This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Favonian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Favonian (talk)

Yes check.svg Done! Let me know if you have any questions.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki hamze[edit]

Hi, I just want to report a guy, Ian.thomson, you violated 3-revert rule in this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abrahamic_religions&action=history

dates :

16:52, 16 July 2015
17:01, 16 July 2015‎
17:12, 16 July 2015‎ 

thanks Wiki hamze (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • A look at the article's page shows that Ian was reverting your edits because you were removing a lot of information from the article. It also looks like this material had previously been discussed and the consensus was to leave it on the page. It looks like there was a discussion about this back in 2013, where your assertions were contested. I don't know why you would think that this would change two years later. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Tokyogirl79. This user and their sock/meat puppet has continued their edit-warring, so I have decided to block them both indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Article?[edit]

Hiya! I was just wondering why my article on Jordi v/d Bussche (kwebbelkop) was deleted before I could even add sources and notable information that would validate the importance of Kwebbelkop's article. Plus he wanted us to make the page :) Thanks for your time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoomedBro (talkcontribs) 20:30, 19 July 2015‎ (UTC)

The repeated efforts by you and your fellow fans have not gone unnoticed. You have collectively failed to demonstrate any kind of notability, managing instead to make him (and by implication you) appear as complete wastes of time. I'm not surprised that he would like you to create an article about him, but that's no reason for us to accept it. Please find something else to do. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous users and their IP addresses[edit]

I am confused by what you have posted onto my talkpage. Would you be kind enough to expand on the information to what IP address it is? Adamdaley (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Can't blame you for being confused, but I'm not the one who put it there. A block-evading troll, holding a grudge against me, added it with this edit. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This person actually did this 360 times in one big dump. As you will be able to see by my talkpage history, while I only left one as evidence. At the moment is there anything that we can do about the 360 items he left on my talkpage? I mean complain to someone like Administrators? Adamdaley (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what he does. The IP in question was promptly blocked, but there's probably not much we can do beyond the old WP:Revert, block, ignore. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Thanks for your recent deletions regarding mass promotion of a Dutch person. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Quite a lot of manual labor, getting rid of that crap. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

27 cakes for you![edit]

Have 27 delicious cakes!

Thanks! You used the "rollback all" trick, right? I've got the script, but I've never managed to find the perfect opportunity to use it. Have some cakes! Bishonen | talk 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you Bish! They'll kill me, but better to go out in a blaze of glory – or whatever it was Jeremy Clarkson said. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Return of FrozenFan2?[edit]

You might want to take a look at WikipediaGuy01543 who could be a block-evading FrozenFan2, just as the IP you blocked a couple of days ago (73.38.132.31) was. BMK (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This new editor TheSimpsons98 (talk · contribs) is also worth a look. They aren't adding unsourced info as yet. They are adding templates to infoboxes and then removing them. OTOH they are editing the same articles as FF did. Of course they could be someone different I guess time will tell. MarnetteD|Talk 00:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you guy's talking about?, I no no such thing of that user at all. You got the wrong user your looking at. I'm being honest. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I removed those templates, it's because I thought they looked a little weird when I added them there and it looked like it was messing up the article, that's why I undid it. Because I like it the way it was before, normal. But I'm just letting you guy's know, I'm not the user your looking for. Your making a mistake with the wrong user. Also WikipediaGuy just replied to my talk page and told me he's/she's not that user at all, and he/she wanted me to let you guy's know that. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that user too, you should ask him. If he is, then you can open an SPI. But I already confirmed that WikipediaGuy is not that user, and I'm not either. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and MarnetteD: Looks like there's a case to be made, but I'd prefer an SPI with CU rather than make the call myself. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If not sockpuppetry, at least meatpuppetry seems likely. But yes, an SPI would be useful at this point. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 23:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Lidia Vianu page automatically deleted[edit]

Dear Committee,

The page I created on the 18th was very quickly deleted. I have read here that a page with the same name was unsatisfactorily created in the past (by other people) and that led to the recent deletion. Please, could you take the time to see the page that I created (which I am certain does not copy the former attempts, comes with verified links to the evidence for the claims made) and give me a few hints regarding the necessary changes so that the page could be acceptable and no longer deleted? Lidia Vianu is a poet, a remarkable professor of contemporary literature at the University of Bucharest and probably one of the most outstanding cultural personalities in Romania today. Thank you in advance. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Contemporary Literature Press (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've given Contemporary Literature Press a hard block for their username (originally soft, but looking at the article's history this should be a hard block), considering that there is a pretty large conflict of interest here - Vianu launched this press. I've also salted the page. It looks like it was deleted at AfD back in 2005 (which is saying something) and again in 2011. It was userfied in 2011, but was ultimately deleted at MfD in 2014. If anything, I'd say that the most recently deleted version is actually worse than the 2011/2014 article, since it's rife with hotlinking to various locations (such as places that someone can purchase her work). I'm also not really seeing offhand where there's enough to where this would overturn the prior AfDs. If they want to create a new article in the draftspace I'm not opposed to that, but this is something that would need to go through WP:DRV in my opinion because there is such a strong COI here and because this has gone through multiple AfDs. AfC is an option, but they're insanely lenient at times and as such, would probably not take as close of a look at this as it'd would require. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Tokyogirl79. Good call! Favonian (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Europefan help[edit]

You're familiar with the long-term abuse from Europefan, right? Can you help with the diff request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan? This guy has been the subject of several large rangeblocks across en and de wikipedia and wikidata. Is there some shorthand resource we can point to to identify him without having to go through this tedious collection of diffs to prove who he is? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Looking at it. Will reply on the SPI page shortly. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for blocking that sockpuppeteer. While you're at it, it may also be a good idea to block the IP 108.173.94.44. It is very likely that that IP belongs to that same user, as it made the same disruptive edit on the main article that the user was vandalizing. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

With any bit of luck, the IP will now be auto-blocked. Otherwise, you'll probably have to report it to AIV – again. It's after midnight in my time zone, so I'm off to bed. Favonian (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Hi, Since you are a currently active admin I just thought I could ask you a question if that is alright? Starting in one hour (17:00 at UTC+2) is the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification draw. A major draw that will probably be followed by millions and during these draws there are both vandalism and good faith editors interested in adding their teams. This causes a lot of edit conflicts and stops those that usually updates the related articles (me included) from a quick and proper update of the draw with teams in the right places. It would just go faster without all conflicts and incorect edits. The reason I bring this up is to check if the pages can be semi-protected before any vandalism happens or if we have to wait before submitting a WP:RPP? Any answer would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Much as it irks me, I have to refer to the party line: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred..." You will be proven right, of course, so if I'm not distracted I'll keep an eye on the article and protect it once the vandalism emerges from the crystal ball. Favonian (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just as I guessed. Hopefully it would work well anyway. Thanks. Qed237 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Since an IP has been edit warring since 15 July on the Kingdom of Navarre article.[1] Would blocking said IP even be an option? Judging from the nonsense posted on the talk page by the IP, this is clearly a case of Just Don't Like It. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that the IP is now removing references and referenced information over multiple articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Help regarding Kashi Math[edit]

Some editors are constantly removing edits that i have made in this article.I have already provided links to justify the information on neutral point of view. But still they are removing those information including links. Pls help. Seldombite (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kashi Math[edit]

Can you work out what is going on in this series of edits? Has the sock reappeared? Should the padlock be reinstated? - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see this might tie in with the comment in the section above. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Seldombite and Sitush: Never mind the padlock, which is purely ornamental, but there's something going on that I can't readily sort out. Would somebody knowledgeable (I'm looking at you, Sitush) please escalate this to a bigger forum? Favonian (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll take it from where things stand now and maybe run it past the people at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Quelle surprise"[edit]

Oh look: [2]. Kinda familiar, from an anon ip, in Worcester, on Sky Broadband?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. IP blocked and handiwork deleted. Thanks for watching the skies! Favonian (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
"Then felt I like some watcher of the skies,
When a new planet swims into his ken." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Once more, Wikipedia elevates even the menial task of vandal slaying. :) Favonian (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
... well ok, tell Ken if you like, But don't tell Barbie! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

Humble the Bumble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have tried to give the impression that he is a sock of Evlekis, but it is an obvious Max Pumpkin sock (in case anyone even cares). Check the article you just deleted. Trying to put the blame on others is typical for Pumpkin, resulting in many of his earlier socks having been recorded as socks of David Beals. Thomas.W talk 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Does indeed look that way. Sock of this, sock of that, they all get blocked in the end – and I'm off to bed. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dcoetzee/Willy on Wheels:A Case Study[edit]

Hello Favonian, I would like you to please unprotect this page so that I can nominate it for deletion. In my opinion it is unnecessary and we'd be better off without it as it showcases Willy's acts. David Ramsbotham (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the cut-and-paste move.[edit]

I didn't mean to violate a rule. I decided to follow the proper route instead. However, it's been a big debate for a while about moving it. Last time we had this debate was March, with the result being no consensus. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens this time. I have no opinion on the matter, long as you refrain from any more cut/paste moves. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DN-Boards issues[edit]

DN-Boards1 was disrupting another page and changing the content and i had to revert the page to its original a couple of times just wanred to let you know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talkcontribs) 17:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wikiwriter82015 seems to insist that a "claim" by some random person on the discovery of a random, nameless moon of Saturn is noteworthy for the article. He has engaged in edit warring for the past several hours over this subject. --DN-boards1 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looks rather like you're involved in an edit war. Would you like me to block both of you? Favonian (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope. It's an edit war over something that clearly violates notability, and someone who has no authority to name the moon trying to name it Alaris is not worthy of mention on the moon's Wikipedia article. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I put a message ln his page to try to talk it out. I am sick of reverting his changes and want to try the approach on the edit wars page because clearly this is getting us nowhere. Anyway we shouldnt both be banned without a few warnings over an edit war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, you didn't just break the three-revert rule. You reverted the page four times. That alone is eligible for blocking. You are not allowed to revert a page three or more times in a dispute. That is against the rules of Wikipedia, and worthy of a block on its own. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And it is not The moon nor is it me who is trying to name it, i pulled the name from the claim, and also I wrote that it is not official and just a nickname also i wasnt awar i broke the rule i thought i just had dont my third — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, please sign your messages by clicking the ~ in the box below the "Templates" section of the edit field. Secondly, you are not supposed to do three OR MORE reverts. You did three. The maximum number of reverts you are allowed is TWO. Any more is a violation. In addition, the claim does not meet notability. He has no authority to name it. Only the discoverer (the Cassini-Huygens team) has the right to name it, under the guidelines laid out by the International Astronomical Union. Some random person on Blogspot naming the moon is not worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article on the subject. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
First off, i know how to sign my name i just forgot. Secondly im pretty sure a 4th revert constitutes banning not a third. Ill check on that. But that doesnt matter because There are exemptions to the three revert rule-This is from your talk page, "Hello, You've edited two articles and gave a misleading sources for both. This could be considered as vandalism. The fact that a "new" user like you knows very well Wikipedia's rules is dubious and I suspect a sock-puppet from a ban user. Blaue Max (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)." This coreesponds with this exemption," 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users."Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Also it says on the page that it is only a nickname and that the official rights ARE given to them. Nowhere does it say that that is an official name.Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I was right, it is more than 3 reverts not more than two like you saidWikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Wikiwriter82015:and you are at 4 reverts now with 2 editors disagreeing with you. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I was originally inclined to cut the newbie some slack, seeing as they had not been informed about 3RR, but the diatribe above makes me less tolerant. @Wikiwriter82015: If you want to accuse somebody of sock-puppetry, you'd better present the case at WP:SPI and make it more coherent. Otherwise you'll find yourself blocked for personal attacks! Favonian (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the newbie might in fact be the person who dubbed the moon "Alaris", actually. Seems rather odd for him to be pushing that if he wasn't. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I didnt name it or claim it but I thought i do agree with the idea that people should be able to claim space. And even if i did it doesnt matter. There iz a source online that i took information from and presented with a neutral point of view. There is no reason that that should not be on there. And i didnt accuse DN-Boards1 of sockpuppetry, the user who posted the claim on his talk page is accusing him. I am just saying that if this is the fact, hen i am exempt and i reverted him under the impression that this could be the case. Just because you might not agree with the content personally, there is no reason to delete it as long as it is written neutrally and has a source. You might not think the content is significant enough nor may a lot of other people but that is not for you to decide. I think it is significant and im sure some more people do out there and they can decide upon reading it whether they agree or not but you are revoking that option from the public which is wrong. You habe no right to delete neutral content because of your opinion.Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone with this ip "2600:100d:b128:fbdf:1090:dce0:696:dd5d" or username or whatever just demonstrated the prefect example of what should be done on the moonlet page. If you look at their edit, instead of just deleting everything written, they made an edit or two to make what was written already more neutral. Whoever this is thank you and everyone who is criticising, look at their edit to figure out what you should be doing. I think that this is settled now. In 24 hrs if someone reverts it back, i will do the same bc i think i have thoroughly explained myself. Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of 'Bhakt'[edit]

Thanks. It was a good learning experience. Hope the famed Wikipedia admins can be counted on as more attacks come on the page.--Journojp (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll try to keep an eye on the article but in case of repeated vandalism, WP:RFPP is open for business. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)