User talk:Favonian

This is Favonian's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58: 7 days

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I like Talking Angela

Hi, thanks for redacting the edits of I like Talking Angela (talk · contribs). I want to drive a Buick Century (talk · contribs) is the same user who made the exact same edits, which might also need redacting. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 11:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unmistakably! Got the same treatment. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content deletion?

Hi!

Im not sure who you are or why is it so very important to you to be deleting content of historical data that I have painstakingly added.

Please note that nothing about what I have worked so hard to compile and post is disruptive or vandalizing. Please refrain from adding incorrect data such as associating Dhillon with Muslims which is vandalism of an entry.

Anyways, what does it have to do with you? Please explain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notedanymous (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Notedanymous: You have effectively tried to hijack two pages, replacing them with completely different content and giving highly insufficient explanations, for instance this change with the edit summary "nothing". You have been reverted by another editor and myself, so now you have to propose your change on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

46.102.192.0/19

Hi Favonian,

I came across an unblock request at User_talk:Alansplodge#Help!_I_have_been_blocked, and have been looking into that range. It appears that that isp sells / resells both broadband, and web hosting. And, they tend to mix everything up in the ranges (and, looks like they offer biz customers custom reverse DNS, which makes it even more fun).

So, I ended up resolving the entire /19... Which took a while, and here's what we have:

Boring stuff

46.102.192.0/24 - 94.51% dsl resolve
46.102.193.0/24 - 98.04% dsl resolve
46.102.194.0/24 - 3.53% dsl resolve
46.102.195.0/24 - 0.39% dsl resolve
46.102.196.0/24 - 98.04% dsl resolve
46.102.197.0/24 - 92.16% dsl resolve
46.102.198.0/24 - 94.12% dsl resolve
46.102.199.0/24 - 99.61% dsl resolve
46.102.200.0/24 - 41.57% dsl resolve
46.102.201.0/24 - 43.92% dsl resolve
46.102.202.0/24 - 36.08% dsl resolve
46.102.203.0/24 - 36.47% dsl resolve
46.102.204.0/24 - 81.18% dsl resolve
46.102.205.0/24 - 60.78% dsl resolve
46.102.206.0/24 - 98.04% dsl resolve
46.102.207.0/24 - 95.69% dsl resolve
46.102.208.0/24 - 98.43% dsl resolve
46.102.209.0/24 - 94.9% dsl resolve
46.102.210.0/24 - 47.84% dsl resolve
46.102.211.0/24 - 50.59% dsl resolve
46.102.212.0/24 - 93.33% dsl resolve
46.102.213.0/24 - 91.76% dsl resolve
46.102.214.0/24 - 92.94% dsl resolve
46.102.215.0/24 - 88.24% dsl resolve
46.102.216.0/24 - 0% dsl resolve
46.102.217.0/24 - 98.82% dsl resolve
46.102.218.0/24 - 97.25% dsl resolve
46.102.219.0/24 - 96.08% dsl resolve
46.102.220.0/24 - 60.39% dsl resolve
46.102.221.0/24 - 52.94% dsl resolve
46.102.222.0/24 - 99.61% dsl resolve
46.102.223.0/24 - 99.61% dsl resolve

What I'm proposing here, if you're OK with it, is to unblock the /19, and block 46.102.194.0/23, and 46.102.216.0/24 with "{{webhostblock}} " for a couple years. I know, that won't get all of them, but it will get most of them.

What are your thoughts? SQL ^{Query me!} 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: That's acceptable, even though it leaves out 46.102.220.247. If that one ever stirs again, I'll bury it under /32 range-block of considerable duration. Thanks for your careful analysis! Favonian (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the quick reply! SQL ^{Query me!} 20:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Women for America

Hi, Great Dane. Looks like my block + your rangeblock forced the IP to create an account, doesn't it? I have asked the account a few questions on their page. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hejdå, Bishonen! Definitely one concerned woman who has previously expressed concern for the state of the article. Let's all lean back and savor the popcorn. Favonian (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Hi, check out the edits summaries of User:Glennedge Denisarona (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at Battle of Crete Denisarona (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Denisarona: Oh, yes. That's Krajoyn's way of showing affection. Favonian (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in title "Unification of Hispaniola"

Dear Favonian, you might see from my history that I have created several pages on Wikipedia, and that for years I have contributed favorably. However, I do not know many of the rules and ways of operating within Wikipedia, and often any challenges to my edits go unchallenged by me especially if they are shielded in the complex Wikipedia legalese that I often have no time or technical knowledge to address. This is why I am asking for your help.

The title "Unification of Hispaniola" is extremely biased and reads as propagandistic. Most published secondary sources, including long-established and respectable publications like Encyclopedia Britannica, understand the unilateral annexation of the Eastern (Spanish) portion of Hispaniola as an occupation. Yes, some people in the East supported it, but the majority did not. As well, a look at the vast difference in military might between the well-organized and battle-hardened Haitian army and the small, unprepared militia of the Spanish-speaking East, will demonstrate that there was little they could do to stop the march of Boyer's occupying army. The title should change to a more neutral title that is in line with reputable scholarship and mainstream publications, to "Haitian Occupation of Dominican Republic" (or "Spanish Santo Domingo" or "Spanish Haiti" since technically the DR did not exist yet although the polity was already established) or to "Haitian Annexation of Spanish Haiti". Below is the entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica section within the page Dominican Republic:

Haitian occupation.Within weeks Haitian troops under Jean-Pierre Boyer (president of Haiti, 1818–43) again overran the eastern part of the island, initiating a 22-year occupation (1822–42). Haitians monopolized government power, severed the church’s ties with Rome, forced out the traditional ruling class, and all but obliterated the western European and Hispanic traditions. In addition, Haitian troops arbitrarily confiscated foodstuffs and other supplies, and ethnic tensions caused further resentment. Dominican historians have portrayed the period as cruel and barbarous, but Boyer also freed the slaves, and his administration was generally efficient. (source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Dominican-Republic/Press-and-broadcasting#ref129491 )

This gives us an idea of how an arguably non-biased encyclopedic source covers the topic. "Unification of Hispaniola" is a revisionistic title with no precedent in reputable scholarship. The main supporter of the title Krajoyn has been blocked from Wikipedia, other supporters are anonymous or have names that do not correspond with a wikipedia page.

Because of your experience at Wikipedia, your barn stars (which demonstrate good faith and recognition) and your knowledge of the complex Wikipedia ways of operating, would you consider supporting me in this change of title or in changing the title yourself in a way that won't be vandalized?

Many thanks, Emanuel.Emanuel Kingsley (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanuel Kingsley: You will have a strong case if you can demonstrate that reliable, scholarly sources refer to the subject as something other than "Unification". Wikipedia has among its (many!) policies WP:COMMONNAME which trumps, for instance, WP:OFFICIALNAMES. If the policy collides with WP:NPOV (also a policy) the discussion becomes heated. Personally, I never thought that the "U word" was that loaded, but on second thoughts: try to put it next to "Ireland".🤢 To reiterate, marshal the scholarly sources and you stand a good chance. Though I may seem to have edited the article a lot, it's only because I have somehow become the constant companion of Krajoyn who seems to have ties to that region. Favonian (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Favonian. I can definitely (and easily) build a case via reliable, scholarly sources. But what should my next step be? Change the name of the article and cite the reliable sources on the article's talk page? I'm afraid that it will be immediately reverted by the zealots who are driving the current name, and I really want to be economical and targeted on my contributions to Wikipedia. --Emanuel Kingsley (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Zzuuzz/unprotected talk page

Boring trolls at it after managing to find the "unprotected" version. Nothing better to do except to vandalise. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 21:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, nobody ever reads those anyway. It's the little moron's professed purpose to have talk pages protected, so let's ignore him. Punishment as cruel and unusual as it gets. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the page history has now gone in a puff of smoke. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 21:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After all, some people do, sadly, take pride in procrastinating about getting that sorely distemper vaccine.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]