User talk:Favonian/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Minnesota

Favonian-- your block of the IP posting to the Minnesota article should be undone. The IP is a school, and the posts today mention a name in connection with a law making hockey the state sport. The IP was correct:[1]. While the edit is trivial and not appropriate for the article, it was not vandalism, and as the IP is a school, the prior problematic edits likely were by someone else. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the (correct) state sport. This is what the IP tried to add, twice in fact. It is not just trivial, it's vandalism. On top of two very recent blocks for vandalism, it was time to escalate. Students wanting to edit constructively should follow the standard advice and get a named account. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Favonian, that isn't vandalism. It is a good-faith edit, likely by a child. And there is no prejudice against IPs. In any event it appears that the user did get a named account and it is being handled without the BITE. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Confounded! Now I actually read the article, and it does indeed mention this fellow plus another one. I'll unblock ASAP. Favonian (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian. I thought it was vandalism at first too, but something triggered in my memory which led me to do the search. In any event, we now have a new registered user, so perhaps it was for the best all round. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of SwinginFromaStar

Hello Favonian. SwinginFromaStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Totally deserved block, but they are now indicating that they retract the threat and will not do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it just my depleted AGF, or is there something fishy about this editor? I mean, after this perfectly innocuous debut, removing red links, we get a legal threat in the wilderness of ANI? Would it be kosher to inquire what Swinging intends to do if the block is lifted?

Since the threat has been retracted, I guess the formal requirements for unblocking have been met, and bedtime is approaching in my time zone, so I'll leave the decision to you and not grab for the wheel when I wake up. Favonian (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious to me as well that this user is not as new as their edit history would tend to indicate, but they may have just been an ip editor before given that they did do something as clueless as making a legal threat. The Col. does enjoy fairly strong support from the ARS but most of them have been around long enough to know what happens to users who make legal threats. I'm thinking unblock but keep an eye out for them is our best course of action. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Let'm swing free. Favonian (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Hi Favonian. As you are aware your talk page has been attacked the last two nights (my time) by IPs from Rhode Island. They also hit User:EdJohnston two nights ago. I am wondering of these are sock IPs of a specific editor. I only ask because I will be happy to add a sockIP tag to their userpages if they continue these edits. If you don't know who this might be no worries hopefully they will tire of this soon and we can resume normal editing. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I'm not sure which of my many admirers is behind this wave. They have indeed struck me and other admins' talk pages with mind-numbing monotonicity, and I just block them routinely for block evasion, even though I don't know their original user name. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Looks like we will just have to revert as usual. It was interesting to me that they hit your page at roughly the same time the last two nights. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't funny

I am not trying to vandalize, you are just ignorant of the topic (most people are) about the real Margaret Hooper (radio personality). --Dallezam (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A reference to this personality has no place in the list of West Wing characters. Favonian (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but the person exists and is enough to recognizetheir contribution to society. --Dallezam (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Existence isn't enough, notability is what's required, and the article did not assert that, which is why it has now been speedily deleted. Favonian (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suit youself, I create pages specifically for people to edit, not delete them, though I appreciate your concern.--Dallezam (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IP 119.224.26.234

Thanks for blocking this vandal. I've got two questions:

• Is there a way to revert a user's edits en masse? He managed to get away with over 10 edits before I picked him up. Suppose someone did 30 and I had to revert one by one, while he was adding more vandalism. WP:AIV can take quite a while to block someone sometimes.
• Would you consider blocking this user for more than 31 hours? He clearly knows what he's doing. He's not a newbie. It would be good to cut off that IP for a as long as possible.

Thanks for your time. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a bulk revert script somewhere, but I don't remember where. Certainly could come in handy with this kind of miscreant, though the combined effort of a couple of editors soon removed his droppings. Regarding the length of the block, it's pretty much standard for vandalism where it's not verifiable that there have been previous acts. Should he resume, the next block will be a good deal longer. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see... seems fair. Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of Vatican City?

I have been messaged about apparent vandalism of 'Vatican City'. I feel rather awkward in writing this, as I don't have much to say other than that I did not do it and I do love Wikipedia, and would like to continue bettering it through editing. I will ask other members of my household, but please try to delay the blocking of editing from me!68.75.30.150 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"Other members" of your "household"? Yeeks... ;> Doc talk 05:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't me!

Please no it wasn't me who did it to thailand.Help me.You got to understand it is not you it is me.Please dont do this anymore.I dont feel weel so i better go outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.52.5.2 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mo Twister

Thanks for blocking the IP I reported, Mo Twister has encouraged his listeners to vandalise his page, so I'd be grateful if you could protect it too. See http://twitter.com/djmotwister/status/6658310941966336 Mechanical digger (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you are on it, thanks! Mechanical digger (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done, almost at the same time you wrote ;) Favonian (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my edits/your comments on my talk page

I don't understand how it isn't from a neutral point of view? It is a statement of fact, supported by evidence provided in the next paragraph. She has been found guilty of "selling goods without legal authorisation whilst making medicinal claims about their efficacy". By the wiki definition, which I made sure to link to, that makes her a charlatan. It is not defamatory, there is evidence to support it, and none to counter that evidence Mckjerral (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

By drawing your own conclusions based on a verdict and an encyclopedia definition, you are doing what's called original research and that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Unless she has been described as a charlatan by a reliable, secondary source, you may not use the word in the article. Since this is a biography of a living person, we are very strict about what gets included. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% I see the difference from her being described as a TV presenter, surely that is just based on the evidence (that is one of the things she does) and the definition of a tv presenter. Mckjerral (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There certainly ought to be a source for everything, including her role as a TV presenter. It shouldn't be difficult to locate one, and the information is hardly controversial. Calling her a charlatan is, and that makes sourcing absolutely mandatory. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite using the verdict as an example there is a raft of evidence to support the fact she is a charlatan, more of it referenced within the existing article. I will concede that my initial edit was somewhat light-hearted, but I genuinely can't see why it shouldn't be there. I will endeavour to find a reliable source stating that she is a charlatan, and then maybe my edits can be reinstated. Mckjerral (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration committee

Have a go, please. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, you are a great temptress. I think I'll wait a year or two before seeking further advancement. My mop is only four months old, and my experience with conflict resolution basically consists of sending editors off for edit warring. But thanks for your encouragement Favonian (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot script?

Not sure what's going on at Special:Contributions/24.29.92.238, but it looks like an unauthorized bot script, as you warned about earlier at User talk:24.29.92.238. Thanks, Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed you're not in at the moment, so I've reported it to WP:ANI instead. Thanks, Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been solved for the moment. Let's hope Krellis will fix the code. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandalism

Just stopped by to see if you'd replied, and had to revert vandalism here from another IP sockpuppet (72.82.9.25) to find it. Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That guy is bit of a pest and I sure appreciate the assistance of my talk page stalkers. Favonian (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

TYTY, I have just added you to my "Awesome Admin" list. With boundless gratitude, Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. That's a rather unpleasant stalker you've got there. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unpleasant" is being kind. Other than persistent ( two years worth), the other words I would like to say are not usable here.  ;-) Thnx again. DocOfSoc (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

foynes court

yes there was an incident involving those people, however they have since moved away. Everything on the wikipedia page is 100% factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfordlad (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

60second Recap

Hi. You've just deleted this article as a G7, but I would like to request it be re-instated and the AfD be allowed to run its course. The primary author of the article requested a G7 deletion on the same article a few days ago, and then recreated it earlier today. Upon being the article's AfD nomination, the editor requested a G7 deletion. I reverted this request, contending that, since the AfD had started, the discussion should be allowed to run its course. He/she reverted me, and you deleted the article.

I'm requesting undeletion for two reasons. Firstly (while I haven't had time to have a real look through the article), there appeared to be ample coverage to meet the general notability guideline, and it is possible the article is perfectly viable. Secondly, the fact that this article has previously been recreated after a G7 request, makes me concerned about the potential for further recreation, thus avoiding an AfD. I feel it is not unreasonable to use AfD to develop a consensus (once and for all) about whether this article should stay.  -- Lear's Fool 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I should have investigated the matter more carefully before closing the AfD. The article has now been restored and the AfD reopened. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, the whole thing is spread out over three or four talkpages anyway. Thanks for restoring it!  -- Lear's Fool 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page!

Barts1a has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

No problem, and thanks for the bubbles. Now, regarding your problems with the not-so-subtle editor, you should have a look at WP:BLANKING. A user can pretty much delete anything (s)he likes (or dislikes) from their talk page. Favonian (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you, but can you block 202.70.54.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? This address is currently being used by the infamous Indonesian misinformation vandal who deliberately puts misinformation on Telenovela, Digimon, and Little League articles without sources to back them up. He has been doing this for three years now using different IP ranges. He's active right now. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Edgar181 beat me to it. Favonian (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SABMW

Hey Favonian, just so you know, I've changed the reason for this user's block in his block log. While this is his second account, his first account was blocked for a username violation, and the blocking admin was encouraging him to make another account that fit within the username policy. Somehow he missed that last bit, but it's still not an abuse of accounts. I have left him indef-blocked, as he still needs a new(er) username and his edit warring is a concern as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm a bit surprised that users are encouraged to create new accounts. If they receive the {{Uw-spamublock}} template, the message is to request a change of user name. This IMO makes more sense, as it preserves the edit history. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Im not sure I agree with your protection of User:Bourne End as it is an orphaned account and the only edits to it were vandalism. --Saulbeza (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The account was blocked following a sockpuppet investigation, so the tag stays. Please explain your interest in this particular account. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the user personally. And it was simply a "disposable" account he used, and it's not related to the claimed account. that should explain it. --Saulbeza (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot take your word for it. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, but the user is not blocked at this time and has a contribution which pre-dates the user they are supposed to be a sockpuppet of, so it doesn't make sense tagging them as a sockpuppet though. Maybe just courtesy blanking would do. --Saulbeza (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ClareBollen

Thanks for blocking the above-captioned account. I was just typing a note at AIV explaining why the account needed to be blocked, when the edit conflict removing the original report made me realize that s/he had been blocked. Hopefully, autoblock will prevent any more edits or account creation from that IP for a little while. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, the reason I gave this editor a Level 4 warning right off the bat was that my spidey sense was telling me that it was the same editor as User:HumanFishNet. — SpikeToronto 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The semi-protection by Courcelles on their article of interest, Trinity High School (Cambuslang), should also help. If the socks return, the protection can always be extended. Where would we be without our superpowers? Favonian (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Too true! I usually do not like doing recent changes patrol at this time of day because when I finally finish typing in a manual AIV report — like with ClareBollen and HumanFishNet — I discover that it has already been dealt with. Which, of course, means (tongue firmly in cheek) that I do not get to look like the genius that I am by showing all and sundry that I have deduced that the two are one and the same and should both be blocked indefinitely. You see, after midnight eastern standard time, there is less activity at AIV, so the admins manning the AIV post at that time get to see how (tongue again firmly in cheek) absolutely brilliant I am! Anyway, thanks again for creating the sockpuppet page for this miscreant. It will make dealing with him/her easier in future. (Oh, who am I fooling with this politically correct him/her?! We all know it’s a him!) Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Giant (mythology)

I am sure that the link to the Selfish Giant as an example of Giants (and given that it is a story from Wilde) is more than appropriate. And given that I am teaching my children about mythology and the use of wikipedia it is far more helpful that they also find materials that they can relate to an enjoy. I realize that many people ignore the fact that young kids are using the web but I ask that you support my decision in including links that can help them learn and engage them while they are learning.

I ask for your kind indulgence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.194.119 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the site does not meet the requirements listed in WP:EL. Even if it did, the link should not be embedded in the text, but listed in the "External links" section. Favonian (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lunalet

See you're online. This guy's a WP:DUCK of someone; wondering if you know who it is. N419BH 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If I did, he would be sleeping with the fishes! Certainly knows how to tick of everybody, so far without getting blocked. Guess we are all paying out WP:ROPE. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question re a speedy deletion

Hi Favonian - thanks for this. Is there a way to/do we ever delete all references to a page title from the logs entirely, as in cases like this where the title itself seems to be a BLP violation? Or is deletion of the page itself enough? Cheers. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is such a feature, it's beyond the reach of ordinary admins such as me. It may be possible for those with oversight privileges, so I suggest you inquire there. Favonian (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do - cheers. Raised it at WP:BLPN too. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Najibahmed

Dear favonian I just wanted to tell you that i appreciate your time in reading this, I have created an article about najibahmed (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)"Najibahmed"Northwood123 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC) and it was deleted by you due to the fact of its significance I have mentioned and and wanted you to restore it thank you Northwood123 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)19:28, 4 December 2010 Favonian (talk | contribs) deleted "Najibahmed" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))Northwood123 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article contained no evidence, in particular no references to reliable sources, that this person is notable. In fact, some of the claims were such that another editor wanted it speedily deleted as a hoax. In my opinion there is no justifiable cause for restoring the article. Favonian (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

and recreating the page, as you just did, won't help! Favonian (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was copied from Shafie Moalim with names changed - and that doesn't seem to me notable, either. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur and have indicated this by adding a {{prod-2}} to the article. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wyrdlight

User didn't heed your warning - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And again - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Favonian (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I prefer to think of myself as a facist. I have a face for any situation: I have my serious face, my angry face, my happy face, my joking face... HalfShadow 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • One might say you're fascitious. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Stop me before I kill again. Either that or help. One or the other. HalfShadow 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matthew Yusuf Smith

The article Matthew Yusuf Smith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Over opionanated blogger with no real importance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hijacking of sandbox

Hi Favonian. Thank you - I hadn't spotted that and had not given permission. But it explains the odd note he left on my talk page. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ourcitykolkata123

Oh my good golly gumdrops, that was quick. Didn't even have time to correct my malformed UAA As always, thanks for your patience and help. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. At my age, it's good to know that my fingers are still nimble Favonian (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WyrdLight

Favonian - thanks for the steer about links etc. Clearly Wiki is the entity the community have made it and although the views and actions expressed don't seem consistent with many of the sentiments on the founders page such as objectivism etc that is the Wiki we have. There is no prospect other than repetition of this issue as new invigilators come and go. I can't see the merit of taking the stance expressed with an individual contributor such as myself. The website domain you may consider blacklisting is the one used by Wiki by association to validate copyright ownership of the materials I provide. The issue with all those images is that everyone of them contravenes a strict interpretation of the self-interest policy as the licence for use requires attribution including my domain. For this reason they must all be removed from wiki. Furthermore as the copyright holder I'm withdrawing permission for their use and display by Wiki and request their deletion. I'm assuming you have a bot or similar that can do so efficiently. These materials are a drop in the wiki ocean and will not have any impact on the community. Thank you. WyrdLight (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My involvement in your case had nothing to do with the external link, though I think there was a valid case for removing it, as it doesn't seem to live up to the requirements of WP:EL. I did block you, however, because of your continued harassment at User talk:Simple Bob after I had explicitly warned you against it. Regarding your images, you should note that you actually donated them to Wikipedia when you uploaded them, and as far as I am informed, you cannot just revoke this. Not really my field of expertise, though, but you should read the small print on the upload form. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not being used to Wiki process I didn't see the warning until after it was made although I'm not sure what that difference would have made long term. The notion of fascism in respect of the operation of wiki is not meant as an insult but describes a particular way of operating a nation, organisation etc. Having spent many years dealing with institutional abuse of authority etc. the "harassment" of my contribution was corporate, but for those very reasons it will not be a productive line of enquiry. I suppose I could also turn to a zealous enforcement of the rules and seek wiki awards. Anyway in respect of my request we're now leaving wiki territory in terms of copyright and going where statutory law applies. Can you point me in the direction of an administrator or agent of wiki that can deal with this issue knowledgeabley? I haven't assigned copyright to wiki and wiki policy can't supersede law. I suppose I could formally assign copyright of all those images to a third party which would immediately create a wiki violation. I'd also be interested in views about the difference between self-interest in requiring attribution and that notion in respect of links. It's a mark (and again this is a valid view) of paternalistic and authoritarian operations no matter how benign to operate arbitrarily without explanation. I'm asking this because there is a prima facia contradiction in application of the stated rules, although I'm not expecting this to receive an effective explanation this time any more than last. WyrdLight (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've commented on some of this at User talk:Wyrdlight#Follow-up --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks A.B. You are a lot better at making "soothing noises" than I am. Hope it has the desired effect. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not that natural a writer. I probably spent 90 minutes writing and re-writing my post, but I felt Wyrdlight deserved it given his contributions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Spain (climate)

There seems to be a "mini" edit-war from Diplomatiko since some weeks. He persists to revert contributions without explanations . He has received messages by several users to stop this behaviour or to use the talk page, but he does not seem to want to discuss or make comments. I have reverted him manually two or three times, but it's becoming tiresome, so it might interest you anyway --Milkrawler (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Always a pleasure dealing with that guy—not! I need a bit more information, though: which article(s) are we talking about? Diplomatiko hasn't edited since November 29; are there IP socks lurking about? Favonian (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikinger

Does he follow any sort of pattern? That is, if I come across another of his socks (and from the looks of it, that's probably a possibility) is there any way I can tell it's him, as opposed to just a standard vandal? HalfShadow 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My "acquaintance" with him is quite new, and I went by the written confession, first in this and then in this. His original MO was some strangeness involving articles about Greek letters, so either he has "mutated" or we are dealing with an impostor. At any rate, they should be dealt with mercilessly. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Matthew Yusuf Smith for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Matthew Yusuf Smith, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Yusuf Smith until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me! I don't really remember what I did wrong but I'll go over my recent edits to correct any content mistakes that I missed. Thanks again!! DeeRD (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. As far as I can see, you did nothing wrong. Your school IP was used by a vandal, and you became "collateral damage". Favonian (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by User talk: 69.66.252.21

Would you please go back to this anonymous user's page and block him/her again. He/she decided to add the comment "you are asshole" (about me, I assume) under the March 2010 sub-header, which I've left in place. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I had already reverted it, but it takes a slightly more flagrant transgression before they get reblocked. WP:ROPE Favonian (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And behold! Blocked for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Musings

Hey Favoninan. Since you just declined the unblock request for that IP whose block expired weeks ago, I thought I'd come to you with this. The IP is registered to Road Runner HoldCo LLC in Herndon, Virginia. I come across these IPs every few weeks (one of them vandalised my userpage a long, long time ago and I've always noticed them since then), but I'm convinced that these ranges are occupied by some bloody persistent vandals who go untracked because of the variety of IPs they use. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I wondered if you'd noticed these IPs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I routinely check the provider of the IPs that I block, and Road Runner is right up there at the top of the list. It might be a bit controversial to range block the lot of them, tempted though we may be. Favonian (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Where can I get me a list of these damn IPs? That would be a start, then I might go to AN and see if other admins have the same troubles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a quick Google search shows their nuisance-making isn't limited to Wikipedia! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Croatia related articles

Hi! Apparently an IP user (99.108.100.84) is quite determined targeting a number of articles, e.g. Croatia, Croatian cuisine, Culture of Croatia, Nikola Pilić, Zagreb etc. with vandalism. In some instances the user appears to be quite persistent, redoing reverted vandalism. What do you think should be done about that? Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If the changes are truly vandalism, they should be reverted and warnings issued. Otherwise, you can revert and, quoting WP:BRD, challenge the IP to discuss the changes on the relevant talk pages. If it escalates, you should consider WP:ANEW. Unfortunately, I can't monitor the situation, as I'm off to bed. It's past midnight in my timezone—and in Croatia. Favonian (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Thanks for the feedback!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

by User:Jackson Harrison. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, doing the AGF and blocking him as a sockpuppet. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Another vandalism request: User talk: 65.254.5.78

Here's another who has ignored a level 4 warning and been persistently vandalizing over the past few months. We'd all be greatful if you can help stop this one as well. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Their block was overdue. Hope they take the hint. Favonian (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Request

It looks like there's another sockpuppet for Factual Items:

The username is Ilitt1 and the user edited Franklin Square, New York again with the same edits that all of the sockpuppets for Factual Items put up.

Thanks so much for your help with these! 18.111.12.161 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Kag

User:SeanRose should be a sock puppet of User:Kagome 85. The same with User:Higgys they where both created by the same user.

I'm only pointing that out. Thank You 96.30.187.174 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. I have retagged SeanRose. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anna Ardin

I provided a WP:RD on the redirect page that shows that she's one of the women accusing Julian Assange of rape. --70.134.49.69 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange bug?

I suspect there is a bug lurking somewhere, but I really don't know where it is. I updated three Wikipedia pages the other day, one each on the English, Breton, and French sites. The pages were all related to the same individual (Professor Rene Galand) and included updated biographical information he provided to me to use. The Wiki term in question is René_Galand (for the English and French Wikepedia sites) and his Breton name, Reun_ar_C'halan (for the Breton site, br.wikipedia.org). All three pages showed as correctly updated after I saved the changes. When I told Prof. Galand, he used Google from within Internet Explorer to check the updates. When he typed in "René Galand", and clicked on the English and French site links, he got to the updated pages. But when he typed in "Reun ar C'halan", and clicked on the Google-provided link, he got to the "old" (pre-update) page. He asked me for help.

I went to the Breton wikipedia site, and typed in "Reun ar C'halan" and got to the correct (updated) page. I thought he was mistaken. So I tried Google, and ended up at the incorrect (old) page. I compared the URLs in my Google Chrome browser address bar, and they were identical. Both URLs were: http://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reun_ar_C'halan. It turns out, however, that although the URLs displayed the same, they probably weren't exactly the same -- at least not when they were retrieved through HTTP. I didn't believe what I was seeing until I did an experiment and used Internet Explorer instead of Chrome. Here, when I went to the page through the wikipedia search, I ended up at http://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reun_ar_C%27halan (note the URL-encoded apostrophe). When I went to the page through Google, I ended up at http://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reun_ar_C'halan.

The interesting thing is that typing both of those two URLs into Internet Explorer got me to two different pages. It was *not* a cacheing issue on my end and I verified this by letting a few others try this out using Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Firefox. And no one else who tried this had ever heard of this guy, and needless to say, had never visited these wikipedia pages. Also interesting is that the problem didn't exhibit itself in Firefox -- only in Chrome and Internet Explorer. Chrome, however, didn't show any difference in the URLs, while Internet Explorer did. (Firefox got to the right page regardless of how I specified it).

Now here is the reason why I think there is a real problem lurking somewhere. How did I fix this? I did something I should be hanged for. I edited the "bad" page and replaced its contents with the contents of the "good" page. Once I had updated the "bad" page, both pages now showed the correct (updated) content. This is clearly a hack solution since it seems like there are TWO different pages on the Breton wikipedia site, both (now) with the same content. When the next person updates one of these, the other, of course, won't get updated.

Can you opine where the bug is? How can we get this fixed? Wokiwarrior (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Stopped vandalising, then warned and blocked hours later

Take a look at the talk page history then compare it to the contributions. Last edit was at 14:02, warnings came somewhat later. The second warning about Plan B came a month after the edit for which it was issued! DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the errors of my ways. I have commuted the block to a warning. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! My fault. I thought the contribution was made yesterday, December 12, and posted the warning for an old infraction. My heartfelt apologies for the confusion and the extra work. My ARV's are usually trustworthy, really! I'll be more careful than ever now. Jojalozzo 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Block

Do you mind re-blocking 98.231.79.72 with talk page disabled? Thanks :) --Addihockey10^e-mail 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that IP's track record, I should probably have done so straight away. Thanks for reverting the outburst! Favonian (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of Russian.Science?

Hi -- I saw that you flagged and blocked TwicePluss as a sockpuppet of Russian.Science. TwicePluss was just repeating the edit done earlier by 80.66.182.92, very likely the same person. If you could block the IP it might prevent more sockelgangers from that machine. Thanks! betsythedevine (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for teaching me a new word! Favonian (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I just made that one up. But i thought the world needed it. And thanks for shutting off that particular hosepipe. betsythedevine (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick action. Hopefully that will take care of it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page you reverted

Was about you. You are the kind of abusive admins wikipedia doesn't need. Go ahead and shoot the messenger. I've been shot by wikidinks before. It doesn't bother me and it doesn't hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.247.77 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

D c weber

Hi Favonian, could you please have a look what D c weber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing? I notice that you already gave a him a warning about stopping pushing his fringe view to several pages. Since then he has been warned several times about inserting his table on Tests of general relativity. He seems to start from his own source (look at the filename), giving wp:NOR, which is not even accessible. His table contains a few sourced bits from which he draws his personal conclusion (wp:SYNTH). Now he has started putting a POV-tag in the article, to advertise the fact that his OR is not allowed to be reflected in the article. The Tag was removed by Steve Quinn (talk · contribs), but D c weber just reinserted it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag and left an explanation on the article talk page together with a warning against edit warring. I'll try to monitor the situation, but my Wiki-presence will be a bit erratic the next couple of days. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Keep up the good work - and cool. DVdm (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Favonian: Would you please comment on table 2 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity ? D c weber (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Favorian, please comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_test . Thank you.D c weber (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisited

Once more: [2] and [3], and, after final warning on talk page, again and again. DVdm (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Hope they get the message. Favonian (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, let's hope. Thx. DVdm (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

D c weber

Hey Favonian, could you take a look at user talk:D c weber and provide a more detailed rationale. Their only edits today seem to have been to add a {{POV-section}} tag to an article, which was met by a misuse of rollback by another editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a comment on the editor's talk page. The pleasanter aspects of real life require my presence for the next several hours, so I'll be offline. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Favonian,

Here is an response and edited text user talk:D c weber .72.241.181.142 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI troll

I'd also like to thank you for quickly handling the ANI troll Ms S. Starbeam Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. One of Bugs' steady admirers. Favonian (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Filipino Mall SPA

He just did it again[4]... Doc talk 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Favonian (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I know: I'm sure you know there's a whole slew of SPA mall accounts like Renzdaniel36 (talk · contribs) and the socking Balubz123 (talk · contribs). BTW, seeing this[5]: this guy does not get it. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A thought

Hey, do you think Penaamiel is a sock of User:Balubz123? --Bsadowski1 12:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They certainly have a lot in common! The Balubz* edits are sufficiently recent for a checkuser, I guess. Will you do the honors? Favonian (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a CheckUser. I'll get one on it today. --Bsadowski1 12:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This[6] is interesting (though wikistalk can be misleading): but then there's Xander134 (talk · contribs), Arthurchanning (talk · contribs), GretchBacayan (talk · contribs), Editor999999 (talk · contribs), CHrizYOu (talk · contribs) (Renzdaniel36 (talk · contribs)) and so many more. Not all agree with Balubz/Balubz123, but what is up with the SPAs all mostly interested in SM city malls like this? Doc talk 12:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a fascinating subject, inspiring lots of Wikipedians to write about them. Now, having paid homage to AGF, I think we have a drawer full of socks. Let's see what CU has to say. Favonian (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Penaamiel is indeffed for his ludicrous attempts at unblock requests. "IF YOU DECLINE, I'LL ANGRY, BITE, AND HIT YOU!!" may work in his country, but even the original request of simply "Stop blocking" was pretty unconvincing. Anyway, blocking admin MuZemike (talk · contribs) is a CU: did you want to ask him about any of these other SPAs possibly being related? I know many are not, but who knows what can be found. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Valdemar the Young

Hello, I see that I've misread the Medieval Lands source, so I've altered the article. Though as you say different sources state several different places as Valdemar's place of death. Is there a chance that he was shot in one place and was moved to another where he died? Thanks--David (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Revsnæs/Refsnæs/Røsnæs are different spellings for the same place, and I'm pretty sure that's the "official" place of death. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand why they believe his death was accidental--David (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It was supposedly a hunting accident, but I'm sure they had conspiracy theorists in the 13th Century as well. Favonian (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Valdemar II the What?

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey could you double check my edits to List of Danish monarchs to see if I did anything wrong?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear Favonian, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 14:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Operation Tangy Toilet

Well hello! Your the guy who deleted my page. If you must know, every bit of information in that article really happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationTangyToiletVetran (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, but it does not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it doesnt, well apparently a deadly plane crash idea another account i have made isnt notable either! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationTangyToiletVetran (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal Pages

Hi! Can you delete all my Pages? I put the notice of immediate deletion in all it --G DEULOFLEU ™ 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've delete the pages in your user space, except your talk page. Talk page are, as a rule, not deleted. Favonian (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

99.63.26.63 badcatter re-revisited

Hi there, it looks like 99.63.26.63 (talk · contribs), after his 1 month block just returned and immediately started all over, adding his category where there is no evidence or sourcing in the articles: [7], [8], [9]. They also removed the "opposite" cat from a BLP, where it is properly mentioned and sourced in the article: [10]. Sigh.

Happy Holidays! DVdm (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Mckeith comment removal

This was neither an opinion nor a personal commentary but an accurate description of this person according to mainstream medical science. If you could provide evidence to the contrary that would suggest this person is not a charlatan it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solid L (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Charlatan" is commonly perceived as a derogatory word, and the the burden of proving that McKeith is one is on you, per WP:BURDEN. Favonian (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Lot and merging

See User talk:Gavia immer#Islamic views and the section below that one as to why Imadjafar is merging things. They are working in good faith and trying to abide by the various instructions they are getting. Ah well, I must be off to commit more "high vandalism" so thanks for blocking that user. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. Maybe an instruction about the use of edit summaries could be added as well. I'll watch every step you make for "high vandalism" Favonian (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that the two articles can now be merged?--Imadjafar (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, though of course I can't vouch for other editors. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction

Thanks for the corrections on Christian the VII. Didn't know that. Took a lot of pictures, but I lost most of them. --OrbitOne 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Need advice

User:128.253.211.40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:128.253.237.77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, Favonian, I'm going to prevail on your good nature to ask for some advice. The above IP has been actively editing many articles (211.40 is much more active recently - 237.77 hasn't edited since December 23). He (I use "he" for convenience) focuses mainly on adding inappropriate political commentary, often from sources that are themselves political. He also likes to do long block quotes. I became aware of him because he was editing certain articles I watch, and in the beginning reversion of his changes was difficult, although at some point he apparently decided not to fight them as much and just move on to other articles. I've been tracking him as he edits lots of articles I don't watch. Sometimes, I see other editors handle his edits on their own, and sometimes I step in (although not always).

In principle, this is a content issue. It's not vandalism. It's not unsourced, although the sources are often inappropriate. Yet, I feel like the pattern of injecting inappropriate information into so many articles should be handled on a global level rather than article by article. It's a ton of work for other editors to scrutinize his edits, and I'm sure many inappropriate changes slip through the cracks. Also, it's odd that he is unregistered as he seems to be an experienced editor. Whether he is in fact a currently registered user or formerly registered user but editing anonymously, I can't say. I've never figured out how admins determine that someone is doing that, except perhaps experienced admins recognize certain styles.

In any event, I'm asking you for advice as to what to do. Should I bring this up somewhere? Should I let it ago? I don't feel like bringing it up on a notice board and being shot down by impatient admins (sorry, but they do exist) and other very active non-admins who don't think it's appropriate for any action. So, if you wouldn't mind taking a few moments to review this IP's history (it won't take you too long to discern the pattern - lately, he's on a libertarian kick) and telling me what you think, I'd appreciate it. I'll watch this page so we can keep this conversation in one place. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Jonathan Doria-Pamphili

I remain very confused by the hasty deletion of the article on Jonathan Doria-Pamphili. There were only three or four contributors to the discussion, and some of the discussion appears to have been quite tendentious.

Apparently, for some observers, being the heir to one of the most notable aristocratic families in Italy is no grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, every Alderman in Chicago has a Wikipedia entry, or almost.

Jonathan Doria-Pamphili is the co-owner (with his sister) of the largest private art collection in Rome, incidentally valued at around $1.5 billion. He may be regarded, in conjunction with his mother and sister, as having saved the collection: indeed, the roof of one of the galleries collapsed before he took on this task.

In addition, he has been embroiled in an interesting Italian court case involving his children, born to surrogate mothers. His sister has been suing to have his childrens' right to inherit his estate annulled, on the grounds that Italian law does not recognize surrogacy. Recently, this case has been dismissed.

For these reasons, as well as his prominence in the Italian gay community, I urge the recreation of an article on him. I know that many people would like to be able to refer to this article. [Indeed, I am writing this talk page because I tried to read it myself, the week after it was deleted, after returning from a trip to Rome, where I had an extremely enriching visit to the gallery.]

EGetzler (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Abraham

Hey, thanks for catching those deletions on the Abraham page. It bothers me that people just go in and start removing stuff and they don't know what they are doing or giving proper explanations for it. Thanks again. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bumley_cynic

Vandal only account. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Very likely, given the similarity with 92.29.9.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but we are expected to give such characters at least one warning. I have done that and if they persist, they are toast. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For addressing that Youtube-happy, non-communicative IP. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Let's hope it works—and a Happy New Year to you too! Favonian (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WHY

Why did you delete my page ? Are you blind? It said it was being worked on AND i have permission from the site... ?

You could of just contacted me and we could of discussed it instead of just deleting it; What part was copyright infrigment?

Waiting a reply, Either that or revert it please and ill edit it accordingly; Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GtheLad (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was blatant advertisement and copied from a website. Regarding the latter, claiming that you have permission is not enough; have a look at WP:IOWN for the correct procedure. Not that it would help in this case, as the text in question is so clearly an advertisement that it is totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

Another matter: would you please be more careful when you add entries to talk pages? Here, here and here you deleted other editors' messages when adding your own. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)