User talk:Ponyo/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Your username

Your user name was from a character from the movie ponyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiji Mendoza (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One might think so, however the movie was released in 2008 (in Japan) and I've had my account since March 2007.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi P. I hope that your time away was fun or at least restful. I've seen this question on your page so often that I wish I had a clue about making a userbox containing your answer so you could direct the next Miyazaki fan (of which I am one) to it :-) Have a delightful weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My time away was replenishing, thank you. I don't mind the Ponyo question popping up from time to time, it lets me meet new film lovers who appreciate something more than the latest summer blockbuster!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I just had a thought. Maybe everyone was referring to this part of your signature and not the HM film all these years :-) Either one works as Bette was a marvel as well. Cheers

when you are reverting edits

This should be done by special care, because some material is being lost..

This should be done by special care, because some material is being lost.. List of the mothers of the Ottoman Sultans and Safiye Sultan pages, you have revered but again material is lost. In the page of List of the mothers of the Ottoman Sultans there are still incorrect links, which I had corrected peviously but since the page is protected I cant re-correct them. My advise: Do this carefully 68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I mean is: The last edit of 91.46.112.141 in [[Safiye Sultan]] was also a vandalized one, and you reverted back to that version..

68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean the edits added by Biar122 and their endless array of sock accounts? The edits are being reverted as the user is blocked (defacto banned) and is therefore not allowed to create new accounts to continue making the very same edits that let to their editing privileges being revoked. If you see specific edits that I have reverted that you believe are helpful please feel free to restore the material, but note that you are taking responsibility for the accuracy of the content. If the page is semi-protected you can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template as I advised previously. If you create an account you will no longer be affected by semi-protection, once your account is autoconfirmed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Will123Smith

This account is the same as What'sUp123, 91.46.112.141, TurkBoy98765, City12345, Jamesgoldbo007, and Biar122. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I know, the named accounts are all already blocked and tagged as socks of Biar122.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

for your info Revision as of 14:15, 3 September 2014 in Safiye Sultan: 91.46.112.141 erased most of the page..

68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you restored the content. Thank you.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello,

I would like to know how come my page was deleted being that many other companies have their have up on Wikipedia. Please let me know how I can post my company's page like other companies are able to.

Kind regards.

SouthAmericanAirpass (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Brolcom

The article was deleted as it was blatantly promotional in nature contrary to Wikipedia policy. As it is nearly impossible for employees of a company to write an article in the neutral tone required, our conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage employees from creating or directly editing the articles of companies with which they are affiliated. If your company meets the notability criteria for inclusion, at some point a neutral and uninvolved editor will likely create an article on it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Untitled 2

Hi how I can upload a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockheed lover (talk • contribs)

Instructions can be found at WP:UPI. As I noted on your talk page, please ensure that you do not continue to blank or overwrite the Roham article. You will need to start your own article under a separate title. I would suggest using the Articles for creation process in order to help ensure that your article meets notability and sourcing requirements, and that you read our conflict of interest guidelines if you are at all affiliated with the article subject.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Biar122 is back again.

Editing under the name Wiki456789 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wiki456789 - same edits, same snarky comments. Thanks. --Manway 03:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed. I've blocked the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hey, you {{checkuserblock}}ed User talk:216.227.255.6 back in May. I don't know if it's the same person, but I just thought I'd let you know the IP is active again. I've blocked it for six months for vandalism. If you want to modify the block, don't worry about stepping on my toes. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If nothing else it give me an excuse to say "hi" :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cecil Abbott recent edit

Hi Ponyo - re: your delete and response. Apologies I can't sign in but I am at work. The relationship to the mentioned people is seen in reference 3 where his family are named at the end of the article. The source provided was evidence as to the representation by these individuals internationally. If you are able to reverse the edit, and simply add reference 3 to the reference that was provided for his grand daughters representing Australia simultaneously, which had previously been mentioned in print media, then that would solve the issue that you have with the edit. The three individuals are public figures, and it had been an oversight that they were not linked on the wikipedia encyclopedia prior to this. Regards DRCEA - (although not signed in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.18.102 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference 3 (which is this one) only states that he has three grandchildren named Jessica, Chloe and Micaela. It does not say anything regarding any of them being swimmers representing Australia in competition. What we need is a source that states explicitly that Jessica Abbott, the swimmer, is the grandaughter of Cecil Abbott. What you are trying to do (which is a common mistake) is to combine two different sources to say something that neither source states outright, which is considered synthesis (i.e Source A: Jessica Abbott is a swimmer. Source B: Cecil Abbott had a granddaughter named Jessica. Synthesis: Jessica Abbot, the swimmer, is the daughter of Cecil Abbott). I don't expect to be online much today, however I'll see if I can dig up some useable reliable sources when I have a moment. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Danish Taimoor

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The disruption has calmed down significantly. I think I'll let it open back up for a bit and see how that goes. I am watching the article however and will re-apply the protection should the disruption ramp up again.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000‎

Hello, Sky0000, has created a new account Dews34. It is to see if it can be locked, if it is the same person?.--Damián ^(talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The account is  Confirmed as Sky0000. I've blocked and tagged it accordingly.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

why alter info when nt having info

Ur recent alteration in hritvik's info was for what purpose? He was born in Mandsaur nd u deleted dat info from d page!!! Redo it ASAP... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.254.21 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The poor spelling and vagueness of your message provide few clues as to what you're talking about. Could you include a link to the article in question? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted sockpuppet note

You deleted a reference to a sockpuppet investigation on my user talk page. Is the issue resolved? I am upset by the baseless accusation; it seems like an abuse of process by a deletion troll, and I wanted to follow up what's happening. Hiding it from me seems like an attempt to deflect criticism. I had to go to page history to find the link, and the issue seems unresolved. I don't like the accusation, but I like even less having the accusation stand but be removed from my sight. Wondering what I am missing here. Avt tor (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor who added the message to your talk page was themselves a sockpuppet and all of their edits were reverted per WP:REVERTBAN; you were not singled out in any way. There was no intent to hide anything from you, I was simply trying to limit the disruption caused by the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing Rithvik Dhanjani's page

Greetings,

Rithvik's page was edited by me to make it in accordance with other Indian TV actors' wiki pages (kindly look up Barun Sobti, Ravi Dubey, Krystle Dsouza, Rati Pandey etc.)

The tabulization states in details all the performances and TV appearances, with links supplied.

It is done in accordance with many actor's profiles I saw. I had earlier submitted requests with links but those were never incorporated into his wiki profile. The complete profile gives a picture of the actor. And a correct one at that - the 2009 year active one stated earlier was wrong.

Kindly let me know where else links are needed, and I'll provide those, instead of deleting the entire edit done with painstaking efforts.

Best, Charmine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charminek (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you brought your concerns to my attention, however that needs to be done before you revert back to your preferred version that was reverted, by me, as it contained a number of policy-violating issues. If you make a bold edit that is reverted, the next step is to discuss, not to continue reverting.

Per the edit summary I left when I reverted your changes, the edits you made introduced unsourced personal information contrary to our policy protecting living persons. The edits also introduced promotional and non-neutral commentary to the article (e.g. "His chemistry with Purvi (Asha Negi) made Arjun-Purvi a much loved pair"). All of the links you added into the article are hyperlinks to external websites, which is undesirable in the body of the article. Links within the article body should be pertinent interwiki links leading to other Wikipedia articles; readers clicking on them should not be taken off-wiki. If you are attempting to use them as citations then they need to be formatted as such. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how this can be done. Finally, some of your edits were removed as WP:PUFFERY as they added vague information to the article that does nothing other than to make the individual appear more notable without imparting any real information. This includes mentions of "appearances" at various venues that doesn't explain why these events were notable, and a list of awards (all unsourced) of which many are awards presented by television studios in order to promote their own shows and performers. It is for all of these reasons that your edits have been reverted.

I understand that you put some effort into updating the article, however that doesn't negate the requirement to ensure your edits meet Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons and promotional material. This guideline outlines the format that Wikipedia biography articles should take; using various other articles as a template may simply lead to you introducing the errors from those articles into the article you are updating. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Second response - editing Rithvik's page

Left on Sept 12 and repeating today

Please let me know about the examples I cited too, I used those examples as references while making such a massive edit. And most of them have external references. I'm not going to make pages for wiki resources that don't exist. My purpose to highlight the actor's appearances in them. What is significant or not is for the reader to decide. My job is to notify the actors's media reported appearances. I have cited examples from actors and region relevant in the same field, I am not sure you have a background on those pages.

And the tabulization helps, please don't keep removing it on the pretext of concerned rules. I do not understand why the policy is being applied to this particular page only? Are the examples I cited free from the rule (please check my first reply)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charminek (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What is significant or not is decided by consensus, and the consensus regarding a large range of people and organizations are covered under our notability guidelines. If your "purpose is to highlight the actor's appearances" and your "job is to notify the actors's [sic] media reported appearances" then you shouldn't be editing the article directly at all. Your edits are promotional in nature, they are contrary to multiple guidelines and policies, and I am not the only editor undoing your changes due to the reasons explained in detail above. In a perfect world I suppose all 4,603,772 English Wikipedia articles would adhere to the policies and guidelines decided upon by the community, however this encyclopedia is constantly being corrected and improved. Rithvik Dhanjani's article is hardly the only article that our biographies of living persons and non-promotional policies are being enforced on, and the fact that you have mirrored this article on others that have guidelines and policy errors is not the fault of those trying to clean it up. Again, as you have noted that you are employed to maintain this article, please use the talk page to suggest changes per our conflict of interest guidelines and note that receiving undisclosed monetary compensation for your edits is contrary to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Can you check this request out? It's active with socks still coming. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanfiction2010

Hi. Is it too late to add User:Songwriting2011 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanfiction2010? See User:Songwriting2011/draft, which is a draft bio for Sam Hildestad. -- Whpq (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That account is  Stale for CheckUser purposes, but yes, you can still add it to the investigation as long as it's not archived. When you do, also get someone to reopen it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Whpq:, I've gone and ahead and deleted the page and blocked the account. It's long abandoned, but leaving the hoax material floating around may only entice the master account to continue along the same path once their block expires. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed adding it to the SPI page before it was closed. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please reply about the Rithvik Dhanjani page

sent two messages - edited and added more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charminek (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Replied above. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New Biar122 sock?

Might want to look at this guy;s contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keivan.f I'd do a sockpuppet investigation, but I'm almost late for work and just spotted him. Regards, --Manway 17:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Keivan.f is a long-term editor with over 9,000 edits in a wide variety of topics. If you believe that Biar122 may have been a sock of Keivan.f, please outline your evidence through SPI as the link to the contributions page is not evidence enough to justify a check.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I only saw back 3 or 4 days and missed the rest. As I said, my only excuse is hurry up and get out the door... Again, regards. --Manway 04:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What's happening here exactly? Can someone explain it to me? Keivan.f^Talk 08:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Nothing to worry about; some of your recent edits were in a topic area frequented by a prolofic sock account. Other than the topic overlap there is no evidence that you're connected to the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rithvik Dhanjani page editing - 3

I am not sure why do you keep insisting on the monetary compensation part. I'm an Indian TV viewer who wants the page of an actor updated to reflect all the word he has done. I have a well paying job, which does not involve editing or promoting actors or their wikipedia articles. So kindly take the accusation back. When one uses 'cleaning is not my job', it doesn't indicate the person doesn't work and receive monetary compensation as a janitor. it's an expression to denote it's not something they intend to do. Here are definitions of job - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Job - scroll down to the part where after duty/responsibility and monetary compensation - 5. job - the responsibility to do something; "it is their job to print the truth" duty, obligation, responsibility - the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr 6. job - the performance of a piece of work; "she did an outstanding job as Ophelia"; "he gave it up as a bad job" work - activity directed toward making or doing something; "she checked several points needing further work" 7. job - a damaging piece of work; "dry rot did the job of destroying the barn"; "the barber did a real job on my hair" work - activity directed toward making or doing something; "she checked several points needing further work"

Now coming to page editing, don't the policies denote that it is advisable to edit instead of reverting a new edit? Then why are the tabulizatons removed always? The actor has worked in the shows I had given, but you want consensus - then build a consensus. How does your difference of opinion prove to be bigger than mine? I do not think you even watch the added shows to keep a tab. So do tell me how shall it be indicated? The articles I provided are external material you said, because wikipedia pages do not exist. So a page can only have information if the page exists for their performance or match played? What if there is not such record? You've taken a very high road and gone off the road, continuously and falsely accusing me of getting monetary benefits. It is definitely uncalled for and I expect an apology on that front. Fans or viewers want page profiles updated on wiki, which is a considered an extensive source. Should tell you a lot if viewer traffic goes to television forums and not wikipedia profiles of actors, for want of information provided here. I don't want to edit only to have you revert it again. So kindly ward off all such notions of getting paid for editing page, because those are false. And let me edit the page and cite my sources instead of reverting it all the time like you're the actor's nemesis who doesn't want the profile updated to reflect his body of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charminek (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Since Charminek seems to think that this editor talk page is the place to discuss their edits to a BLP, I have tried to advice him or her, on their own talk page. Charminek: Ponyo's talk page is not really where you should discuss unsourced edits. Go to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon, the advice you provided to Charminek was helpful. I certainly seemed to have hit a brick wall with my explanations of the various policies and guidelines involved.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DragonTiger socking again

It appears that almost once a month he is into socking. The latest sock [[1]] created (yet another) pov fork of the Izmit massacre (article he created & tried to promote his extreme pov) with the Izmit Massacre (in the past he created also the Execution of Turks in Izmit with another sock). Thus it leaves no doubt that it's the same editor.

I'm also afraid that he is into sockfarming as he also did in the past.Alexikoua (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: As you suspected, it's a  Confirmed sock which I've now blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again for dealing with him.Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

unsupported information and categories to biography articles

Hello Ponyo, I received your message about "unsupported information and categories to biography articles" and I have to say that I did cite articles that have information of the respective's person descent. Granted, those source are in a different language and I only did that for some of them but not others; but for the most part, I'm not giving false information on any of them. I hope you can reverse your decision to remove my edits and, at least, restore those that I actually have sourced. -Thanks. (Thesuntoucher1000 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC))

None of the articles where I reverted the addition of the descent categories included sourced article content that supported the inclusion of the categories. For example, could you show me where within this article, this article or this article there is reliably sourced content verifying the descent categories you added? Any of the articles wherein you added sources, or where there was already a source, I did not touch.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up for me. I just started to really edit/create articles two weeks ago, so your comment is greatly appreciated. I'll better cite my sources next time. Thanks. (Thesuntoucher1000 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC))

More suspected socks for Lilk846

Ponyo - there are a couple of pending suspected socks for Lilk846 - IP User:50.176.102.238 and User:Luuxx3. These are pretty blatant IMO. I'm not familiar enough with sock puppet procedure to know what recourse there is to stop this beyond tagging suspected socks, but this user is pretty aggressive about it. Rikster2 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a  Confirmed sock. I've blocked the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. These have been incredibly easy to spot. Is there a reason the IP wouldn't be blocked? I'm not up to speed on sock puppetry, maybe we give IPs a lot of leeway since they can be shared? Thanks for taking care of this. Rikster2 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If the IP is causing disruption or is duckish enough any admin can block it, however checkusers rarely publicly link IPs to named accounts in accordance with the Foundation's Privacy Policy. Perhaps a friendly admin or SPI clerk (Bbb23?) watching this page could check the IP contribs and see if a block is warranted? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of SeattliteTungsten

Hi, thanks for investigating at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SeattliteTungsten. There is another one: ZeroMostelZL (talk · contribs). Should I add it to the same case or start a new case? No admin action has been taken yet. Cheers. Zero^talk 23:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And another: YoMamaSoDumb (talk · contribs). Thanks. Zero^talk 00:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On advice from another admin, I added them to the same case page. Zero^talk 01:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

All accounts have been blocked and tagged so I've closed the SPI.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:68.100.172.139

Hello. I want to report an IP user who just reverts my edits without a clear reason. He's in an edit war with me now. Please take a look at this, he removed a huge material with a little explanation. Also he adds unnecessary images that he likes to the articles of Ottoman consorts, for example this one. These pictures have no purpose at all and take huge spaces. When I reverted his edits he accused me of vandalism. He also thinks that I and User:Surtsicna are socks of Biar122. Keivan.f^Talk 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Dougweller has provided the IP with some sage advice. If you find yourself stymied when trying to communicate with this editor, I would suggest availing yourself of these important steps. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkMysoe/Archive

Hello. Just to apologise for not spotting the notification of your mentioning me at the latest entry in the above. Trouble was, I'd only really come across the original Mysoe, when his obsession was with the greater glorification of his Ghanaian tribe (or whatever it was). Hadn't realised he'd moved into general trolling, so although certain elements of the style were characteristic, the content wasn't typical of the Mysoe I remembered. I'll try to be more alert next time :-) and thanks for proceeding with the investigation anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It was an interesting case, though time consuming, case. I've made some notes to hopefully make detection easier if any future SPIs are opened.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Crapyob123

I felt this edit was less than constructive. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It was indeed less than constructive, which is why I reverted it and left a message on their talk page. I was just wondering if anything had happened in the three days following that single edit which precipitated a block as I was watching the account and hadn't seen any new activity.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since they had edited I thought they qualified for a block. Either way, as I often say, I doubt they would have edited again. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious as to what had drawn your attention to them as I had chalked it up to being a likely throw-away. It was just a question, not a criticism :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

IPv6

Is there any reason why the IPv6 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:E5A8:3A91:2475:DB14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for just 31 hours? This is a repeat offender with a recognisable M.O. - spuriously proposes pages for deletion and vandalises Bishonen's page. I can understand why an confirmed IPv4 vandal should only be blocked for a short time as the dynamic address may be reallocated to an innocent user. But the chances of that happening with an IPv6 are so slim that Satan will be ice-skating to work before that happens. So what's the upside of a short block in this particular case? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be a repeat offender, but not via this IP which has only been used for a total just over three hours today. There's no point in blocking dynamic IPs for longer as they will simply cycle through to the next available IP. The revision history of Bishonen's user page proves that they have a highly dynamic range at their disposal, and blocking single IPs for long durations will have little effect. Have you seen an example wherein this user has returned to a blocked IP once the block has expired? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see my userpage has now been protected, which is just as well. The reason I haven't been taking better care of it, and all the reverting has been done by kind page watchers, is that edits to it don't show up on my watchlist. Isn't that weird? The rest of my watchlist works ok, as far as I know. The userpage thing is a pretty new phenomenon, and people have been giving me some, mmm, less than useful advice about it ("Do you realize that only the last edit will appear on your watchlist?" What am I, a n00b?), but no, it genuinely doesn't show up. Is it the usual, do you think? ("because of Flow, don't ask us why, it'll probably be fixed some day"?) Either of you? I just can't be arsed to go to the Complain About Flow page or the Pump, there has been a bit too much of that recently. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

That's so very odd. There is an option to "hide anonymous users" in the watchlist box (just above the "namespace" drop down box), do you have that set as your default by chance? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, ma'am. And nothing done on my userpage shows up on my watchlist, it's not just the IPs. The reverts by users and admins haven't shown up, NawlinWiki's protection didn't show up. No-thing done there in the past couple of weeks has appeared on my watchlist. I check it all the time. It doesn't really matter about my userpage, and now it's protected anyway; but it worries me that I've no idea whether this (what? what is it?) affects some more pages I think I'm watching. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

I'm as flummoxed as you.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you vandalize it, please? Now I've unwatched and then re-watched it; maybe the watching will start to work. It wouldn't make any sense, but then the problem doesn't make sense to begin with. (I know I could do it myself, but there's something displeasing about that. :-)) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

Done! Did it work?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Yes, it did. :-) Don't know why I didn't think to try that sooner. Thank you! Bishonen | talk 02:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. There's no meaning to a "dynamic" IPv6 because they are never going to be re-used. There are enough IPv6 addresses to give every man, woman and child on the planet more than thirty thousand million million million million addresses each. Why mess about? You can range block a million with less chance of collateral damage than there is of being hit on the head by a passing UFO. When we spot the pattern of this IP vandal, I fail to see what we gain by allowing editing from that IP in a couple of days' time as the only person who would editing from that IP will be the same vandal. Who benefits from limited blocks of IPv6 vandals? --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The blocking policy supports blocking for as long as necessary to prevent disruption. If a 31 hour long block accomplishes that, there is no point whatsoever in blocking for longer. I have never, either as an admin or CU, seen an IPv6 user return to the same address once a block has expired. If this one is the first to break that pattern, it can be reblocked. I also note that the two admins who blocked the vandal before me did so for 31 hours and 1 week respectively, so my actions here are both in line with policy and precedent. I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that it's warranted. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. I understand the admin policy and practice, but I was merely wondering whether it still encompasses our best options in the changing world of IP addresses now that IPv6 is gaining in importance. Perhaps you'd agree that examining our procedures every once in a while - especially in the light of external change - is a sensible precaution against becoming hide-bound and "doing things this way because we've always done them this way"? --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That conversation could certainly be held at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. In the meantime, I'd like to point out that I'm not some mindless button pusher - if I really thought there would be a benefit to blocking for longer I would have, regardless of precedent (WP:IAR and all that jazz). Let's not give this troll the benefit of discussing them a single second longer. Cool? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh sure - and don't get me wrong: I'm really, really not complaining. I do appreciate very much the work you do here (and it was thoughtless of not to prefix my original message with that sentiment). I was just seizing the opportunity to chew over my theories with a sympathetic listener who has practical experience. Thanks again for your advice and I'll drop a line to the talk page for WP:IPB when my thoughts have crystallised. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mateus Televisa‎

Hi, I wonder if there is the possibility to block the user Mateus Televisa. The unique contributions of this user only upload images are copyrighted and replace older who are already in the articles. For example: here and here. Here is his account in commons. It has also created accounts; Mateus Rosario and Mateus SBT , Surely you have created more accounts. In this user Portuguese wikipedia was blocked and expelled forever for the same reasons link. It has also been expelled from the Spanish Wikipedia. I think this user is not going to change. There will be the opportunity to do something ?, I've left a message, but I do not seem to mind.--McVeigh (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@McVeigh: I've blocked the account and all of the socks you named (plus Mateus Sales which turned up in a check). I've also left a note at the Commons admin board asking for a review of their uploads as they are all claimed as "own work" when that is clearly not the case.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well thanks for the help, I hope it stops because the Portuguese Wikipedia has created several puppet accounts. But anyway thanks for the help :).--McVeigh (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

High speed

Dang your fast. Even before you I could make a report! AcidSnow (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm digging deeper into Jikaar - what are your thoughts?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow:, never mind my musing aloud, Jikaar is  Confirmed to both 0188s4811 (talk · contribs) and Kurlibah (talk · contribs).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know man, they do have a similar weighting style. Did you check the ip? AcidSnow (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the help! Anyways, how do I get "rollback"? When someone makes multiple edits I have to get the best version which takes a bit of time. AcidSnow (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERM is the place to request rollback.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Malusia22

Thanks for helping out on keeping him at bay, dude. As fpr the articles he frequents, they're mostly articles pertaining to organised crime like the Sinaloa cartel, Syndicate, List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates and a few others. If you need to, I can provide you some more info as much as I can gather.

Also, would you mind if you check out the consensus request I posted on ANI in regards to this fiasco? Blake Gripling (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's "dudette", but that's ok. I've semi-protected the articles mentioned; heavy-handed use of semi-prot is the best option here as range-blocking is not possible in this case. If we take away all their toys perhaps they'll go play elsewhere. Regarding the ANI thread, I'll let another admin handle the close. There's no point in me stepping in as I'm already handling the SPI, and there's no rush as Maulusia22 is already de facto banned.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He also appears to be frequenting the Mafia and Yakuza articles, though there might be more underworld-related pages he might get his hands on. And that means I can tag his main account as banned, right? Blake Gripling (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Those two articles having only been hit by the sock once and are both heavily edited. I'd rather leave them open for now. The admin who closed the ANI discussion will tag the account if there is consensus for a formal ban.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

True, it's best we leave them free then, albeit under surveillance. Haven't gotten any replies on the consensus yet, though at least one user voted for a yes. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing: I think you might as well want to revdel any edits made by him, as he would attempt to link to old revisions he made on the articles he frequents, like with this one, and on the Marian Rivera article to which he changed the Ang Babaeng Hinugot sa Aking Tadyang link so it would point to the one with the "sindikato" crap he inserted. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's something to watch out for, but it doesn't fall under any of the rev-delete criteria.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Icehound2

This message is directed at you, Saturn 28 and Berean Hunter. You fellows seem to be disillusioned into thinking that the person you've come across here is a new disruptive editor. Let me tell you now that you're completely wrong. He's best known as Zhoban and has been present at Wikipedia for nearly a decade. Just look at the sock puppets and you'll see they're obviously the same person. If that doesn't convince you, let's take a look at the I.P. address you banned the other day. 96.59.223.143 is the self-proclaimed home address of Zhoban. He stated that in a series of personal attacks back in May of this year.

So, what's my point? Well, I'll just let you know that you're never going to win this one. You can block every last account and I.P. address, but he'll just be the next day. Hell, he may even look up your personal information and leave death threats, since he's done that in the past. I'm just telling you this so you know that despite blocking his I.P., he'll still come back. I've decided to not pursue his nonsense because it's simply not worth the effort. My perspective is so long as he doesn't cause people harm and disrupt, he should be left alone. I for one do not want any further conflict with him.

I don't mean to discourage you, just that you should be aware of what you're getting yourself into. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you've made a few assumptions there, many of which are either untrue or irrelevant. I never assumed that I had uncovered the master account, in fact I assumed it went back much farther, but CU evidence only goes back a finite period so the master is identified based on the oldest account found in the check unless they can be definitively tied to another master account. As you say the master is actually Zhoban, they can be compared behaviourally to see if there is a likely match and the SPI case will be moved to the older account if there's enough evidence to do so (I don't have time to do this today but will take a look tomorrow if another CU or SPI Clerk hasn't done so in the meantime). Being a CU you deal with any number of angry and vengeful users, it comes part and parcel with the tools. There is no prerogative to "win" anything. If you view any situation on Wikipedia as winning vs. losing then you've lost the plot. If you don't want to be involved as you note above, that's absolutely your choice and I understand why you would make it. I don't intend on not blocking the sock accounts just because they kick-off when it's done.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This user (Icehound2) will be blocked everytime he makes a new account; I'm not familiar with this user but I'm guessing he's supposed to be banned from editing Wikipedia completely. This might sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been an IP Address Range Block done so he can't edit for a certain period of time because he has an IP Address that is in the range block? That has worked in the past to stop/reduce users like him from making disruptive edits.

Also, the only reason I reported him in the first place was because of his rude messages to me. If he had not said anything rude, he wouldn't have been reported. Saturn 28 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Ponyo, for seeming condescending or to be making crass assumptions. Just that I wanted to forewarn you about this because he's an especially vindictive editor. I saw that you blocked his accounts and that raised some alarms, because he takes time to look up people's personal information, so he can take the fight beyond Wikipedia. I haven't missed the point of Wikipedia, I simply hope you're aware you've disrupted the flow of an extremely toxic editor. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No biggie. The link to the possible master is helpful. I'm sure it's been unpleasant to be a target of this sockmaster's attention in the past and I understand why you would want to warn others. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Saturn 28, he is banned from Wikipedia and is on the list of banned editors, complete with a long-term abuse case. There have been numerous range blocks against him, but he is quite capable with changing his address and using proxy servers. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That sucks. This sounds like one guy who needs a life though. Why would someone want to waste their time disrupting articles/users everyday? I guess they're not getting enough attention in the non-internet world. Saturn 28 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo, is it possible for a range to be indefinitely blocked? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's technically possible, however it's rarely (never?) done in practice. WP:RANGE covers the basics of rangeblocks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jerix Fuentes

Can you stop deleting my contents; I'll be updating soon am working on my biography soon and my team and I can't do it with you deleting my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJerixFuentes (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You are blocked from editing for repeatedly attempting to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Any account that you or your "team" create in order to continue to do this is disallowed and will also be blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi, PokeFan10025 here. I knew this would happen, so I have an excuse right away - although I am uncertain if it is a good one. I've clicked on her Internet Movie Base profile (link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1544279/) and it said that she was born in 1980, however I'm not much of an editer so I wasn't sure how to do those things that look like this: (example) [10].

PokeFan10025 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Replied at User talk:PokeFan10025.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Ponyo, hi! How are you? Also, where you've been anyway on Wikipedia? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo, how are you? You're helping to clean vandalism on Wikipedia, and keep up the good work here! :) --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak Bin Mahfouz

Hi Ponyo,

Many thanks for your message. Could you please advise me how we can sort out this dilemma? The pages are not profitable nor advertising. They are helpful for many people worldwide as you can see from the articles. Please help me to get them published.

Kind regards, Ahmad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midoahmad (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that you still misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a venue for "publishing" material about your organization, it is an encyclopedia where editors write neutral articles about topics that (often) interest them. It is not another social media platform such as Twitter or Facebook. The fact that you do not receive monetary gain from the articles does not make them non-promotional. If the reason you are repeatedly creating the article is to "get the word out" or to let people know about your organization, that puts you at odds with Wikipedia's policy regarding promotional editing. The consensus of the community is that Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz and The Mahfouz Foundation do not demonstrate the notability required for an article here. If that changes at any time then an uninvolved neutral party will likely create the article, until that time you cannot continue to attempt to recreate it yourself regardless of whether you have been tasked do so (as you have noted previously). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mateus Televisa

Hello, just come to inform you Mateus Televisa, has returned. I do not know if people are the same, but the same articles and edited in the same way.--McVeigh (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, the account is now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: References Cecil/Jessica Abbott

Thank you for the input - I understand the referencing dilemma. I am from the local area so was aware of the relationship over the years via local newspaper (The Leader) but I don't believe there to be backdated copies online. I don't believe this is a conflict of interest having read the information in the links provided, but thank you for the input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRCEA (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

That person belongs to my country.I know about her better than you.I have edited with authentic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassaan1896 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hassaan1896: You could live in Timbuktu, Bora Bora or Reykjavík for all it matters, you still need to include reliable sources when adding material to biography articles, and as a special consideration, religion is covered by WP:BLPCAT and requires both excellent sourcing and self-identification. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Mehwish Hayat

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP edit I had to rev-delete from the 11th doesn't fill me with hope that protection isn't still needed. I've extended for an additional three month term.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You've Got Mail!

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has arrived as of yet. I'll keep an eye out.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Second time that's happened... Might as well just put it here. REVDEL request for this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, weird right? Anyhoo, rev-delete applied. I also added the article to my <overloaded, abused 10,700+ article> watchlist--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm working on keeping my watchlist under 1000... removed a bunch of articles recently. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

• 
  50,000 Edit Star

awarded to Ponyo for joining the 50,000 Edit Club
Vjmlhds (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. If I make it to 100,000, shoot me. Just kidding! (maybe).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Lucknow Airport Official

I'm not sure if it was a mistake, but auto block is disabled on this account. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DQ!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor?

I'd like you to do something for me if you could...

Levdr1lostpassword has accused me of being that Fruit is for life and for the articles also vandal that you blocked yesterday.

As an admin, I was wondering if you had CheckUser rights, if so, can you please do a check just to let Levdr know that I AM NOT Fruit.

Thanks.

Vjmlhds (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If Levdr1lostpassword has credible evidence then they need to raise it at WP:SPI. Accusations of socking without evidence can be considered a personal attack, so it needs to stop if an SPI isn't forthcoming.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I never "accused" Vjmlhds of being a sockpuppet, per se. I opened a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vjmlhds three days ago. This is what he (Vjmlhds) is likely referring to. Levdr1lp / talk 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange, my name is mentioned/linked in that SPI, but I never received a notification. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. Levdr1lp / talk 18:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia email.
Message added 06:35, 19 October 2014 (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.

As CutestPenguin has a need for a proxy at the moment, he is asking me to notify you that you have mail from him Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

He was on IRC, asking. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to Cutest Penguin via email.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ponyo. Well, I have got your mail and even I replied for the same. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

Since your the one that discovered that he was the one socking, I would like to inform you of this. AcidSnow (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry AcidSnow, I can't seem to trace back where I was involved in this case previously. Do you have any diffs to refresh my memory? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You were the admin that figured out that Alifazal was the one socking with User:No More Mogadishu. How that ties in with his block is exaplained by me and Middayexpress here. It's seems pretty odd that he would only be blocked for 1 week despite all the things that have been going on. Anyways, If you need anything else just ask. AcidSnow (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all this work you're doing at SPI. Thank you so much: few people realize how difficult that job is and how important. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. You're timing is impeccable as this week has thrown death threats and some seriously unstable individuals at my door (ok, at my inbox) as a result of a couple SPIs. I, fortunately, have the online footprint of a gnat and can pretty much ignore it. Some of us are less fortunate in that regard. I know you've taken heat personally as well and that deserves more than a barnstar! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You have my sympathy. You're wise to have such a narrow online footprint. All the best, and you certainly deserve the barnstar and more. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Ponyo, I've taken some, this is true, but nothing I can't handle so far. It's been a while since I got phone calls at my office number. My footprint is a bit bigger, I'm afraid--but then, I still have nothing on Eric C (a real name) and Sitush (a true victim of online harassment). But all this takes away from the main point, which was to thank you for your good work. I looked again at the long list of cases at SPI, and it must be disheartening to look at when you're one of the admins taking care of it. I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Lauren Toyota

Hello. The IP that has repeatedly removed sourced content on Lauren Toyota has done it again, after your final warning, so there's a report at WP:AIV. Just thought you might want to know... Thomas.W ^talk 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a short bit. Hopefully this will prompt them to actually explain their edits.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the sourced material that is being removed and the geolocation of the IP (Toronto, Canada, where the subject of the article apparently lives) it's someone who doesn't want people to know that the shows that seem to have been the only thing that made the subject of the article notable were all suddenly canceled, leaving her without a job (see ref in article). Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. I was AGFing (wow, that sounds rather unseemly) that they may come forward with some sort of reasonable explanation, but if they won't respond to concerns than ^<shrugs> what can you do? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you reblocked the IP, so I took a look at the edits the IP has made over the past few days, and found that they've been doing the exact same thing on a number of other articles related to Lauren Toyota as on the BLP, i.e. removing all mentions of the shows being cancelled and LT being a former VJ, not a current one, trying to bring everything back to life again, at least here on WP. So I've reverted everything that should be reverted. Thomas.W ^talk 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the extra digging!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your good contributions on Wikipedia, Ponyo. I'm rewarding you the Defender of the Wiki award for defending the encyclopedia from being vandalized. Keep up the good work, :) -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 02:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Allen!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Charley Webb

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the head's-up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ponyo:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Illegal Deletation

Dear Ponyo, You have deleted articles about an ethnic groups in Mithila (Nepal) called Nepali Maithils. Ethnic groups of Mithila (India) 'Indian Maithils' was also deleted. Those were the real ethnic groups enlisted in the Interim Constitution of Nepal and India. These articles shouldn't have been deleted no matter whether created by Sockpuppets or Normal user. Main thing is that Contribution had been made by that user (Manzil Paudar) and all the strong references were given on those article. Those articles were under the scope of Nepal and India topics. Discussion was necessary with those topic's admin before deletation. Please recreate those articles. Thanks... (Menshalimbu (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Stop socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kind of a just in case ping..

Nothing, really, just a note, because I mentioned you here: [2], but I did it in an edit after I signed, so not sure if you'd get the "ping" or not. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Begoon, I've left a comment there.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

About User:The Bio Mission

User is using his/her talkback as a promtion. Can you check this? Physicsmathftw (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I took care of it. For future reference you can always report company/organization username issues at WP:UAA.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Goomer2014

Hi Ponyo! I didn't peg Goomer2014 for a sock jobber, so I'm curious who you determined he is. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was certain I'd seen them before and a check revealed a couple of linked accounts, I'm just trying to figure out who the master may be so I can tag them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Goomer 2014 and HigbyMan (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to each other and are  Likely Jockmon (talk · contribs). I'm certain it goes deeper that this but CU only provides limited info.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talking to myself...perhaps Finealt?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Finealt did verbalize often and was known for numerous article deletions and unannounced merges if memory serves me right. Not quite the same behavior as Goomer, but you've got a better set of tools than I. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Savh:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!--McVeigh (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Armeena Khan

Hi,

You keep insisting on deleting content from the following page Armeena Khan. You cite the following. reverting addition of promotional material and puffery, unsourced personal info

There is no promotional material in the content. It is all factual. Obviously it is a work n progress so the references are being added as we progress.However your coming along and deleting the bulk of the article whilst leaving unsubstantiated words without context does not help. So if you wish you can source the material and references from the press articles available on the web. Alternatively be specific in what you are actually finding fault with so we can rectify it. Finally what on earth does 'puffery' mean? you keep referring to this.

Anyway please cease and desist from interfering with this article as it comes across as malicious and motivated by vandalism. I am having to revert it back and forth which is becoming tiresome and childish. Unless you want to contribute then leave alone.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsage10 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Definition of puffery Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I've edited further to make it somewhat WP:BLP and WP:NPOV-compliant. Extra eyes there would be helpful. @Merlinsage10:, please stop using Wikipedia to promote this borderline notable person. I have no intention of spending the little time I have to edit here sourcing the content that you are adding. That's your obligation (in the Wikipedia policy sense. If it's your financial obligation to make Ms. Khan appear more important than she is, which appears to be the case given recent edits by a few new editors, then you need to review our Terms of Use). It certainly doesn't help that when you actually include sources they have been 404 links. If you continue to restore promotional material and unsourced/poorly sourced/falsely sourced material to the article you will find yourself blocked from editing. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is now on my watchlist. I'm further troubled by the fact that two more of the sources don't seem to mention Armeena Khan at all. This source didn't have a URL until I added it. There's no mention of Khan or Roye Ansoo (the film), and this source has no mention of Khan. That leaves one reference, [3], which does nothing to establish whether or not Armeena Khan is notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me as all the sources I checked were bogus as well. If the source provided doesn't support the material I'd pull it from the article (the source and the unsubstantiated claim). This is typical puffery:

1) new actress plays "blonde waitress #4" as a walk on in a sitcom 2) PR agent adds "Blondie McNewbie stars in the Emmy Award winning hit sitcom How I Met Seinfeld's Friends alongside <insert notable celebrity name here> <here> and <here>" with a reference that makes no mention of Blondie McNewbie whatsover. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow what an interesting experience this has been. I am a relatively new editor to wikipedia so I am learning the ropes. I am a fan of this actress, this is why I chose this as a subject to start my contribution. Every editor starts with their first article and if they are to be judged at that point in time then of course it is right to assume that they have only worked on one article. At this stage I am not even sure how to edit my own profile.

1) "it's your financial obligation to make Ms. Khan appear more important than she is, which appears to be the case given recent edits by a few new editors". This is a slanderous insinuation. I have no financial interest in this celebrity. I think you have gotten too personal here, seriously back off.

2) "please stop using Wikipedia to promote this borderline notable person" Wikipedia and a lot of the web is Western-centric. This person is not someone you have heard of or notable (in your opinion). This does not surprise me. But then I had never heard of the folks you have written articles on. Let me enlighten you.

Ms Khan's last project was the highest rated (TRP ratings of 5.12) in Pakistan. S Asia (Pakistan pop 170m+, India pop 1bn+, not to mention Bangladesh, Middle east and Sri Lanka) has a massive film and TV industry.

Her latest project is big: http://galaxylollywood.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/yalgaar-to-bring-swat-operation-in-light/

This her at Cannes http://reviewit.pk/writhe-a-spectacular-art-film/

This is her in Bollywood: http://bollyspice.com/70775/bollywood-daunting-outsiders-armeena-rana-khan

Most of this is unknown to you but then that is the point of Wikipedia, to learn. I appreciate the article needs to evolve but to come down in such a heavy handed manner is inappropriate.

3) "Article is now on my watch list" I am honoured indeed. Is your ego also on your watch list?

4) "If you continue to restore promotional material and unsourced/poorly sourced/falsely sourced material to the article you will find yourself blocked from editing"

Thank you for the welcome. I find your tone and attitude verging on bullying. As I have said you have gotten too personal and need to back off.

Regards - Merlinsage10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsage10 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In the entire year that you have edited Wikipedia your only edits have been to add promotional material regarding Armeena Khan to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a fansite, please do not continue to treat it as one. You have cherry-picked a comment I made regarding the recent promotional push at this article by only including a portion of my quote, leaving out the bolded but necessary word: "If it's your financial obligation to make Ms. Khan appear more important than she is, which appears to be the case given recent edits by a few new editors, then you need to review our Terms of Use". There's abslutely nothing slanderous whatsoever about pointing editors to the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use if you believe an editor may not be aware of the implications with regard to possible paid editing. My removal of promotional material from the article has absolutely nothing to do with whether I have heard of this actress and everything to do with ensuring that Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and sourcing are followed. Khan could appear in the most notable film and television program of all time and it means nothing unless the roles were significant and were covered in detail in reliable sources. You cannot have read the link regarding reliable sources yet as you continue to use blogs and user-generated websites such as review-it and wordpress to try to establish notability. On your talk page you include this link to attempt to satisfy notability criteria #3 wherein the link doesn't even include her name let along confirm her "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Cyphoidbomb also left you additional explanations on your talk page, but at this point it seems you just don't to hear why your edits do not confirm to policy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Outcome

Hey, I am just wondering if you could explain to me what the Master CU-wise is. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It means that checkuser evidence shows that there are some technical similarities between your account and the blocked (i.e. "Master") account Drwho16 (talk · contribs). Note that the investigation was closed without further action as the technical and behavioural evidence showed only a weak connection between your account and the blocked account. Apologies if this investigation caused you any concern. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24