User talk:Favonian/Archive 38

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

Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

Would you mind reducing the protection at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive? To be fair, User:HoorayForAmerica does have a right to comment until there's a block instead of at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. That or do a WP:DUCK test of the editing if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a duck. For heaven's sake, don't ban me without due process please! HoorayForAmerica (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
So you claim not to be the banned user. Okay, fine. But just exactly how do you know that the page was not created by said banned user, still necessitating its deletion per G5? You don't, right? Exactly. It is absurd that this SPA is still unblocked. Really. Doc talk 07:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Archives are not supposed to be edited at all, and WP has no shortage of venues for discussing accusations, grievances etc., so I prefer to keep the protection in place. Favonian (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was archived per the close. Late night. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Favonian, a cupcake for you for helping against angry IPs! :-) Poepkop (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Just what I needed after two weeks of Christmas and New Year excesses! Favonian (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
lol! Poepkop (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC).

Emirates IPs on my talk page

This is a result of my protecting Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doug Weller talk 16:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that'll teach you! Incidentally, why on Earth do you leave your user page unprotected? Not an obvious target for legitimate edits. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It acts like a honey trap? Doug Weller talk 16:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it does that alright. Took the liberty of protecting you user page. One honey trap should suffice for the moment. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced or Defamatory

What precisely is your issue? Bell has kids. He's acknowledged them. Reporting me to Wikipedia isn't going to resolve that. He has three acknowledged children. What is "unsourced" "controversial" or "defamatory" about any of that? And why are you attacking me over this. This is very petty behaviorGrammarKnotsi (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)GrammarKnotsi

@GrammarKnotsi: In Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people it says explicitly: "However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Favonian (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What was improperly sourced? Rather than bully me why don't offer your help? GrammarKnotsi (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)GrammarKnotsi

The source referenced from the paragraph in question is this newspaper article, which does not mention the names of his kids. These are at any rate without encyclopedic importance. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Open proxy?

176.41.138.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is obviously being used by a Swedish speaker, and I do not believe their butt is in Bornova, Turkey. Some quite objectionable vandalism on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden — I'll spare you the specifics — as well as Yasser Al-Qahtani. I've blocked for a week. Happy new year! Bishonen | talk 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Bish – and the same to you! I did blush at the Swedish vulgarity, but I guess His Majesty is used to it by now. At any rate, WP is well shot of this person, wherever they may reside. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Metin2

Hey, you work for gameforge Metin2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdafcsafsas (talk • contribs) 19:30, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

No. Presumably, you're the same as 62.228.60.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so you are off to a bad start. Knock it off, or you'll be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for reverting the vandal on my talk page (I presume it was vandalism). I cannot see the edit for some reason; did you remove it from the page history? Chesnaught555 (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely vandalism! It was oversighted by person or persons unknown. Favonian (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you for letting me know. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive?

I only edited User talk:Driloon77 to notify them that there was a publicly visible discussion on the admin noticeboard. I don't know why adding a notice was vandalism - the discussion was still there. Thanks. If there was a mistake, I do apologise, as I am new to Wikipedia. -Promotional Attack (talk)23:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no such discussion. I didn't refer to your action as vandalism, but it is disruptive. Your edit record so far, in particular your liberal use of administrative templates, has been rather unsuccessful. Please be more careful. Favonian (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it! Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Genuine jerk, that one. Favonian (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Hi. I just saw that you blocked the IP editor. Could you act on my request at WP:RPP for temporary full protection of the page? Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't block the IP, merely reverted them. I'll do as you request, hoping that I don't get torn a new one for protecting an article on which I have reverted another (dodgy) editor. Favonian (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw that you reverted the IP editor's change there and used RevDel to clean up their personal attacks, and I assumed you had blocked them. Thank you for protecting the article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: article "Aerotoxic Syndrome"

Thank you, appreciated for stopping the vandalizing of carefully reviewed and updated status of article. See also email to [email protected] in this regards. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You, as well as your opponent, would do well to drop the liberal use of the word "vandalism". On Wikipedia, it has a well-defined meaning, formalized in WP:Vandalism, and the edits in question do not meet those criteria. Indeed, unfounded accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks and are one of several ways in which you can end up being blocked from editing. As it is, you have both been edit-warring and you should really watch your steps from hereon! Favonian (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Screwjack1981: In reply to your email: it's always The Wrong Version. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


The "opponent" did not perform any edits, he simply reverted more than once to an outdated version of the article which on top is clearly biased in favor of an industry position on the subject matter. Please take the time and inform yourself about the current status of research, compare with the changes I did and judge for yourself. I kindly request to revert the article to the version as of Jan 4. 2016, o6:36 UTC. I have no objections to take it from there if there are valid arguments raised and not simple unreflected changes made to a previous state, which - I repeat myself - is "outdated". thank you.

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Control rod

Hi. This is not a correct chemical formula. I made the same mistake the other day. The letter "c" stands for cubic, i.e. boron nitride does not contain carbon. Perhaps, a less misinterpretation prone notation to would be: "cubic 11
B15
N". --Dcirovic (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll happily take your word for it. However, the IP is the umpteen millionth sock of a perennial pest, whose word I wouldn't accept as evidence that water is wet. In other words, you are welcome to change the formula, but please leave that person's name out of the article – even in embedded comments! Favonian (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

NitinBhargava2016 page deletion reason

Hi Favonian, Please let me know as to why my wiki page was deleted by you. Thanks, NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Welcomed user and explained why talk page was deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Galileo affair and Galileo Galilei

FYI, regarding your recent reverts on Talk:Galileo affair and Talk:Galileo Galilei, I have requested semi-protection to the lot: [1]. IIRC I requested this before, but it was turned down. Perhaps you could add a few grams of weight? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Ymblanter has it covered. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Three days isn't much, but next time probably longer . - DVdm (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Italians

Why are you blocking me? I've opened a discussion in the talk section, but none has answered yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.255.114 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Because you are Blueundigo5, evading your block. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sock of an unknown user

Hello,

MApageIN was just blocked for spamming a certain image on other editors' pages. I'm dead sure I saw the same image being used by a different editor in the same way, and I was wondering if you knew which editor that would be. Thanks, GABHello! 21:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A sick bastard, but not one of my "regulars". Favonian (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Names

Hallo Favonian, the ANI Archives are filled with this somewhat problematic editor [2], user [3] who appears to be blocked right now for block evasion [4]. I just noted some - at least linguistically related :-) fresh user accounts, have not edited yet but I thought maybe someone needs to know? [5], [6], [7]. Actually 2 out of them might be problematic anyway as per AUU? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks, very observant! I've blocked all three of them. AGF only stretches so far. Favonian (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast :-) And I meant UAA, not AUU btw ;-). Horseless Headman (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

Vinrese.stewart.91

Vinrese.stewart.91 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Vinrese.stewart.62, but you didn't mention who is the sockmaster or refer to an SPI. Elizium23 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I always tag them: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stewartvinrese. A full-blown SPI is a waste of time in such obvious cases. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
And what do you know: Vinrese.stewart.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Favonian (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

More names

Hello Favonian, recently blocked [8] for vandalism (I see no edits though). Today's user creation log showed three very similar new Usernames [9], [10], [11]. Maybe it is worth it checking? Yes, looks like last time (see a bit above) :-) Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks, all blocked. The spinning guy actually managed to create a page, but it was swiftly deleted – hence the empty contribution list. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wonderful, thanks. If you have more time, this looks pretty offensive / personal attack-ish (from a dubious username, once more) [12] (and its history?). Horseless Headman (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
Off as well. Competing causes of death, so to speak. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Username

Hello there. I want to change my username. Do you have the authority to do this? How can I have authority or jurisdiction? Where the authority if I change my username? I would be glad if you answer them. Good wikis. KadirAvcix (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @KadirAvcix: Try WP:RENAME. GABHello! 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Vaguely

Hi Favonian, this name of a newly created Useraccount is vaguely familiar to me [13], but I do not know exactly what (SPI, AIV, incidents, ..)? E.g. number 13 is blocked [14] (there are various other numbers of the name). Maybe you are more familiar with him/her? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks! <Insert compliment of your choice here>! :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
(edit conflict) Oh yes, this mindless drone has several incarnations, witness [15] and [16]. Not really up on the paper work, but some of them are tagged as socks of Aubmn. Who knows, who cares? WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, a piece of the furniture. And with creative naming subtleties ;-) Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
@Horseless Headman: There was even a BlueUndigo17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), gone the way of the others. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • So he/she figures it adds to his/her "whatever"-ness to let everyone know it is always him/her (instead of coming up with some cunning new names)? Oh well, good for him/her, aynways. Skål! Horseless Headman (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
Believe it's known as "sending a message". For a person with similar motivation, check out Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stewartvinrese. Favonian (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OMG! Maybe they count their usernames to fall asleep, instead of sheep. Horseless Headman (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

Favonian, here is number 4 (though losing the Undigo) but first edit again on Usertalk neby [18] but only 1 edit so far so not rep to AIV (yet?). Horseless Headman (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Quite so. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Favonian & Horseless Headman: They're all the same guy, socks of Aubmn who has not got over his being kicked out in August 2015 after his tantrums & disruptive edits at Marie Antoinette article & discussion page he began in 2014. He first declared war on me, then NebY, and has now escalated with his rampage on Wikipedia.
I am suggesting not letting edits by newly-signed would-be editors be accepted until after revision by an administrator or regular editor: this would render the situation we are in with Aubmn & socks impossible, I believe.
His choice of the color *Blue* is because of my user name, although, except for *green* he has chosen names with no color included. However, no matter the name he chooses, I am pretty sure I will always be able to identify him.
Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Blue Indigo, yes, must be annoying to have someone mirror your name, but not exactly. Some recent incarnations [19], [20]and [21] were blocked within some 6 minutes after creation. On the other hand, how come he can continue to create new accounts daily, no effective block was made after SPI? Horseless Headman (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
Hello Horseless Headman & Favonian, whose page this is.
Annoying? Not exactly. But interesting in the study of how some people choose to live only to waste their life. My only answer/solution to keep him from creating new accounts daily is what I suggested above. Some wikis do not let newly-signed individuals participate before a certain testing period is over: their edits are left pending until accepted by a seasoned editor; then, after so many accepted edits, they're free to participate. I know of no other solution, and it probably does not agree with en.wiki protocol. --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

mentuhotep ii

Edit warring with IP sockfarm adding some uncited / off topic fringecruft about "Orion" to Mentuhotep II etc 71.127.131.117 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like the relevant pages have been protected against this, the most recent eruption of WP:ARARAT. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
He's still erupting, just take a look at Thutmose I. I really hoped that an anti-Ararat filter could be implemented in ClueBOT. Khruner (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thought it had been, but evidently not. Protected that article as well. Lots of pharaohs out there. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The eruptant is on Giza pyramid complex. Khruner (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
10,000 BC – same old broken record. Blocked. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing Alex Jones

Seems to me there is alot of info that wikipedia is not allowing on the alex jones, radio show host, page.

If they are going censor then they have been discredited.

This is the case presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonob (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Peddle you crap elsewhere. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

IP as SP?

Hello Favonian, an IP is adding offensive language and altering the text block of a block message on User talk:Fuckin Ass as [22]. Maybe IP and Username are related? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

  • Fixed already, sorry to bother. Carry on, please :-). Horseless Headman (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

I revdel'd a couple of your moves, you'll know why

Not often one has to revdel the move log, I suppose. Or perhaps it is. Anyway, looking forward to your pages and mine being moved to something clever! Bishonen | talk 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks! Being timid by nature, my pages are already move protected. ;) Favonian (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello F. It looks like the same nonsense that brought about the protection of OlEnglish is starting up on Elockid's. It is a drag that all of you are having to put up with this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It is indeed. Thanks for drawing this instance my attention. The indefinite semi-protection of Elockid's user page appeared to have been lost when the page was moved back and forth. Things are not back to their protected normal. Favonian (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Lordwanker

Sorry for the rude title, and that user is blocked indeed. I just saw an IP making himself cosy and editing on Lordwanker's Userpage [23] and/or [24]? Maybe the IP = SP? Alternatively, is it acceptable (I mean, that Userpages of blocked accounts remain existing, in this case blocked as per username)? IP seems to be writing smth about football. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

The IP will have to create an account (with a better name) rather than use that lamentable page as a scratch pad. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Edward Jeffries

Clearly I do not condone User:Wilkewillies1562's appalling disruptive edits, sockpuppetry and legal threats, but I AM struggling to see why the article Edward Jeffries shouldn't be moved to Edward J. Jeffries Jr. as that was actually his name. What are your thoughts?Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I hold no strong opinions on this matter so go right ahead, though I see in my crystal ball that the redirect arising from the renaming will have to be emphatically protected. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Haa haa I have never heard the expression "knock yourself out" before had to Google it! Cheers I'll leave it for a while. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A Dane teaching American colloquialisms to a Brit(?) – Wikipedia is indeed a wondrous place! Favonian (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! tak! Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Galileo sleeper accounts?

Can you please have a look at the most recent edits of the following?

Since both articles and their talk pages are semi-protected now, we see inactive usernames appear, making the same edits. I have reverted their recent edits as vandalism. What do you think? Galileo sleeper accounts? - DVdm (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: Cairo is a dead cert for a sock and has joined its ancestors. Jmax is likely, but I'll watch it a bit before swinging the hammer. Maybe an SPI with CU would be the right way to go. In that case,
should be included. Same sleeperish behavior. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
And two more:
- DVdm (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure about Jmaxthorntons, but all the others are for sure. Thank you @DVdm and Dth7k:. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, actually Dth7k is another one. I have added a bullet now :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@DVdm and Darouet: I concur. Leaving Jmax alive per WP:ROPE, while blocking the others. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Incredible, this. Almost bizarre . - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, glad we didn't have Dth7k block Favonium. Sorry about that, and thanks again for handling this. -Darouet (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: and here we go:

- DVdm (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Duly processed. Favonian (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, another one:

Already processed. Jmax looks okay. - DVdm (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! They won't. ;) Favonian (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thebes

Hi, I think that an user, GiovanniMartin16, is copypasting copyrighted material from reshafim.org and touregypt.net into Thebes, Egypt. Just google some of his insertions: "Once again Thebes declined politically" etc, and "Half a century later the Thebans rose again, elevating Harsiese" etc if you want a confirm. From his talk page, it seems that in January he was already warned not to do that. Khruner (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not good, though you should probably have contacted the person directly. As it is, I have left a note on their talk page. Some clean-up may be needed. Favonian (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I know, I would, but since he was already warned once, I thought that he would not care about it. Khruner (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
We'll see. If they resume editing, I'll block them; if they don't assist with the clean-up, the whole thing will be reverted. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought I understood the Terms of Use. I want to rectify my mistake. Tell me more about using contents of other websites. Please.GiovanniMartin16 (talk) 7:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Answered on you talk page. Favonian (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Khruner, Favonian, I just wanted to point out that GiovanniMartin16 is a relatively new user to wikipedia and we should do our outmost, as experienced editors, to help him naviguate through the difficulties that every new editor encounters. I distinctly remember having similar problems when I started editing. The reaction of experienced editors has a big impact on the future of new ones, see for example User:EammonRhys or User:Niqomi, whom we lost in 2013 after they had done excellent edits to the Buried Pyramid and th ePyramid of Teti, but were reverted by experienced editors on other articles and abandonned wikipedia. In contrast, I was helped by editors (e.g. A Parrot and Nephiliskos) when I started editing and was doing things that were far from perfect. We should put the time it takes to help GiovanniMartin16 improve his edits and keep in mind that while good, serious editors are invaluable, they all start as beginners! Iry-Hor (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Before performing significant edits I lurked a lot on it.wiki before and on en.wiki later, but it is just me. Nobody has reverted him anyway, since he showed interest in learning the Way of Wikipedia and fix his additions. If he asks for help, he will be helped. Khruner (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course I agree with you, Iry-Hor. However, when an editor like the one in question ignores messages (one from a couple of weeks ago and my recent one), it becomes necessary to Read the Riot Act. I am, admittedly, not the cuddliest of Wikipedians, so the messages could have been swathed in softer phrases, but that's where you two come in. Looks like a happy ending anyway. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops

I must have been undoing at the same moment and undid your removal of the vandalism. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 19:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! My edit summary wasn't all that informative. ;) Favonian (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello F. It looks like the Pedant article may need temporary protection again. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that as well as this This one started with a legit question but quickly veered into the usual trolling. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! I waited for something like this to happen, and surely it did. Favonian (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Elockid

Protection was not just "lost in the fray." Vandal wiped it out along with the page moves. Sigh. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Didn't know the creeps had such power. Guess lecturing them on "With great power comes great responsibility" is futile. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There was an edit summary that said "Changed Protection level..." I thought only Admins could do that. All that shit was why I sent up all those flares. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys for handling this. Elockid Message me 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

IP 107.179.214.60

Not sure if you noticed, but somebody posted a barnstar on the talk page of the IP you just blocked for vandalism.--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating! Really shouldn't hold that against the editor in question, but I can't resist the temptation to perform a bit of scrutiny. ;) Favonian (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no recommendations one way or the other. I too do not want to condone Wikihounding, but indeed it is still curious. ;) --WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@WaltCip: Another bad day for AGF: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awesomedjh/Archive. Favonian (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo is NOT SERBIA!

Your contributions is a vandalism, Kosovo is NOT Serbia! Please, read:
United States USA: http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/02/100973.htm
United Kingdom UK: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-kosovo-serbia-britain-idUKL1824693920080218
Australia AUS: http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s034_08.html ... --85.92.241.30 (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't greatly care, but you are evidently the same person as 85.92.251.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and your acts of vandalism to user pages classify you as a rather low life form. Please retire to your cave! Favonian (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Erm....

Hello Favonian, some IP is/was rapidly "tagging" many Usertalkpages as being someone's SP [25]. How can I know this is correct or vandalism/disruptive? I need to check them 1 by 1? No? Actually he is also blanking pages. Horseless Headman (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

Up to no good he is. One of the Brethren already blocked the IP, and I reverted to my heart's content. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Brother thou speaketh in riddles but I appreciate your joy in reverting :-) I just figured most IPs change daily, therefore IPs unless static rarely be SP likely. If my train of thought is correct. So many "types" of vandalism. Horseless Headman (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
Explanation. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I humbly thank my colleague for the reverting, which I was looking forward to not. If they are tagging IPs in the same range, they're up to no good. In fact if they're messing with sock tags at all, they're up to no good. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Word! Favonian (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Grouchy Smurf: "I hate learning curves". Thank yous (= plural)! Horseless Headman (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

Could you please advise...

... on this revert, and this, and this, followed by this re-addition of a wall of unsourced content, flanked by "I provided plenty of sources!! get the hell out of here". Not sure how to proceed here. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Um... never mind, after being reverted and getting warned by someone else, they took the rope. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
With a vengeance! Favonian (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Company page

The company page of 1Derrick was deleted due to the violation of interests (advertising/promotion activities) [user ID: derrickpetroleumservices]. Kindly mention the required changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anithadevi123 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Theory of everything

FWIW, I have—again—reverted that piece of QST from Theory of everything. See [26] and [27]. Looks like a somewhat problematic editor. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And see also Thad Roberts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), almost exlusively edited by same user, knowing many personal details of subject, without any kind of source. - DVdm (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@DVdm: Quite! The egg–hen analogy indicates a certain detachment from the Five Pillars. All looks quiet on the ToE front, but somebody should probably prune the Thad Roberts article. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

New Azul socks

Hey @Favonian and DVdm: just picking up a new Azul sock for you - User:Intheafternoon. Looks like you got to H3rfg before me. -Darouet (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, ready to take the rope and quack on Galileo... - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Dispatched. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

180.190.xxx.xxx is IP Sock of User:JeSuisBilly

This is Currently has Usually of Obviously as IP Sock of User:JeSuisBilly is an IP Sock Vandal and got them for Blatantly of Harassment Like Some for them all of that Find This IP of 180.190.XXX.XXX is Sockpuppet and Blockuser of User:JeSuisBilly. 112.198.90.124 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And you are? You'll be better getting an account and opening a case at WP:SPI. Favonian (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure it This is Currently is IP Sock and blocked user User:JeSuisBilly - making are distinctive edits to articles that no one else on the planet would make. He's tagging another multiple IP pages as socks, which I don't know anything about (it's possible socks fighting socks, or it might be a helpful Ip editor trying to help revert this one, I just don't know), except I'm not going to investigate claims of socking made by a sock 112.198.90.124 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.31.102 (talk)

Edit summ

Hi Favonian, could this (or: should this) nasty edit summary be removed [28]? I rolled back since articles should afaik either be completely AMEN or ENEN, in this case there still was another instance of "haemoglobin" in the article text, bad luck for moody IP. Horseless Headman (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

Nah, it's too trivial for a revdel. Given that Archibald Hill was British, I suppose a case could be made for applying MOS:TIES. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Alex Jewellzz

How does a single bad edit render an account "vandalism only" worthy of an indefinite block? Is the user also a sock? Rklawton (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Same user who started the diabolic edits as 63.133.239.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I actually gave that information in the block summary. Favonian (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have read the entire line. Rklawton (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IP User

A Ip user(66.87.151.177) reverted your edit on KSCS. He also left a personal message for you in the edit history. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it. Just left him on of my own. ;) Favonian (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Probable block evasion

My gut feeling tells me that YourAverageNightmare, who you blocked a couple of hours ago, is back as TrumpDump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalising Donald Trump (disambiguation). /T Thomas.W talk 19:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

GB fan thought so as well. Favonian (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for your awesome work at AIV and vandalism patrol!! Chrisw80 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure! Your visitor is a recurring customer with a distinctive "style". Favonian (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Gh78cb

Hey Favonian, DVdm, this is another Galileo sock. Though I actually didn't revert their last minor edit to Galileo, since it was possibly helpful. -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparing their edit history with those at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azul411/Archive#06 February 2016 there seems to be not much doubt. But the article edit looks pretty solid, i.m.o. - DVdm (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The edit is indeed solid - just made by the sock. I didn't revert it. -Darouet (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet and DVdm: I concur with both of you. Even though the edit to the Galileo article is legit, it is still block evasion, so it's back in the drawer with the sock. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bingo: Drl6ys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :-) - DVdm (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does he even bother? Favonian (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A wholy holy mission, no doubt. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User Name filter

Seeing as you just blocked an obvious sock/troll account (The "Blue Undigo" vandal) I had a question. Is it possible that a filter can be placed for username creation that would prevent these accounts from being created, or is this just too restricting and could cause other issues? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Unable to answer that one, unfortunately. Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested looks like the best place to ask. Favonian (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated, I went ahead and created a request there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Cupid Carries a Gun

Can you please semi-protect the page to persistent disruptive editing. 123.136.112.29 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for such requests. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mass reverts

Hey, I saw you reverted these edits. I've been instructed to use Huggle to do such mass reverts of this IP's edits across articles by a single click, and so I was wondering if that was what you did here and if so, how to do it myself. Eik Corell (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Ages ago, I installed this script in my vector.js file. Does the job, but I'm sure there must be newer implementations out there. It's also somewhat discouraging that the author has been banned from Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sausage fest (gathering)

I submit myself to you - I am the 'dumbass who wants to censor wikipedia' that challenged the edits (and the entire existence) of this article. Thanks for taking care of the block evasion! Garchy (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You should probably put that title on your user page. :) Favonian (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Undid a very old block of yours

I just wanted to let you know I have unblocked User:johnjyrj. If that name doesn't ring a bell, it is probably because this was a user who was active for about a half hour five years ago, before you rightfully blocked them for spamming. They sent in a UTRS appeal stating they would not make the same mistakes again, and rather than drawing it out I just WP:ROPE unblocked them, with a warning about COI. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thanks for the heads-up! I just noticed the unblocking on my watch list, which speaks volumes about the size of that monstrosity. The UTRS appeal was nothing if not fulsome. Let's see how it plays out. Favonian (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Kayuweboehm

Hi Favonian. FYI: Kayuweboehm seems to be making similar contributions to IPs you've blocked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JJMC89! The guy seems to be proud of his handiwork, wanting to sign it. Favonian (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Bae?

Hi Favonian, I saw this new Username [29] and with this [30] in mind I thought maybe it is better to ask you yourself instead of UAA. Methinks it has the Danish word meaning, making the name logical, right? But if it is bad enough to block, I'll leave up to the real Vikings to decide upon :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

Just found another one [31], here it might be a personal attack as Markiplier is some "internet personality" [32]. Horseless Headman (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I gamble on the Danish connection. Sure hope it wasn't some erudite word in Lower Slobbovian. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Haha [33], it appears to be a family name in Korean. I thank some vandal IP for making me aware today of the existence of Bae as a name [34]. Don't think it changes anything to the above cases, but just fyi. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC).

NEW: I have the honour of introducing [35] to your attention. Probably the Danish meaning, right? ;-) Horseless Headman (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

Another fine Danish music critic, now retired. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

New 2: [36]? Horseless Headman (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

Mmm, possilikely. Will pay out some WP:ROPE. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New 3: pardon for yet another intrusion, fyi [37]? And 4, seemingly non-constructive, edits (but that is just not good enough for AIV). Cheers. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

Oh goodie, at least he admits he is using multiple accounts [38]? The edited user was already someone's SP. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC).
Probably a she. I have blocked for user name policy violation, but the removal of the sock tag was actually legit. There was no evidence of sock-puppetry that I could find. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
So much for it being a legit alternate account, and I retract the the hypothesis that the person is of the female persuasion. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

... there's one two more

Hello. Thanks for blocking the IP-sock, but there's one there are two more Nsmutte-sock: 117.242.81.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Kalidaskalidas555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), creating the fake SPI-report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonadea. Cheers, Tom Thomas.W talk 22:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. They've both been processed and the fake SPI speedied along. Favonian (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Kalidaskalidas555 isn't blocked yet, only the Highschool...-whatever account. Thomas.W talk 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. So many socks, so little time. Favonian (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
And none of them clean, either. Eik Corell (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Am very sorry. I will never do that again. I know nothing about what I have done. Precious Connel (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Precious Connel (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI Supreme Genghis Khan

For the record, I have opened an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Genghis Khan regarding the users you tagged today as I think it would be a good idea to check the IPs (and block them) and also put up a report for the record. Feel free to comment in the SPI if you have any additional info. Thx! TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheCoffeeAddict: Thanks! Not much to comment on, given the quacky nature of the socks. Tend to share Smalljim's view of the likelihood of CU being able to close the cesspool. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, seems like he is evading the block. —Vensatry (Talk) 13:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Does indeed, but he was soon stopped. Favonian (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but can you please keep an eye over these IPs? This might give you an idea of what I'm talking about! —Vensatry (Talk) 14:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Again. —Vensatry (Talk) 15:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Andy Googe

This user tried a whole new kind of vandalism I've never seen before - moving his own talk page. Can you delete everything he did? If you see Special:Contributions/Andygooge you'll see that his talk page is now at Wikipedia talk:Andy Googe. Thanks for the quick block, anyway. Blythwood (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What a confounded mess! I have moved the user talk page back where it belongs, so at least he gets the block notice. Favonian (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions raised in the deletion of Einstein syndrome

Last December 26 @DoctorKubla: applied a G4 to Einstein syndrome. Now that the revision history has (finally!) been restored, and I took a look, I found that G4, and the previous G4, in 2013, alarming.

G4 is supposed to ease the speedy deletion of previously deleted article, that has been restored, out of process, without any meaningful effort made to address whatever reason triggered its deletion.

AFD is not supposed to bar good faith contributors from writing a new article, from scratch. And, when good faith contributors have written a new version, anyone who thinks the brand new version also merits deletion is supposed to initiate a brand new AFD. @MastCell:, the administrator who speedy deleted the new version of the article, six years after the AFD, had been the original nominator. They applied that G4 to an article with a revision history that showed almost four dozen contributors had edited it, a revision history that I think showed it had been rewritten from scratch. I don't think a G4 should ever have been applied to an article that had been rewritten from scratch. I told MastCell I doubted anyone would think it was a good idea for him to speedy delete an article when he had been the original nominator.

DoctorKubla applied a second G4 last December 26th. I think they too should have done a diff comparing the version deleted in 2007 with the then current version. I don't think anyone doing so could justify the claim inherent in G4, that the article was a restoration of material deleted at AFD.

On December 29 DoctorKubla requested page protection against that page being recreated, stating: This page was deleted by community consensus in 2007, and has been repeatedly recreated since. This is where you came in, you deleted again, under that bogus G4, and protected the page.

When you delete a page, as G4, do you normally check whether the nominator correctly assessed whether it did qualify for G4? Or do you trust that the nominator was on the ball, understood what G4 meant, wasn't secretly pushing a POV agenda?

Some of the objections voiced about having an article on this topic, at the initial AFD, and at REFUND in February, were that Einstein syndrome is not a recognized medical syndrome -- therefore a kind of hoax. But WP:HOAX says we can't have articles that are hoaxes -- not that we can't have articles that are about hoaxes. Geo Swan (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I usually compare the version at hand to the one previously AfD'ed and no, I don't engage in speculation as to the possible, sinister motives of the nominator. The article has now been brought to a point where it's deemed fit for inclusion; it's probably no worse than a lot of other stuff on this website; and that's that, as far as I'm concerned. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Harassment from 213.205.251.171

Hi Favonian, I noticed that you blocked 213.205.251.171 for harassment. Might I please trouble you to take a look at this discussion and if you're so motivated, to comments? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Good grief; that discussion went off the rails quickly. No point in me adding to the kerfuffle. I tried looking at the ranges involved, but they are indeed large and busy, and my experience with range blocks is such (confession: I once hard-blocked a major part of England) that I don't feel sufficiently intrepid to venture there. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The global lock of vandalizer

Hello, Thanks for the information. I just want to tell you that he's acount is active today and created some pages. Is this possible after someone is globally locked? ----Minimizing Studio (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh am sorry I just saw that his account is already blocked. Everything is fine now. Thank you again. ----Minimizing Studio (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can tell, the account was locked at 19:47 (UTC), i.e. about 10 minutes ago, so his furious activity was prior to this. Favonian (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant sock

Please block Cezaroanyad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This ia an obvious sockpuppet of User:Stubes99.

Cezaroanyad has a similar name with the confirmed sock Cézárocskácska (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and edited a previous comment of the same account. Thanks in advance for your action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.62.125 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2016‎ (UTC)

My action involved blocking this IP as a sock of Iaaasi (talk · contribs). You two should be immured in a Balkan cave to enjoy each other's company indefinitely! Favonian (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Favonian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

And so do you. ;) Favonian (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I received a strange message.

I got a strange message saying that I had made an inappropriate amendment to the Pierce Brosnan Wikipedia page. I certainly don't recall doing that. I don't think I know enough about Pierce Brosnan's career to make any corrections to his biography. Are you sure you have the right person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.3.3 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that someone else may have used this IP six years ago?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
What Mr Fink says. I very likely got the wrong person, but the right IP address. What you have here is an excellent reason why you should create an account! Favonian (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Do you think User:Keepfightingback1 might be a sock of User:BuickCenturyDriver? Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(tps) @Liz: I just happened to notice this, but I found them while looking at the SPI a few minutes ago. —DoRD (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A Big Big Big Big Big Favor

Would it be at all possible if I could ask if you could indefinitely semi-protect list of fictional wolves in order to prevent an anonymous vandal using a morphing IP to insert, reinsert and edit-war in order to preserve its blatant original research opinions? The vandal in question demonstrates no desire or ability to understand the concept of sources or citations, and its ability to discuss things is limited to angry whining and calling other editors "jerks" when they either fail to be swayed or continue removing its original research inanity. The only effective way to stop this vandal is to semi-protect its favorite targets, and then it becomes a waiting game for semi-protection to expire.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done by AlexiusHoratius. Favonian (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cakedy2

Looks like a talk page block might be in order for Cakedy2 (The Helping Cakerson). They just spammed the same thing on their talk page. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MFR-C

That's probably a sock of User:Hatchmight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, that probably requires some insight. If you can substantiate the claim, I can throttle the master account for good. Favonian (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
He was doing the same sort of thing before he was blocked, and his multiple rambling unblock requests have been denied. That's all I got. And a hunch. A CU would probably give you a definite answer since this is his first sock, he's probably not sophisticated enough yet for countermeasures. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: it's BCD again. Hatchmight is on another continent. —DoRD (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@DoRD: Oh, for crying out loud! Maybe this should be entered into the record that is the discussion currently going on (and on and on) on the little so-and-so's talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and Hatchmight is Evlekis. The records (BCD's records, that is) aren't visible to all, but they're very clear. ;) —DoRD (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_38&oldid=1221627760"