User talk:Ponyo/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

User:HIDECCHI2013

I was hoping look into something for me. About ten days ago you blocked this user as a sockpuppet. He/she came to my attention when he created an article on Sergiu Cristian Popovici. In the past, creating this article, usually under the title Sergiu Popovici, was the red flag for another sockpuppeteer, User:Bad good dragosh98. Is there any way of determining if the two are the same person? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Replied via email on Aug. 3.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for clearing that silly remark from my talk page and blocking the anonymous user who made it. Much appreciated! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock/meatpuppet Zubin Irani

I'm guessing Zubin Irani (talk · contribs) is another of the puppets you mentioned to look for here. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

182.186.218.200 (talk · contribs) as well. These 182.186's are regulars at this. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've blocked the named account. With the IPs (which may or may not be related) I generally give them a level 2 and then a level 3 warning, then block if they don't stop with the BLP violations. The IPs are so disposable they just pop onto a new one so it's essentially whack-a-mole.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow your lead on the ips. Has anyone discussed a range block? --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately a useable rangeblock is not possible due to the very large ranges being used. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Ponyo. Can you please direct me to the case page for the sockmaster of these socks? I do like to investigate possible links to a new user currently active at Pakistani celebrity articles. Thanks -- SMS ^Talk 10:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't an SPI page as the technical data is confounded by the number of ranges being used. At this time I've been essentially playing whack-a-mole as the accounts pop up. This appears to be a marketing network being used for promoting minor Pakistani/Lollywood actors and programs as opposed to a specific sockmaster, and the disruption goes back years. The main concern is that the articles created and the information added often include copyright and BLP violations as well as falsification of references. If you have a specific account you would like me to look at you can note it here or email me if you prefer. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, if you can look Jiah Amin (talk · contribs). And I think it would be of great help if we can have a category that list all these socks or a Long Term Abuse page. -- SMS ^Talk 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I already blocked them this morning and deleted the article they created as a G5.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Ponyo, you may want to look over the thread here as you were the CU checking into him. I've blocked another of his socks. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, it helped in detecting this sock. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Connect the dots

I see that you recently blocked 76.117.236.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). User:Areusure4 says that they used to edit as 76.117.166.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that wasn't very smart.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you a troll or something? :) -- 76.117.166.209 (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Manu Sharma

Please undo the "per WP:BLPPRIMARY)" as the edit is well researched from the actual case file which I have given as Reference.Rest is up to you.I wanted the actual case file on the article created on Manu Sharma,to give it authenticity.The facts are not straight.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The material you are trying to add is already summarized through the use of secondary sources. Your addition of court document excerpts is both excessive and against Wikipedia policy which is very clear on the subject: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I differ -this article clearly points only to a criminal case .This is not a Biography.It contains only what happened in a particular case ,which has again re-opened at the High Court of Delhi. If it was a Biography with a mention of some criminal activities by a person,which was debatable ,I would have not included this edit. It is maligning a person on Wikipedia by making him a criminal based on a single judgement.The entire article is based only on one case.Manu Sharma is not a habitual offender nor a terrorist.Please remove the article itself before some one sues Wikipedia .Then you block the judgement.Strange editor.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the article is a biography of a living person. This is evidenced by that fact that 1) it's a biography article and 2) the person is living. If the article itself does not convince you, please see the category tags and project tags on both the article and its associated talk page. You can differ as much as you like, however you cannot change facts to suit your purpose. There is an article that specifically covers the crime at Murder of Jessica Lal, however this article also falls under the BLP umbrella as many of the individual's involved are still alive. The court case is already covered extensively in the Manu Sharma article through the use of secondary sources as is required by policy. Edit warring to restore verbatim sections of the court documents violates this policy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You ! Meanwhile let me inform you on a personal level that I am Intervenor in person to this case (I.A.9098)linked to Indian Intelligence,and I tried to bring truth in the eyes of the public.You are an editor at Wikipedia.Just for your interest as to how people like us work,I am sending you a link.Can you judge from sources quoted by you on the Jessica Lal murder case , as to how the links below ,are connected to the case ?Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1. http://www.dpsbhilai.in/contents/aboutus/principal-mess.php . 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki . 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_missionaries 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Lab 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McMillan 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Cox_Report_controversy

All Helpful Wikipedia articles.So I cannot differ with u people.

Well, as an intervenor in this case you should not be directly editing the article at all. Wikipedia depends on verification through reliable sources, not via individuals attempting "to bring truth in the eyes of the public". --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I have moved this discussion to the appropriate location. If your going to continue to post, please do so there.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

user Wadood Jahan

Wadood Jahan (talk · contribs) appears to be yet another meatpuppet of the Pakistani-celebrity mess... --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And so it is. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in our previous discussion (and I'm too lazy to go to my archives to check), but I have found some of their edits contain copyvios and there has been falsification of references if they ever do bother to use them. Mess indeed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Much appreciated, I had in fact missed that.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 03:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider it a long overdue "hello, haven't seen you in a while" :)--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Thomas

Hi there Ponyo. My page (above) got deleted. I don't care about the page, it can be deleted as long as it wants. But, I'm kindly asking to be able to copy all text from my page, to be able to put it in a file on my computer. I'm sorry my page didn't meet the Wikipedia articles for creation criteria, and I hope I could get it back. I hope no harm is done in this.

Thanks a lot, Mattythomass (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you temporarily enable email in your preferences I can email you a copy of the deleted article. I'm willing to do so only if you agree to not attempt to post this material anywhere on Wikipedia.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now enabled my email. Therefore, I promise not post text from the article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Mattythomass (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed you a copy of the article. You can disable your email now if you would like.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

198.228.200.128/26 (talk · contribs) and 198.228.201.128/26 (talk · contribs) ranges

Is it time to send both of them off on another compulsory wikibreak? Whoever keeps adding various uncorroborated "descent" categories to BLPs has been all over these ranges in the last two to three weeks – I found more than a dozen instances a few days ago, and two today. SuperMarioMan 21:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

3 months this time.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They've switched to another, closely-related range: 198.228.200.0/26 (talk · contribs). 24.39.105.2 (talk · contribs), which has been contributing the same kinds of edits on-off, has also been active recently. Over the last couple of years (or thereabouts), I've been truly amazed by this individual's persistence, and I'm now wondering whether a community ban request is something to consider – as WP:BANNED shows, there is some precedent for banning the most disruptive anonymous users ("IP hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan", and others). Any registered user with a block log so heavy would have been shown the door long ago, and the revision history of Mpho Koaho says it all. In addition to watch-listing commonly-targeted pages, I've been keeping a list of all the suspicious IPs that I've encountered, and currently come up with roughly 220 addresses (most of which I'm fairly confident, judging by the editing behaviour, have been used by the same person). I would be interested in, and very grateful for, your perspective (as a blocking administrator) on the banning argument. SuperMarioMan 02:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the new range for 3 months and the single IP for 2 years (they've been consistently using this IP for nearly two years). I have to run out for a bit, so I'll respond further regarding the block/ban distinction soon.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

They're back again. Curiously, this IP address seems to originate in Italy rather than New York (or another US state), but it's clear from the editing pattern that the operators are one and the same. What are your thoughts on proposing a community ban for this user? SuperMarioMan 15:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone is off on an Italian vacation! Ban's work when there is an identifiable account to ban, which isn't the case here (it is also why you won't find any IPs listed here). I would say however that this BLPCAT LTA IP hopper is de facto banned and therefore any of their edits can be rolled back and the IPs blocked on sight.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected that the anonymity would be a strong counter-argument. Since you've mentioned WP:LTA a few times in block summaries, would it make sense to create an actual LTA subpage? Something like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal is what I would aim for. There is already User:Jim1138/24.164.190.130 BLP issue; however, the scale and frequency of the problem are such that a page in the project namespace, dedicated to centralised reporting and tracking, would help tremendously in drawing the attention of the wider Wikipedia community - in my opinion, anyway. SuperMarioMan 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Martha Howe-Douglas

Hi, just wanted to say that what I added about Martha Howe-Douglas was correct. She has tweeted about her husband and birthday several times so have changed it back but if you are still not happy, and want to change it back I wont mess with it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meggie1tr (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I tried to find verification of the birth date or her marriage and could not (there was some press regarding her being in a relationship, but no verification of a marriage). Even Barry Castagnola's official website does not assert that they are married, she is referred to only as "award-winning actress/writer Martha Howe-Douglas" in relation to work they have performed together. Your having viewed mention of the information on Twitter does not meet the sourcing criteria required for biography articles (and is a form of original research) and I have therefore removed the material again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet re-opened

Quite sad this sockpuppet case is continuing to need to be re-opened. Wish there was more the community could do! Wingard. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the clerk handling the most recent case has locked up the latest sock as well as an IP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Schwab page

Indented line

Hi Ponyo, the "Jennifer Schwab" page I created was deleted by you for the following reasons:

21:12, 20 August 2013 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted page Jennifer Schwab (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-schwab/)

I understand the Wikipedia is not a promotional platform; however, I did read the section on notable living people, and I believe that my colleague, Jennifer Schwab, meets the criteria. She is a prominent figure in the "green" community and people have suggested that we create a Wiki page that can be updated and edited regularly.

Can you please give me some advice on how to move forward creating a page for her that will not be taken down? I spent a lot of time creating the page, and I used Huffington Post as an external reference for Jennifer's biographical information.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjmalan (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. Creating an article regarding a subject with which you are closely affiliated presents a conflict of interest; this inherent conflict makes it nearly impossible to write an article in the neutral fashion required by Wikipedia policy. In addition to the promotional nature of the content, the article included verbatim text from a copyrighted source resulting in violation of Wikipedia's policy on copyright. If you believe that Jennifer Schwab meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion I would suggest requesting an article here (under the most appropriate profession header). Assuming she meets the aforementioned notability criteria, a neutral editor who is not personally involved with Ms. Shwab will likely create the article in the future. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For your kindness! Let's drink! Cheers! :-) -- L o g X 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the coffee. It's tough with new editors who have a conflict of interest, they believe they're doing the right thing by adding information and removing possible errors, but they really need to use the talk page to suggest changes. Hopefully Jmaichuk6191991 will understand that using the talk page is the best way forward.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Have a good time! -- L o g X 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete User page

Can you please delete my User page alone? Thanks -- L o g X 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's done by an other administrator. You can ignore this post! Thanks -- L o g X 16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi Ponyo. Could you please revision delete these two BLP violations [1] [2]? Also, could you pending changes protect that page indefinitely? It has received a lot of BLP violations. Just to let you know, I left a request of that page on RPP. Thanks, Webclient101^talk 02:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting the BLP issues with the article. I've revdeleted the two edits in question and another admin has enabled pending changes for the page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ponyo

Thanks for your help today with the request. -- Zigger «º» 10:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IP Redaction

Hi. Thanks for unblocking me. If you could redact the IP from the history, I would appreciate it. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All done! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You're awesome! -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Manish Dayal

uhm, Manish Sudhir Patel is as Indian as the name can get, and just because no one mentioned his heritage in the article doesn't mean he isn't one...now we have to 'source' such minute things like that as well?--Stemoc (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless they are supported by sourced article content (see WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS). Making deductions such as "well, they have an Indian name so they must be Indian" is original research and not sufficient. So yes, per policy, in BLPs we do need to sourced such "minute" details as an individual's ethnicity.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

well you can always google "manish dayal Indian" and provide the source yourself...i will not waste my time talking about such "minute" problems :P ..--Stemoc (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I could try to do the sourcing work for you, however the burden is on the the editor adding the information to demonstrate the material is verifiable. Per EGRS, if you can provide a reliable source that shows that the BLP subject is of Indian descent (and identifies as such), then it can be included. The category is unrelated to the subject's notability and should never be added solely based on supposition. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IP user 82.30.29.154; returned as 82.30.28.143?

Ponyo, back on June 30 you blocked User talk:82.30.29.154 for six months. It looks to me that this same user might be back quite a bit early using a new IP address, 82.30.28.143.

The new address is editing some of the same articles (i.e., Glee and EastEnders actors and characters), usually changing infobox info or images, or adding unsourced Personal life sections or material in actor BLPs—here an edit that had involved adding a copyrighted image to Commons is being deleted—and you can see on User talk:82.30.28.143 that the warnings are already starting to accumulate.

Thanks for taking a look at this when you get the chance. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted and blocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking care of it. Sometimes you're doing a revert and there's this strong feeling of deja vu... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the heads on up on how to use the talk pages. -DeCombray (talk)

You're welcome! You can use the same subpage system (e.g. User:DeCombray/insert article name here) for any articles you want to work on prior to moving to article space. Thank you for your contributions!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ponyo,

Please help delete this obsolete archive thank you. --Amazonien (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages (including their archives) are almost never deleted; the preferred method is to blank the page in such cases. If you are experiencing vandalism in the archive I can semi-protect it for you as no-one (other than you) should bed editing your archived pages.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Northampton

Ponyo, I think you and I stepped on each other when fixing the Northampton page. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think I was the one making the negative edits about the Konkrete Kids. Lingjo `~~`

Nope, I realized you were trying to help but didn't quite catch all the vandalism.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

_{PS In order for your signature to display correctly you need to use four ~ (or use the signature button in the edit box).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)}

Thanks : ) Hopefully it works this time Lingjo (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It worked :) I've left a welcome and some helpful links on your talk page. The Teahouse is also a great venue for new editors to ask questions when getting started. Happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

False accusations of conflict of interest

Hello, I am not associated with Justin Willman. I was simply trying to expand his stub entry with factual information provided in various interviews, most of which were already cited on the wiki. Additionally, the way the content was previously arranged was messy and so I added the headings like you would see on any other Wikipedia page. I do not understand why you removed all of my changes, when I am just trying to be a good-natured participant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisrob123 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. With regard to your edits to the Justin Willman article, there were several issues that led to my reverting the edits which I'll expand upon here. First, you repeatedly and inexplicably blanked the infobox that appears on most biography articles (there are exceptions to the general use of infoboxes for specific Wikipedia projects, but they do not apply here). The infobox is meant to summarize sourced information in the article and house the accompanying image. Next you added redundant information, already included in the lead, that didn't expand on the information presented. This edit is particularly concerning as you added personal statistics and material to the article without noting your source. It's not sufficient to simply say there are sources out there, you need to include them when adding the material. You also wrote that "Justin had the honor of performing at the White House", which was also unsourced and not a neutral statement. If sourced, a more appropriate addition would be "On <xxx date>, Willman performed <insert what the performance consisted of> at the White House <insert source>". I appreciate your desire to improve the article, and I don't mean to deter you in your efforts to do so, it's just that the edits were unsourced, and you blanked the infobox (leaving the image unfortunately floating mid article). The Manual of Style for biographies is a helpful guideline for new editors looking to expand an article. The Teahouse is also a great venue if you get stuck and have questions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Abineri

Hi Ponyo,

We seem to playing Wiki ping-pong. The facts contained in my original entry which you keep altering are accurate. Can you please explain to me exactly how I can re-insert the information and satisfy your criteria?

Johnlinwood (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summaries, as well as explained on your talk page, your edits are being reverted as you are adding unsourced material to a biography, as well as categories that are also unsupported by sourced content. When adding information, please also include your source for the information so that readers are able to verify it if they choose. The use of the word "notorious" is also discouraged as it holds negative connotations and does not seem appropriate in this case. Please do ensure you read WP:BLP and WP:RS; there is a lot of material there, however it will help you understand what the requirements are regarding sources in biographies.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Shookallen88

Hi, Ponyo, when you have a moment, could you take a look at this discussion on my talk page? If you need more background, let me know. I'd like your thoughts on what you think is best. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If they had only used the IP to attempt to make contact with you to ask a question I could see giving a bit of leeway, but they also used it to evade the block to edit. Again. One of the reasons that the Standard Offer calls for a six month break from editing is to judge whether the editor is really committed to abiding by policies and guidelines and willing to make the effort to prove it. Coming back every couple of weeks to poke around with questions and evading the block with edits here and there just demonstrates that Shookallen88 still doesn't have the self-control to not sock. As their original blocks were for edit-warring (which is very much a self-control type issue), I think it's best to block the IP and reset the clock on the Standard Offer. Given their previous interactions, if you provide any leeway outside of the specific wording of the standard offer they will likely become confused as to what edits they can and can't make via IP. It may be helpful to point out to him that you have email enabled if they have any questions regarding the Offer, however that may be opening yourself up to a continuous series of unblock requests and questions. Fun! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

_{Psssst Bbb23...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)}

Heh, I blocked the IP for a month this time. Thanks for spotting it. I couldn't decide whether to revert his revert. Part of it seemed right, and part of it was unusual, and I wasn't sure. I'll leave his edit in place and leave it to others to do what they want with the article. Feel free to revert him if you think it's best. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unauthorised removal of talk page content

Hi Ponyo, I reverted your removal of text from User:Timtrent's talk page here; removing messages from the talk pages of third parties is generally frowned upon, per WP:TPO. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think it's particularly frowned upon to remove clear, unsubstantiated personal attacks from others' talk pages as Ponyo did here; that's pretty standard, I think. But in this case, removing it wasn't necessary, as Timtrent does explicitly ask people not to remove personal attacks from his page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Writ Keeper, that is indeed my interpretation as well, though I wouldn't have removed the false claim had I seen the edit note on Timtrent's talk page regarding personal attacks. Sometimes the finer details are missed when working from popups.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi chaps. Thanks for leaping in to protect me. As you have seen, I don't mind personal attacks at all. They tend to stay for ever as a reminder of the attacker. I have to go and have a look for what I missed now! Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What a lot of hassle. Ah well. I've left what I hope he perceives as a friendly, certainly neutral, message on his talk page inviting further good contributions. If the offending article that caused all this brouhaha gets citations and the bloke is notable at all then the article will be welcome, of course. It seems he read my user page, found "my first article" and had a go at it. Looks like it took him a shedload of research that he might have used better to source the article that had to be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 07:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :)

For the Julia Mora thing, came back to ANI but the thread was closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. I've watchlisted the article now, so hopefully we won't see a recurrence of the disruptive claims. (P.S. Why aren't you an admin yet?) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Not sure. But if I were I wouldn't have to bug you guys with these §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

TheREALCableGuy SPI

Came upon the possible IP they might be using with Webportalavro and added to the sock report if you'd like to report and comment; looks like a Warsaw proxy. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it would appear that TRCG has now discovered the world of open proxies. Not much can be done other than blocking on sight and rolling back the edits.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Thanks for fixing my weird AWB edit on Rokhsaneh Ghawam-Shahidi.. I dunno how my AWB setup managed to think of male actresses, but good to see it fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine "English male radio actresses" would be a very exclusive category indeed! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

IP 77.70.28.120 is back

77.70.28.120 (talk · contribs) and their master Lzdimitar (talk · contribs) are back, with the addition of unsourced content into many airport articles. I've reverted just a few of them and templated the IP with a last warning. Just to let you know, given that you were the blocking admin. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for three months. When you've racked up as many blocks as Lzdimitar (via his account and IP), they can hardly plead ignorance of the issues raised. I didn't block indefinitely as I still hold out some slim hope that they will see the requirement for sourcing and communication with others. It's unfortunate as they could be a productive editor, but every attempt at communication has resulted in *crickets chirping*. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Need your help on the page - Shraddha Kapoor

Hey! Can you please fix the DOB issue on this page? Some editors were ready to start edit warring if some changes were been made. Have a look when you find some free time! Thanks!! --    L o g  X   16:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already semi-protected the article through to May 2014 in order to help keep some of the unsourced content out. There is some discussion regarding her DOB on the talk page, but it's pretty fractured. Editors are simply making assertions as to the "correct" date as opposed to actually discussing the topic and analysing the sources to come up with a consensus as to which (if any) date to use. I also have the article watchlisted as it is prone to BLP violations. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article's talk page and even my talk page is been cracked by the editors! I don't know how to react to them! --    L o g  X   16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just let the editor on your talk page know that the correct venue for discussing disputed content in on the article talk page. If the talk page discussion goes nowhere, or consensus cannot be reached, there is always the option of starting a Request for Comment to draw in additional opinions.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! I really appreciate your help! --    L o g  X   16:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter Bossman

Hi, could you please add the OTRS ticket number to your reply at Talk:Peter Bossman, so that this will be verifiable? Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The ticket number is 2013092310012493, although that doesn't make it verifiable as very few editors have access to the OTRS Quality queue. This is why I also included the inline citation to allow for verification by readers and those without access.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

G13

Please, after a G13 deletion is postponed by an editor for another look, don't immediately delete it,as you did for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elings Park International Raceway. I don;t know that we have a regular procedure, but normally I think it should go another 6 months, as it would if the person postponing also edited the text. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article, I certainly wouldn't have deleted it had I noticed it had been tagged for a second look. I was curious as to how I missed the re-tagging as a hold and noticed that adding the {{AfC postpone G13}} template didn't modify the G13 tag other than to make it appear the SPhilbrick had been the one to nominate it for deletion. It would probably be better to remove the G13 tag altogether, as you did, to avoid any confusion. Regardless, mea culpa. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

Fyi,IP User:2601:D:380:B5:4D9E:7115:6E3B:A32D materialized to vandalize an article after you blocked User:2601:D:380:B5:562:1691:8C15:A901. Coretheapple (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank for the note. They only made the one edit, and given the dynamic nature of the IPv6 addresses they will likely have moved on to another IP by now. Please let me know if you see them pop up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael V. Gazzo

He's on the Wiki list of Italian-American actors. I should have put the category in AFTER I revised his bio.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do ensure that the category is supported by reliable sources within the article prior to adding it. If any entries cannot be verified by reliable sources they should be removed from the list as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note I have also reverted your edit to Dominic Chianese. When adding personal information to articles, the sources must be of the highest quality. Third party sources and gossip-type websites do not meet the reliable sourcing criteria. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

date of birth

Hello Ponyo. I noticed on the Internet Movie Database that James McCaffrey is born on 1959. Belfast, Northern Ireland. McCaffrey's age is 53 or 54 years old. Thats all. Bye! Marec2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marec2 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marec2 - note that IMDB does not meet reliable sourcing criteria so it cannot be used. There needs to be reliable secondary sources in order for the information to be verified and included.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Help

Is there any procedure to suspend a edit history in my own talk page? If so, can you please tell me how to? --    L o g  X   20:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You can send me an email if you want the info to remain private....--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been done by an other admin Thanks for your response! --    L o g  X   21:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--    L o g  X   21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted and done.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --    L o g  X   21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do Not Revert Edits with out reading them.

Read the damn edit and article before reverting under the false pretense of NPOV. You did not do that as the time stamp shows you instantly reverted the article. That is your responsibility to do that. You reverted an edit that summarized some key, well documented, and well referenced points that were briefly mentioned in the intro. I suspect your judgment is lacking or you are just a lazy editor. Do not come to wiki to stack up edits so you think you are more important in the fantasy land,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.246 (talk • contribs)

Read articles before reverting edits that is your responsibility. You are edit warring. Violate the 3RR and I will report you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.246 (talk • contribs)

The only "key points" you summarized were negative ones. This leads to a completely skewed and WP:UNDUE lead. All viewpoints need to be presented, not just those that you want to drive home. If you believe that the current lead is insufficient, then you can begin a discussion on the talk page to discuss potential changes with other editors. Whatever consensus is reached at the end of the discussion, the lead will need to be balanced and neutral.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. As your edits were reverted as WP:BLP-violations you must get consensus for the changes on the talk page. Edit-warring to restore the disputed and wholly negative material will only result in your IP being blocked. Editing Wikipedia is not unlike flying the friendly skies - a failure to check your heavy baggage at the door will lead to hefty penalties.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Good analogy Mlpearc (powwow) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete my account

I no longer want to take part in helping wikipedia grow. Please delete my account Zabranos. Thanks for everything. And sorry for anything I did toy hurt you. Peace. Zabranos (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. If you wish to retire, you simply stop editing. Best of luck in your future off-wiki endeavours.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I delete all the contributions and talk page I took part in? Zabranos (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot delete your comments from article talk pages, but you are free to blank your user page and user talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Karen S Hampton

I've corrected my Karen S Hampton (Indiana) fiber artist page because another fiber artist named Karen D Hampton (California) contacted me to correct my page and remove her information. It had some of her information and some of my information combined. I created a revised version to correct the mistakes, citing the wrong person. The new version is in my sandbox. Could you publish the corrected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen S Hampton (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If the information in the Karen Hampton article has become intertwined with that of a similarly named artist, then please remove the incorrect information with a note on the article talk page explaining why you have removed it. Please do not insert promotional material into the article as you did previously; although you may request changes to the article on the talk page, adding text such as "internationally acclaimed, award-winning fiber artist who creates spectacular works of art intended to hang on a wall" to your own article is contrary to Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and self-promotion. You may find this page helpful if you find inaccuracies in a Wikipedia article wherein you are the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting vandal edits on Shraddha kapoor article

Hi Ponyo,as you have suggested I have provided a reliable source and added the real birthday of Shraddha Kapoor on her page. The link is from CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) which is a legitimate association of cine artists in Mumbai(http://www.cintaa.net/about-us). It has famous actors like Jaya bachchan, Anil kapoor, Aishwarys Bachchan, etc among its members. So it follows logically that their source is reliable to confirm DOB of Shraddha kapoor as 3rd March 1987. But there is a user by name Smauritius who is keen on removing any link which confirms Shraddha's real age. Also to confirm further, check these two links where her brother mentions her age(http://bollywoodstarkids.blogspot.in/2009/05/shakti-kapoors-son-siddhanths-first.html) and her aunt Padmini kolhapure talks about her mother's pregnancy in 1986(http://www.filmfare.com/features/we-share-everything-except-our-husbands-padmini-kolhapure-3651.html). I already made an edit by providing the link mentioned above but Smauritius has removed it without giving any edit summary or explanation for doing so. He/She looks to be a 'fanatical' fan to me. So please verify the link I have provided for the DOB and lock the article so that no more changes or deletions to the DOB are made. Wikipedia must provide only authentic and correct information and not the information which suits some people. I hope you look into this regard and take the necessary steps to prevent any more users tampering with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose$keel (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 October 2013 (talk) Rose$keel (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, come and view the history about Shraddha Kapoor, The Userpage, had been already in edit war due to her age conflicts, Secondaries sources and creditable ones proved her age differently. We came to a conclusion not to add her age. Despite, talking a user kept on reverting edits. As a senior come and check the page ...Shraddha Kapoor..

Archana Ramdonee 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smauritius (talk • contribs)

Ponyo, the said edit war has always been because of Smauritius who interfered with the adding of reliable links. This can be verified from the history of Shraddha Kapoor. Also check the talk page of Smauritius and you can see that the user has been involving in a similar edit war with other users too and has been warned twice already. Still he/she is continuing with this behavior. Any link can't get more legit than the one I have provided for DOB section in Shraddha Kapoor but the user is finding issue even with it. It is plain that this user is a vandal and a fanatic to boot. Please take appropriate action as the administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose$keel (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Smauritius and Rose$keel, you are both well beyond 3 reverts now - do not continue to edit war to restore any contested date. You'll need to discuss the potential source on the talk page and see if there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source. You may also want to bring the potential source to the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside feedback from editors who are adept at evaluating sources. Another option is to start a request for comment on the talk page as to which, if any, sources should be used. Please also remember to sign your posts with with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rose$keel, the CINTAA, is not a creditable source at all. It is a Community website, where everyone can owned a specific account. I had visited the site, you said only Bollywood personalities are the members, which is false absolutely false, there are many randoms members. I had a doubt on you, Rose$keel, Disgrl, Marikagirl12 are same users with multiple accounts, i have a doubt on that, please check their IP Address... i have doubt but i am not sure...

Archana Ramdonee 15:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the source does not meet WP:RS then please raise the question at WP:RSN. Rose$keel, as the validity of the source has been questioned, please stop using it until it can be properly vetted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not acting like a Vandalism i am just giving my point of views, Shraddha Kapoor age are indicated differently in different websites. Newspapers and prestious magazines claimed her age differently. Here are some links,

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-21/news-interviews/38693520_1_dad-air-hostess-father-shakti-kapoor

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/shraddha-kapoor/featured/2

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/511874/20131007/shraddha-kapoor-commit-aditya-roy-kapur.htm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Shraddha-Kapoor-kicked-about-her-next/Article1-1133002.aspx

She herself stated she was 17-18 when she had cast for her first movie in 2010 -----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7vbA0uUdw0

We did not add her DOB, in an extent as there are many, it will sound so dubious if u add one. i'm just giving my point of views, i don't know where i am acting as a Vandalism.

Archana Ramdonee 16:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the inconsistencies in the reporting of Kapoor's age, that is why I semi-protected the article. My talk page is not the appropriate venue to rehash the same arguments, that's what dispute resolution is for. I have provided advice as to where and how you can help end this content dispute, but I cannot resolve it for you. If you are concerned about the validity of a specific source, take it to WP:RSN. If talk page discussion has failed to reach a consensus, then a request for comment will help draw in more editors to evaluate the material or you may want to bring the issue forward at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.And again, please sign your posts correctly.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo, I'm neither a vandal nor here to kill time. I only want to add authenticity to a few of wiki's pages. But I'm not being allowed to do so. Every time I make an edit Smauritius is removing it. Can you tell me on what authority she is doing that? Cannot someone else, who is unbiased take a call on this? I'd hoped you would point out a feasible solution. The user reverting my edits clearly has no idea about how things function in the Indian Film industry and hence she is questioning the authority of CINTAA. What surprises me is how you can allow her to take a final call on all this. I provided links for you to verify. Please verify and lock the article so that no more edit wars like this happen. This is my sincere request to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose$keel (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not allowed Smauritius to make the final call on anything. There is a question as to whether the CINTAA links meet WP:BLPSOURCES. As I've noted many times now, if you would like to use it in biography articles please have it vetted at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If someone reverts an edit of yours citing BLP concerns then you must not edit war to restore it. Please read the post and links I provided in my reply directly above this question as it explains how to pursue dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--    L o g  X   19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted and responded :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

2022

It will be better to protect the page again i think. --    L o g  X   20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Co-incidence! --    L o g  X   20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As a side-note, the Phan wedding sounds like THE place to be in 2022. Hopefully my invite doesn't get lost in the mail.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

--    L o g  X   21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Despite many messages to you on your talk page, article talk pages, and in edit summaries, you continue to completely misinterpret what constitutes a reliable source. Have you read WP:RS? Or WP:BLPSOURCES? Please do so prior to adding any additional material to BLP articles. A continued and flagrant disregard of BLP policy despite the problems with your edits being explained to you will likely lead to a topic ban from BLP articles altogether. Bottom line: If material is removed from an article citing BLP concerns with the material or the sourcing, you must get consensus prior to restoring the material. You have repeatedly reverted removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information and you need to stop. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And you need to get your head out of your arse and open your eyes and see that as far as I and others were concerned consensus was reached on Sinitta's birth date. It's on the talk page – 19 OCTOBER 1963!!!!!! --The Totter 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You can make the same arguments over and over again, but a scanned image of a birth certificate fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, and the birthdate is unverifiable. If in doubt, it stays out. This is not a battle to be won, this is core policy. I get that you don't agree with the various policies and guidelines, but you are beholden to them as long as they are in place. As I clearly advised you above, you cannot continue to disregard policies that you do not agree with without consequences. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Proving the reliability of my source.

Ponyo, I can see that you have reverted the edits I made yesterday saying that the val;idity of my link is questioned.[3] [4]

I'm really surprised to see all this. First, I don't understand how you can say that the validity of the link I provided is questionable. Please ask the opinion of a verified third party editor from India who knows about the working of the Hindi film industry to verify the reliability of my link. Smauritius is not from India and has no idea about CINTAA. Anybody who is a avid follower or has interest in Bollywood(Hindi Film industry) know what CINTAA is and the power it wields. Also Smauritius has a hidden motive in refuting all links as dubious. She is a fanatic fan of Shraddha Kapoor as is evident from all the comments about Shraddha Kapoor she has recieved on her talk page. Furthermore a cursory Google search of her username reveals how she has commented in other sites about Shraddha. So I ask, how you can question the validity of the link based on Smauritus's doubtful credentials? Look at the links below and you can see how reliable the CINTAA link is that I provided to the edits I made:

CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/home) is an association of cine and telly artists in Bollywood and membership in it is compulsory for every actor. Read how this actor was reprimanded because he did not have a CINTAA membership-->(http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ragesh-b-asthanaa-cintaas-hit-list).

Also read how CINTAA has the power to pass legislation regarding the cine industry-->(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-16/tv/36373471_1_new-rule-cintaa-joint-secretary).

Anil Kapoor the famous actor who appeared in Slumdog Millionaire inaugrated CINTAA's website -->(http://in.movies.yahoo.com/video/anil-launches-website-cintaa-053000873.html).

The above links must be enough to prove to you the validity of the link to the website I provided. There can be no better confirmation for an actor other than a CINTAA membership and profile. Please revert all those changes you made to my edits and lock the personal details box of these pages so that no fanatic fan like Smauritius takes issue with the real age of their idol and starts editing them.

I also want to bring to your notice here that the user [Smauritius] being a fan of shradhha, no edit she makes on the page is unbiased. Please glance through the whole article and notice the discrepancies in language. The whole article reeks of immature editing and bad grammar and wrong lexicon usage. All this has been a result of [Smauritius]'s contributions. I request you to verify my link and lock the personal details box permanently. Also please ask a proper editor to clean up the article or if you allow me even I can do the job. Once it is done satisfactorily, it can be permanently protected so that no more edit wars happen when fanatic fans like [Smauritius] take issue with the details linked.

In the case of the Deepika Singh page, questioning the validity of the link I provided seems to be a bit premature since the link I provided gives her name as Deepika Naresh Singh. Her middle name Naresh has not been given in any website or article about the actress except in the CINTAA link(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/5533). This could have been possible only if the actress herself registered all the information given in the said link. This single instance is enough to prove the legitimacy of the link. Also you reverted my edit to that of a earlier version which mentions a different birth date. This birthdate has no verifiable links in the references. Then how was it arrived at? How can you allow the year 1989 to be written in the page without any link to substantiate it?

I hope you take a serious consideration of this issue and prove the reliablity of the links I provided so that in future such issues don't arise. Thanks.

Rose$keel (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rose$keel, the validity of the link is questioned because the reliability of the information in it has not been confirmed. That is why I requested that you bring the source to the reliable sources noticeboard if you intend to use it on biography articles. If the source is found to have the level of fact-checking and accuracy required to meet WP:BLPSOURCES it may be included, but it needs to be vetted prior to it being used to add and change biographical data across multiple articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

As already advised, my talk page is not the venue to continue your content disputes. I have already responded to variations of this same argument here. I understand that you are frustrated, but you need to pursue dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

CINTAA, is website where cine field knows how important an organisation. It is the adjudicate authority for every contentious issue in the film/telly industry of mumbai. Alia Bhatt, profile her DOB is unkonwn, ----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/6113 Katrina Kaif, profile her DOB is also unknown, ----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/5106 Bipasha Basu, profile her DOB is also unknown, ----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/1017 Is this what we called a legit website, Shraddha Kapoor, age is a mystery/unknown, Times of India, indicate her as 24 year old (born 1989), Other sites, indicated her as (born 1992), she herself stated that she cast in her debut movie in 2010 when she was 18 years old make her 21 years old in 2013. I had not add her DOB, as it sounds so dubious at all. Wait for is next year she will celebrate her DOB, in March 03, we might get a hint what her age is.... Till then, it is appropriate to leave her DOB section blank. I had an objection if Shraddha Kapoor source is reliable and accurate, so this apply also for Alia Bhatt, Bipasha Basu and Katrina Kaif, remove her DOB, an put blank over there depending on CINTAA Profiles. But, yet i was threaten, warned and reported, i was not acting as a Vandalism at all. Where is my fault. This is the so-called WIKIPEDIA FOUNADTION, SO FAKED, COMPLETELY FAKED FOR ME, IT WAS SO UNFAIR TOWARDS ME..... i guess... I do not know where i was wrong. Archana Ramdonee 08:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I beg the differ CINTAA is not an accurate and reliable source to prove Shraddha Kapoor, DOB.

As already advised, my talk page is not the venue to continue your content disputes. I have already responded to variations of this same argument here. I understand that you are frustrated, but you need to pursue dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, birth date is also unknown, -----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/776 Kajol Devgan, DOB is unknown, -----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/542 Esha Deol, DOB is unknown, ---> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/1263 Kangna Ranaut, DOB is 1986 in CINTAA Profile -----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/3724, but in her official website and WIKI is 1987. RoseKeel stated, Bollywood personalities went to the office of CINTAA, to register. They check their birth certificate to publish their age. So, why many celebrities age is not publish. Everyone can own a sepecific account in CINTAA, Just to the link, http://www.cintaa.net/, in the right side, there is a member login box, just enter the email.address and password, you want 2 register, then it will provide that link ----> http://in.eregnow.com/membership/register/demoassociation, enter that choose your registration fee, re-type your mail address and password you want to register. You get the registration form, you fill the form, it will provide you, the biling form since since you do the payment, they will email your account. Since, you had enter do the payment i don't think it your account cannot create. There is no need to go to the registration office, and all. I have done being a Mauritian citizen, so you guys can also do it. It makes sense to leave Shraddha Kapoor DOB, section blank, rather than providing dubious DOB. IF i am acting as a Vandalism, as i had been warned and report just block me then.... Archana Ramdonee 13:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Shraddha Kapoor". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock question

I didn't realize you were working on one and just tried blocking 41.103.240.0/21. Was that reasonable or did I mess it up? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The block I made was larger (it was comprised of both block evading IPs and the ones used to decorate my talk page) which makes your range block somewhat redundant. My block was large but there is surprisingly little collateral - his socks and IP edits are all over the range. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock became active

Hi. On 13 October you tagged User Owselore as a confirmed sock of User:Gbgfbgfbgfb. They blanked the userpage not long after. Owselore has now become active and has been vandalising Middle power. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that was certainly a rookie mistake; fixed now!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What are the chances?

Hi, JP. Can you look at Talk:Great power and check the posts of Glc72 (talk · contribs) and 151.40.58.144 (talk · contribs)/151.40.64.80 (talk · contribs)? I've no doubt they're the same person, but I suspect they may have connection with Gbgfbgfbgfb (talk · contribs). I'm at work presently and cannot give the comparison my full attention. Any help you can bring would be appreciated. See ya 'round Tiderolls 13:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Those two IPs geolocate to central Italy (same ISP). Owselore (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of Gbgfbgfbgfb (see previous section) today made edits to Middle power that replace Algeria with Israel, much as was done in this edit on 9 October by 41.103.252.45 (talk · contribs). That one geolocates to Algiers. Are there two different sets of socks involved in all this? --Stfg (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be two distinct sock groups editing this area. It's Thanksgiving long weekend here, so I likely won't be able to take a comprehensive look until tomorrow.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The chance that Glc72 is 151.40.64.80 is 100%)Sorry ,but i forgot my signature) I'm italian and not israelian or arab or whatelse.)My IP is like you described.Glc72 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks)Glc72 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Glc72, are you logging out to edit as an IP?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to log in.Now i logged me in for 30 days .If i can i set my signature instead of 151.....As you like.Glc72 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please try to ensure you are editing via your account as the logged-out edits make it appear that you are trying to portray yourself as more than one person.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

terry adams edit

Ponyo, while I appreciate the need for good sourcing, I believe you went overboard in your trimming of this article. You removed any description of his playing -- which is the most unique thing about him -- and there is no mention of the fact that he plays the clavinet, much less that he's an innovator on it. The article now reads more like an entry on NRBQ rather than on Terry Adams. I plan to revisit this article in the future to correct these omissions.

Thank you Dubiousraves (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your desire to update the article, in addition to being wholly unsourced the material you added was blatantly promotional in nature. Every paragraph added contained peacock words and puffery; the tone was completely inappropriate as it violates Wikipedia's policy to maintain a neutral point of view. While adding neutrally-worded and reliably sourced information to articles is welcome, using Wikipedia to add paragraphs of promotional text extolling the virtues of a biography subject is not. If you do edit the article in the future, please ensure the material added is supported by reliable sources and worded neutrally.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--    L o g  X   21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted and done. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! --    L o g  X   21:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Shakatoday

Hi, you blocked Shakatoday (talk · contribs) as a sock - what do you think of Cheatapterrm (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's definitely another sock account. The range is locked down pretty tight and account creation is blocked, so they're running through their last couple of sleeper accounts. I'll run another check to see if I can plug any holes.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There were some socks left in the drawer, but Elockid beat me to the buttons.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

About seven I think. Thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Morgan Saylor

About Morgan Saylor: I have set her birth date to be the same as imdb says. In other words, I visited imdb (http://www.imdb.com), searched for her and found her birthdate. IMDB is a serious website and I don't think this date is a lie, but I can not verify this because I dont live in the states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthered (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. There are several policies and guidelines concerning this, such as: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb; Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb; WP:RS/IMDB; WP:SPS; WP:UGC. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome. At first I didn't completely like the thanks function but now I find that it is a nice surprise to click on the red dot and get a message of appreciation. I is odd that Wthered removed the person data section. I hope they are not trying to be WP:POINTy. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your day. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the "thank-you" function, it's certainly a nice break from clicking the Orange Bar of Doom to find penises plastered across my talk page. With regard to the persondata blanking, I see it often enough that I think it must be inexperience as opposed to bad intent. Look at that, after all these years I can still manage to find some AGF in my jaded wiki-heart!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Add to that this editor says they are from Greece and they have edited sporadically over 4 some odd years and we may have some lack of understanding how things work here problems as well. It is a funny coincidence that you left a gracious comment on my talk page in a section about P.E.N.I.S.S. That is gonna give me a chuckle the rest of the day. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 17:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit protection on Priya Anand

Hey Ponyo, the expiration period for this page is too long to me. It will be better if it trimmed as she is an actress and the page will be updated by the IPs in future. What do you think? Is 1 year needed for that page to be expired? I don't think so. --    L o g  X   17:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't see the month there! It was January --    L o g  X   17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, the logs can be confusing sometimes. I don't think that a few weeks would be enough to discourage the incessant unsourced changes to the article by a seemingly endless stream of IPs, and there is too much disruption to enable PC. Three months felt like the right amount of time. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Tod Fennell Wiki page

Hi Ponyo,

What needs to be removed in order for the article to not be considered promotional? Please specify what part of the article you have a problem with so that it can be corrected promptly.

Thank you for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todfennell (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

First, it would be helpful if you would explain your relation to User:Jillianzacchia and User:Ryanszaw. Are these all your accounts? Are you Tod Fennell, or a publicist editing on his behalf? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note,

Everything that was added is verified by IMDB.

Please refer to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271915/?ref_=sr_1

if the issue is with Assassin's Creed 4, that is also listed on the IMDB page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todfennell (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical information (see for example this, this and this for the reasons why it is not accepted). If you want to add updated information regarding roles, then please only add notable roles. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if supported by reliable sources, there is no need to include a list of people your father may have performed with, every walk-on or extra role you appeared in, or every part-time job and hobby you have had. Please do read through the conflict of interest guidelines and ensure that you (and those working with you) request changes via the article talk page. This will help ensure all material added is properly sourced and within Wikipedia guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contact you with all the answers to your questions. I'm not very familiar with the wikipedia chat system. You can send me an e-mail at (Redacted) Is there a phone number I can reach you at. I am Tod Fennell, ryan is a web developer and Jillian is a writer. I didn't write any of these articles myself and I feel as though they are simply lists of projects worked on that can all be verified but again, if you feel like there is something considered promotional puffery, please specify so that it may be corrected to your approval.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todfennell (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I have answered your questions above in my previous response. Note that I have removed your email address from view; as this is a website that millions of people access, I didn't think you'd want it publicly available.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted the writer with your concerns and she will be addressing your concerns and writing something new within the wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully this will be to your satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todfennell (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please ensure she is posting the requested update to the article talk page as well as reading the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--    L o g  X   21:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

and Again...... --    L o g  X   18:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Juan234

Hi Ponyo - a procedural question. Does CheckUser also look for other accounts using the same IP, or is that done through another process or request elsewhere? Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the nature of the investigation, checkusers will often check for sleeper accounts on the same IP or IP range as part of an SPI. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Since you did the CheckUser (?) I assume no sleeper accounts were found (or should I ask for a sleeper check?). Another question you may not be able to answer: Does this IP have a relation to northern NJ Newark area or Drew University? Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There were no obvious sleepers, but I am monitoring a couple of accounts (per WP:BEANS that's all I'm willing to say). Sorry, I can't provide any details regarding the IP.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

?

What prompted this, block evading IP ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing so nefarious, just an accidental logged-out edit. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Magicperson6969

This user here is failing to follow the posting guidlines of an English Wiki. I've told him many times to stop Japanizing pages that are supposed to be in English Formats, but he removes the messages from his talk pages and ignores any insight he's been given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magicperson6969. I'm not the only person whose told him this. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor appears to have retired. If they return and you do find yourself in content disputes with them, please follow the steps for dispute resolution. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to get him to follow the rules on English Name formats listed WP:MOS-AM and WP:NCVG, no luck. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Confess

Hello Ponyo, here i confess that i have two accounts on wikipedia, but It's just a mistake.. because i was not read the Sock puppet Policy, but recently i have read the sock puppet account policy which says that multiple accounts does not allow on Wikipedia. So i want to delete my this Account with contributes and logs.

--DenMarkWiki (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013

What is the name of your alternate account?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay... but first you promise me that You will not to block or delete my alternate account.

And also you tell me... Why you need my alternate account name.

--DenMarkWiki (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You noted that you were operating two accounts in error because you were unaware of Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts. So now you can choose the one you want to use exclusively and link of redirect the other account to your chosen primary. Normally the extra account would be blocked, but as long as you clearly link it to your primary account and cease using it, then you will be fine. Knowing both account names would allow me to help you with the process and ensure it's all above-board policy wise.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay... I'm telling you.

My alternate account name is... " Chanderforyou ".

--DenMarkWiki (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And which account will you be using exclusively moving forward?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I want to delete my this DenMarkWiki account.

--DenMarkWiki (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, however you can blank the page and add a redirect to User:Chanderforyou. Would you like me to do this for you?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If your think that Redirect is better way for both accounts?.. then please you make a redirect.

--DenMarkWiki (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The DenMarkWiki user and user talk pages now redirect to the Chanderforyou account. Please only log in and edit via the Chaderforyou account moving forward.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly happy with the redirect as I don't think we've got sufficient evidence that User:Chanderforyou and User:DenMarkWiki are operated by the same person. All we have so far is a claim from User:DenMarkWiki. User:Chanderforyou really ought to endorse this claim. Otherwise there remains the possibility that you've redirected one person's page to another without their knowledge or consent. I will write to User:Chanderforyou asking them to confirm that they are indeed User:DenMarkWiki. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fairplay. The account was pinged early on in the discussion, if there is something untoward afoot they will likely let me know. The redirect is very simple to undo if that's the case.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ponyo for help.

... Chander ForYou 10:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hide this edit

This edit contains a phone number on the edit, could you hide it? ///EuroCarGT 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Both gone. Although I was able to respond quickly, it's better to send these the OS mailing list. These walls have eyes...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I just saw your contributions page and seen an edit 2 minutes before this message was made, then quickly added the message. Also since your only 3 hours behind my timezone you should be online! ///EuroCarGT 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a big deal, however I do wander away from the computer occasionally; due to the privacy concerns it's best to shoot an email off to the OS team. Clear-cut requests such as this one are generally handled immediately. Thanks for all the anti-vandalism work you do! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced additions

Hello Ponyo, it's me again. Hope you're doin' fine. Can you please check this? The user keeps adding unsourced content despite having been warned many times. How to proceed with a case like this? If I report them at WP:AIV, I'll likely get the message that their edits are not vandalism. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing some digging on this one, I'll let you know what comes up as soon as I have more info.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Update for Jetstreamer, the account in question is now blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mail call!

Hello, Ponyo. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sailsbystars (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also, if you wouldn't mind, seeing as how you have the bits to do so, would you mind putting up a bit of an edit notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests? It should say something to the effect of "Thank you for submitting a proxy-check request. Please note that whatismyipaddress.com lists many IPs as 'confirmed proxy server' even when they are not. So please provide more evidence (can be either behavioral or technical) if you are submitting an IP to check here." Been a lot of requests involving that website lately.... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you want me to add it at the top of WP:OP, under the edit notice stating "Before reporting any suspected open proxies here..."?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to go with an actual edit notice for WP:OP/R i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests/Editnotice which is what people will see when they try to submit a request or edit a request section. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any protection on it, and I can't imagine anyone objecting to you adding a helpful edit notice. Do you not feel comfortable creating it?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like i had the wrong link. Here's a better link [5]. It sez "This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, accountcreators, and template editors.", none of which rights I happen to have. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sailsbystars (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

talk page

Don't know who you are, but I'm sure Bbb23 can speak for himself and jusify his actions when called upon. Like any good admin should be able to do. Others have raised issues about his conduct, which isn't going un-noticed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied at your talk to keep context intact.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I stumbled across his talkpage some 2 weeks after the initial issue to find yet again, his judgement has been questioned. I'm not alone in this so we'll wait until he gets it wrong again. Shame admins are burying their collective heads in the sand to ignore this rather than to discuss his attitude directly. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

asked to create a page

hi am Amilton Ponyo, is'm Brazilian writer and theologian Pastor Religious saw your page and saw you and very efficient at what you do and would like to ask you to build me a page in my name "Amilton Rodrigues de Cristo" (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.26.221.51 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

hi am Amilton Ponyo, is'm Brazilian writer and theologian Pastor Religious saw your page and saw you and very efficient at what you do and would like to ask you to build me a page in my name "Amilton Rodrigues de Cristo" (Redacted) thank you. User_talk:Amilton, 29 , october 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.26.221.51 (talk)

The page will not be created. You have created multiple accounts and are currently evading blocks in order to continue promoting yourself on Wikipedia, and your attempts at self-promotion have been deleted each time. If you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria someone unaffiliated with you will eventually create an article that is not an autobiography.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sankararamank

Hello Sir

     This is Sankararamank. I ask One Question. Did you Answer Me.

My First Request is Please Protect the Ivan Veramathiri article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A review of the article history shows no obvious reason for protection. Could you advise what criteria for protection it meets?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing sockpuppetry

Hello, An individual has been vandalizing articles related to Swaminarayan and Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha for the past several months and been using numerous sockpuppets to further his/her agenda in these topics (puppet master = Swamifraud). I filed the original sock report for Swamifraud several months ago and several other users have filed additional reports with more success. All of these socks have been banned and unblock requests have been denied by admin (including by yourself) due to the socks' edit warring, incivility, ignoric consensus, misquoting sources/stretching facts, libeling, etc. These socks include Swamifraud, Duarfimaws, Breadinglover, Sageorsun, Priyadaswami, and the numerous Detroit area/Wayne State University IP addresses. The individual continues to engage in the same behavior with intentions of pursuing his/her personal defamatory agenda. A new sock puppet has emerged named Bluespeakers, against whom two sock reports have been filed by other users. Most recently, this new sock has been reaching out to editors who are unfamiliar with the sock banning history to try to gain support. Link to current investigation and evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swamifraud Could you please assess and help block the sock? Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be online sporadically throughout the day and won't have the opportunity to launch into an extensive SPI investigation. I noticed that you hadn't requested checkuser on the SPI cases, so I added the request on your behalf. Please keep an eye on the casepage for updates. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the accusations that I am a sock puppet. I am most definitely not the same user as I have clearly stated that I personally know the users that were involved. If you are going to be taking a look at my case, do look at the specific instances where I did anything wrong. Certain users are patrolling the articles. I will make sure that the users that I asked for help are aware of my ongoing investigation. I do not want to be doing anything wrong or malicious on this site. Thank you for your time. The users that reported just me are users that belong to a group Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan that only want to portray their religious group in a positive clean cut way.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to refute the sockpuppetry accusations here as you have already done so at the appropriate venue.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you for clearing that up. I wasn't sure but I want to make sure that this user doesn't spread rumors about be and say manipulative things. Bluespeakers (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Received and replied.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Guidelines contained in Template:Infobox person is ambiguous about listing the names of children in infoboxes:

Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names, in which case, separate entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable.

I'd say that the majority of entertainers who are parents, for example, have their children listed. On the other hand, for musicians, spouse and children aren't even fields that are visible in an infobox. I assume that if the names of the children are in the body of the article, that is public information. If this was an issue of privacy, well, all mention of non-notable offspring should be deleted from the thousands of biographies in which they appear. We might as well delete siblings and parents, too, as they are usually not notable either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks, at least, for marking this as a good faith revert.

I never had any doubt that it was anything other than a good faith addition; I don't imagine many users review the template data for infoboxes prior to editing them! The names and birth dates of minor children are of particular concern in articles, and this is why they are handled with more concern for privacy. Their parents may have chosen a profession that puts undue attention on the children, but they have not chosen this for themselves and, in the spirit of do no harm, it is preferable to err on the side of caution when adding information on minors. This is also true for family members who are not independently notable; their names may have been included in a publication, however we generally do not include the names of these private individuals unless the relationship is significant and notable enough to be included (see WP:BLPNAME). There will always be exceptions to the guidelines and policies, and as always if you believe an exception should be made then the article talk page is the place to discuss it. On a related note, the featured articles of celebrities that I have seen follow the "number only" template directions for not independently notable children (e.g Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, Maggie Gyllenhaal).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A favor

Hey, Ponyo, could you do me a favor and grant me rollback, reviewer, template editor, and accountcreator when you get a moment? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Courcelles 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not fair, Courcelles has several more hours of coffee consumption under their belt. Speedy indeed!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Several more, indeed; I had to get up rather earlier than my usual this morning! Courcelles 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Up early preparing your costume perhaps? Too excited to sleep? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You meant y'all weren't passed out from Mischief Night-related debauchery? I'm still struggling; I was staring stupidly at an edit for a good five minutes before I realized why I couldn't find the rollback button. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Debauchery. I wish. More like getting ready to be away from home for a while. Courcelles 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Maplelea

Hello Ponyo. I'm new to wiki so my apologies for making any violations of wikipedia. I wanted to create the pages Maplelea and Maplelea Girls just so when people did a search it could appear on wiki and they could learn about the history of the company and how it came about. I was hoping just to throw content there in from the website and then edit it as I go but I now see that that's a big no no.

How do I go about requesting to have these two pages created and articles written for it? I think I've followed the instructions, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly?

Also, now when i do a search for Maplelea it shows this warning message. does everyone see that or just me?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.77.106 (talk • contribs)

First, please stop editing as an IP. As your account is blocked you cannot edit Wikipedia (other than your user talk page) until the issues leading to the block have been addressed. Please read through the block message on your user talk page and request an unblock and an account rename as described in the block message. I am watching your talk page, so if you have any additional questions, please ask them there.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

why delete my article?

hello ponyo , i was just asking why did you delete my article about Pandashan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavroscywow (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it was essentially an advertisement for a non-notable website. The subjects of articles need to be notable and the articles themselves neutral and sourced to be included. See this page for advice on how to create a viable article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your BLP help with page Steven G. Kaplan, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, but I should note that all of the heavy-lifting (OS and protection) was done by Fluffernutter.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sagarika Ghatge

Well, I think that's a reliable source. Those sites provide quite specific information of Bollywood persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyToddler (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, where I left the original message.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Block of user:Eye Love Wiki

If you check the talk page history [6] User:Eye Love Wiki actually added the "Checkuserblock-account" template to the page himself! Can't imagine why? Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably because he and all of his sockpuppets were all blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs) with the {{checkuserblock-account}} template in the block summary. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Some socks like tagging things, for whatever reason. Sometimes they're extra helpful and even tag their new undetected accounts. I've pulled talk page access from each of the blocked accounts since they seem to find posting bogus unblock requests satisfying somehow; no need to waste productive editors' time!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha now I understand! Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Chupa Bergas

That vandal to whom you posted a final warning has struck again on David Cage. WQUlrich (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted and now blocked. Thank you for reverting the vandalism/BLP violations.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned message

Hello Here are some references for Ernest Romens thank you

External links[edit]E.R 1904-1954 site history Marchons.com Official website Paris-Colmar à la marche Centurions History WALK! Magazine bibliographical sources[edit]La victoire en marchant, Guy Benamou, Berger Levrault 1961 La marche la vie, André Rauch, Editions Autrement 1997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WALKG (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a referenced article, note however that I was not the editor who marked it for deletion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

READ

Why did you delete Lauren Schnipper's wiki?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.143.37 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Limited notability + continuous vandalism + egregious BLP violations requiring extensive revision deletion = delete. If someone wants to create a well-referenced article where notability is asserted they are welcome to do so, but the version I deleted (along with its BLP punching-bag history) was not appropriate for inclusion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

user Emir Jamshedparineetichopra

• Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs)

Looks like one more for the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin) --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked now (and noted at ANI as well). I'll run a CU to see if there are any other socks/sleepers.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

198.200.84.13 (talk · contribs) looks like a Canadian ip that jumped in and restored some of Emir Jamshedparineetichopra's edits at Hina Khan. It doesn't look like any of the other socks... --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Gah, the article was a mess. There were conflicting dates, unsourced personal info, and completely redundant paragraphs. I tidied it up somewhat and added it to my poor, overwhelmed (and recently neglected) watchlist.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect closing of WP:ANI thread

This edit caused an error, removing all subsequent sections from the page. The reason is that {{Hat}} should be used together with a closing tag, namely {{Hab}}. Also, your closure per WP:DENY was not justified, since my post raised additional questions that were not addressed by the one reply in that section. Please be more careful in the future. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Ponyo! Jeez, what a noob. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, I closed the section noting that I had taken care of the incident (hence "all sorted"). The absence of the {{Hab}} was an accidental oversight, but I don't see what additional action was required that merited reopening of the hatted section. What additional questions do you have? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a check to see if the IP and registered user are the same would be a good idea, in view of the fact that they make identical edits. And reinstating the block of the IP is another thing I asked to consider. It's all there on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Except in rare instances checkusers will not link IP addresses to named accounts. The accounts and IPs mentioned in the ANI thread were all blocked well before you re-opened the ANI thread and posted your note here. I noted when hatting the thread that the incident had been dealt with - did you assume I was mistaken or lying? I'm still at a loss of what additional action you want taken. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed they were blocked. There is no block notification on the IP usertalkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The specialized template used to make IP checkuser blocks automatically provides an explanation for the block and directions to appeal should anyone attempt to edit from the IP, so posting to the talk page as well is redundant.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding a template to the talkpage would be informative for other editors. Like me in this case. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, responding to your concerns at ANI has been such a rewarding experience! I can hardly wait for the next such opportunity to be chastised and condescended to.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser: Just FYI: there's a script that will mark the wikilinked name of a blocked editor with a strikethrough, to indicate that they're blocked; it's pretty helpful for discussions like these. It also changes the hover-over tooltip to give the rationale of the block. To install, go to your common.js page (creating the page if necessary) and add the line importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js'); to it. (You might have to bypass your cache it to take effect.) @Ponyo: You know I kid, right? r-right? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You've been incredibly helpful Writ Keeper, thank you :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Voces Arrigo Musti

Lookin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bagheriapersone/sandbox

Good verificy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagheriapersone (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the article is ready for article space you can use the "move" tab to move it from your sandbox (if you have any trouble doing so you can request assistance at the help desk). The only reason your two previous articles were deleted is because you blanked them, leading another editor to believe you wanted them deleted and tagging them as such. Thank you for you contributions! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible SPI merge?

Thanks for the checkuser on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss.Dina Rae. But the question of overlap is still open: User:H.Mandem has been blocked as a sock of Miss.Dina Rae, but User:MariaHickment13 was blocked by another admin as a sock of User:MariaJaydHicky. User:Miss.Dina Rae, the subject of the SPI, has been blocked for sockpuppetry. But are they all socks of MariaJaydHicky? Should the two SPIs be merged? Ruby Murray 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

All of the MariaJaydHicky SPI info is stale, however given the nature of the edits and the obvious similarity of at least two of the usernames, I think it's safe to merge them based on behavioural grounds. Mark Arsten, are you able to merge/move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss.Dina Rae to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky? I'm sure I'll mess something up if I attempt it myself.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't merged SPIs before, but I took a shot at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can it be true, have I found the one thing that omnipresent and ever-helpful Mark Arsten has not done!?! I'm sure you'll be as thorough and efficient at it as you are at the myriad other tasks you perform on a daily basis. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I hope so :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And I was right of course...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much to you both for your help. Ruby Murray 22:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for all of the diffs at the SPI. I know it's time consuming, but it's very helpful for both the clerks and the CUs.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. I thought I might be overdoing it a bit. :-) But I'll remember that for next time, thanks. Ruby Murray 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Monica Rial

What's going on? What's the story with Monica Rial's page? --Kyleoconnor

I've left a note on your talk page - sources are required to confirm the information tagged as such, as well as the details behind the hidden comments in this biography article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: Unblock Review Team

Hi. Just a quick note to thank you for your email in connection with User talk:Trevj#Unblock (autoblock) request. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, there aren't as many eyes on UTRS as there are on WP:RFU.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Understood. -- Trevj (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now for the serious stuff

Thanks for unblocking me, but if you don't mind me saying, that editing toolbar with the 'bold' and 'italic' stuff is a very outdated _{(to say the least)}, but ummm; well you can't possibly expect me to produce a better editor all on my own. Is there any-one else who feels the same way as me and perhaps wants me to help.Finally An Account (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to float some ideas/opinions for feedback at the the Village Pump.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No, just no! Anywhere else?Finally An Account (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

198.228.200.0/26 active again

Thank you for your email back to me. On a related note, the 198.228.200.0/26 (talk · contribs) range is seeing a resurgence of disruptive category additions, starting almost immediately after the last rangeblock expired; unfortunately, another block seems increasingly necessary. SuperMarioMan 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can see them popping up again so I've soft blocked the range for another 3 months.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As before, they've now shifted to a different range to continue adding unsourced categories: 198.228.201.128/26 (talk · contribs). The last rangeblock expired about a month ago. SuperMarioMan 09:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I soft blocked 198.228.201.0/24 to cover where they are currently active. Hope this provides some relief! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just GOOGLE It

I barely edit stuff on Wikipedia unless somethin needs a few tweaks or expansions. The Degrassi Wiki of Dylan Everrett is reliable since it's Wiki, of course. Google his biography. It's all there. January 24 is his real month and day of birth. His place of birth was removed one day and all everyone sees is circa. 1995 and no birth date and place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Len717 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the Degrassi wiki is not a reliable source, as wikis (including Wikipedia) do not meet reliable sourcing criteria (hint click this link). We don't expect our readers to "google it" when looking to verify information, that is why it is policy to include reliable sources.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Saraniya page deleted.

hi ponyo i am completely new at this. so i will try and rewrite it so meet wiki rules. i hope will not mind me rewriting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyo.thet (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Phyo.thet, if you plan on rewriting the article I would suggest using the Article Wizard and that you create the article in your userspace (this would be an appropriate spot: User:Phyo.thet/Panditarama Saraniya Dhamma Meditation Centre). Please ensure that you do not include any promotionally-toned material to the article, that you do not copy text from another website, and that you include reliable sources to support the content. As a new user you may find posing questions at The Teahouse helpful. Good luck with your article!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles2

hi i got your email at tom.june13@googlemail.com saying that my block has expired and i tried to login in in the old LPC account but I could not remember my password for my life so I set this account up under the understanding that I could edit etc. I have not edited anything bar my own user page for fear of being criticised :/ am I ok doing what I have done? I'm eager to edit actual pages :( [haha] :( LouisPhilippeCharles2 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

_{Note: Responded at their talk as they are blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)}

Collateral damage

Never mind. Thanks for the intervention. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to make it clear in my edit summary that you weren't the reason for the reverts. If you see similar issues (i.e. Aryan=Irish) pop up on that page in the future, please feel free to drop me a note here. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I will. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

POV Issue

I am not sure if you understand the fact that your reasoning for issuing a warning in regards to POV validity is completely contradictory. I have made corrections that are entirely within wikipedia standards in regards to removals due to lack of citation and unbiased sources.

As far as the comments in talk section goes, you cannot apply POV on such individual talks without unwelcome overt intrusion on individual opinions. That is not your concern.

It seems you have overtly stepped out of bounds in regards to flippantly issuing warnings regarding 'POV' as you understand the term. I expect a retraction of this warning and statement from you stating such corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.61.181 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The warnings were anything but "flippant". You are editing with a very clear POV and are using Wikipedia as a platform to express your personal opinion on matters. The fact that some of your most recent edits are on talk pages does not absolve you of the requirement to ensure that your edits are neutral. If you believe the sentence "CenturyChina site is known for its blatant PRC nationalist rhetoric that fools no one" does not show a heavy bias and personal opinion then you shouldn't be editing the topic at all. And my warning still stands, further edits such as this one will absolutely lead to a block of your IP. Stick to the talk page to discuss any controversial changes and check your pov ranting at the door.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Linky

If you haven't read your email yet, you've been press-ganged into helping me with User:The Interior/Liberation Support Movement. This is what happens when you ask me for help ;) The Interior (Talk) 18:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

<Deep breath> I love the smell of blackmail in the morning! I've replied and will endeavour to earn some research cred by helping out where I can! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

user Bhutto gee

• Bhutto gee (talk · contribs)

Looks like Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs) is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles, another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin)--Jockzain (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's another sock. I've blocked it as well as a sleeper account. Thanks for letting me know! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I also reported him at ANI, what should I do about that, removed it with explanation that sockpuppet is already blocked or let it be there.--Jockzain (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for troubling you, you already replied at ANI.--Jockzain (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No trouble at all! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Nolan

You recently handled an OTRS request concerning Jonathan Nolan. I picked one up today, VRTS ticket # 2013120910000052 . I made an edit, briefly mentioned on the talk page, and in more detail at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Nolan--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up; I've left a small note of agreement regarding your edit to the article on the talk page. If there's any brouhaha I have the page watchlisted and will expand on my reasoning. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Link

http://mancala.wikia.com/wiki/Mancala_World#Boycott_of_Mancala_World_by_Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.161.100 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Boycott? I only informed you that you needed to gain consensus at the External link noticeboard that the link was a notable exception to WP:ELNO, and that continued restoration of the link across multiple articles is akin to spamming, especially when you are affiliated with the website you are linking to. Your response was to question my age and mental stability. I think we're done here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to look at what happened beyond 3RR. I've dealt with editors like this before and found it's best to intervene early otherwise they turn the talk page into "questions" and "seeking the truth". I have no problem adding a criticism section if there are sources, and gave this editor some time to produce them, but when they started accusing me of being a sock puppet and then edit warring it was apparent there was nothing but rumor and opinion. -- GreenC 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Information that is critical of a BLP subject can be included in an article, but it needs to be very well sourced. Simply throwing about serious accusations based on personal opinions is definitely not alright, especially when your valid removal is being labelled vandalism and the user starts throwing out ALL CAPS ACCUSATIONS. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:98.169.63.91/Sandbox

Hi, can you create the sandbox shown in the title for me? I would like to edit my way without other users reverting my edits. Thank you. 98.169.63.91 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to have subpages created in your userspace you will need to create an account. I haven't looked at your edits (yet), but I assume if they are being repeatedly reverted there are issues with the material you are trying to add/change/remove.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sean Parker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 2013, Parker invested in mobile commerce company [[WillCall]].<ref>{{cite web|url=[http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/07/willcall-payments/|title=WillCall Raises $1.2M From SV Angel And

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pakiceleb

Hello Ponyo. I find some intersecting edits between Pakiceleb (talk · contribs) and Qambarshaikh (talk · contribs):

• At Arij Fatyma: Qambarshaikh, Pakiceleb
• At Aiza Khan: Qambarshaikh, Pakiceleb

so thought if you can check these. -- SMS ^Talk 22:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Qambarshaikh isn't blocked, so if the accounts are related it's not block evasion. The subject matter is fairly common, as is adding Facebook links, so we don't want to jump to conclusions. I did leave a note of advice on Pakiceleb's talk page with regard to linking the accounts and avoiding subject overlap if they are indeed the same editor.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Safe travels

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages

I hope that your trip is safe and full of fun. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cheers MarnetteD, and the same to you as well!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nagma:

In references to your comments on my talk page Not sure why I'm cited a warning when I provided a verifiable news link and other person roll backed my work without any mention. Just roll backed twice. while I've provided clearly the comments why i'm roll backing in his remarks. but he never did. So, why are you discriminating like this, this sort of discrimination paused/stopped me to continue my donations to wiki. I didn't feel like doing.

I've provided update on talk page of the other person with some many official links and including some from wordpress. Nagma references on Christianity form wordpress.com - "In the year 2000, in one such discussion, I said my salvation prayer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitrada (talk • contribs) 07:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly not reading the messages left for you, or are not understanding them. You are repeatedly restoring contentious and disputed material to a biography article - per Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons you cannot do this. The admin reverting your edits left a detailed edit summary as to why it was being removed and also left an equally detailed non-templated message on your talk page explaining why your edits were being reverted. To say January "roll backed my work without any mention. Just roll backed twice" is completely untrue. Wordpress is not a reliable source for disputed content in a biography (from WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."); what constitutes a reliable source has been pointed out to you many times, but you have simply blanked the messages from your page. Requesting that you follow Wikipedia policy is not discrimination, and no amount of donations will allow you to circumvent the requirement for proper sourcing, discussion and obtaining consensus on disputed material.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you, and happy holidays to you as well!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101

Howdy, howdy. Could you take a look at the unblock request here? After being blocked as a sock, he does indeed seem to have migrated to simple wiki and racked up 24,000 edits without incident over the last year and a half. He appears to want to use this sock account instead of the master. Any thoughts? Has he used anything else here in the last three months or so? Kuru (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As an admin here and at Simple, I'd vouch for him. Haven't seen any issues that would prevent him from being a positive contributor here; might require some form of mentorship, at times, but I don't see his being here as a net loss. But, I also didn't see the original issues here. only (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Kuru, a cursory look doesn't show anything concerning and I certainly trust your judgement. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting advice on edits made by 99.238.130.132 on Paul R. Ehrlich

This IP user has been trying to add this for months to Paul R. Ehrlich. I was browsing the pending reviews page and came across his most recent edit to this. I admit that I didn't check the history, but I did notice it was a little biased or at least unnecessarily negative. I rewrote the addition and was wondering if you think that it is acceptable now. I have no stake in this article, but I do wish for Wikipedia to remain neutral. So I'm seeking some one who has dealt with this before and someone with a lot of experience. Thanks for your help. Bluefist ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the way the lead stands now is fine and meets BLP and NPOV requirements. The IP seems intent on making it appear that all of Ehrlich's predictions are to be rejected wholesale; if there is a case for the IP's preferred phrasing it will need to be made on the article talk page and consensus will be required for the change. Thank you for trying to keep the article balanced! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it and replied :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

False edit summary

Hello Ponyo,

⚠

This edit was not a correct "summary" of the edit you made. Please in the future make sure your edit summaries accurately summarize your edits. Best, Jim Fitzgerald ^post 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this an inside joke, Jim? Tiderolls 21:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, this is rather a friendly notice to be more diligent. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 21:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not getting the gist, Jim. Ponyo did copy edit the text and did add a cite. Perhaps you're taking exception to the accuracy/completeness/concept of the copy edit? Tiderolls 21:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? An IP added unsourced material to a BLP, and instead of doing a knee-jerk revert citing BLP I copyedited the material and added a reliable source along with the edit summary "copy-edit and add citation". What is it that you find false or deceptive about that Jim?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)