Book on menorcan cuisine in the 18th century) Francesc Roger calls the sauce "aioli bo",[6] "bo" referring to the fact it had no garlic. Earlier recipes of similar emulsified sauces, usually bearing garlic, appear in a number of Spanish recipe books, dating all the way back to the 14th century Llibre de Sent Soví, where it is called all-i-oli.[7][8] This sauce had clearly spread throughout the Crown of Aragon, for Juan de Altamiras gives a recipe for it in his celebrated 1745 recipe book Nuevo Arte de Cocina ("New Art of Cooking").[9]

Thus, mayonnaise sauce existed in the balearic islands well before the french invasion of Menorca in 1756, precluding a french origin of the sauce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefco98 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Josefco98: It's not me you have to convince. Instead, as your change has been reverted by several editors, you have to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and state your case at Talk:Mayonnaise. This being Wikipedia, it's not sufficient to draw conclusions on your own; rather, the article must report what reliable sources state as the "home" of mayonnaise. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

So what do I do? because I have no idea where to write, can you help me more? sorry to keep bothering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefco98 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much like writing on my talk page (as you already did): you go to Talk:Mayonnaise and click on "New section" near the top of the page. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefco98 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Krajoyn

Hi, I haven't followed the whole story, but what's the problem with Krajoyn? Why does he make so many aliases? T8612 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hardly know where to start. I originally challenged him because he made un- or weakly sourced changes to casualty numbers in battle-related articles and adamantly refused to discuss these on talk pages. In fact, he only uses those (and edit summaries) to hurl unimaginative insults at people. What he hopes to achieve by incessant socking I can only conjecture, but WP:NPA and, possibly, WP:MEDICAL constrain me from elaborating. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Favonian. Krajoyn disruption to serious efforts to record historical battles needed to come to an end. DanielTShaw (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If only it would. DanielTShaw! Krajoyn was blocked two and a half years ago, and it's conjectured that it's not his first account. "Single-mindedness" is the politest word I can come up with. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Links not provided

Hi, I want to draw your attention towards one of the wikipedia article named as "Shamsheer Vayalil". In the article the link of his healthcare company " VPS Healthcare " is not provided in the leading paragraph (starting of the article) and in the "known for" parameter of the bio infobox. I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to link anything.Please link the healthcare company names so that it would be easy for reader like us to know fully about him(Shamaheer Vayalil). Thanks. Lord Rama the eternal.. (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how came you ask me that question, seeing as I have never edited the articles about Vayalil and his company. Anyhow, the article is freely editable and it will be a good exercise for you to get started with editing. Simply put double square brackets around the first mention of the company like this: [[VPS Healthcare]]. Favonian (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Once more, AGF proves to be a waste of time. This particular god, moving in mysterious ways, proved to be a sock of a lesser being. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Krajoyn

I'm fairly certain that Jasporeh is Krajoyn's sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Favonian once again I find your talk page an interesting place. Allow me. Also, just saying generally and apropos nothing, if you ever find yourself blocking a Krajoyn colo in the future, it might be worth mentioning the range at the next scheduled SPI. You know checkusers are a bit limited about linking accounts to IP addresses, but that doesn't mean we can't usually find a sockfarm there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, zzuuzz. I'll remember to keep a log of the web hosts etc. as I send them off. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Cannabis etc

Re my reverts of 188.206.68.138, this is obviously a sock of recently banned 31.161.148.196 (see two ANI threads, one RSN section, and one AN3 report all from today). The content is obviously unreliable and seemingly to promote leafly.com. Would be good to damp this down. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. ;) Favonian (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool beans :-) Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

some weed?

Who is this obsessive block evader with their Dutch IP? Dare I think it's someone who's otherwise interested in 19th century warfare? Drmies (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Someone from you Old Country who recently got blocked after a magnificent performance at ANI. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh my. I just dropped a block on 188.207.96.0/19, but there is more. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm about to go read those ANI things. This is related, or is it just because of you? A few weeks ago I bought a bag of MSG, by the way, but have been hesitant (scared) to use it. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the MSG thing is just to get back at me: it's a different kind of problem. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! They character should switch to a different herb. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey. Can you smoke MSG? We should get together and have an MSG Smoking Wikipedia Meetup. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to quit. Scenes from the last one No such thing as a stupid question? You be the judge.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I swear! Every day spent on Wikipedia is an education. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, is this related to User:PerfectUtopia and that puppet master? See this, and all the (completely useless) Paris Metro articles that came from the range. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

gracia for editing my page about adolf! NoScOpEbRo (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk page revocation?

Yo, could you liberate Nsmutte sock Yarddose from his need to troll his user talk page? (In fact it would be good if that talk page were deleted, knowing his MO. He will spam diff links to eleventy other users' talk pages and to ANI until he tires of that particular game.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I've semi'd the page indefinitely to avoid tedious discussions on the theme of "user talk pages should (almost) never be deleted". Favonian (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with that irate anon. I'll keep an eye on my edits in case he comes back for more revenge. I opened up an investigation at SPI that needs closing now then as well. Thanks again! Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Never mind he's back, check my talk page history Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, he's using the 2600:1000:b000::/40 range, which is very active. We may end up having to protect your talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse

Hey Favonian, hope you are doing well! I came across 67.217.155.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that you blocked back in January. Looks they are abusing their talk page privilege and might need it revoked. Just wanted to put it on your radar. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, LuK3! If only they could spell. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Acceleration

Massive WP:OR. Discussion should be restricted to Talk:Acceleration#Acceleration is a vector.

Strange that you'd block me for posting reality, and side with a nym-hijacking reality-denying kook (he's using gandalf61, RealOldOne2 and looksquirrel101), Favonian. Why? I can prove I'm right... the proof is in the Wikipedia talk page for Acceleration. He, however, can provide no corroborative evidence for his claim that temporally-based derivatives can somehow magically violate the rules of differential calculus. I only "hopped IPs" because we have a flaky connection when it rains, requiring me to reboot the router to get a new IP address. Can't be helped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.47.88 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you yet, but you've been edit-warring against several editors who don't share your opinion, and that made it necessary to protect the article. If, on the other hand, your make further personal attacks against editors (calling them "kooks", for instance) you will definitely be blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Those "several editors" aren't as great in number as you'd like to believe... Dave Burton is using at least 2 (gandalf61, RealOldOne2), the second of which he pilfered from a guy who regularly drop-kicks him across the width and breadth of the internet, and he's only using multiple nyms to get a higher "consensus" on his stance, which to date he's been unable to provide any corroboration for. I suppose he was also attempting to save his 'gandalf61' nym from deleterious effects when he's proven wrong and shown to be a reality-denying, Wiki-page vandal to support his unscientific contentions (the stories I could tell about this guy... more than 80 fundamental misunderstandings of scientific concepts to date). It is not my "opinion", your very own page backs me up: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tensor_derivative_(continuum_mechanics) Read that page carefully, you'll discover I'm correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.47.88 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2020 )UTC) (UTC)

Probably futile for me to try and explain to you what others have already tried. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Who uses 3-D Newtonian space when 4-D Minkowski space is more accurate and intuitive?

The tangent vectors to the coordinate axes form the basis of the vector space. They are often set in Euclidean space as orthogonal, but need not be. Which is why in Euclidean space the dual basis is generally the same as the tangent basis.

Contravariant components are expressed with respect to ordinary basis vectors. Covariant components are expressed with respect to dual basis vectors. Usually in 3-D Euclidean space, that's not an issue, since the dual and the ordinary bases are the same, and the contravariant and covariant components of a vector are equal.

So we need something like Minkowski space to map 4-D space-time to Euclidean space. The spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are observed. We accomplish this via reflections, rotations, translations, time translations and boosts (Galilean transformations). All Galilean transformations preserve the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance. This distance is purely spatial. The Minkowski inner product returns the spacetime interval when supplied the vector of coordinate differential as an argument. This preserves not just the spatial distance of Euclidean space, but space-time. As such, time is not Newtonian, it is Minkowskian (I'd call it Einsteinian, but Minkowski put forth the concept of a unified space-time first in 1908).

As it turns out, there is a close relationship between the dual basis and the vector derivative operator (usually denoted nabla, ∇). If dual basis vectors are written e^a (and ordinary basis vectors e_a), then we tend to say ∇ = ∑_a e^a ∂/ ∂x^a. Nabla, ∇, is defined in terms of dual vectors, not ordinary vectors

Force is a dual vector. A one-form is defined as a linear scalar function of a vector. The vector space of one-forms is called the dual vector (or cotangent) space. The one-form adds one covariant component to the index of force, escalating its rank.

The Einstein summation rules dictate that repeated upper and lower indices are summed over their ranges, so in reality the dual vector of force is a rank-2 tensor, not rank-1.

F = m a

Force is a dual vector, rank 2; m is a scalar; a scalar times a rank 2 tensor is a rank 2 tensor; the equation balances.

As such the acceleration tensor is an antisymmetric tensor of rank 2, operating upon two vector fields... three of the six independent components of the acceleration tensor associated with the components of the acceleration field strength S, and the other three with the components of the acceleration solenoidal vector N.

The continuity equation for the mass 4-current ∇_A J^α=0 is a gauge condition that is used to derive the field equation from the principle of least action. Therefore, the contraction of the acceleration tensor and the Ricci tensor must be zero.

This is why the acceleration stress-energy tensor of a gravitational field (an accelerational field) is treated as a rank 2 tensor.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Acceleration_tensor https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~chirata/ph236/lec07.pdf https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Einstein_tensor http://sergf.ru/aten.htm http://zen.uta.edu/me5312/03.pdf#page=3

A rank 1 tensor (a vector) can be described in terms of a uniform displacement per unit time (the magnitude of its velocity in the direction of motion). A body undergoing acceleration, however, cannot be described merely in terms of a uniform displacement per unit time, because the displacement per unit time is changing per unit time. If a body undergoing acceleration could be described in that manner, that would imply that it would fall at the same displacement per unit time in a gravitational field. There is a higher derivative (and thus its dual, the gradient) and thus a higher tensor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.47.88 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You should realize (if you've read my above comment) that 3-D Euclidean space doesn't address time except in an instantaneous sense, thus temporal derivatives don't properly address tensor rank escalation, whereas in 4-D Minkowski space, time is just another coordinate, it acts just as any of the other coordinates, and thus tensor rank escalation is properly addressed, which is why in 4-D Minkowski space, acceleration is a rank-2 tensor, which is why even *your own pages* properly state that the acceleration tensor (such as, say, for a gravitational field) is a rank-2 tensor.

But here's the thing... we're not in 3-D Euclidean space... that's a 'toy model' to simplify the calculations when addressing a problem which is localized. We're in 4-D Minkowski space. So in the real world, where things actually matter, acceleration is a rank-2 tensor. Check your own pages for a gravitational field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.47.88 (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

hey you yea you

the sock is about is again.

--86.173.243.82 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Any idea whose sock this is? After I blocked they created a new account, which I also blocked. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It's Iniced. The question comes up from time to time, see for instance this discussion. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the same person as [1], same edits and reverted at their talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes. There are tons of IP socks. Some of his ranges even end up globally blocked when en-Wiki is insufficient for his ebullient personality. Favonian (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

IP back at it

Hiya. [2] is back at it again after the block expired. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. Favonian (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dopenguins

Hey Favonian, could you take a look at User talk:Boongalings] (bottom of page) as background? Then take a look at the editing history of that account and the acounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Boongalings? I'd like your opinion on whether those accounts are behaviorally like Dopenguins? Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Behaviorally, it doesn't look like Dopenguins at all. It's been hinted that they edit from IP that resemble DP's usual MO, but maybe they are proxies popular in the block-evading community. What am I doing telling that to a CheckUser? Favonian (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL. Your opinion re behavior agrees with mine. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Reduction in Protection Level

Hey! I noticed that Alyson Stoner has been under pending-changes protection since 2013, would I be able to request a complete deduction (or to semi) of protection? I don't believe Alyson's page has the traffic that requires pending, nor any massive issues with the page at hand! Thanks! QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes is actually a weaker sort of protection than semi etc., but let's give complete unprotection a try. Favonian (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Mysterious request

Sir you can see my history I always edit poltical datas . And edit them right I didnot it for fun sir. I love this work so much . Plzz give me one chance sir. I have never done any thing wrong Ashutosh singh 761980 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You're obviously not blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I want respect

Why you deleted my edit? I studiu gard for that and now, you deleted all my edit. I help The Egyptologie with my edits. Please, put again my edit! I wait an awnser! Victor Plutașu (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason for my revert of your addition to the List of pharaohs was explained in my message to you. Please read and understand the concepts of verifiability and reliable sources. Failure to do so could get you blocked as you have already been on the German Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the IP (2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0) block

Hi, why was my IP blocked . Can you please unblock it. Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't I who blocked the range 2401:4900::/32, I merely revoked talk page access due to a long string of pointless "requests". You may see from the block log that there has been an overwhelming number of disruptive additions of unsourced material from IPs in this range, which has led to a series of escalating blocks. The current block is anon-only, so (evidently) you are able to edit as long as you are logged in. Favonian (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Iseefire1001 - Using multiple accounts.

Can you look at the submitted request below about this user editing/removing changes using multiple accounts?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iseefire1001 HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

OCD attacks

I just saw this edit and cracked up laughing :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sort of debating with myself if it was really a joke. ;) Favonian (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

HAHAHHAH! :) And I'm laughing again :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Help!!

apparent mindless disrupter reverting my edits. Think it could relate to long history of disruption by IPs at Wilfried Zaha. Sorry, just caught this on my way out for emergency shopping before the shop shuts for today! Eagleash (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Already blocked by another admin. Happy shopping! :( Favonian (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep! Thanks, anyway. Eagleash (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi i think u hav block me frm editing

Hi sir How r u? I hav made a editing on burma bazaar wikipedia page i changed nos of shopes frm 200 to 400 may i knw why u blocked me for tis Gsmcity94 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The change came without a verifiable, reliable source to back it up. This is required. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And, by the way, it was not I who reverted you. Favonian (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

United States

I have no idea why you are acting as if you are the creator of Wikipedia and no one else can simply update your wrong and inaccurate info regarding the actual area of the United States. I recommend you take some time to take some math classes and take a dose of reality. Have a nice day. Dragonwarrior146 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have been challenged repeatedly. Learn to a) use edit summaries, b) discuss edits on the article talk page, c) behave like an adult. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Kubrick

It only takes one for others to miraculously follow - and they're all IPs, oddly enough. What a strange and utter coincidence. Anyway, I hope you're well and safe and bearing up under the current climate. Cassianto^Talk 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for interrupting, but why not impose a restriction against any IPs adding infoboxes to articles. Considering the level of disruption I have seen from this, and I do not even edit in this area. Something like the 30 day/500 edits type restriction(I think there is one of these for one of the conflict areas, American Politics??). Just a thought. And what Cassianto said, stay healthy and do not get run over by the panic buyers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That discussion definitely belongs on the article talk page, rather than this backwater.

Our panic-buying phase was restricted to the evening of March 11, after the partial lock-down was announced. Everyone involved felt rather sheepish the next day. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The scenes were utter madness, and beyond anything human. This heartbreaking image of a British nurse walking down a supermarket isle with empty shelves, having just finished a 15 hour shift looking after the very people who left her with nothing, was something I found hard to stomach. Cassianto^Talk 21:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cassianto: I did consider the possibility. Curiously, the account edited the Kubrick talk page at exactly the same time as the IP made its attempt on the article. That did seriously tempt me to swing the hammer, and it wasn't the old AGF that stopped me. Rather, it was a) the owner of the account is from Georgia and the IP from Chile, b) no editor that experienced would be stupid enough to think they could get away with pulling a stunt that lame.

So far, things have not been that bad in Denmark. Our NHS is coping, and the citizens submit meekly to Mette Frederiksen's slightly autocratic style. I trust you are well and safely locked down. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, not content with being able to get their own way, the established account has promised a day at the races, which will be nice for all concerned. Although checking their contributions - which I've done with a fine tooth comb, only to find a whole host of added, unsourced additions to other articles - they appear to have taken a rain check on the idea.

That's good to hear. I've run out of DIY, my old car is still broken as there's nowhere open to get the parts to fix it, and my once short hair style now looks like something from a 1970s pop video. But looking at what the rest of the world is going through, I consider myself incredibly lucky. Most of the world have seemed to have grasped this better than the UK; it's frankly embarrassing how we as a country have dealt with it. Cassianto^Talk 21:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll break out the special ArbCom popcorn and watch the show. Sorry to rub it in: Danish hairdressers will reopen Monday. Soon I can remove the black drapes from the mirrors in my home! Favonian (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Lolz. Cassianto^Talk 21:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation

Hey Favonian, hope all is well. I saw that you blocked 63.246.128.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) as a colo webhost. It looks like 63.246.128.188 is spamming on their talk page, see here. You might want to keep an eye out just in case TPA revocation is needed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped again. Probably not worth the controversy to revoke talk page access. Favonian (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello Favonian, we need a third opinion. Would be nice if you could help. It's about the article Blood and Black Lace -> language Italian or English. We conduct this discussion here and there. Thank you in advance. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sophene

Sweetcotton101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kingdom of Sophene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, new to editing, but a history buff. Looks like a troller named history of iran is incorrectly citing things from a book for the wiki page Kingdom of Sophene. Assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetcotton101 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There's been a recent surge of users/ips causing disruption across Armenian-related articles in Wikipedia. I suspect many of them may be created by the same person. This user is writing and editing exactly like the twenty other users/ips who changed/removed sourced information and they all seem to apparently know me, accusing me of bias and whatnot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this our "friend" Biainili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sweetcotton101 has just triggered an edit filter created by User:Beetstra to catch sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, that was a false positive for the socks that that filter is supposed to catch (though the filter, funnily enough, also catches socks from other drawers). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this is, but I am definitely new to Wikipedia/have my PhD, and I am trying to use my time in quarantine efficiently. I apologize for not knowing Wikipedia lingo. In regards to the article for The Kingdom of Sophene, HistoryofIran is leaving out all information about Armenian/Roman influence. For example on page 111, of the book he/she quotes it states "The inquiry into Sophene's cultural landscape reveals a number of characteristics which can be labeled as different cultural elements; local Anotolian, Iranian, Armenian, Greek...." HistoryofIran chooses to only name Greek and Iranian as contributors. This is dishonest and bias. sweetcotton101

And Sweetcotton101, can not find the article talk page, because why? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sweetcotton are we are gonna ignore the fact that you removed sourced information regarding the worship of Anahita in the area and also from the infobox? Obviously I'm not gonna add every single thing from the book into the book, I just added some important bits. I guess you missed the parts where Greek and Iranian culture are the most emphasised and prominent ones according to the book. But I guess when ethno-nationalistic POV pushing is life its hard to see that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

And HistoryofIran, I'm not quite sure why you keep on insulting me. But like Kansas Bear suggested I will go to the talk page. Your important tid bits are clearly selected due to your ethno-nationalistic POV. Mine is more of an inclusive approach which the author clearly has. The author goes on to mention significantly more religious influences rather than just "Iranian cults" Have you read the book? I have. I look forward to having an intellectual discussion in the talk page. Since I am blocked from editing so quickly, I hope this discussion will allow for unbias editing. sweetcotton101 —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep on insulting you? That's rich. Also, you're gonna have to improve your conduct and sincerity if you expect to get taken seriously and get an actual "intellectual" discussion. And sorry for spamming your talk page Favonian, leaving now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's go by the facts, particularly the facts from the book you quoted. The important tidbits you picked out are bias, and does not give the Wikipedia audience a factual read but rather specific details to your liking. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I have a lot of offer. I look forward to an intellectual discussion without undertones of sarcasm and/or bias. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sweetcotton101, your good intentions are noted but your behavior suggests otherwise. Would you care to withdraw the slur you made against HistoryofIran against the head of this thread, where you referred to him this way: "Looks like a troller named history of iran is incorrectly citing things from a book for the wiki page Kingdom of Sophene." The word 'troller' is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia, and the 'incorrectly citing' suggests he is falsifying what the book says. Do you still stand by those comments? Administrators do issue blocks for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Consider it withdrawn. Please note, I was also called a sock puppet, when I am not, and was spoken to rudely. I did not understand why certain facts were selected, while others were omitted. Now I am understanding that is is a collaborative effort and it is also up to me to bring forth the facts that are important as well. I hope to work together with HistoryofIran as we have similar interests, but different perspectives which should overall serve the Wikipedia audience by providing factual unbiased information. Cheers!Sweetcotton101 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Message from the landlord: I'm only here intermittently. Please open a case at WP:SPI with a request for CheckUser to ascertain whether this latest enthusiast is a sock. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Twelve years on Wikipedia

Hey, Favonian. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! Wikipedia is such a comforting place for old-timers like me. There are feuds going that were already around when I started editing. Very soothing. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet another Evlekis sock

Real.Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks for blocking the sock, I didn't know Bbb23 had left the sinking ship. But here's yet another obvious sock... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting slow. Favonian (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Hi there FAVONIAN, how's it going?

This new IP (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.208.152.81, very rarely used, mind you) sure looks like the utter nuisance described in the message title. After "contributing" to Eric Abidal they came to my page and, as habitually, were their "taunting selves", accusing me of vandalism with (as habitually again!) a(nother) ridiculous reasoning if i ever saw one; this time, i took the high road and did not bother with one ounce of reply in order not to feed the troll, reverted their provocation, their "contribution" and pronto!

You have been briefed, regards from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's him alright. Gone to meet his other incarnations.

Were it not for the pandemic, I would be in Portugal right now. Sad times! Favonian (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sad AND hard times indeed, but we'll slay the beast... All the best! --Quite A Character (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

Hey Favonian, I saw you blocked Jp673673 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per WP:NOTHERE. You might want to keep an eye out on their talk page. They added some personal attacks after your block. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

With their grammar, no one will be able to understand the attacks. :D Favonian (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"incomprehensible sentences will never hurt me" *coughspokenDanishcough*

...

sorry! :-) Hope you are doing well. --bonadea contributions talk 22:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Grumble

You're fast with the deleting, mister.[3][4] Grumble. I hope at least it annoys you that I actually, for once in a blue moon, got there first with the blocking. Grrrr. Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

and I applaud you for it! To quote one of the Blues Brothers: "I hate Illinois Nazis!" Favonian (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Disclaimer: I'm not a CheckUser and have no idea if the Swastika fan is from that state.

Blocking Sahusa

Dear Favonian, I come from the French wikipedian version, on which I usually contribute. We, the wikiproject Noircir Wikipédia, is hosting an edithaton online right now and one of the participants have been blocked, it is Sahusa. Can you explain us how to solve this problem? Thank you. Galahmm (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galahmm: If this person is blocked on the French Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with me. My powers, such as they are, extend only to the English Wikipedia. According to Special:CentralAuth/Sahusa, the user in question has so far only been active on French Wikipedia and Commons. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Favonian, and thanks for your reply. Nevetheless, I wrote to you because on her blocked warning appearing in her screen, it is you username that appears. The reason why mentionned is related to the IP adress, because it could be a host or domain IP address, I did not memorized well. Galahmm (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you need to write down the IP address and pass it on to me. I'm not able to link accounts to IPs. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

OOOOOOOk. I see. I will come back to you in a moment, when I receive the participant's IP address. Galahmm (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It will have to wait, I'm afraid. Bedtime. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, here is the ip address: 95.175.96.0/19 . Do you know the reason of the blocking? Thanks and best regards, Galahmm (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Request

I need to request you that please delete the revision [5] as RD3 as that revision was purely disruptive or delete as the reason WP:RD2 as it also violates a biography of a living person or delete as the reason "Vandalism" because that revision is not supposed to be visible. Thanks. 2409:4050:E87:33F0:0:0:DC8A:6402 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Another sock of Rowde

Here. The last one here which you felt needed more evidence was blocked by Bbb23 just before he went off not at all gruntled! (Strangely unprompted and after IP boy had stopped editing from that account anyway). Eagleash (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, not to worry; Mz7 has served and carried out! Thanks anyway. Eagleash (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anna Keaveney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Where the Heart Is (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed "Serendipity". Eagleash (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:HarveyCarter

Hello and thanks for your help with that IP who has been banging on at the Churchill talk page. Looking at his past record, he does seem to have a problem with well-known people. Sorry for drawing you into it but I needed some ammo for the referral to AIV. All the best and take good care. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have lost count of the number of Harvey socks I've blocked over the years. What he hopes to achieve is beyond me. Favonian (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

IP edit warring and personal attacks at Magdalene Visaggio

I could use some admin assistance or advice, and I saw that you are recently active and also involved with WP:RFPP.

At Magdalene Visaggio, the subject of the article recently Tweeted their displeasure at having their birth name part of the article. This has brought a number of IP users and largely inactive logged-in users to "fight" this particular battle. I've made the case on Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name (with no replies), the problem is that this crowd isn't prone to discussion. I feel this page should be at least semi-protected, but I've made two RFPP requests which have been denied. I just don't know any other way to at least bring them to the talk page.

Today, a returning IP has partially removed the name and levied a 2nd personal attack on me in their edit summary. This IP user has a 4-year history (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:F180:0F00::/64) of putting vandalous personal attacks in articles, and now in these 2 recent edit summaries. A range block seems called for. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: The personal attack was egregious and the range has been blocked accordingly. Furthermore, the article has been semi'ed for a week in the vain hope that it will drive the opposition to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)