User talk:Favonian

Our mutual friend

I've only had one cup of coffee so far, and I honestly can't remember off the top of my head which sock drawer this belongs to, but it looks like it's laundry day if anyone wants to do the folding and sorting. GMG^talk 12:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@GMG: That's Krajoyn. When he's particularly frustrated, he chooses to give us some insight into the darker recesses of his mind. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he's here as well? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Very much so. Thanks for manning the barricades! Favonian (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Coordinated Universal Time will expire today

Favonian, NeilN's one-year semi-protection of Coordinated Universal Time due to socking by Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs) will expire today, at 17:21 UTC (in less than 3 hours). I will be at the article when the protection expires, reverting the socks, until the article is protected. Be sure to protect if socks return! Pinged Jc3s5h. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll be there! Favonian (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ballsed up redirect  :)

unsurprisingly, sorry—Peter Matthews (artist), I just created from an existng redirect, but of course now the TP etc are still for the redirected page. Anychance you can sort it, please...? Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hope I interpreted your request correctly. At any rate, Talk:Peter Matthews (artist) is now freely available. Favonian (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so—for wikiproject stuff etc. The article is now credited to DGG of course: so now I can accuse him of WP:OWN with wild abandon :) may thanks again! I'm not sure how I could've avoided it though—get the redirect deleted before starting, would you say? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You couldn't delete it without admin assistance, but you could have overridden the redirect with the project info. Keeping DGG as the creator has the added advantage that he gets notified if some misguided editor nominates the new article for deletion. :) Favonian (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A7 here we come then :p :D Thanks again! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified block

You've blocked me a week ago for 24 hours on foot of violation of 1RR, but I didn't revert the article Turkish military operation in Afrin more than once. And the one "revert" was more of a rewrite. See comparison. There I did address the objection 2 in the edit summary of the preceding revert (Furthermore, the claim he "somewhat undercut this message" is not supported by this source, this is WP:OR.) by changing the sentence. And in objection 1 he was wrong, because Hürriyet is (until now) a decent Turkish source (Why is hurriyetdailynews.com not trustable? In the future it "might" be compromised (because it was sold some days ago) but up to now it is one of the best Turkish sources.). I've pinged you from my talk page on that day but you didn't answer. Therefore I write it here. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, as you were the adm that protected pages like Battle of the Granicus and Battle of Gaugamela, and i'd suggest you expand this protectiong to other articles in the Category:Battles of Alexander the Great, such as Battle of Issus and Battle of the Hydaspes. These are controversial topics, and there is even a arbitration guideline for it (WP:BALKANS) but IPs are constantly making changes that were not discussed previously or are in conformity with any consensus agreed here on Wikipedia. A protection, against this vandalism, would be necessary to avoid future EW or troubling discussions, that has even sparked racial remarks (with no punishment of any sort, btw). That's my view, i hope you can act on it if you feel the same way about what's going on. Thanks, Coltsfan (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: Hydaspes was already protected, and I have taken care of Issus. Regarding the category, there has not yet been any notable disruption, so a protection would be met with much tut-tut'ing and recitals of WP:NO-PREEMPT. Let's await the inevitable and act upon it then. Favonian (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

3-revert rule

Hey! How does the three-revert rule work? This user is edit warring against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=New_Looney_Tunes&oldid=prev&diff=835427029 Yay Dad (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The rule works – drastically. To avoid bloodshed, I have fully protected the article for a week and expect to see some talk page discussion to resolve the issue. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Probably a sock. FYI, my academic career was teaching planning and social policy at the University of Birmingham, Zuk.[1]. I was pretty involved in amateur archaeology as well, even rsn the local Young Archaeologists Club. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Least I could do. That was pretty vicious, even by Wikipedia standards. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

New Looney Tunes

Please unlock that page so it can be edited again.

I explained the reason I made my edits to Yay Dad but he kept causing the edit wars, not me. He was the instigator here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Remington (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Duke Remington: Absolutely not! You were both edit-warring and the protection was the alternative to a couple of blocks. You must now join the discussion at Talk:New Looney Tunes#Cancellation status and resolve the issue there. Resuming the disruptive feuding after the protection expires will have dire consequences. Favonian (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not edit-warring. He was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Remington (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

gjhdghkfghkd

zcvbfhrtyigqawghf