User talk:Favonian

3 month block review

I reduced it to one week because of my misreading of the block log, and edit-conflicted with you as I tried to revise the notice on the talk page. If you think 3 months is appropriate, better upgrade it yourself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he'll be back and can get his three months then. Meanwhile, you can add "right wing bonb thrower" to your resume. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Oh, he'll be back and can get his three months then" this quote clearly shows that you were hasty in the block, and i would like to note here that you behaved imporperly and hastily and unfairly, and i will be following the appropriate measures necessary to get this unfair block removed from my record.96.38.173.3 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you were right [1], [2]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Verily! A most peculiar editor. I see that he got off with another single-week block, so I guess this thread won't make it to the archive before the next outburst. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't help commenting on his latest eruption: "Judophobic"? I have nothing but the highest respect for judo. As for "anti semetic", I'm still trying to figure out what that means. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Runtshit socks

Hi Favonian

You have just tagged two IPs as suspected socks of Runtshit. I don't think that they are. Runtshit (whose likely real-life identity is known to several editors) has several characteristics which these tendentious IPs do not share. Runtshit concentrates on the Middle East and socialism, follows my edits, obsessively attacks me, uses scatological and pornographic language, and frequently disrupts the formatting (possibly as a result of using a non-English language keyboard).

The two IPs which you tagged, and several others, are apparently being used by an editor (probably in Britain) obsessed with Press TV, Republic and Syria. Since I have edited none of these before reverting this vandalism, s/he was not following me there. This is certainly a different vandal. I won't remove your tage, since you have expressed this concern; but I suggest that you rethink this. RolandR (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly the expert in residence on Runtshit, so I'll undo the tagging. Incidentally, I just blocked another instance of new customer. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to those you have already blocked, you may want to look at User:81.148.221.119, User:86.152.108.77, User:81.156.184.94, User:86.158.103.72, User:84.20.248.154 and User:81.156.193.229, all of which have ben making the same edits, and one of which made a particularly egregious attack at Peter Tatchell, which should probably be hidden. RolandR (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the same guy, but the edits are from yesterday, so imposing a short-term block is kind of pointless. I'll revdel the unpleasantness from the Tatchell article, though. Favonian (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at the edits of indefinitely blocked BLP vandal Ihateantisemites. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Not me dude. Brilliant detective work!

There is certainly a similarity there. Good sleuthing! I have semi-protected the article for a while, so he'll have to make do with posting inane comments on my talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC) see above

More socks on these pages: User:86.158.100.192, User:86.141.5.127. Probably deserve blocking for a while. RolandR (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Both sent off. Mostly symbolic, given his jumping abilities. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the anti-semitic Press TV again. Jumping abilities? It's just DHCP and Squid. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.127.228 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob minney

I was looking into that one as it seemed an odd attack. I couldn't find any evidence of any of it. Not like one yesterday, where the allegation against someone of being part of a gang of washing powder counterfeiters proved to be quite true (but probably non-notable). Normally I delete after a quick glance, but some I have doubts about... Peridon (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the run-of-the-mill kind of attack page, but accusing a named person of arson without a very reliable source puts the article into G10 territory. Now I'm curious: where is the article about washing powder counterfeiters? Inquiring minds want to know! ;) Favonian (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Fake-washing-powder-cheat-denied-appeal/article-2681927-detail/article.html (a misspelt version of the youngest was the article name). Google "washing powder counterfeit". They had 25 tons of the stuff - wonder what's been done with it? Boing! said Zebedee deleted it. I've tried to remember how the name was spelled here, but can't find it. Peridon (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! The secret to success is supposedly to find a niche. Maybe Her Majesty's Prisons have bought the powder at a good price, so Mr. Brayford use it to do his laundry. Favonian (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Cambridge

Hi Favonian, I saw you reverted the blocked LPC's edits, as an admin could you also delete the categories and templates he created as Little Cambridge in accordance with Template:Db-g5? Thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion

After a decent lull, there is another sockpuppet of User:Factual Items named User:Bluskee who is making the same edits on pages Franklin Square, New York and West Hempstead, New York. Would you be able to block this one indefinitely (yet) again? Factothy (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bluskee

I had added a user template message to User:Bluskee, but left the window open (while searching for an appropriate template). I noticed that in the interim you had blocked the user, haha. Well thanks for that. The edits to Franklin Square were getting annoying. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Annoying is a mild word with which to describe this tenacious sockpuppeteer. He's been hibernating for a while, but now spring is in the air. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Factothy (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You causing endless trouble

Im sure you know who it is but I just wanted to ask why do you INSIST on creating various problems for me. Half of those supoosed puppets are NOT EVEN ME! God sake, have you no life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.192.47 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note for the casual talk page stalker: this is the umpteenth IP sock of indef blocked user LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs).

Even if what you say is true (and frankly, you don't have a lot of credibility left), the other half are sockpuppets which you have used to evade your block. You have been told repeatedly that being blocked means that you as a person are not allowed to edit. Furthermore, because of your conduct you have been blocked from several wikis and are in fact globally blocked. To reiterate, the only way you can hope to be allowed back in the fold is to contact ArbCom via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank-you for teliing me about Ipswich. I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbysuffolk (talk • contribs) 12:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

No harm done. Just another lesson in the endless Wikipedia learning process ;) Favonian (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello. FYI, regarding this, I'm not sure they are entirely machine translations. In some cases, both Indonesian and English articles were created by that user. LordVetinari (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are. Compare for instance this version at en-Wiki with this Google translation of the id-Wiki article. Sure, the two articles were created by the same author, but (s)he machine translated the Indonesian version—and mangled the layout in the process. Favonian (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Nonetheless, I must admit to a little frustration with that user. S/he appears to be part of a group of inexperienced editors who regularly create poor quality articles and don't acknowledge the rest of us, let alone the notifications and advice we put on their talk pages. Ah well, I'm monitoring it, and it's not as if their edits are bad faith. LordVetinari (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Noob

Another Noob was acting up again and didn't listen to what you told him to do. And he refuses to admit that. After you told him not to go back to that IP user page, he wan't back and said YOU GOT PAWNED! So he didn't listen so I suggest he gets blocked. Thanks TheBradford msg Bradford 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed, but chose to assume good faith as he may have been writing the message while I sent my warning. My advise to you is to stay away from Noob's talk page. Neither of you is achieving anything useful with your squabbling! Favonian (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I know he got that message before he did it. because when you wrote that message, he edited something on his talk page right after that, and then he wrote that to Ethan, I'm pretty sure he knew you wrote that. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let it go! And stay away from his talk page. This has to stop now, or you'll all get detention! Favonian (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What did I do? I am explaining how he wasn't following orders, and I'm not going on his page cursing him like he did to other people, I'm only trying to enforce Wikipedia's rules, you are acting like I'm the bad guy. I don't mean to show no mercy on him, he just isn't following the rules. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean well, but you also feed the quarrel. Ignore the Noob and everybody lives. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if I went to far in trying to correct him. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

64.206.54.130 and 79.71.84.17

Please kill. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The first one has edited once (admittedly an act of vandalism), several weeks after their block expired. The second one has no previous record and stopped editing when a level 3 warning had been given. You really must try to restrain your blood thirst ;) Favonian (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching The Walking Dead (TV series). Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That explains—a lot! I, on the other hand, was watching Miss Marple. So much more conducive to AGF, consensus and policy. Favonian (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Better be careful, or the blood monsters will get you! Wait; that's hemogoblin... HalfShadow 22:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Argh! A lethal pun. Have you been taking lessons from Bugs? Favonian (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hell no. He's been learning from me. HalfShadow 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Proper attribution—an essential feature of Wikipedia. On this sobering note, I'm off to bed. Favonian (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing!

afd's have never been a strong suit. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Joeman360

You might consider changes it to a block where he cannot edit his talk page too.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent idea; so good in fact that Jpgordon already implemented it ;) Favonian (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A slight concern about a patroller

Hi, I understand that you may not wish to comment but note that you have recently edited Felix Somary. I got to that article as a consequence of some dealings with User:Djc_wi today. That contributor is patrolling and, in my opinion, is perhaps being a little hasty with some of his actions. I've had a couple of long-ish discussions on his talk page but think that he sees this as being "me against you". If you have the time to review the situation then I would appreciate it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does indeed look like an overenthusiastic young new page patroller. I'll try to keep an eye on him and clear my throat significantly if there are more problems of this nature. Favonian (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes it helps to have another viewpoint. My self-doubt runs rampant on occasion! - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Know the feeling well. It's supposed to be healthy ;) Favonian (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like a cite for that statement please <g> I see that Dic wi has made another bad call this morning. All for the sake of a little patience/research - User_talk:Djc_wi#Re:_Minora. I wonder how many are slipping through the net. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn! You caught me in the act of original research. Young Djc hasn't been active since the Somary affair, so I won't pester him with stern messages right now. Let's hope he has learned something. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He has now been active again and seems to be having problems understanding policy, specifically on this occasion with regard to COI and citing. He also continued to debate the notability of Felix Somary, the subject of the article that he CSD'd. I'll keep gently correcting him, as and when. I think that he is well-intentioned but somewhat misguided at present.

I do not want to start (or even be perceived to have started) some sort of stalking campaign with regard to him, so if you have the time and inclination to weigh in if/when you spot something then that would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Autoblocks

I've no idea why that didn't work for you to be honest. I just did the far more rudimentary "Ctrl+F" for "Meth..." on Special:BlockList and found it that way. Always seems to work for me...! Woody (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'll add that low-tech, but effective, tool to my collection :) Thanks a lot! Favonian (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

the May 21, 2011 page

Please don't delete the changes made to May 21. by doing that ur violating a persons 1st amendment right to free speech (includes writted). plus you have no right to delete a persons beliefs if people believe it doesn't mean it's real just means it's possible or not, so please don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.168.33 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:First Amendment and the guidelines for inclusion of entries in date-related article at WP:DOY. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ur?" "Writted"? Oh, where to start... HalfShadow 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do Americans think that their constitution and laws apply to the whole world? Just because most of Wikimedia's servers are located in the good old US of A does not stop Wikipedia from being an International project.86.149.12.117 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please tell me how to add references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniarulez (talk • contribs) 09:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's explained in Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you are thinking of editing the Alexander the Great article, linking him to the present day Macedonian people and language, I would strongly advise you to discuss it on the article talk page first. It is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim. Favonian (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

You are definetly doing a good job.Saw your recent responses to some of the questions and requests,including the hilarious one from a blocked user who claims Jimmy Wales says its ok for him to edit now!! Keep up the good work.

Cheers and Regards Pseudo 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacki Moon (talk • contribs)

Indonesian vandal alert

Sorry to disturb you, but it seems that Mr. Indonesian misinformation vandal is back again, and for the third ever time, he is using 110.136.113.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please act ASAP because he's active right now. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just too slow. Edgar181 took care of the miscreant. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, all I can say is even in his dormany (he "rested" for over a month until a few days ago or so), he is still persistent. Just look at the range of articles he vandalized today. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Abolition of Prostitution

Hey there! Can you offer some guidance and feedback on the above article? Pornography is a rather contentious subject, where individuals from both sides of the abolition issue continue to revert and edit war. I don't take a personal side here, but prefer to follow policy, guidelines, and consensus. An AFD resulted with a consensus to merge. However, one editor, User:TJ Black, continues to disregard the consensus of the AFD, essentially taking ownership of various articles addressing pornography and human trafficking. Rather than merge, he redirects the article. His rationale is that consensus at Talk:Prostitution_and_the_law#Abolition_of_Prostitution_merger overrides the consensus at the AFD. I would be happy to work on the merge, but I have found hostile response from others when working to balance out articles focused on pornography and human trafficking. I'm looking for guidance here. Any feedback on proper procedure? Thanks, Cind.amuse 06:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The AfD consensus was formalized after a debate involving lots of participants, whereas the discussion at Talk:Prostitution_and_the_law#Abolition_of_Prostitution_merger was unclear, with one out of (only) three supporting the merger. Considering the state of the Abolition of Prostitution article, I would recommend following Iamcuriousblue's advice and trim it before merging. There probably will be much gnashing of teeth and I foresee an ANI drama fest, but if you have the guts to do it, I applaud your spirit. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your guidance. I am working on the merge. The article that I am working on is consistently being redirected, stating that nothing is to be merged, according to consensus. The editor noted above, disregards the AFD, stating, "Consensus at Talk:Prostitution and the law#Abolition of Prostitution merger was that nothing can be merged". I have written the following on the talk page, yet continue being reverted:

"There is no consensus to redirect or delete this article. The consensus in the AFD discussion is to merge. Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion in response to AFD outcomes specifically states, "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." Administrative actions direct us to mark both pages by adding {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}} to the top of their respective pages. Upon removing the {{afd}} notice (if still present), add the {{Afd-merge to}} tag to the top of the nominated article. This lets as many users involved in those pages know that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, rather than the closing administrators' job to perform the merger. The appropriate response when an AFD consensus results in a merge is not to circumvent the deletion policy and process guidelines through redirection or deletion. In accordance with the AFD consensus and administrative guidelines, the reinstatement of the redirection is inappropriate. Therefore, I have restored the article in compliance with community guidelines."

I have been accused of being disruptive, pushing a POV, and deliberately gaming the system to prevent removal of the article, which is certainly not my intention. My only goal is to uphold the AFD consensus. I have received warnings from the editor noted above. Yet, my actions here have been appropriate, according to my understanding of the guidelines presented. Is this the time for an ANI? I need administrative support with this issue. Thanks, Cind.amuse 07:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking the IP address that was executing continued personal attacks and vandalism on my userpage. --Sonez1113 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"All in a day's work for Bicycle Repair Man." Favonian (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

Time to protect again? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Afraid so. I've given it 12 hours this time. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pending changes would be nice right about now. :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! But as they say: that's a different story. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page as well. Violates everything that's sacred. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And that's the vandal's intended effect I'm sure. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete George Fairweathers Page?

Today, The wikipedia page listing "George Fairweather" was deleted under "Hoax" This is obviously an immatture prank on your part and i would prefere it if you undid it immediately, thank you for understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catlover19234 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It was an obvious and not particularly talented hoax. Considering your own "contributions" to that article as well as Cucumber, you are one step away from an indefinite block yourself. Favonian (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please get rid of 173.86.32.188?

And I mean like, range-block him and inform his ISP, or something. Not for my benifit, but because if he continues after the current block is expired, then I'll track down his IP address and take matters into my own hands. Now, I really don't want to sound like a bad-faith assumer, but he SERIOUSLY should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia if this current motive is his intent. With kind regards, - Another n00b (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I already blocked him when I reverted his actions. If he keeps it up, I'll look into a range block. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you. But if he even touches my talk-page, his isn't going to be pretty. Rather like "Don't scratch my back and I won't scratch yours". Ok?? Just so you know. - Another n00b (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had made myself clear. You will not start a vendetta against that other noob, no matter how obnoxious he is. Leave it to the admins. If I'm not around (yes, that happens) report the IP at WP:AIV. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, Another could use a fairly severe beating with a trout himself. Baiting isn't looked upon fondly here. HalfShadow 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud! I've already threatened n00b and the noobs with detention if they keep it up. Sometimes, just sometimes, I would like to enforce a lower age limit on this place—like 40!. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Fishy-fishy-fishy FISH! HalfShadow 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed that. God, how I miss them! Favonian (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Noob WON'T STOP CURSING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

We are still having trouble with Another Noob, he started cursing us on User talk:The Stick Man 's talk page. Its no big deal, but the cursing has got to stop. Could you please talk to him. Thanks. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus h. Christ, I didn't flame him, I informed him. There is a difference. Oh, and why don't you get un-involved altogether? I have. And your still insisting I get blocked because I argued with some silly little fellow who just happened to be an IRL acquittance for you. Get off my trail! - Another n00b (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing that happened with that IP is over and done with, the reason I'm on your case now is because you WON'T stop cursing people. Wikipedia is for editing not cursing. TheBradford msg Bradford 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not cursing, it's called profanity. Are you completely oblivious to how to properly use the English language. - Another n00b (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm... sorry if you're sick of this stuff, Favonian. Bradford, leave it alone. It isn't worth it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. NAH SHADDAP!! - Another n00b (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another n00b is now at w3 for this preceding comment, and TheBradford has also been warned to disengage. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DMacks! Let's hope the message gets through. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just think "And it went wherever I did gooo." and you'll feel better. HalfShadow 21:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It'll soon be the Comfy Chair for the impetuous youths! Favonian (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the amount of abuse you get, it's almost like some sort of Spanish Inquisition. Oh shit... HalfShadow 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like I can't talk people out of edit-warring, I can't talk them out of incivility, heck, I can't Torquemada anything. DMacks (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:207.157.181.254

Hi Favonian, do you understand what is happening at User_talk:207.157.181.254? They are apparently editing their talk page from that IP, even though they are blocked from editing for three years. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not any more they aren't ;) Normally, users are allowed to edit their own talk pages when they are blocked, in order that they may appeal their blocks. If they abuse that privilege, as this IP obviously did, it gets revoked. Favonian (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Yep, abuse of the privilege certainly describes what they were up to. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

von Trier

Yep--say one thing wrong, or perceived to be wrong, and you're out. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sad, but true. Not settling in the U.S. was probably a wise choice in my case. Hope you are better at staying on the straight, narrow and politically correct path. Favonian (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad

I was on my phone, didn't mean to press [rollback]. Sorry. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I've hit that one by mistake lots of times. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin Barlow

Thank you for the swift response. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what we're here for. :) Favonian (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what he's here for; I'm here for the donuts. HalfShadow 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful...

That's twice you RV-ed on my user page. A bit too careless with the recent changes, eh? –HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

[Blush] I hoped you wouldn't notice. In my defense, the abominably slow rendering of the Wiki pages causes the whole shebang to shift by a line just when I'm poised to strike at some miscreant, and then it's time for "friendly fire". Must learn to breathe deeply before exercising power. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

*Tattattat* Helloooo...Anyone in there?

Ah yes, there you are. Good...good. Couldja drop the SP on my talk page, please? I'm feeling lucky. HalfShadow 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" Let's see how long you last. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What Price Glory (play)

Hi, I noticed there WAS a page for "What Price Glory" (play) but it has been deleted. I'm reading a biography of Maxwell Anderson and have some family background info on him because he is my great uncle. I'd like to write a new page for the play, because it was his first commercial success and began his career in drama.

Thanks, Max 9tmaxr (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead. The first article was deleted, because the contents was absolute bullocks, but there is no injunction against creating a proper article. Favonian (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

I noticed this edit summary and assumed they were talking to me as I frequently remove the image sizes. But from what I can see you never actually reverted any image sizes at Rebecca. So I asked them about it at User talk:Highdeeboy#Images. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he must have misread the edit history. I did perform one edit on the article yesterday, but it was a revert of some ordinary vandalism. Look like Highdeeboy couldn't be bothered to reply to your message ;) Favonian (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Revdel?

As you blocked Uponlimit090 (talk · contribs) in response to my AIV request, I wonder if you'd consider revdelling his two edits, as they appear to satisfy criterion #3 of WP:CFRD, since they contained a grossly inappropriate attack, as well as a link to a shock page/virus-proliferating page. There seems to be no reason to leave this junk lurking for the unwary in the templates' histories. Deor (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any idea who this is?

[3] - I was thinking of an SPI but as this IP is blocked, as is Dougweltier (talk · contribs), maybe not worth while, but did you identify a puppet master? Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't name the original account. Might be worthwhile to start an SPI to ferret out sleepers. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, over the last few days, there have been accounts created to troll Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs), Baseball Bugs (2011) (talk · contribs) being the latest. This guy's using the same pattern (creating an account with a name almost the same name as the target) but it's quite likely this is coincidence. HalfShadow 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of BB (2011) too, but as you say, imitation is quite the rage. A while ago I blocked MaIIeus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). Had to breathe deep and convince myself very rationally that I was not on my way to ANI. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And now that we talk about that one: he claimed to be a sock of a well-known nuisance. Possible candidate? Favonian (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have better eyes for this sort of thing than I do (tools and all); I can only guess. HalfShadow 19:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the mop ain't all it's made out to be, and even the clairvoyance of CheckUser could only produce a sleeper (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.252.105.48). Maybe we'll never know, but in a sense all the banned creeps are isomorphic. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

neo-nazi vandalism on Lindemann page

I've nothing against KIA for Lindemann. The problem was that for some time the KIA template evoked, instead of the usual sign, the nazi flag with some antisemitic rubbish attached to it. Apparently, it's been cleaned by now.Braiman (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't think of that possibility. The template has now been protected indefinitely, and the culprit blocked. Incidentally, a sockpuppet of the one my attention was drawn to in the section #Revdel? above. Favonian (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have globally locked the accounts. Thanks for blocking, Favonian. --Bsadowski1 08:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hope the global measures work. Favonian (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my User Page!! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orpheus amulet

The amulet is a 19th century fake. It was exposed by Dr James Hannam

http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristhehistorian (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Got A Warning From You Regarding Vanadalism On A Page I've Never Seen, Devoted to Someone I Never Knew Existed?

An historical figure named Giovanni da ????

All i can say is, it wasn't me. The last edit I contributed linked the definition of the term "straw dogs" to the Straw Dogs movie page.

As per the Wikipedia help pages, I should also point out that I'm not using an AOL page, nor am I using a shared IP. Beyond this, I'm the only person in this house who would have even the faintest idea of how to contribute to Wikipedia. We've had no guests in the time frame under discussion.

Frankly, sheriff, you've got the wrong man. Another Listlurker, perhaps? I've changed my account password, but since Wikipedia seems to accept all passwords, past and present, I'm not sure that will do any good, presuming this is more than a case of mistaken identity.

Thanks for your time and attention,

Cheers.

Listlurker (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite a puzzle you presented me with ;) I have never warned "you" (meaning the named account Listlurker), witness the fact that your talk page is quite empty. The most likely explanation is that you edited without logging in and got a message destined for the IP address that you happened to get. A previous user of that address presumably vandalized the Giovanni da Verrazzano article — I'm guessing here, since you didn't bother to complete his name, but that particular article for some reason gets a lot of vandalism. It really just emphasizes why we recommend that people use named accounts rather than anonymous IPs. Using the latter, you get lumped in with whatever riff-raff happens to be using the same ISP as you. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

TYVM

...apparently my fan club was busy on the weekend! Thanks for the help! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Where would we be without our loyal fans? Favonian (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. That's the second time that has happened and I still think it's strange, but whatever. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a vandal with a "theme". He even followed us to Commons where he managed to vandalize four talk pages before being keelhauled. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I saw that you edited this article and I thought that it was appropriate to contact you.

This user looks like to be the puppet[4] of the Celebration81. Looks like Celebration81 may be the first user name of Stubes99. I don`t know what exactly should be done but if this user continues to disrupts Wikipedia maybe he should be banned. Can you please take a loot at it? Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99 is already banned, so there's not much more that can be done about him. Regarding MrMyronGuyton, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 could not confirm that he's the same user, and though he certainly looks like an editor "on a mission", we have to go through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Np. Sorry, to bother you again, this is another matter. Is this really you? [5]. I think this is my first message to you, don`t know if I contacted you in the past. Adrian (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. That most certainly wasn't me, but some troll who got blocked for his efforts. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol :), for a minute he "got me" :). Greetings. Adrian (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned user:Iaaasi

His latest account is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nonairt

Hobartimus (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind it's already blocked, you can disregard the above. Hobartimus (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

user:LaszloBacs seems to have picked up the torch. Hobartimus (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the socks have already been blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Colin Moynihan

Please full protect 1 week. Edit war. Encourage talk page resolution. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An appreciation

Hello, Favonian. I just noticed you created an entry about Peter Henrici. Well done! Daniele.tampieri (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniele! Your own work is very impressive. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Heather Mills .... that was quick. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Four minutes—I'm loosing my edge. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:SoakCooker's edits are weird. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that looked like one of our steady customers. Blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

i Hate Anti-Semites but NOT Peter Tatchell

Dear Faving Loony Tunes, I saw that your comrade RolandR thought that I had defaced (I assume) the entry for Peter Tatchell. Not guilty. He's a strange fish old Roland - my Israeli girlfriend would call him a self-loathing Jew. You should have a quick look at his user page. 2 quick questions: 1. why do you keep protecting Press TV? It is a fairly evil entity. 2. Why do people who cannot speak (or write) proper English (like yourself) try to edit English language entries when they (you) will never understand the nuances of the language? I am IHateAntiSemites, but I also hate apologists for fascists such as Press TV. You clearly aren't up to your self-appointed job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.241 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Favonian, seems you have also met our new english antiantisemite crusader vandal. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite a charmer, isn't he? Wonder if I should block him block evasion. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to block him, you are not english! Aus welchem Block ist der denn herausgeschlüpft?--Ben Ben (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ihateantisemites (talk · contribs) by his own admission. Similar foaming at the mouth. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A pair of jew-hating weiner nazi schmucks.

Tom and Jerry

Semi-protection until November? Seriously? Are you even allowed to do that? --78.149.103.77 (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - some articles have been semi-protected since 2008.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)