User talk:Favonian

This is Favonian's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58: 7 days

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

That LTA or something

Would it be better to protect that page instead? Or not because then they will move to a different page and do the same vandalism? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We (of the CABAL) have our ulterior motives for doing the WP:RBI, but thanks for helping out! Favonian (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish vandalism

hello sir can you lock every assyrian page Kurds keep changing the results to Kurdish victory where it's assyrian victory And let me edit them too I have many sources for many historicl assyrian events I wanna make a Wikipedia about the battle of Qasim liwi River and battle of Urmia lake but don't know how please stop kurdish vandalism Assyrian.crusader (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to get consensus at the article talk page. The topic, as I told you above, is controversial, and any attempt at edit-warring will have repercussions. Favonian (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well sir don't get me wrong nothing is controversial here the reason why Kurds are changing the results is because they are trying to sabotage assyrian history battle of charah for example the article says Assyrians won the battle yet Kurdish internet trolls still changed the results to kurdish victory just to troll around they change it to kurdish victory even tho the article said Assyrians won

I'm here to request the lock of every assyrian wiki page to be protected from vandalism I want access to them when protected because I have many sources for them Assyrian.crusader (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi Favonian, I was just wondering what the reason for the block on this IP was: [[1]]

I suspect the user might be operating an account, and was wondering if the block reason was due to behaviour of an individual or for procedural reasons relating to the IP address itself. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: The block is actually on a range of IPs, 110.78.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), not that specific IP. At the time, I still had (free) access to ipqualityscore.com, the data from which convinced me that this the range, geolocating to Thailand, was used for proxying. Several of the IPs in the range have previously been individually blocked for that reason, e.g. 110.78.151.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Their edits to the Scott Sumner article and its talk page were, if memory serves, what prompted my intervention. I would not be surprised if some "steady customer" is behind that particular obsession, but I am not able to name them. Favonian (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. The Sumner edits are slightly different from the person I'm thinking of, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia reference desk

Sir, I don't understand why you're erasing my contributions I understand that they can be by turns charged, by turns frontal, but nothing can excuse in my view the actions that you have taken including strikingly prompt history-clearing kindly do the needful 130.74.59.153 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needful done. You're blocked. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]