User talk:Favonian/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50

Your recent block

Hi, I have a question about blocking the user user talk:World history crash. Correct me if I am wrong, but this user made just two talk page contributions. This looks like an awkward posting, he tried to convey some thought about the article, although the way it was done was not appropriate. Usually, we do not consider it vandalism, and we do not treat new users in that way. We have to explain them our policy first.

I respectfully request you to reconsider your decision, to unblock him and to warn the user instead. If he will continue to behave in this way, he may be blocked later.

After that, I'll explain him his mistake (he was supposed to be more concrete, and to avoid posting copyrighted text when it is absolutely necessary) on his talk page.


Regards. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In my book, this is not an "awkward" posting, and I believe a block is appropriate. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't help that their other contrib was a blatant and frankly rather transparent copyright violation. I don't see any thought conveyed, other than the thoughts of the original authors + the "thought" required to Ctrl+c Ctrl+v. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think copyright violation is a real issue. It is quite possible that this user simply didn't know this is not allowed on talk pages too. In addition, copyright laws allow usage of fragments of copyrighted texts to demonstrate some though. This is a borderline case, in my opinion. Maybe, the policy has changed in last few years, but in the past, new users were forgiven for that, at least, nobody blocked them for that without warning. I see no warning of his talk page, and I don't find it is correct.
Not even a minimal attempt has been made to explain him our policy.
Regarding your book, it tells you the user has self-reverted. Without that, I would totally agree it was vandalism. However, since he removed his own post in just two minutes, the only things he can be blamed in are copyright violation (questionable; and we usually do not block for the first violation of that kind) and awkward posting (not a reason too).
I also don't understand why you "don't see any thought conveyed": the thought is the USSR played much bigger role in WWII than the article says. Although I don't fully agree with that, this point deserves a discussion, not a block.
Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's really not a borderline case; there's no demarcation of the copyrighted text, barely any attribution, no context or justification for it, and no editing or discretion in the copying. It's pretty bright-line. I say there's no thought because they didn't actually write anything in the second edit; it's just a mishmash of copy-pasting, complete with the clickbait titles at the bottom. The only actual original text we have is the first edit, which is vandalism. If they wanted to make the point that the USSR's role in WW2 was bigger than the Wikipedia article says it is, they should have said that. It doesn't take an explanation of Wikipedia or copyright policy to figure that out. Favonian's block was quicker than some, but quite justified imo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Do I understand you correct you support a block (without any warning) of a new user who made just TWO edits only because the text he posted was poorly formatted and not supplemented with explanations? In addition, do you REALLY believe a real intention of this user was vandalism? To me, it was just a very awrward, although sincere attempt to draw our attention to some fact and to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding copyright, quoting up to 1/4 of books is not considered copyright violation (just look what books.google.com is doing). And, again, it is a talk page space. The user might be unaware the same rules work for the talk page and articles.Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What Google Books does has no relevance to Wikipedia; our policies on copyright are intentionally stricter than copyright law. And to divert the inevitable riposte, no, I don't think that means we have to explain Wikipedia's copyright policy before blocking for copyright violations no matter what. If they had made even a token effort to format the copy-pasted material in a manner that would've made sense to include in the article regardless of copyright, say by removing the "Play VideoPlay", "Already have an account? Log in", "This four-year-old is helping the homeless dressed as Superman", "Dwayne Johnson reacts to DJ Khaled comments about oral sex", or "Fort Lauderdale: how to shop and dine in style" bits, I might've agreed with you that it was worth explaining copyright policies and why copying-and-pasting isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I've explained such things in the past to other editors. But they didn't. Even then, I still might agree with you that explaining things might be worthwhile, but then I look at their first edit. Yes, when someone starts their Wikipedia editing with world war 2 stared when hitler wanted another testial and blamed the jews so he invaded poland, I do think their intent is vandalism, and their second edit doesn't even have the rudiments of effort to convince me otherwise. That's way worse than "poorly formatted".
And just to be clear, there is support in blocking policy that:
Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:
Accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism.
I'd say that Favonian is correct in judging that this account fits the "disruptive-only" bill, for the reasons given above. It's arguable I guess, but I don't think Favonian was at all unreasonable here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
1. The account was used just once (the first edit was self-reverted in 2 minutes; it is quite likely it was a kind of "hello, world!" test message: a user just wanted too know if the account is working.)
2. The text this user posted was not disruptive. It violated our copyright policy, but it was relevant to the article's subject, and it was posted in a good faith attempt (an awkward attempt, I agree with that) to convey some idea.
That means this policy is not applicable to this case.
Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that it was in good faith, that's what I'm saying. A good faith user wouldn't have also copied the clickbait. I don't really like the "AGF isn't a suicide pact" terminology, but the gist of it is relevant here. The line between good faith and bad is of course arguable and subject to interpretation; you're interpreting their first post as a test and not vandalism, and you're interpreting their second post as a call to increase the prominence of the USSR's war effort, and that's okay. But those are still just your interpretations: others are possible, and the interpretation that this is just some bored kid typing poorly-spelled vandalism and copy-pasting random articles is just as reasonable. It's an arguable point, and I'm not saying you're totally wrong or that you shouldn't be arguing it, I just don't think that blocking the account based on those edits is unreasonable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Block was not unreasonable. A coherent unblock request explaining their edits would've probably looked on favorably. --NeilN talk to me 18:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't say the block was totally unreasonable. I am saying the pretext (vandalism) is not totally correct. Vandalism implies indefinite block, but this user (for the first time) deserves just a warning (or short time block, or both).
A full block after a second violation will be fully supported by me. I agree it is likely a user is just a bored kid. But a bored kid who (i) have read the article in full, (ii) found a Washington Post paper, (iii) decided to express his disagreement with the WP article, may become a good editor in future. We all were bored kids in the past, don't you remember?
I don't think unblock request is needed, because I don't want to waste people's time. I already explained my point of view, we are reasonable people, why cannot we decide it here?Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Neil: a meaningful unblock request will probably be granted. If another admin wishes to unblock the hapless user without a request, so be it, but I won't. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I hate doing that in official way, I always prefer to discuss it informally. If you don't want to reconsider your decision, it is up to you. I only hope that next time you will be more friendly to newbies :-) -Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Krajoyn sock

There is an editor Lizziev103 who has solely been editing Dominican related topics for the past month on Dominican topics particularly relating to Trujillo and the civil war including changing the parsley massacre highest estimate on Trujillo's page without adding a source and adding absurdly high estimates of half a million killed by his secret police. The account is a couple years old but edited for only a couple days until recent edits last month and they use no edit summaries. ColdJack (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There are indeed some similarities. I'll ponder the situation for a bit and probably request a CheckUser investigation. Thanks for spotting it! Favonian (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandal at Hard Sun article

Hi, just a heads up with an article you helped out with before. The IP jumper is back vandalizing at Hard Sun. --SubSeven (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Protection duly escalated. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Great, thank you. --SubSeven (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

sock

User:Grabance is probably a sock of User:Krajoyn. He's mass reverting you wherever you reverted Krajoyn. Sorry if this breif, I'm on mobile. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, definitely him. Another admin already dispatched him. Favonian (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Whitespace edits

Are there any specific policy links covering whitespace edits like this, other than falling under than general umbrella of being disruptive (or WP:NOTHERE, which became later became clear in this case)? OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Probably not, but as we are talking abaout yet another sock from this drawer, the person in question is community banned and their numerous edits can be reverted without further ado. Thanks for your assistance in the struggle against this nuisance! Favonian (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Is it possible if you can change the block summary to not have me as the master because this was not my sockpuppet? Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/455jiujo

) Yay Dad 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but not. That's beyond by powers. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cruizir IP socking

Hi there. Can you please rangeblock this IP range: 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for at least 3 months? Cruizir is currently using this range to evade his block, and his recent editing history has demonstrated that he has easy access to the entire range. Even if he switches to a proxy IP or VPN later on, at least this should curb his latest round of socking and trolling. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Trade

Trade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Protection, please? Mungo vandalisms. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

House of Stuart

I keep on adding important information about present day house of Stuart. I shall add it again and I ask you not to remove it. The information is correct TheShySpectre (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheShySpectre: Unless you provide reliable sources for the added material, it will be removed. Favonian (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll get the source. Just need to figure out how to do that without exposing the family members names TheShySpectre (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ashkenazi, Ivymike1002, Ivymike1119, Ultrabomb

It looks as though they tried to open a dispute at the beginning of May, and I closed it procedurally before the sock investigation. In this case it appears that you were right on the tail of the sockpuppet, and deleted the DRN thread three minutes after they filed it, but that was enough time for me to try to close the thread and discover it wasn't there any more. Oh well. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia free of sockpuppets.

I expect they will be back. Persistent sockmasters usually are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes! This one is persistent: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ultrabomb. Favonian (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for proposing a deletion

I am sorry for proposing a deletion again and again. I am confirming I will not do it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbshuvo (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Krajoyn is back...

...Undoing some of your revisions where you said that you've reverted sock of User:Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 09:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

He is indeed! Such a poor loser. Favonian (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
There are actually two reports filed today on this master [1]. Although the behavioural evidence was enough, since a report was already filed, I added Avmedenes there. As you blocked Avmedenes and some other socks a few minuted ago, have a look at the two current SPI reports. They need to be merged with each other and probably a note on the already blocked accounts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
They should, but the SPI clerks will see to that. I'm never entirely sure which Ts to dot and Is to cross. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

blocking

Special:Contributions/Jimbo_"Little_Peniȿ"_Wales's block log is empty but according to HBC IAV hepler bot 5 he is blocked. Is this normal? L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked it is. You can't see it in the block log because someone (I honestly don't recall whether I did it or one of my colleagues) deleted the log entry, presumably because of the offensive nature of the user name. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know you could delete log like this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) L293D - neither did I but if it helps if future ones are empty you can always check here :), –Davey2010Talk 18:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. By the way, is there a <span class= that make text visible only to non-autoconfirmed users? Something like <span class="autoconfirmed-show">. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There shouldn't be. It has been deleted and the only editors that can see deleted content are Admins. ~ GB fan 18:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:46.22.208.0/20

Looks like user User:46.22.208.0/20 that you just blocked now has a name and is adding the same copyvios as seen here. --Moxy (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: He has many names! The one most frequently muttered in the Halls of Wikipedia is Krajoyn. Tending to his needs is a full-time job. Favonian (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Why have you blocked my mobile IP 2a00:801:380:409d:ef89:eed9:68ac:35ff? DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: It's the home range of Krajoyn mentioned in the section right above this one. This range or its sub-ranges been blocked lots of times, and every time the previous block expires, there's a surge in his peculiar activities. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's clearly not my Sockpuppet. I've never even been into the articles that's being edited. DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Increase block?

Per User:Zzuuzz this block might be extended to two years? EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And now it is. Favonian (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheSandDoctor

Thank you so much for revision deleting the anonymous user's horrible comment, but is it possible to delete the SineBot edit as well? Thx Zingarese (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson loves WP Deny

I hit them with a ball-peen hammer, you hit them with a nuclear power sledgehammer. :)Naraht (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This ones deserves a good round of saturation bombing. Favonian (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Kinetic bombardment?Naraht (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I just knew that Wikipedia would have an appropriated article. Strangely, it's not mentioned in our Book of Policies. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I give up all copyright to the idea. Have fun. :)Naraht (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Top 10 article edit summaries

[2]. I chuckled. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I put it down to divine inspiration. Favonian (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cho Kyuhyun

Hello, not F1 IP-boy, but is it possible to protect Cho Kyuhyun for a while? Multiple IPs keep adding instagram... one has been blocked, but as soon as the block expired the edits resumed from different addresses, so possible socks? All geolocate to either Amman or latterly, Dubai. Thanks. Best regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks as always!! See you in January... Eagleash (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Le Cordon Bleu

An editor you recently blocked, Alice.michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been vandalizing Le Cordon Bleu for several months using multiple accounts e.g., 223.231.81.5, 223.179.215.164, 223.179.252.18, 223.179.232.183, Cordon1254, 182.66.27.233, 2405:204:b201:ca0d:e3f3:caf8:e83e:3692, 223.176.8.130. Can you please kick this over to SPI or ask that an appropriate edit filter be created? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing unhelpful: since you know all the details of this disruption, it would be more appropriate if you made the request – my word doesn't carry more weight in this situation. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. But I'll be reporting your lack of customer service to the manager and requesting that your pay be docked. ElKevbo (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well done, young Padawan! Before you stitch me up, please grant me a few minutes in which to block Jimbo. I like to follow The Olde Ways. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Dopenguins is back

Attacking the same articles as User:178.197.231.49. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already blocked. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

range block

I just placed one on 2600:1:c63d:552a::/64 as the Talk:American College of Pediatricians troll. I don't do range blocks. Could you check my work?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dlohcierekim. Thanks for the revert and protection. The range is probably too narrow, so I'll be monitoring the range 2600:1:c600::/40 for a bit – when I'm online, that is. The protection may be the most efficient measure, even if it's against the elevated principles of this place. Favonian (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Had a visit complaining about my Nazi, gay-killing, baby eating monstrosity. Might have missed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Louise Smith

IP, sock of Supernerdess, sock of JaySmith2018, range-blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, could, you put File:Louise Smith into mainspace. Sorry, if it was on file. So it's called Louise Smith (actress) 46.233.77.47 (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Had it been in article space, it would have been deleted per WP:A7. Please edit using your account, and stop the WP:BLP violations that got your IPs blocked twice already! Favonian (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, can you put the page on my sandbox instead? User:Louise Smith/sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.77.47 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Would if I could, but as described in WP:USERFY#NO, pages from file space can't me moved to other spaces, not even when they in fact contain non-images. Favonian (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced/fake data for number for immigrants/foreign citizens in European cities

Hello. 79.124.72.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who you blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing in early April, is at it again, adding fake/unsourced numbers on multiple articles. All edits I have checked were of that kind, so would you mind blocking them again? Say, for three months? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Red X User blocked for three months. Favonian (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Allowed

If pages are vandalism or promotion is it my job to request speedy pages ARMcgrath (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm probably missing a bit of context here, but sure, unless "job" implies an expectation to get paid. That's not gonna happen. Favonian (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

AlexanderTheGreat3212 ...

... who you reverted on İzmir, is an obvious sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Favonian (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Neyland Stadium

Can you protect this article again? Persistent vandalism. BrineStans (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So far only one vandal, albeit of the IP-jumping kind. I'll wait a bit before re-protecting the article. Favonian (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Denmark

Favonian is in Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.122.149 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct – the point being.....? Favonian (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion by talkpage stalker: maybe the user wanted to congratulate you on Denmark being through to the 2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage? Bishonen | talk 16:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC).
That would indeed be a very nice touch, instantly restoring my somewhat withered ability to AGF. Congratulations to you too! Definitely a more interesting match. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Since you are in Denmark and all, can't you get the Danish fans to sing the World Cup song from 1986? It was really rather catchy. --bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Certainly beats this year's anthem. :( Should we make it to the semifinals (where Sweden will, of course, be our opponent) I'm sure the entire repertoire will be rolled out. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
[Bishonen doesn't know much about the tournament, or football.] Are you saying there's a conspiracy to prevent Sweden and Denmark from meeting in the final? Outrageous! Bishonen | talk 20:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC).
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things! Favonian (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Krajoyn?

The most recent edits here are done by different users, or perhaps it is our usual suspect? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny you should mention it, Eastfarthingan, I was just looking at those edits. IMO they don't quite fit his usual MO, though it is his one of his favorite subject. Maybe the recently opened SPI+CU will bring something to the surface. I do so love acronyms, especially when they rhyme. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Look forward to seeing the outcome.Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, those suspects weren't fingered, though there was a good catch. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks for looking though. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm John from Idegon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Tony0318, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

John from Idegon (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser! Favonian (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts about Special:Contributions/TheCoGuards256?

Hi Favonian,
It would appear to me that this account is a good hand sock of Special:Contributions/The Co Guards 256 Suck that you blocked 08:30, July 15, 2018.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pete. It's certainly peculiar that the "bad" account chose this particular user to pick on, but there's not enough evidence at present to suggest that the original account is up to something. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations, Pete! You were right, and I vow to never assume good faith again. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... not sure that that would be outcome we are looking for, generally speaking. How about you congratulate some anonymous person on the internet for reading about something over a Sunday morning banh mi (the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast) yesterday, then writing an article about it that very afternoon? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Said person, who shall remain anonymous, deserved praise indeed for his industry as well as his taste in art, film and food! Favonian (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Helingue

Please block PA account. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

With pleasure! Thanks for reporting the sock. Favonian (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Aizom

Hi Favonian, I'm Aizom. Read what I'm writing please. I'm not Wikinger but a user who reported Wikinger. Wikinger noticed it and started vandalising Masti's talk page with different identities (2A00:F41:28DA:2B67:0:C:E944:2B01, Towntokyo8, 2A01:4F8:191:9296:E4C5:2BA3:901D:3260, 2600:3C03:0:0:F03C:91FF:FE37:3141, Aizos, FPASfyromBIOS) in order to have my information for Masti deleted. This is the method he's using in pl.wikipedia, especially in the article about letter "J". Read the information I've provided to Masti, you'll understand it wasn't me the one to block, I was just providing all the information that could help a Polish admin to fight against this Polish vandal. I came here, in English wiki, and with a new account, in order not to be detected by Wikinger, but even if he's mentally sick he was clever enough to find me anyway. Just check my information, in case they were false you wouldn't trust me, but since they're true you'll understand you just mistaked me for Wikinger, it wasn't your fault because a user who doesn't know this way to go of Wikinger's is easily deceived. Please read what I've written. I'm on your same side, against Wikinger. 108.167.133.27 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take your word for it though, in my defense, Wikinger has a long and tedious history of reverting his own socks. Sorry for the inconvenience and happy editing – apart from the inevitable encounters with the moron. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Am I allowed to restore my report in Masti's talk page? Even if I'm afraid Wikinger will continue vandalising it as he's doing with yours if it isn't protected...108.167.133.27 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What a surprise. The Aizom account got blocked and globally locked as a sock. Favonian (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Troll

Please revoke his TPA. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, it would be nice if you could do a rangeblock on this IP-hopper - here are a couple ones of his IPs: Special:Contribs/122.100.255.194, Special:Contribs/122.100.255.249 and Special:Contribs/122.100.227.84. Does he have an LTA page? I'm going offline now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
A fellow admin has already taken care of that. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

List of highest individual scores in ODIs

Would you please PP List of highest individual scores in ODIs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? There is a mass pile on of vandals. I can't even revert w/o an EC. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Holy cow, Batman! The page gets a week to cool off. Favonian (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Contributions/14.46.171.186, Special:Contributions/222.109.49.54, Special:Contributions/73.109.59.171 and 163.139.157.127 (blocked by you). I think they are all related. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a safe bet. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This situation seems to be ongoing ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
another one ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Itastype

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

add User talk:Lizziev103.--Cahk (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No kidding. This mindless drone is going through all his old, smelly socks with this circus act. Long as it keeps him from damaging the articles, I guess we should be eternally grateful. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
add User talk:BloodHonour0 --Cahk (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I already have an automatically updated list of his dumps. Favonian (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Marcelius Martirosianas

Regarding this: seems to crave another long term range block for 158.129.160.*. See

And there is more, much more. - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

158.129.160.0/24 Has been granted a year's leave of absence. Fairly "distinctive" style. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Unreal - DVdm (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

sockpuppet question

you recently reveled vandalism at ANI, in the edit you reveled, the vandal claimed to be a sock of 2 other users, 1 of whom was blocked for sockpuppetry, but the other one (User:Bonadea) is not, do you think Bonadea is also a sock? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The culprit (Nsmutte) holds a deranged grudge against Bonadea. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I was just checking since I couldn't look back at who the blocked user was once you revdeled. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Seven years?!

Hurrah!
Some rødgrød med fløde for you! bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Not sure if I dare reciprocate with a helping of surströmming. Favonian (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

7 years of Adminship

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Favonian a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Kpgjhpjm 03:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Kpgjhpjm! I'm at the point where I appreciate when people underestimate my age. :) Favonian (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 8 years in the salt mines.

Cheers! A funny anecdote: in French, "seven years old" is "sept ans" and when small kids are asked their age their answer often sounds like "satan". —PaleoNeonate – 19:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @PaleoNeonate: Naturellement, since all children are the devil's own satanic herd :p Continuing the theoligical theme, do we sense a Jesuitical hand in this, at all?—"Give me the man until he is seven, and I will show you the ball-breaking administrator..."  :)
Certain vandals quite routinely apply that label to me. :-/ Favonian (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle five

HarveyCarter using 86.151.111.11 on Talk:Nazi Germany Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: did the honors. Just in case HC goes back to it, 86.140.123.121 is him too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
That one blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Favonian (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Antony Coia

Hi Favonian. Draft:Antony Coia was resolutely created by a new user on their day 1, and Antony Coia was created the day after they were anutoconfirmed. Could you compare with the version of Antony Coia we deleted following this 2016 AFD and see if G4 reasonably applies? Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: On the fence. The only real difference is the "Nominations and Criticism" section, which references praise from some member of a band I've never heard of, but it may count towards notability. If only because of my ignorance in these matters, I must decline to invoke G4 on the article. Favonian (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Article now PRODed. Sam Sailor 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

reverting

@Favonian: I notice you reverted an edit on George Clayton Kennedy (1919-1980) a botanist who described many ferns. I had created him in red to deal with later (either me or someone else). Is it helpful to delete people who with a little effort can be seen to be worthy of an article? At the moment all I know is his birth and death dates and that he worked on ferns, publishing many names. In other words, in his time, he was a scientist of note. I am hoping that in future, you may be content to leave people in red so that others can see that an article is needed. Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian:. Just as there is a "Women in Red" program in Wikipedia, I think there should be a "Scientists in Red" program to deal with the many forgotten, overlooked but important scientists who still have no article on Wikipedia... MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry!

I thought I was looking at [3]... instead I had opened your contributions by mistake and hit the "rollback all" button! Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries; after all, you didn't block me. Favonian (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry from me too!

Must be terrible to be Danish. I was gonna hit you up on Facebook to share the link, but oddly enough there seems to be no "Favonian" in Denmark. Hmm. That's suspicious. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that one! She's all over the Danish media, accompanied by eloquent eye-rolling and face-palming. Has fact checking been completely abolished in American media? Favonian (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Siege of Constantinople

The article of The siege of Constantinople 717-718 does not match the factuality of the history books! I tried to edit it, but some "wannabe' historian did not allow it. The Arab hordes were not destroyed by "natural disasters" and Byzantine attacks. They were destroyed by Khan Tervel and the Bulgarian army! He was then proclaimed the saviour of Europe, which is not mentioned in the article. Also very little is mentioned about the Bulgarians, who are actually called "Bulgars" in the article, as if they were some tribe, when they actually had a state at the time! What is the point of free editing if the admins do not accept the historical factology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.179.93 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, we are talking about such gems as The Arab hordes were determined to enter and conquer Europe, and spread the teachings of the Islamic religion. In that moment of a historical significance, political pact between the Byzantium Empire and Bulgaria would be the cornerstone which decided the fate of the Continent. In the beginning of the VII century, Bulgaria was under the rule of Khan Tervel. His reign continued for 21 years from 700 until 721. From the very beginning, he proved himself as a genius tactician and eliminated the Khazar Khanate, in doing so expanding the borders of Bulgaria. This falls way short of Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View. Favonian (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As if that weren't bad enough, you copied the text from this source, which makes it a copyright violation! Favonian (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

These are the actual facts, and how does it correspond with Wikipedia's policy, when the name of the Arab prince is mentioned, but not that of the actual destroyer of his army - Khan Tervel? How does the lie, that they had died from natural disasters correspond with Wikipedia's policy? Why don't you check the article about Khan Tervel on the very same site, and see the real facts which are not mentioned in this one. There it is clearly stated who fought and defeated the Arabs. Also the name of the peoples is "Bulgarian", and not "Bulgar"! It might have been "Bulgar", before they had established a state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.179.93 (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"On 25 May 717 Leo III the Isaurian was crowned Emperor of Byzantium. During the summer of the same year the Arabs led by Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik crossed the Dardanelles and besieged Constantinople with a large army and navy.

Leo III made a plea to Tervel for help, relying on the treaty of 716 and Tervel agreed. The first clash between the Bulgarians and the Arabs ended with a Bulgarian victory. During the very first stages of the siege the Bulgarians appeared in the Muslim rear and large part of their army was destroyed and the rest were trapped. The Arabs built two trenches around their camp facing the Bulgarian army and the walls of the city. They persisted with the siege despite the severe winter with 100 days of snowfall. In the spring, the Byzantine navy destroyed the Arab fleets that had arrived with new provisions and equipment, while a Byzantine army defeated Arab reinforcements in Bithynia. Finally, in early summer the Arabs engaged the Bulgarians in battle but suffered a crushing defeat. According to Theophanes the Confessor, the Bulgarians slaughtered some 22,000 Arabs in the battle. Shortly after, the Arabs raised the siege. The Byzantine-Bulgarian victory of 718 and the victory of the Frankish king Charles Martel in the battle of Tours (732) stopped the Muslim advance in the interior of Europe."

This is copied from Wikipedia. Why is this not in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.179.93 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

174.17.51.176

Blocked user:174.17.51.176 is abusing her talk page after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't have that. Favonian (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You should also look at the edit summaries because some of those you might want to hide. CLCStudent (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Stanprog Talkpage

Could you please unprotect user talk:StanProg. 12.30.72.130 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The history of the page indicates that this would not be a good idea. Create an account. Favonian (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

UnderArmourKid vandalism

Hello. Can you please block this range for at least 3-6 months: 190.163.32.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is UAK's latest IP range, according to a block by a Steward, as you can see here. Given the dynamic nature of the IPs on the range, the current Global (single) IP block won't hold him for long, and he'll resume his vandalism and mass socking again as soon as his IPs change. Since he creates almost all of his sock accounts on en.wikipedia, an extended block here on his ranges would probably staunch most of his vandalism. And since the range is relatively inactive on this site, an extended rangeblock will probably have very little collateral damage (it's also rather inactive on the vandal's home wiki of es.wikipedia). Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, LightandDark2000, but so far it's one IP that hasn't even edited en-Wiki. If I were to block the range based on that I would be pilloried. I'll try to monitor the range and if it displays signs of UAK activity, I'll block it. Favonian (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. He created one account (to my knowledge) on en.wiki, using that IP. However, if he continues using that range, it should become obvious from more Checkuser blocks or IP vandalism. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: UAK is back again. I've left a report at WP:AVI. Can you please deal with this vandal before he causes further damage? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A colleague took care of the named account, while I blocked the single IP. Blocking the range would cause too much collateral damage compared to the actual abuse. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie

Just wanted to say thanks for the semi-protection. If you haven't already seen it, if it's ever necessary, for future reference, here is the relevant SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, Amaury. Having identified the culprit, I made his life a bit more complicated. Favonian (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

More ducks at Food cart

Hi Favonian, I've requested a block of K456 (talk · contribs) for possible block evasion. Also page protection. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the problem has found a solution with Floq's protection and Galobtter's spinning-off the Food carts in Portland, Oregon article. Should the disruption resume, we'll need a proper SPI-with-CU to separate sock-puppets from meat-dittos and drive-by imitating trolls. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

James Broughton Singer article deleted.

Dear Favonian,

I was contacted by a wikipedia editer telling me that the Wikipedia article James Broughton musician had been created but that's if I didn't want it to be deleted then I would have to pay money, I paid some money and the page was deleted anyway as the refs that prove notability were deliberately not being added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Broughton_(musician) was deleted anyway as the refs that prove notability were deliberately not being added.

he said if I paid him again he would recreate the article again but as James Broughton Singer

I regretfully was taken as the article was being talked about by the fans and it was going to be embarrassing that it had been deleted so I paid him to solve yet another problem.

You then understandably deleted the page as the refs were not correct ect and now he has threatend me with blocking any attempt I make to get this article published with proper refs and within wikipedia guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Broughton_(musician)


I was totally taken in by this scam to the sum of £360 and have since stated studying wikipedia and released that everything I had thought was ok was in-fact against wikipedia policies and I would appeal to you to give me some advice on how I can resolve this and review this articles deletion allowing me to correct the content and add the references that show the notability of the artist within wikipedia guidelines.

kind regards, Ardyvark (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Aw Man, now I'm curoius

LOL I generally like to laugh at my hate mail before it disappears forever. No need to put it back tho.... Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't miss much. Mentality of a 12-year-old, but with less developed grammar. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I've pissed off a few people like that in the last few days. Thanks for the cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Same users?

I might be a bit over over suspicious here but these two User talk:JamesOredan and User talk:Imalbornoz seem rather familiar. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for a small edit

Hi Favonian, I like to contribute to Wikipedia without getting an account.

Since the edit history of Siege of Leuven shows that you were the article's most active defender before it got protected last year, I'd like to ask you for a small edit there. In past days, I have been adding location maps to certain battles of the Thirty Years' War. Would you be so kind to add these lines to the Infobox military conflict:

|map_type = Belgium |map_mark = Battle icon (crossed swords).svg |map_marksize = 30 |map_label = Leuven

Thanks 2.247.243.135 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Article protection for Hurricane Florence

Hi there. Can you please Semi-Protect Hurricane Florence for 2 weeks? The article is highly-visible right now (page views are still shooting up), and the rate of vandalism at the article is also increasing. Protecting the article until the main impacts have ended should keep out most of the viewership-associated vandalism. Thanks. 🌀 LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Preemptive protection at a time when there's no significant disruption is frowned upon. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yisrael Kristal

See also this edit, and other edits visible in the same page at that time, if you haven't seen them already. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Spreads himself thin. Wonder if it's Nsmutte. Same geo-location and somewhat similar detachment from reality. Favonian (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Krajoyn is back again

He's back again, this time as User:Acconsel. Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! His summer break appears to be over. Favonian (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
He's on the war path it seems! Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
As belligerent and unimaginative as ever. Favonian (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
[4] —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Socks of him are also on Rafael Trujillo as user A1sodaymph and maybe as IP 195.25.117.122 with unchecked edits since July.110.77.231.26 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, whoever you are, it was indeed a sock. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I was just admiring that open proxy, talking about socks. Maybe a bit too dynamic for me.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Agile sock-puppetry. Very trendy. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

can you protect Murder of Heather Rich

Currently the target of an IP-hopping vandal/POV pusher. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Being discussed at WP:RFPP. Favonian (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Locked in BLP violations

Your full protection of the Mark Levin page locked in a number of BLP violations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible, though it is not entirely clear that the BLP issue is sufficiently blatant to trigger the 3RR escape clause. Could you point me to where this is the case? Favonian (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a WP:SYNTH sentence after Levin said "the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government" and called Obama a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer" that lends credence to this libel. There is another WP:SYNTH sentence which lends credence to Levin's unsubstantiated claim that Obama is "seeking to destroy Israel" because "Obama has an affinity for Islam far more than Christianity or Judaism", by suggesting that Obama interfered in Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu. These are the worst BLP violations. The user also removed nearly every single unflattering/controversial thing about Levin, while inserting unsourced nonsense and puffery (such as boasting about getting 4.5 star reviews by users on Amazon and allegedly being described as a "constitutional conservative" when no one except Levin himself describes him like that). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is sufficient for WP:NOT3RR. You should have followed the recommendation in that policy document and reported the issue to WP:BLPN rather than risking a block for edit-warring. I suggest that you do it now. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You're of the view that it's fine to suggest in Wiki voice that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and that he interfered in Israeli elections? And you're going to keep these BLP violations even after being notified of them? The BLP guidelines are clear as day: "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not, but when we are talking about SYNTH'ing from quotes, it's getting fuzzy. Now, please do what I suggested. I'm quite willing to follow the outcome of that discussion, assuming I'm not asleep (Central European timezone). Favonian (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Following comments from an uninvolved editor at Talk:Mark Levin#Page protection, I have reverted to a version more to your liking. In the future, avoid edit-warring, even when you believe yourself to be on the side of the angels. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Dr. Indologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. Compare their edits to this edit by a blocked sock, Special:Contributions/History Ph.D Source. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure looks that way and blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please re-protect Erotic humiliation

Please re-protect Erotic humiliation again. Its six-month protection recently expired and a few IPs have started wreaking havoc with it again. See notice at User talk:89.139.24.38#Stop your disruption at Erotic humiliation. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Karbala

Currently bad edits by IPs and throw-away accounts are running at about three a day. So I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Battle of Karbala.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected for a week, which is probably the correct decision. Indef'ing an article that's never been protected before is unusual, and the disruption on this particular one tends to be concentrated around Ashura. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

LTA-sock

Hello. Terry Bean and Talk:Terry Bean are being repeatedly hit by IP-sock(s) of indefinitely blocked Special:Contributions/Lurie2, adding defamatory material on a BLP. So could you please deal with it? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Already dealt with. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_46&oldid=1221627957"