User talk:Favonian

Continued Use of Sock Puppets, and Block Evasion

Typhoonwikihelper switched to this IP Address: 218.103.152.230 (talk). This new IP sockpuppet needs to be reported to WP:ANI (and be blocked again), because he is refusing to stop, and because he is trying to evade his editing block. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for being kind of obvious. Thanks for your vigilance. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of was worried there. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He's back again... as the IP 219.77.32.65. Are we ever going to be able to stop him? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. Our "friend" has diversified into a new IP range, making it harder to block him preemptively. We'll just have to play Whac-A-Mole until he gets frustrated with all the wasted effort. Favonian (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He told me that he would continuously change IPs (probably until he runs out of sockpuppets for good), and that whenever he gets the chance (if his IPs are still useable, after the block wears off) that he would continue. He persists in threatening, and quite frankly, I can't stand it anymore. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We have two means at our disposal: range blocking and semi-protection. In case we have to use the latter, you too will be affected, so I strongly advise you to get an account. Favonian (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt the latter would work, because he hinted that once protection wears off, he would resume, and because he edits multiple pages, to my dismay. However, if he is the only/dominant user using that range of IPs, and if it is possible to allow other to continue editing, then yes, I say that we should go with range blocking, if this "madness" continues. Even if we cannot "save" other editors within that IP range, if they don't edit all that often, than we should still go for the range block. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If possible, we should just block off all IPs that are traced to the user Typhoonwikihelper, because all of those IPs we're talking about are his sockpuppets (but then again, I think we already know that). 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Typhoonwikihelper is back again as 203.218.29.93, and this time he even admited it on Jason Rees's talk page. Typhoonwikihelper is also operating out of this IP Address: 203.218.29.116, as evident on Jason Rees's talk page. Unbelievably, this IP is still continuing to vandalize various pages, mostly through the first IP Address I mentioned. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

He's back again as 218.103.145.154, and he is still continuing to vandalize, like on Jason Rees's talk page. I don't know how we are going to handle this guy. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If Typhoonwikihelper follows through on the following threat below, we should go with the rangeblock. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Threat (as seen on Jason Rees's talk page):

Please be noted that if i get too mad i will seriously create a Vandalism-only account 218.103.145.154 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Threat provided by: 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We seriously have to stop him. I am really starting to get scared by now. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He's an annoying little jerk, but there's no cause to be scared. CharlieEchoTango seems to be on top things, block-wise, so the typhoon is more like a storm in a teacup. Because of the time difference, I'm usually too late to join in the fun, but I have now blocked his most recently used IP range for a week, just to send him a message. Favonian (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I pattern I noted is that everyday that he is able to aquire a new "sockpuppet," he begins editing around 0500 UTC, which is around 12:00 A.M, Eastern US Time (EST). If he dosen't show up for a while, we may have won. Of course, we can't take that for granted. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found Typhoonwikihelper's oldest "IP Sockpuppet" yet, 203.218.175.13. Although that IP is currently inactive, along with another old "sock", 203.218.29.116, I am concerned that they may return again, especially since those IPsocks are not blocked. I have expressed my concerns. (PS, Typhoonwikihelper hasn't shown up yet. That could be good news. But as always with vandalists, we have to wait and see.) Sincerely, 72.197.249.141 (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever: here Bruvtakesover (T|C) 12:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he found another range to play with. Gathering evidence for yet another range block . Favonian (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If this guy decides to continue vandalizing, I believe that we should use a range block when possible. (Of course, not in a seriously damaging way.) He dosen't look like he will give up. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, everybody but i need to say something.... I am Typhoonwikihelper and please read the following:

• Did everything i done was really Vandalism?
• If i did something wrong, why not explain why it is wrong instead blocking me while i do not learn?!
• I don't give up as i see something that needs to be improved...however i am new to Wikipedia, i understand what i see is real and good is not what you see.
• If i have spin upped a Hurricane in Wikipedia, i sincerely apologize.
• I was really here to contribute, not Vandalize.
• Do you have any "Kindergarten manner" ? for calling me a jerk?!
• Please, don't think of me as a "jerk" everybody, why not watch closely what i do before blocking...or why not tell and explain what i have done wrong?

Thank you for reading the above.

Sincerely, 203.218.28.33 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have eluded your attention, but you are blocked, meaning that you as a person are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. As you were told when your talk page access was revoked, your only option is to make a really well-argued request to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

Me calling you a jerk was probably not the civil thing to do, but when you make threats like this one, you're really asking for it. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent "Sockpuppet Master"

If this guy comes back again, I seriously believe that it is time for a rangeblock. I don't know how much longer we can keep this up. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

He's back again, as 219.77.34.134. If possible, I seriously believe that this is the time for a rangeblock, when we have enough data. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Three of his preferred ranges blocked for two weeks. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please rangeblock him if possible? He changed to this address:219.79.126.148. Now his is resuming his attacks on my talk page. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please block off the other ranges that Typhoonwikihelper has access to (and is using)? He now changed to this addrss: 218.103.152.21, and is continuing to vandalize pages every day, while changing his address about 2 to 4 times a day. I seriously believe it is about time that you block off the other ranges he has access to, since he is continuing to create a very big mess. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked that range for an additional month. I don't block ranges until there's actual activity. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand. But the problem is, just how many ranges does he have access to, or is using? If he keeps this up, we may have to try someting new. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have located all of Typhooneikihelper's active IPs within the last month, and a few of them even further back. Here is a page I "generated," using the IPs listed on the site. The IP range data could be really useful, especially if this guy does not give up. Also included are some "personal" data about the vandalizer (but you probably already know that). Are there any other ranges this guy is using, besides the range(s) listed on the webpage? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your list pretty much confirms my own results, namely that except for a couple of isolated addresses all TWH's IPs fall in the three ranges which recently came out of two-week-long blocks. Two of the ranges had already been reblocked for a month, and today this contribution prompted me to likewise for the third range. That should make life quite difficult for TWH, but he may find loopholes. Just FYI, I'll be off-Wiki for about five days. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is he back again??! He was editing out of this address: 219.70.184.204. The confusing thing is that the IP fell under the 3 Ranges, and since they are all blocked, how would he even be able to edit? If the edit was made before you blocked him (hopefully), then that means that we won't have to contend with him for a while. If not, and if this is a new IP, then we have trouble brewing. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

PS, does this guy have any unblocked isolated IPs? If yes, how many? That may be our problem here. But if we can seal off the isolated IPs he has, we may be able to fend off TWH for a much longer amount of time. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please seal off the rest of TWH's isolated IPs? They were getting real bothersome. He was continuing to mess up articles and dump clumps of false info. The only reason TWH stopped editing recently, is because he no longer has any more articles to "update". His most recent IP was: 213.122.129.242, which is really concerning me. If there are anymore unblocked ranges linked to TWH, can you please reblock them? And if this guy pops up again, what are we going to do? He keeps coming back, and continues his swath of vandalism. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that those two isolated IPs are TWH. 219.70.184.204 is registered in Taiwan and 213.122.129.242 in the UK, whereas our mutual friend edits from Hong Kong. Favonian (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a few IPs creating quite a mess on a couple of pages. The other users seem to be on top of that, but I believe that we need to keep a closer eye on them, especially since I recognize 2 of those troublemakers. TWH may also be back; I noted a few IPs with his digits, which suspiciously similar edit patterns. TWH is quiet for now, but I'll continue to monitor him, if he returns. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lee McLoughlin Leicester

I was going to extend his block to a month but saw that you'd warned him. I think he got off too easily, that was just insulting to us. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Guess I should relish the feeling of having been too lenient. Actually, I thought it was so funny that he tried to avoid his block using an IP address geolocating to Leicester that I forgot my usual blood lust. Let's see what happens. If he doesn't learn, then his attitude will get him reblocked soon enough. Favonian (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did it repeatedly, and this edit broke the camel's back. Blocked indefinitely for socking and personal attacks. Favonian (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• The behaviour of IP User:90.192.121.150 seems curious to me. This certainly looked like a sock of User:Lee McLoughlin Leicester, but this appears to be opposing Mr McLoughlin's attempts to use that poll to exaggerate the number of atheists. This is what confused me, and led to my initially indef blocking and then later reverting when I really couldn't be sure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is rather confusing. I also wonder if there's a meat puppet involved. The IPs geolocate to Leicester and Dover (with the same ISP, though), and the named accounts use the names of those towns. At any rate, we need to see a really good unblock request before letting them back into the fold. Favonian (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Sky Broadband does generally geolocate fairly accurately. But there's definitely something suspicious happening here, and I certainly agree we'd need a pretty good unblock explanation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Wikipedia does allow the use of multiple accounts so long as they're not used deceptively. My usernames User:Lee_McLoughlin_Leicester and User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 are hardly intended to deceive anyone in to thinking they belong to different persons. They're probably the most transparent usernames on the internet: My name in full followed by my city of birth or my year of birth! This is not an abuse of multiple accounts and so you've abused your position.

As for this edit, it is not in breach of the Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks. I was simply offering a suggestion to someone that contributes nothing to Wikipedia.

It does appear that Favonian is the one in breach of Wikipedia's policies, not me.

Well I'm expecting the birth of my third child any day (grown-up stuff), so I'm going and I'll be back in 6 months to a year. Bye all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.121.180 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Posted to my talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• FYI he posted a similar comment at WP:BN. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"It's Hard To Say Goodbye If You Won't Leave" ;) Favonian (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request Undoing the Move of "Balfour Declaration"; should be "Balfour Declaration of 1917"

Hi, Favonian,

I've recently become aware of the discussion about the names of the two Balfour Declaration articles. I've just now posted a proposal to un-do the move of the 1917 one and restore the title "Balfour Declaration of 1917" with a disambiguation page for the two Declarations.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:Balfour Declaration#Request to Re-Consider and Un-Move this Article. Favonian (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Oh yes i dont know how but forgot to notice , and really apologies for that mistake. Mumbaifreaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbaifreaks (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Idiot!

That they'd call you one, well, that's probably not right though understandable, but me?? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you were first on his list. You must have done something wrong—or right. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just not my day. Look what this guy called me! Favonian (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. I was called that once on a student evaluation, but the jackass couldn't spell it correctly. Or, one could read it the European way: "I'm a shower? huh?" Which reminds me: the Dutch word for a knot in one's hair is "klit". Sometimes one of my daughters will comment when I comb their hair, "hey, I have lots of klits in my hair." I hope they NEVER say that outside our household! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're doomed! In Danish "klit" means "dune", compare this picture. Translated, the sign says "Karen's Dune. Always an experience." Favonian (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• That is priceless. I'm going to need a cold shower now to remove any thoughts of Karen's klit. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Man, this guy hit me twice, on my user and user talk page, and consequently I'm considering wikisuicide. </sarcasm> Also, "come their hair"? Is that Freudian? ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Next time, just correct it, will you? or you'll see some REAL insults coming your way. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel slighted. Only hit once, and way down his shit list. Must work harder! Favonian (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are the edit filters when we need them? Favonian (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal - 12.16.239.2

12.16.239.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An active individual that probably should be dealt with. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

School's out—with a vengeance. Can't take credit for it, as I was too busy with the friendly banter above, and a colleague had to swing the clue bat. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I figured someone would get 'em, way they were going. Spring fever.--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walter55000

Something has gone wibble with the top of the page; it's showing garbage data. Calabe1992 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Only for one brief, shining moment. Now it looks halfway respectable. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I overlooked why you added the extra tag at the bottom and removed it, had to revert myself. The old page should look similar to this one, if it helps. Calabe1992 16:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It does; thanks! So many templates, so little time. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the SPIs can get a little much at times. Calabe1992 16:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In need of a little advice

You have been helpful and kind in the past so I thought I would ask you for some advice on problem I got at the moment. The issue involves these two IP's:

58.187.75.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.187.42.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They have been adding a lot of questionable edits to Eagles related articles. Many of the changes these IP's have made are still live in the current articles. I know there are a lot of edits between the two to look at to fully appreciate what I have been seeing. I don't expect you to go through it all. My question is generally, what do you do if have an editor who is making many large edits, with many changes in each, and only some of the changes are obviously incorrect. As I look through them, some of the individual edits consist of the following: some are obvious BS; some might be OK, but look really suspicious; some like fine but just don't know for sure, and some are obviously legit. Part of my problem is that while I love their music, I am in no way an expert on Eagles history. I have yet to get any other editors to step up to the challenge or to confirm if the majority is nonsense — so I could then just blanket revert or restore to a good version. I have neither the time, the knowledge, the skills, nor the desire to sift through all these edits and find out which is good and which part is garbage. Thank you for any input on this. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear! The worst kind of disruptive editor: dynamic IPs, several articles, and covering a spectrum between BS and legit. The first thing to do is an attempt to involve them in a discussion, and that has been done by you and Doc9871. Regrettably, it failed, so now you should compile a list of their most obviously disruptive edits with diffs. With that list in hand, I or another admin can issue a final warning (to both or several talk pages). After that it's blocking time. I'll be happy to assist, but keep in mind that I live in the Central European Timezone. Favonian (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Since my post another editor has reverted one the edits and labeled it "vandal". Maybe they are in-the-know. I have contacted the reverting editor and gave him the heads up. I am heading out the door for a while and maybe it will be cleared up when I get back. If not, I will start gathering the diffs. Appreciate your time. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Myself, along with the great efforts of a couple other fine editors and the timely intervention of an admin (sometimes you guys drop in just when we need you most:), have pretty much sorted this mess out. The most recent and active IP has been blocked, virtually all the affected pages are now protected and the IPs' contributions have largely been reverted. We did our best, though there may have been some legit changes unwittingly sacrificied. But hey, at least I am reasonably certain all the rubbish has been culled out. If you go to war, there may be some casualties, right? Just letting you know, while as it turns out you were not an active participant, your support nevertheless, is much appreciated. Take care:) --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sticking to the military vernacular: some collateral damage is acceptable. Thanks for the kind words! Favonian (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They're back. Adding same crap under 58.187.103.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Made at least two unconstructive edits after I had issued the most stern warning I could muster without being overly rude. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, they are back in the game. I've blocked the IP for a week. If they persist, I would request intervention from a range block savvy admin. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

58.187.104.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Guess it's time for that range block. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough is enough! I have blocked a range of IP addresses, which includes the ones already reported, for a month. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Thnxs --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Kebab

Why did you delete it? Even if you look at the sources (Encyclopedia of Jewish food) for the theory that Kebab originated in Turkey, you see that those sources not mentioned it. According tot that source kebab originated in Persia, so I don't understand why it's stated that it originated in Turkey? You agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.79.255 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What is it with those G.I. Joe articles?

Thanks for the next revert. Any clue what is going on there, first an account makes the redirects (OK, fine with me), then copy-pastes the content of the redirected-to-page into the redirects .. and now an IP is changing all of them (very likely the same user who got scared ..). Someone who does not really understand what is happening? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what goes on in that particular subculture, but today's batch started with CalmBeforeTheStorm cloning the article and then edit warring to keep the copy from getting deleted/redirected. Now this new account shows up, first copying the redirect and then repeating the cloning. Fishy. Favonian (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll try and keep an eye on it as well, maybe time to sockblock the accounts and try to discourage this from the roots. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My text has been vandalised three times in less than one day

Good morning. I have received a message noticing that I have reverted a page three times, which is true. i would like to point out that I had positively contributed to an article for which I gave new information, and my contribution has been deleted each time by someone who seems to be psychologically disturbed and whose nickname is "cursesonabauumy". Being historian, I can read middleeastern languages and that nickname means "curses on dad and mum". I am really worried by the fact that someone seems to be very excited in eliminating an information of historical nature for apparently only ideological reasons. The user "cursesonabauumy" vandalised my contribution, arguing that there was no quoted author, but when I quoted authors, he said I didn't quote any reference (which for sure can't be a reason for vandalism, a "reference needed" would have been sufficient. Now that I have added reference, I am curious to see if my text will be deleted again.

Roosevelt234 (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, don't try to diagnose other editors as "psychologically disturbed", especially not on the flimsy evidence of their monikers. Doing so constitutes a personal attack, which may get you blocked. Secondly, when someone disagrees with your edits, you should not label their actions as "vandalism". That term has a rather narrow meaning on Wikipedia (see WP:Vandalism), which does not cover the present situation. Finally, the controversial addition has been challenged by Cuchullain, CambridgeBayWeather and Cursesonabauumy, yet you persistently add it back. That is precisely what is meant by edit warring. In particular, you are at the bright line marked by the 3-revert rule, the crossing of which almost automatically leads to a temporary block from editing. You should initiate a discussion on Talk:Aisha rather than pursue your current course of action. Favonian (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Dennisthe2's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/92.13.192.0/19

Hi Favonian. I unblocked this range, because the amount of users it affected was so large that it hung my browser when I checked for collateral. If you want to send details my way of the addresses you were trying to block, perhaps I can find a more targeted set of ranges. (The ISP that owns this block is AOL, whose method of assignment makes checkusers cower in fear.) Best, AGK [•] 01:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It seems that this range contains most of the AOL users in Britain, which perhaps means you deserve one of these. ;-) AGK [•] 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, OH DEAR! That has got to be the low point of my admin career (followed closely by my accidental blocking of a fellow admin—Huggle was uninstalled from my laptop shortly afterwards). Thanks so much for taking care of it. I was "inspired" by this range block against the same troll/loon, but MuZemike is better informed and talented at this than I am. The range I brutalized is one which Sarah 1940 has recently begun using. I have tagged the IPs, so they are found in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarah 1940. Well, at least I know what's for dinner tonight ;) Favonian (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem :-). I'll see what can be done about the Sarah1940 socks. AGK [•] 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hello, I just noticed that I had new messages which are all nasty messages about vandalizing Wikipedia - I'd like to say that I've never intentionally edited a wikipedia page, nor would I ever vandalize wikipedia. Can you help me figure out how this might have happened or why I'm getting these messages? Thank you! 98.103.250.4 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is to be found in the edit history for this IP address, specifically the recent entries regarding Franz Ferdinand and Nicholas II. If you are not the person behind these edits, I would strongly recommend that you get an account so as not to be tarred with the same brush as whoever else uses this address. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not me - I've never edited on any of these things, nor have I looked at the Franz Ferdinand or Nicholas II articles. 98.103.250.4 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Move

Im terribly sorry about that I was getting myself confused with the process. Help:Merging got me all screwed up, it would be easy to move if you could just delete those other pages they are not needed anyway and then I could just easily hit the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleSteak (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Let's keep the conversation there. Favonian (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Last" Warning?

Why are you using the last warning template on pages where you have not previously added warnings? Doesn't make sense. Please address this. 174.255.96.207 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously the same user as 108.82.100.8, so you have been amply warned. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm "obviously" not, and I encourage you to checkuser if you can't get over your strange suspicions. And you are changing templates in a disruptive manner with bad information. Address your behavior right away for the good of the project. Take heed. 174.255.96.207 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously the same person, both IP like to pretend to be civil while abusing others and they both uses "Take heed" at the end of their "conversation"... coincidence? I think not~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And both addresses are from Illinois. Their subtlety needs a little work. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it wasn't working out with his main connection, so he switched to his mobile phone. We're not idiots. --MuZemike 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.18.126 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your malfunction, anyways? --MuZemike 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Same guy as Nachteilig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Haarscharf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). See deleted contributions of Haarscharf for some amusement. Antandrus (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he's not going to care, then neither will I. --MuZemike 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Intoronto1125

In addition to contravening WP:BLANKING, this user is starting to use his talk page for the purpose of making personal attacks (name-calling in edit summaries) - do you think revoking the dude's talk page access is necessary? Bmusician 04:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Best to let it slide. Though he's not allowed to redirect his talk page to another destination, blanking it is OK with the exceptions listed in WP:BLANKING. His latest edit summary is, admittedly, rather uncivil, but unless it becomes a habit, I think we can ignore this parting shot from a blocked user. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, much appreciated. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. You must have done something right to attract that kind of attention. Favonian (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It could if been the RB rights or something like that, the vandals don't like me stoping other vandals! Again, thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up

The user that was harassing me made an account to bypass the block. What the hell is this person's issue? • GunMetal Angel 16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

At least his career with that account was short. Speculating on what makes these jerks tick isn't really worthwhile. They are just a waste of time and space. Favonian (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL this asshole just made another account! He needs to get a life but then again it's kind of fun watching this go on, not like it bothers me. Most interesting thing to happen on this site in a while really. • GunMetal Angel 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not just one extra account; he's a going concern: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Butmetall. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Haters make me famous? • GunMetal Angel 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	nice work blocking that IP vandal Warren (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what we're here for. Out of curiosity: which of the IP vandals were you referring to? I have blocked three of them within the last 20 minutes or so. Favonian (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the eagle eye and for cleaning up the mess on my talk page! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Any time, but the credit really goes to Jasper Deng for this report. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I have sent him my thanks as well. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT writers from Denmark

Category:LGBT writers from Denmark, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

hurrm

im a hoers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.197.197 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, but you're certainly a vandal and blocked as such. Favonian (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Moral of this story: Don't do drugs, kids. --MuZemike 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Interview

Hello, I am a high school student writing a research essay about the reputability of Wikipedia as an academic source. The earlier incident with the Einstein page was an experiment to see how long false information would stay on a page. I did not mean to vandalize. I was hoping you could answer some questions I have about the system of Wikipedia, as an interview. Thank you Sorry about earlier Flyer1997

I'm afraid that I'll have to pass on that honor. Regarding the "system of Wikipedia", I'll leave the standard welcome message on your talk page, which includes a number of relevant links. Favonian (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, and I have a feeling that you are doing no such essay – you vandalized the article because you wanted to and don't know any better (typical for high school teenagers). If you do that again, I will block you. Regards, --MuZemike 05:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

School IP you blocked

Thank you for blocking that troublesome school IP. If you examine their edits you can see that it includes the names of real people (probably fellow students) and a request to add them on facebook. I think that those edits should be outright deleted. Using the name given, and the school the user came from, it would not be difficult to find out which person they are referring to, and thus can be seen as a potential violation of privacy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Only their edits to the List of religious populations article had that problem, so I've made those revisions invisible. Favonian (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: N. Tesla

Whoops, sorry :). I was influenced by Polish version of article pl:Nikola Tesla which stated Austria-Hungary as his place of birth. I suppose I should change it there ? Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Better you than me. My knowledge of Polish is at level zero ;) Favonian (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed already. Thanks for tip :). Maybe my people forgot about Partitions of Poland and name of one of the countries who occupied us for over 100 years. Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Putin talkpage IP

Thanks for intervening in that mess. The IP seems to be dynamic, though, so chasing each address with individual blocks and reversions is not efficient. Would a rangeblock be advisable? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, he uses a rather wide range of IP addresses from a major ISP in the UK, so range blocking is tricky. WP:RBI is probably our best bet at present. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Urgent Help and Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 is engaging in serious hacking activities, not just simple acts of vandalism in the other Wikipedia encyclopedias.

Urgent Help and Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 is engaging in serious hacking activities, not just simple acts of vandalism in the other Wikipedia encyclopedias.

Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 registered to Oldham MBC public libraries, and which is permanently blocked in English Wikipedia since 2009, is the source of serious hacking activities. Today other vulnerable Wikipedia encyclopedias are under attack from this address where it is not blocked. This source is capable of hacking Wikipedia, as it is the case today in the other Wikipedia encyclopedias, because it has erased the history archives for instance in the Azerbaijan articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedias and is doing it in other country articles as well, which no simple vandal can do. This source is freely roaming and usurping right now.

Can anyone inform the administrators of the other Wikipedia encyclopedias and help them against the IP address, 212.121.219.1, because most of the small Wikipedia encyclopedias are vulnerable.