User talk:Favonian
| This is Favonian's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Favonian. | |||
| |||
| 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 | |||
| This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Contents
Sock of Krajoyn?[edit]
Noticed another new user using Clodfelter as a source. Karlease. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Who knows? Clodfelter seems to be very respected, if one counts the number of users quoting him. ;) Favonian (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Clodfelter is supposed to be quite good - I need to read his The Limits of Air Power: The American Bombing of North Vietnam sometime this century. GABgab 03:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Sabrina Carpenter discography[edit]
Hi, Favonian. As an uninvolved editor/admin, I'm hoping you could take a look at the talk page of the article and provide your two cents, as we have two editors—Lovi, who's uncommunicative, and Flooded—who think it's okay to violate WP:ACCESS, which happens to be a guideline. While guideline pages aren't top-down rules like policy pages, there are some guidelines that exceptions can't really be made for, such as this one, where violating it causes screen readers not to read the tables properly to those who are visually impaired. Additionally, there appears to be no strong consensus, in any case, to make exceptions here, despite one editor saying so in a recent edit, and their opinion alone does not consensus make. They're also making WP:OSE arguments.
In any case, I've only reverted once during this whole fiasco ones, and that was a little while ago, but other than that, I haven't really been involved in this. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Well, LOVI33 was edit-warring so blatantly (especially taking into account the contributions by 76.71.7.118) that I sent them off for tree days. Flooded, I like to believe, is not beyond salvation, and as he has not edited the article for a day and a half there is some slight hope that the sitation can be defused by talk page discussion. Nah, who am I kidding? This is Wikipedia. :( Favonian (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Favonian. (Courtesy ping for IJBall, as I know ACCESS violations is one of his biggest gripes.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- What about MPFitz1968 and IJBall? They've been reverting this editor for weeks, is that not edit-warring/tag-teaming? LOVI33's edits are not vandalism/disruptive in any way, they just refused to communicate. These editors' constant claim to WP:ACCESS is unsupported by consensus, there is no
evidenceconsensus that rowspanaffects the readability of the visually-impairedshould be removed from discographies. @Amaury: where exactly did I say I "think it's okay to violate WP:ACCESS"? Flooded with them hundreds 18:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't wish to seem inhospitable, but could I ask you all to continue the discussion on the article talk page? Favonian (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sure but just one question, the other two have edit-warred for weeks to repeatedly restore their preferred version without regard to the edit warring policy, so what makes you think they shouldn't be blocked too? Flooded with them hundreds 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily consider their editing to be sterling examples of conflict resolution, but it's not bad enough to be block-worthy, IMO. Unfortunately, the short protection of the article last week didn't help much, so people should read up on The Path. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I know you want discussion on the article itself to take place there, and that's of course fine, Favonian—it should take place there!—but I just wanted to quickly mention that both IJBall and MPFitz1968 have posted on Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography in an attempt to discuss the issue, which I don't know if you took a look at. As can be seen, though, and as I mentioned in my first message here, no effort to communicate whatsoever from Lovi. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Amaury seems to be reverting other experienced editors as well (e.g. Songsteel earlier today) to reinstate their preferred version. I've reverted them to restore the "long-standing" status quo version. Flooded with them hundreds 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- See also Special:Diff/868740071, seems like Amaury has been recruiting editors to take their side in this. Flooded with them hundreds 04:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you actually discuss the matter on the article's talk page, as Favonian clearly requested everyone do so, rather than continuing it here and being disruptive? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is a behavioral issue regarding edit-warring not just a content dispute and since you brought it up here, it's best to discuss with the administrator who is slightly involved after their blocking of a good-faith editor despite there being several others who have edit-warred just as equally but have not been blocked. Flooded with them hundreds 04:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good faith editors don't remain silent and uncommunicative to try to stonewall their changes, and they've already been blocked before for the same behavior. If that's the definition of good faith, then you need to rethink your definition of good faith. This will be my final comment on the matter, as I'm sure Favonian doesn't want their talk page turned into a wrestling match when discussion should all be taking place at the talk page. This discussion has gone way past my actual intentions of it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is a behavioral issue regarding edit-warring not just a content dispute and since you brought it up here, it's best to discuss with the administrator who is slightly involved after their blocking of a good-faith editor despite there being several others who have edit-warred just as equally but have not been blocked. Flooded with them hundreds 04:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you actually discuss the matter on the article's talk page, as Favonian clearly requested everyone do so, rather than continuing it here and being disruptive? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- See also Special:Diff/868740071, seems like Amaury has been recruiting editors to take their side in this. Flooded with them hundreds 04:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily consider their editing to be sterling examples of conflict resolution, but it's not bad enough to be block-worthy, IMO. Unfortunately, the short protection of the article last week didn't help much, so people should read up on The Path. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse Deletions[edit]
I just discovered my "Watchlist" and found that you made some deletions. From that, I cannot find the area showing what the deletions were. Further, the policy "RD3" was given as a reason, but the link to that "redirects" to RD2, which covers a lot of information, so at this point I have no idea 1) What I did, 2) What was deleted, 3) Why it was deleted, in to 4) avoid doing it again. Any information you could provide would be appreciated.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I looked around some more and think that because I am "watching" the tea house page, I get notifications for everything, whether it involves me or not. True?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tym Whittier: That page is among the favorite targets of an idiot, usually referred to as the "refdesk troll". The edits vary from moronic to extremely offensive and they are revdel'ed as a matter of course. Without more specific information regarding the precise revision, I can't say why you were affected. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't. I've been warned several times about making newbie mistakes and over-reacted to the message; thinking it was "aimed" at me. I've since learned it was not.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tym Whittier: That page is among the favorite targets of an idiot, usually referred to as the "refdesk troll". The edits vary from moronic to extremely offensive and they are revdel'ed as a matter of course. Without more specific information regarding the precise revision, I can't say why you were affected. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sock of MRY?[edit]
Hi, could this 112.198.21.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) be a sock of My Royal Young? JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 07:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
What's your opinion on this?[edit]
[1]. Seems like a close match to one of our regular customers, but I'm leery to pull the trigger on this one. Maybe you're better at reading the tea leaves here. I'm like 75%, but I wanted some backup... --Jayron32 00:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)