User talk:Favonian/Archive 23

Edit to page 'Legend'
I've been recently sent a message that I made an edit to the page called 'Legend'. This is part of the message I got: 'Favonian (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)'

I'm telling the truth when I say that I haven't editted this page. I've never seen the page before and I couldn't find out what I had supposedly editted. I was sent a message that my edit had been reverted or removed as it did not appear constructive

I don't have a wikipedia account, so if the pages needed to be signed in to edit, I couldn't have done that. I'm hoping that I have just been wrongly accused and haven't been hacked.

I know this isn't you who sent this, but I also got another message about 'North Bromsgrove High School' that I vandalised the page. I could find out what I had written and it was 'what a big headed fool haha SPJ' after someone's name. The user who sent me that was Mephistophelian. 'Mephtalk 12:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)'

I'm really sorry about the trouble I may have caused, but I really haven't done these edits. Please could you look into it for me? Thank you for taking the time to read this and maybe believe me.

109.157.1.66 (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some digging brought forth that you have also been editing using the IP . A disadvantage of editing anonymously is that IP addresses change and you may end up with warnings (and possibly blocks) intended for a previous "occupant". The standard advice is to register for an account. Favonian (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Benfica
Do something. 2.83.65.9 is vandalizing S.L. Benfica page for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCorruption brigade (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * And you are somebody's blocked sock. Favonian (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2.83.65.9's biased post is still there. I guess you don't care about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Truth3r (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. He will change IP address to keep vandalizing SL Benfica page! :)


 * Into the drawer you go. Favonian (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding User 68.45.77.82
I see you have given him a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.45.77.82#February_2012

Obviously he hasn't heeded that warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luxembourg&diff=prev&oldid=479692611

Not to be a rat here, but feel free to block him. He's all yours. Mudkip3DS (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like The Grim Reaper got to him first.
 * Rats have their place in the ecosystem, but we seem to be missing a definition of WikiRat in Category:Wikipedia fauna. Maybe its time has come ;) Favonian (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll second that WikiRat request, though maybe I'll be a dragon instead since the Year of the Rat is 8 years away. :P Mudkip3DS (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

137.164.227.135
Here's one for ya. It is an educational IP,.

Made this edit 2 days after receiving their latest level 4 warning.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider them educated! Favonian (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Page move re I'd Like To Teach the World to Sing
I don't understand what consensus was reached here and therefore why the page was moved. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Manual of Style/Music was fairly clear on the subject (capitalizing the part inside the parentheses as if they weren't there) – enough to convince LtPowers, who initially opposed to move. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see you on WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied there. Not that I'm particularly interested in prolonging this confrontation, but I'm seriously puzzled by some of your remarks, in particular "". Senility on my part is not a factor to be discounted lightly, but try as I may, I can't recall a previous encounter that can be classified as a "situation". Searching through the edit histories of our respective talk pages, the most recent interactions have been and . Not exactly a shooting war. Favonian (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Boxing articles
Hi. I see you blocked an IP for inappropriate edit summaries on a variety of boxing articles. Thanks for getting involved. Why did you decide to revert the IP's edits? It seems to be a dispute about formatting and linking.--Jahalive (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been going on for a while. The person jumps between IP addresses and reverts edits by TheShadowCrow, frequently with obscene and threatening edit summaries. It has moved from content dispute to harassment, so I block the IPs on sight and revert. The addresses are rather scattered, so a range block may not be feasible, but I'll probably ask MuZemike at some point. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping on top of this. The block is definitely justified, but I don't understand the reverts. If you look at TheShadowCrow's talk page you'll see that his edits are sometimes controversial. Do you agree with TheShadowCrow's edits?--Jahalive (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the edits, and if you disagree with them, I won't object to you undoing them. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks.--Jahalive (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have unprotected Vitali Klitschko - no need for that right now, I think. UkBoxen either uses proxies or IPs geolocated to around 95.141.192.0/20, 188.40.0.0/16, 178.98.0.0/16, 178.105.0.0/16, 31.111.0.0/18, thus it is relatively straightforward to issue a short-term rangeblock (ranges not busy, this tool helps). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Jahalive: please do correct TheShadowCrow's edits wherever necessary. It is just this editor may not do that for several reasons. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MS. Good to have that overview of ranges next time this person feels like fulminating. Favonian (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I dumped too much information, the first two ranges (95.141.192.0/20 and 188.40.0.0/16) are actually proxy servers, blocked as such. The last 3 are relevant, but knowing his persistence I won't be surprised to see him traveling outside of that geo area. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Block regarding royalty
I was recently reprimanded by you regarding a modification of the article on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.

The problem is that my addition is entirely correct. Yet you consider it vandalism.

My last modificaton was entirely formal and free from personal opinion. Thus fitting to the guidelines of any Encyclopedia.

Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is related to for example Leopold II of Belgium who was personally responsible for very large genocides in Congo during the 19th century.

Since a few hundred years back, all the royal houses of Europe have submitted to the Pope of Rome, the head of the Vatican City state.

Both the Vatican itself and the Royal houses have successfully used the method of giving an outer false image of charity and good-will, while promoting much more sinister and twisted principles in the silence behind the scenes.

I myself as origially Swedish and you my fellow Dane are victims of the same group of internationalist organization which have been working for hundreds of years to destroy independent nations and their constitutions.

Now it is almost complete and we are supposed to rejoice at "the return of the king", in a new forced multi-cultural Babylonian society under the flag of the UN, where indeed, "big brother sees you".

I urge you to wake up and repent.

Please do not consider this vandalism, it is simply an objective opinion based on many years of experience and research.

Kind regards Kristofer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.180.81 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I never said it was vandalism. You were told that your contribution didn't live up to the requirements of neutral point of view. Furthermore, you failed to include reliable sources backing your claim. Wikipedia is not a platform where we express our own opinions and analyses. Favonian (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

==== Unfortunately modern history description is so revised and so mutilated that it´s difficult to find proof for many of the most logical and actual happenings.

I will just quote the following, it´s for you. I hope to set something in motion somewhere

I have legalized robbery, called it belief I have run with the money, I have hid like a thief Re-written history with armies and my crooks Invented memories, I did burn all the books

{Refrain} And I can still hear his laughter And I can still hear his song The man's too big The man's too strong

Matk Knopfler, Dire Straits

Thank you ==== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.180.81 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Djathinkimacowboy
reading further on old talk page, maybe I should have posted here; anyway, fyi: Alarbus (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Floquenbeam


 * Oh dear! I knew something like this was bound to happen. Looks like Floq has . Favonian (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that; be looking for a reply there when Dj returns. Best, Alarbus (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . Alarbus (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Madrigal
Hi there! You disambiguated Madrigal to Madrigal (Trecento) at Giovanni Dondi dell'Orologio, and you may well have been right to do so. I'd purposely left it ambiguous because the madrigals in question (and his ballate too) were in a collection of poems, thus unlikely to have been musical settings and probably better considered as Madrigal (poetry). But that article has no mention at all of the 14th century Italian poetic madrigal (most of the other forms we think of as musical, such as the ballata and the frottola, were also poetic forms, btw). It's a bit of a mess, really. Any ideas on how best to sort it out? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Must confess that I'm very far from being an expert. I discounted the poetic solution precisely because the article gives the impression of it being a much later concept. If you prefer to leave in the "benefit of disambiguation", you might want to pipe it to Madrigal (disambiguation) in anticipation of Talk:Madrigal (music) — oh, wait a second, that was your proposal :) Favonian (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I too have trodden the same path. OK, I know what the solution is, it's to fix the poetry article. Now, where did I put my expert on mediaeval Italian poetry? Meanwhile, I'll follow your suggestion. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction
in Father's Day. I have no idea of how I managed to bork the text in that way. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I would have been hard pressed to find a way of doing that one myself. Favonian (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Race
The talk page is locked. The article is locked. How can I discuss? I am writing from Imperial College, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.14.199 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The talk page is no longer locked, but if you pull anything like again, I'll range block your institution. Favonian (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Race (classification of humans)
Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Any disruptive edits from ICL to this particular article are invariably by this banned user. Mathsci (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Having grown older and wiser by another day, I'll say goodnight. Favonian (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Loriga
Good day Favonian. Could you monitor the IP editting on Loriga, I believe the edit reverts and claims of vandalism are a continuation of the POV editing that occurred in 2007. I will post a request for elaboration on the subject (per 2012) to see if there is any contradictory statements. User:Septrya in 2007, among others, prooved interference from a user in 2007, and the interjections and reverts seem to follow a pattern. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we are dealing with a very tenacious, IP-jumping edit warrior, who resumed as soon as the old semi-protection expired, I have renewed the protection, this time for six months. Let's see if they get the message and participate in the talk page discussion. Favonian (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have already added a talk page requesting support, discussion or proofs to support their claims. I am willing to be wrong. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

apology
I sincerely apologize, just a new user at wikipedia and I was contributing to the article not vandalizing, all of a sudden it asked me to 'reflist' which I am not familiar with and It ended up deleting every section (Monkelese (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 7 March 2012


 * No reason to apologize. The Wikipedia software sometimes takes the bit between its teeth and gallops off. I overreacted, though. Have been blocking too many anonymous IP editors today :( Favonian (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. I will be much careful the next time :) Monkelese(talk) 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Spamming allegation
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:VirtualBox. Fleet Command (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. Favonian (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

205.167.46.8
I don't see why not to block for 1.5 to 3 years.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't normally go to such long blocks for schools until they've had a couple of 1-year blocks; not because I'm "soft on vandals", but occasionally the more mild-mannered Wikipedians get upset at the sight of multi-year sentences, so there has to be a very strong case. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1.5 years would cover summer vacation as well. For the most part, it's the 2+year-blocks that I tend to see drawing complaints.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

OMG
Looking at ANI a little bit ago, as I sometimes do, my own dim lightbulb came on when I saw yet another complaint about an admin named Fastily... and I realized that I OWE YOU ONE INCREDIBLY HUGE APOLOGY for this rant a couple of weeks ago. Inexplicably, or maybe idiotically, I had the two of you confused, and being annoyed about that one fairly trivial matter, my judgment was disastrously clouded. I suspect that you were saying to yourself all along there, "What did I ever do to him?" The answer is, NOTHING. I was totally in the wrong with that one. I'll eat pretty much any humble pie you want to serve. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well, that's a huge relief. When I first saw your "I'll see you on WP:ANI" message, I thought it was a joke, and when persuaded otherwise I did leave, being too chicken to approach the rabbit's lair for a showdown. Glad we got it out of the way. I always rather appreciated your touch of humor at the drama board, but I guess not everybody shares my feelings. Best wishes, Favonian (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That explains everything! I have grown to appreciate both of you here in part because of the sense of humor you each have, so it was disturbing to see you two pitted as adversaries for a moment. It didn't make any sense, but of course it is now clear what had happened.--Racerx11 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Integral calculus
Infinitesimal means infinitely small. It makes no sense to say "infinitesimally small". I've undone your undoing of my edit. 109.157.129.2 (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to be careful. If you say "infinitely small" then you are talking about -∞.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

IP bypass
Hi F., Your actions to my ip address issue appear to of sorted it, Thanks Mdann52 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Hope the vandals at your school don't get too envious. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Could you also grant this to my friend, username Markarbez. Mdann52 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no user of this name. Favonian (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, It's actually Mark.arbez Mdann52 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Whac-A-Mole
Is your arm getting tired yet from playing Whac-A-Mole with that 92.vandal? You're gonna wear out your mallet! --Racerx11 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I (almost) feel sorry for that guy. So easy to spot, so easy to revert. He must feel like Sisyphus, laboring so hard to bend the mountains to his will, only to see his efforts brought to null in a matter of milliseconds. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfect analogy. I suppose he must be getting some enjoyment out of it though. He's been at it for a while. Perhaps he is attempting make a place for himself in some sort of Wikipedia vandal hall-of-fame. So maybe we (or I since I have brought it up again) should not even talk about it. Also I noticed recently, even after I neglected to even bother with warning the IP, you still quickly came in with the block. If you are on top of it, this may be best. I personally like the idea of not giving him the satisfaction of knowing we went through any more trouble than a single click.--Racerx11 (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Whitehead
VC has known it was copyvio since October, I've rev/del'd all but the first sentence. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call! Favonian (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edward Knox
I sent this to a website. Will it do?
 * to WILFS.KIBWORTH

to wikipedia
 * please understand that i am not complaining
 * but i would like permission to lift / copy your picture or a picture of e a knox
 * i wonder if it is free licence or whether wikipedia themselves might complain
 * Kittybrewster &#9742;  13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I try to stay clear of image copyright issues, but it's my understanding that the "paper work" regarding permission to use pictures has to go through WP:OTRS. Favonian (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Jujuju1
This user that u have warned for vandalizing, has created a silly article, Maoamermaoamer. I dont think that hes okay for wikipedia. Thanks!   Yash t  101   09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for being vigilant! Favonian (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord Mayors
Huh? Two for and one against, and you close it with the comment "no consensus"? Please enlighten me. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a vote. The opposition raised a valid point regarding common versus proper noun, and the discussion didn't reach a consensus. In this situation, I prefer to let the articles remain at the names which have been stable for nearly four years. Favonian (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote my response to your closure prior to reading the consensus for moving and so I now begrudgingly accept your non-decision is a valid outcome to a RM.


 * Nevertheless, how long do I now wait before trying to get these articles and their names in alignment -- any edit I make now is a WP:POINT, either because I'm attempting to go with an obviously wrong decision or because I'm adjusting articles against their page names. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Merdian Empire
I think this needs to be turned back into a redirect - it had been a redirect for years until someone gutted Medes in January and added it to this. The material was restored to Medes. We also have an edit warrior on both claiming it was a Kurdish dynasty. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Favonian, meet Decius - he needs a little help
I don't even remember how I ended up there, but reading one passage got me cross-eyed. It turns out a now-banned editor's sockpuppet had added this change and I think the addition was out of place. I'm tired enough I dare not touch it, but it needs someone's ministrations. Since you touched it last (a revert) and your name sounds vaguely Roman, maybe you? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The old boy's life was hard enough, so we shouldn't let him be troubled by latter-day Dacians. I've removed the dodgy passage. Can't claim any noble, Roman heritage—just another Germanic barbarian with a hankering for the glory that was Rome. Favonian (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Evan12345678910
Could you take a look at the edits by this user? The user replaces existing content of fictional Mafia biographies with content copied from The Godfather Wiki on mass. While it adds additional information, it removes the important context that it is part of a fictional film series. -Cntras (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a reliable source, so undoing the changes is in order. Looks like they have stopped for the moment, but if they resume, sterner measures will be called for. I'll be headed out in a little while, but will monitor the situation later. Favonian (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I spoke a little too soon. Final warning issued. Favonian (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be 100+ edits of the same nature. A bit of a pain to revert, given that rollback isn't appropriate. -Cntras (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite! I'd be happy to lend a hand, but real life™ claims my presence. Later today, I should be able to contribute. Favonian (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not urgent by any means. Take care of your real life concerns. -Cntras (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizing WP and loving it
Hi there FAVONIAN, VASCO here,

as you have taken action in this "user"'s talkpage in the past, i thought i'd brief you on the following: judging by his list of "contributions" (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.220.233.206), i guess he's doing exactly what the title of my message says (removing the much needed for stability purposes "Fs mid" template in football squads), pityful... Ah, i better brace myself, have found another wikienemy, these people don't like being reported, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do :(

Keep up the good work, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for bothering you, thought i was helping by reporting a vandal, i see i was not. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Easy does it! The latest batch of edits from this address wasn't really vandalism. Misguided and bumbling, yes, but not vandalism.  You should leave them a note to stop messing with the formatting of the soccer club articles. The previous block on this IP (or rather a whole range of them) was caused by vicious harassment of a named person, but there is no indication that the present activity is due to the same editor(s). Favonian (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are correct, the Red Hot Chili Peppers stuff was not vandalism no sir, maybe this is being used by several people. Thanks! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User:2.124.76.227
This was the first post made by about 7 hours after the last two-week block you imposed. Help? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for three months. Favonian (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I reverted edits removed by another user that were there for quite some time but were removed recently with ill intent, replaced again, then removed by you which I'm sure were good faith edits, however the initial removal was done by someone else on here with ill intent. Confusing, but true. MikeHasIssues (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Get lost, troll. Calabe1992 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In a sens, this user cannot be considered a troll because trolls at least sound little funny. This user is worse then a troll, literally. They have got last warning from editing so probably is not seen active.  Yash t  101  :)  11:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Jetset IP is socking
84.227.30.191 restored several of the spam links added by 70.184.105.2. Perhaps you can take a look at it. Cheers. (Nymf editing logged out) 79.136.126.110 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like it's just a troll undoing random edits by me. (Nymf editing logged out) 79.136.126.110 (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does indeed look more like a personal gesture in your direction. The two IPs are from New York and Switzerland, respectively, which also makes socking slightly less likely. At any rate, I have reverted their contributions. Blocking is probably not worthwhile, as the IP appears to be dynamic. Favonian (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the troll is pretty adamant. and . Could the articles be semi-protected for a while? Nymf hideliho! 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking
Can I bring your attention to User:Hypocaustic's recent edits to passive smoking and second-hand smoke, a month after his move request at the former page failed?
 * 
 * 

That looks like an attempt to avoid the consensus of only a month ago. (I have reverted the edits, by the way). Cross porpoises (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have done the same with Smoking ban in England and Smoke-free law (England) too.

Also, he has been guilty of switching from US to UK English in many articles, and then reverting users when they try to undo him

Can you tell me how best I should proceed with this? Cross porpoises (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hypocaustic may indeed have been overly bold, but the semantics is tricky if we claim that they act against consensus in a discussion that was closed as "no consensus". Cut-and-paste moves are a bad thing (as explained in WP:CUTPASTE), and you did well to revert them. I won't be able to intervene in the case, as I leave on vacation in a few hours, but I advise you to pursue the dispute resolution path, as H's action may have been in good faith.  Regarding the US/UK English issue, it may be necessary to figure out which version was used first in the respective articles, as WP:RETAIN dictates that this should be kept in the cases where WP:TIES doesn't apply. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding Favonian. I'm happy to confirm that I have observed the consensus and have NOT inflicted a simplistic cut-and-paste move under the radar - I don't think that would really be in the spirit of Wikipedia.  The rationale for creating separate (but linked) pages for 'passive smoking' and 'second-hand smoke' is clearly explained on the relevant talk pages: in short, I have accepted the incorrectness of my earlier contention that 'passive smoking' was colloquial, and now endeavoured to clarify the distinction between an exposure-risk behaviour and the risky substance to which one is exposed.  I hope very much that Cross Porpoise's rash of recent reverts were commenced in good faith, but I'm sorry to say that they looked like vandalism and have therefore been corrected.  Edit warring rarely helps, but Cross Porpoises may have a point of view on some of these subjects which makes objectivity difficult to achieve. The added concern around ENGVAR is, I feel, a misunderstanding; I observe the standard Wikipedian conventions on this to the best of my ability, although I'm happy to be challenged if and when it looks like I've erred.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England". Thank you. --Cross porpoises (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré
Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

History of the Philippines (1521–1898)
It was renamed and afterwards there were significantly changes in the contents by IP. You might like to take a look. I don't know whether those edits are fine. ༆ (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article
Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nocturnal thanks
... for the page move. Go well. -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  12:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My (diurnal) pleasure :) It was an easy one—quite a relief from the discussions involving diacritics. Favonian (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop it Dude
I've changed,I'm positive now, why can't you understand that,move on.74.163.16.52 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the same old you, and now your IP has been blocked again. Bye! Favonian (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

closing inappropriate
You closed talk:Facundo_Arg%C3%BCello_%28tennis%29 with no comment and 3 to 2 for moving. No extra time given with low turnout. 99% of the time with these conditions it goes to "no consensus to move" yet you move the page? Number of English sources given on the actual page and arguments to keep 7, to move zero. Please reconsider or re-open for more polling. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was 3 to 1. One person was so busy that he couldn't find time to actually !vote on the proposal. Ignoring the outburst was the less drastic response. The turnout was not impressive, but no smaller than we are used to at requested moves. This is of course part of a bigger problem, but the tendency here as well as in other recent RMs seems to favoring the authentic spelling for these here-today-gone-tomorrow persons, rather than try to deduce a "common usage" from a very limited selection of media items and a website stuck in 7-bit ASCII mode. I therefore stand by my decision. Favonian (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wow...This is not true for these decisions on tennis players at all. And the detailed comments were really 2-1 in favor of move. That's not enough to move. But I see this is not going to change from you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim Sullivan Hughes or Kim Hughes (As the World Turns)
Upon consideration, I checked the consensus, and I wonder if the discussion is interpreted correctly. Yes, there were millions of results, but I narrowed down the results, and "Kim Hughes" is used more often. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of HannibalBarcaXXI


Hello, you blocked this editor for abusing multiple accounts. They have appealed their block on UTRS and claim that they have not done so. Is there any context you can provide that will help me evaluate their request? --Chris (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sloppy of me not to note the name of the presumed master. My memory from that far back is a bit hazy, but I believe there was a serial sockpuppeteer editing articles about Arab countries in trouble, making edits very similar to . Since I can't point you to the SPI or similar, I'm in no position to object to unblocking the account, though I hope they'll be made to realize why their original edits were improper. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hello Favonian, could you please mark this WP:ANI case for close please? Soviet King Pound me if i messed up. 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the proper incantations to use when pronouncing bans on miscreants, so I'll leave the honor to an admin more experienced in this art. Sorry! Favonian (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

is it OK to use images that i took from google earth?
Jawadreventon (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on copyright matters, but I doubt that Google Earth's copyright policy allows for publishing on Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on History of coal mining
I have recent received a warning that I have vandalized the article "History of coal mining". Apparently, the warning came from you. That said, I am professing my innocence. I DID NOT edit; heck, I didn't even go near that page!

I say again, I DID NOT vandalize the Wikipedia article "History of coal mining"; repeat, I DID NOT vandalize the Wikipedia article "History of coal mining".

I have no doubt, it was someone else who vandalized that article, and upon doing so, deflected the blame at me. Please do not blame me, for I am innocent. When I DO edit a Wikipedia article, I do it as a contribution, NOT to vandalize.

Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.181.29 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only did I issue a warning, I blocked your IP from editing based of edits such as . It may well be that you are not the person responsible for the vandalism, and you should seriously think of creating an account to avoid being tarred with the same brush as whoever else happens to use the same IP address as you. Favonian (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism or ?
I'm not sure what this is at Richard I, Duke of Normandy. I'm contacting you since You just visited the page and reverted an edit. The information added to his name, specifically "Richard de Basseville of Normandish"—is this vandalism? I've never seen this name used anywhere before and it's not covered by the source citation #1, Europäische Stammtafeln, vol ii, Tafel 79; which citation probably isn't necessary anyway as it's in the lead. But I'm not sure enough to revert it myself although I did add a tag. Would you take a second look and see what you think this is? Thanks. Bearpatch (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both this and the other contributions by this French IP look at best unsourced. I would encourage you to undo their edits and ask them on their talk page to provide reliable sources for these claims. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reopened ANI discussion
Back on 28 March I closed a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I thought was finished with. You were one of the contributors to the discussion. Another editor later posted a further comment below the closed section, and, having read that comment, I decided that the issue was perhaps not as unambiguously finished as I had thought, so I reverted my closure. Nobody posted any more comments to the section, and it is now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744. However, an editor has now suggested that I should have informed those who contributed to the discussion that it had been reopened, so I am doing so. It is very likely that nobody had any more to add, but if you would have done so then I apologise for not informing you at the time. If you do wish to say any more about it then it will be necessary to open a new section at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since the old one is archived. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No harm done in my case. I have nothing original to add to the case. Favonian (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous_carl
you just send me a warning. I think you should read about the whole matter before sending me a warning, just because the other party was the first to send you a complain. I could have complain too. This is not a good way to do things. Thank you for your comprehension sir. Let us all talk about this and solve the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.239.254 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I've now reviewed the edit too. It shouldn't be included on that page. Please don't restore it again. Calabe1992 21:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did read through it, and the references provided failed to back the claims. You may of course try to propose the changes on the article talk page, but if you try to add them back into the article without consensus, you will be blocked temporarily from editing. Favonian (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok mr «le crustacé attardé», but I don't think we can say that easely that MIT fails to back a claims. There should be a complete scientific analysis of the matter to determine wether what I did was true or not. This encyclopedia is about equality, so my right to contribute is equal to the right to undo my contribution, which means they don't have more right to undo my contribution than I have the right to make a contribution. We should all have a scientific debate on the matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.239.254 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Debate all you want, but it has to be on Talk:Oliver (given name). Favonian (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And these appear to be University students? The imagination goes into boggling overload. Thanks for your intervention on my talk page. I was just beginning to enjoy the prospect of leading them into a series of bear pits but that would have been contrary to "don't bite the newbies" and I might have got myself into accusations of trolling a newby (if that indeed is possible). I do wonder what worlds some of university students live in - but am immensely grateful that I'll never know ! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed! I wasn't like that when I was a student—though that may have something to do with the fact that the internet hadn't really been invented yet. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You sir, have no life. DO you spend your time on wikipedia, editing articles? Do you really think this encyclopedia is that important? There's already Britannica and Encyclopedia Universaliss you know, that are actually written by real experts, not just the common idiot. By the way I saw so many Bullshit on wikipedia that was never edited and actually was defended by your unemployed losers. There's 1000000 more article for us to grief so don't think it's over by locking this one about Oliver. I'm already satisfied that my contribution stood there for hours, meaning many idiots actually red it and most believed it («if it's on wikipedia/TV then it must be true») I will never forget the time were I got a 5/20 in college for my work because most of my information was from wikipedia, and especially from articles that you guys considered prefect and not vandalized (I checked the history and there was never a single edit do to vandalism). So stop taking to seriously this encyclopedia made mostly by unemployed idiots that think that ,because they red 5 website and some newspaper, they are real experts. So anyway, I will probably continue to vandalize from time to time to have a good laugh with my friends, and don't worry, i'm using proxies so banning my ip won't have any effect. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.145.168 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo! - talkback
I would value your input. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lee McLoughlin Leicester
I was going to extend his block to a month but saw that you'd warned him. I think he got off too easily, that was just insulting to us. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess I should relish the feeling of having been too lenient. Actually, I thought it was so funny that he tried to avoid his block using an IP address geolocating to Leicester that I forgot my usual blood lust. Let's see what happens. If he doesn't learn, then his attitude will get him reblocked soon enough. Favonian (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he did it repeatedly, and broke the camel's back. Blocked indefinitely for socking and personal attacks. Favonian (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The behaviour of IP User:90.192.121.150 seems curious to me. This certainly looked like a sock of User:Lee McLoughlin Leicester, but this appears to be opposing Mr McLoughlin's attempts to use that poll to exaggerate the number of atheists. This is what confused me, and led to my initially indef blocking and then later reverting when I really couldn't be sure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is rather confusing. I also wonder if there's a meat puppet involved. The IPs geolocate to Leicester and Dover (with the same ISP, though), and the named accounts use the names of those towns. At any rate, we need to see a really good unblock request before letting them back into the fold. Favonian (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Sky Broadband does generally geolocate fairly accurately. But there's definitely something suspicious happening here, and I certainly agree we'd need a pretty good unblock explanation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Wikipedia does allow the use of multiple accounts so long as they're not used deceptively. My usernames User:Lee_McLoughlin_Leicester and User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 are hardly intended to deceive anyone in to thinking they belong to different persons. They're probably the most transparent usernames on the internet: My name in full followed by my city of birth or my year of birth! This is not an abuse of multiple accounts and so you've abused your position.

As for, it is not in breach of the Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks. I was simply offering a suggestion to someone that contributes nothing to Wikipedia.

It does appear that Favonian is the one in breach of Wikipedia's policies, not me.

Well I'm expecting the birth of my third child any day (grown-up stuff), so I'm going and I'll be back in 6 months to a year. Bye all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.121.180 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted to my talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI he posted a similar comment at WP:BN. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's Hard To Say Goodbye If You Won't Leave" ;) Favonian (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request Undoing the Move of "Balfour Declaration"; should be "Balfour Declaration of 1917"
Hi, Favonian,

I've recently become aware of the discussion about the names of the two Balfour Declaration articles. I've just now posted a proposal to un-do the move of the 1917 one and restore the title "Balfour Declaration of 1917" with a disambiguation page for the two Declarations.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Commented at Talk:Balfour Declaration. Favonian (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
Oh yes i dont know how but forgot to notice, and really apologies for that mistake. Mumbaifreaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbaifreaks (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Idiot!
That they'd call you one, well, that's probably not right though understandable, but me?? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, you were first on his list. You must have done something wrong—or right. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just not my day. Look what ! Favonian (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tsk tsk. I was called that once on a student evaluation, but the jackass couldn't spell it correctly. Or, one could read it the European way: "I'm a shower? huh?" Which reminds me: the Dutch word for a knot in one's hair is "klit". Sometimes one of my daughters will comment when I comb their hair, "hey, I have lots of klits in my hair." I hope they NEVER say that outside our household! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're doomed! In Danish "klit" means "dune", compare this picture. Translated, the sign says "Karen's Dune. Always an experience." Favonian (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is priceless. I'm going to need a cold shower now to remove any thoughts of Karen's klit. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Man, this guy hit me twice, on my user and user talk page, and consequently I'm considering wikisuicide. Also, "come their hair"? Is that Freudian? ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Next time, just correct it, will you? or you'll see some REAL insults coming your way. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to feel slighted. Only hit once, and way down his shit list. Must work harder! Favonian (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are the edit filters ? Favonian (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal - 12.16.239.2
An active individual that probably should be dealt with. -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * School's out—with a vengeance. Can't take credit for it, as I was too busy with the friendly banter above, and a colleague had to swing the clue bat. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured someone would get 'em, way they were going. Spring fever.-- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Continued Use of Sock Puppets, and Block Evasion
Typhoonwikihelper switched to this IP Address: 218.103.152.230 (talk). This new IP sockpuppet needs to be reported to WP:ANI (and be blocked again), because he is refusing to stop, and because he is trying to evade his editing block. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for being kind of obvious. Thanks for your vigilance. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I kind of was worried there. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He's back again... as the IP 219.77.32.65. Are we ever going to be able to stop him? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by another admin. Our "friend" has diversified into a new IP range, making it harder to block him preemptively. We'll just have to play Whac-A-Mole until he gets frustrated with all the wasted effort. Favonian (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He told me that he would continuously change IPs (probably until he runs out of sockpuppets for good), and that whenever he gets the chance (if his IPs are still useable, after the block wears off) that he would continue. He persists in threatening, and quite frankly, I can't stand it anymore. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have two means at our disposal: range blocking and semi-protection. In case we have to use the latter, you too will be affected, so I strongly advise you to get an account. Favonian (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the latter would work, because he hinted that once protection wears off, he would resume, and because he edits multiple pages, to my dismay. However, if he is the only/dominant user using that range of IPs, and if it is possible to allow other to continue editing, then yes, I say that we should go with range blocking, if this "madness" continues. Even if we cannot "save" other editors within that IP range, if they don't edit all that often, than we should still go for the range block. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If possible, we should just block off all IPs that are traced to the user Typhoonwikihelper, because all of those IPs we're talking about are his sockpuppets (but then again, I think we already know that). 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Typhoonwikihelper is back again as 203.218.29.93, and this time he even admited it on Jason Rees's talk page. Typhoonwikihelper is also operating out of this IP Address: 203.218.29.116, as evident on Jason Rees's talk page. Unbelievably, this IP is still continuing to vandalize various pages, mostly through the first IP Address I mentioned. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's back again as 218.103.145.154, and he is still continuing to vandalize, like on Jason Rees's talk page. I don't know how we are going to handle this guy. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If Typhoonwikihelper follows through on the following threat below, we should go with the rangeblock. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Threat (as seen on Jason Rees's talk page):

Please be noted that if i get too mad i will seriously create a Vandalism-only account 218.103.145.154 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Threat provided by: 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We seriously have to stop him. I am really starting to get scared by now. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He's an annoying little jerk, but there's no cause to be scared. CharlieEchoTango seems to be on top things, block-wise, so the typhoon is more like a storm in a teacup. Because of the time difference, I'm usually too late to join in the fun, but I have now blocked his most recently used IP range for a week, just to send him a message. Favonian (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I pattern I noted is that everyday that he is able to aquire a new "sockpuppet," he begins editing around 0500 UTC, which is around 12:00 A.M, Eastern US Time (EST). If he dosen't show up for a while, we may have won. Of course, we can't take that for granted. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found Typhoonwikihelper's oldest "IP Sockpuppet" yet, 203.218.175.13. Although that IP is currently inactive, along with another old "sock", 203.218.29.116, I am concerned that they may return again, especially since those IPsocks are not blocked. I have expressed my concerns. (PS, Typhoonwikihelper hasn't shown up yet. That could be good news. But as always with vandalists, we have to wait and see.) Sincerely, 72.197.249.141 (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, whatever: here Bruvtakesover (T&#124;C) 12:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like he found another range to play with. Gathering evidence for yet another range block . Favonian (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If this guy decides to continue vandalizing, I believe that we should use a range block when possible. (Of course, not in a seriously damaging way.) He dosen't look like he will give up. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, everybody but i need to say something.... I am Typhoonwikihelper and please read the following:


 * Did everything i done was really Vandalism?
 * If i did something wrong, why not explain why it is wrong instead blocking me while i do not learn?!
 * I don't give up as i see something that needs to be improved...however i am new to Wikipedia, i understand what i see is real and good is not what you see.
 * If i have spin upped a Hurricane in Wikipedia, i sincerely apologize.
 * I was really here to contribute, not Vandalize.
 * Do you have any "Kindergarten manner" ? for calling me a jerk?!
 * Please, don't think of me as a "jerk" everybody, why not watch closely what i do before blocking...or why not tell and explain what i have done wrong?

Thank you for reading the above.

Sincerely, 203.218.28.33 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to have eluded your attention, but you are blocked, meaning that you as a person are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. As you were told when your talk page access was revoked, your only option is to make a really well-argued request to.
 * Me calling you a jerk was probably not the civil thing to do, but when you make threats like, you're really asking for it. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent "Sockpuppet Master"
If this guy comes back again, I seriously believe that it is time for a rangeblock. I don't know how much longer we can keep this up. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He's back again, as 219.77.34.134. If possible, I seriously believe that this is the time for a rangeblock, when we have enough data. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Three of his preferred ranges blocked for two weeks. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please rangeblock him if possible? He changed to this address:219.79.126.148. Now his is resuming his attacks on my talk page. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please block off the other ranges that Typhoonwikihelper has access to (and is using)? He now changed to this addrss: 218.103.152.21, and is continuing to vandalize pages every day, while changing his address about 2 to 4 times a day. I seriously believe it is about time that you block off the other ranges he has access to, since he is continuing to create a very big mess. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked that range for an additional month. I don't block ranges until there's actual activity. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. But the problem is, just how many ranges does he have access to, or is using? If he keeps this up, we may have to try someting new. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have located all of Typhooneikihelper's active IPs within the last month, and a few of them even further back. Here is a page I "generated," using the IPs listed on the site. The IP range data could be really useful, especially if this guy does not give up. Also included are some "personal" data about the vandalizer (but you probably already know that). Are there any other ranges this guy is using, besides the range(s) listed on the webpage? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your list pretty much confirms my own results, namely that except for a couple of isolated addresses all TWH's IPs fall in the three ranges which recently came out of two-week-long blocks. Two of the ranges had already been reblocked for a month, and today this contribution prompted me to likewise for the third range.  That should make life quite difficult for TWH, but he may find loopholes. Just FYI, I'll be off-Wiki for about five days. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is he back again??! He was editing out of this address: 219.70.184.204. The confusing thing is that the IP fell under the 3 Ranges, and since they are all blocked, how would he even be able to edit? If the edit was made before you blocked him (hopefully), then that means that we won't have to contend with him for a while. If not, and if this is a new IP, then we have trouble brewing. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, does this guy have any unblocked isolated IPs? If yes, how many? That may be our problem here. But if we can seal off the isolated IPs he has, we may be able to fend off TWH for a much longer amount of time. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please seal off the rest of TWH's isolated IPs? They were getting real bothersome. He was continuing to mess up articles and dump clumps of false info. The only reason TWH stopped editing recently, is because he no longer has any more articles to "update". His most recent IP was: 213.122.129.242, which is really concerning me. If there are anymore unblocked ranges linked to TWH, can you please reblock them? And if this guy pops up again, what are we going to do? He keeps coming back, and continues his swath of vandalism. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that those two isolated IPs are TWH. 219.70.184.204 is registered in Taiwan and 213.122.129.242 in the UK, whereas our mutual friend edits from Hong Kong. Favonian (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed a few IPs creating quite a mess on a couple of pages. The other users seem to be on top of that, but I believe that we need to keep a closer eye on them, especially since I recognize 2 of those troublemakers. TWH may also be back; I noted a few IPs with his digits, which suspiciously similar edit patterns. TWH is quiet for now, but I'll continue to monitor him, if he returns. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)