User talk:Ponyo/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Ken Hoang socks

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Don't Feed the Zords. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense. I came across it independently through Recent Changes where I saw "6th nomination" for an AfD, which piqued my interest. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

They've been at it for some time. Both Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ken Hoang (6th nomination) and the variant with a capital "N" on "nomination" are salted, so I was puzzled how he'd managed it - he did it by adding an extra . at the end. I doubt if salting any more is worth while - too many possible variations. Just carry on with whack-a-mole till they get bored. JohnCD (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do - and I've watchlisted the SPI in case for when they pop up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Image removal

Reverting block evasion by Chace Watson. No issue with you undoing if you so choose.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Section blanking

I'm restoring the deleted section from Pilsen Wellness Center until consensus can be reached. Please note, that blanking sections violates many policies and is often considered vandalism. Kausticgirl (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are restoring material removed on BLP grounds - this is absolutely not vandalism and the onus is on you to show how the contentious material and its sources meet Wikipedia policy. Any restoration of the disputed material without consenus may lead to sanctions on your account - it is very important that this is raised at relevant venues if you feel the material needs to be restored. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not paying attention. The alleged BLP was removed. You are section blanking. Kausticgirl (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand Wikipedia policy in this matter - you are attempting to add an entire section labelled "controversy" based brings into disrepute an organization and private individuals. In such instances the sourcing must be impeccable and the material not be overstated. As an Wikipedia administrator I have been asked to neutrally review the content and found that the sources are poor and need to removed in order to meet our various policies - if you would like to see any of the material restored you need to gain consensus to do so. This can be done either at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help ME

I wanted to create a wiki page about me , I don't want to advertise myself , but there should be a record of me what I am or what I do, if somebody does internet check on me like my company , so If you can help me in that please let me know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarngarg (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted, so I replied at User talk:Swarngarg.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Siddharth Varadarajan revision

sorry am new to wikimedia and dont know how to explain the change.

He is not the "American editor of the hindu" but the editor of the hindu. He is known as the editor. His nationality, where he studied, who he married and where he lives are all secondary.

One could add later that he was born in America of Indian parents who moved back home where he then grew up and lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 26725lk (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

All information in articles biography articles needs to be supported by reliable sources to allow for verification - in this instance the content you are removing is supported by this source which states "Asked if Varadarajan can be made editor since he is a US citizen, Ram said: “I don’t think there is any bar.”". WP:MOSBIO explains that citizenship is included in the lead sentence of articles, and Varadarajan's citizenship is American according to the source. If you have concerns regarding the accuracy of the sourced statement and quote, please raise your concerns on the article talk page in order to discuss the details with other editors. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dave the paramedic

... see also this. Thanks, Ponyo! -- Dianna (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Diana - I've deleted and blocked pretty much everything now. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I nominated his images for deletion on Wikimedia Commons, but at the images are really sensitive, i.e. EMT identification cards, they need to be speedily deleted and not sure they even have a speedy deletion process at Commons. Safiel (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Commons images and account are now taken care of as well. Thanks for the note Safiel. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Hi. You seem to be an experienced editor. I undid your edit because the name you removed and that person's uses of aliases in multiple (apparently partially self-written) news stories also appears in major mainstream news, and in five sources in the article body. Furthermore, going public to the interntional press in multiple press stories disentitles any possible claim of privacy. There was an announcement that someone would come in as an editor and start deleting this exact information today, then you did so, which together with This edit and these edits[1], [2], and [3], supports that there may be a WP:SP issue, but I will AGF that this is not the case. 64.134.223.140 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As it was removed citing BLPRPIVACY concerns, and per BLP policy it should not be restored without consensus. I will start a discussion via WP:BLPN if you would like to comment there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• 1. What is your RS that this is a minor? 64.134.223.140 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• 2. How do you explain the apparant SP violations? 64.134.223.140 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The BLPN thread has been opened at [4]. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of an addition to article about Bob Blackman

Dear sir,

I am surprised to see that you have chosen to remove an addition I made to the above mentioned article, citing "Gossip tabloids do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for contentious info in BLPs" as the reason.

Please tell me do you have any idea how many articles on Wikipedia have references to the more working class papers? Any idea at all? I don't think so, because there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands out there. What are you going to do about them I enquire?

Also, I would like to enquire who decides what is a valid report or not?

I think you are abusing the system by deciding, for whatever reason, to censor bona fide news reports in order to protect the integrity of fallen MPs.

Which publications, according to you, are therefore newsworthy? I don't think that censoring purely to satisfy your own beliefs is in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am calling for an enquiry into your methods and actions of censorship. Interesting to note that you seem preoccupied with the removal of article sections more so than pure editing or contribution.

I await your reply with interest.

Regards,

Puddingsan (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of instances of poorly sourced material in biography articles, but thankfully there are also hundreds of volunteers who are working very hard to find these articles and ensure they are in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not here to censor or "satisfy my own beliefs" - as a Wikipedia administrator I'm here to make sure that Wikipedia's founding policies and consensus based guidelines are adhered to. If you would like to call my actions into question then ANI is the venue. If you would like to discuss content removed citing BLP concerns then the appropriate venue is the article talk page or WP:BLPN. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vacation^nine 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDb

Hi Ponyo: thanks for the information and the revert. I wasn't aware of the issue with IMDb. Good to know. Thanks for your understanding and help. --FeanorStar7 01:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Derek Miller Actor

Thanks for deleting. Could you perhaps create-protect it as well? —Theopolisme 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do, just doing some other clean-up at the same time... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Dude what is your deal? This is legit information on actor in am interested in. Stop deleting the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcolonster (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume your taking about Dean Miller Actor? What you are doing is repeatedly creating a promotional article, seemingly using multiple accounts to do so. If you read through the messages on your talk page(s) you will understand why the article is being deleted. You should also read our conflict of interest guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto page

hi ponyo,

i'm new to creating pages on wikipedia and realize my first attempt was in error due to my excessive use of another webpages content. i have since then updated it with original copy but it to has since been deleted. i'd appreciate any help in being able to get my page correctly published on wikipedia. thank you.

-ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysilla (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Rysilla.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, 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/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

And to you as well! (and a belated congrats on passing 100k edits - that is quite the accomplishment). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DomainTools

"Creating multiple accounts and IP-hopping to continue your crusade at DomainTools.com is against Wikipedia policy. Any additional disruption from this account will result in an immediate block. "

You want to block my account, because you dont like the truth !

Are you working for DomainTools or are you lobbying for DomainTools ?

I think lobbying for DomainTools is also against Wikipedia policy ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlkoenig07 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, so much for AGF...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Promotional ?

Hello Ponyo. I saw how you blanked user page User:Swarngarg as being promotional. Can you also look over at User:Yohan indunil ? As this user had also created the article Yohan indunil on themselves which was soon speedily deleted after I had tagged it for deletion a few days ago. The content on the person's user page is, as far as I remember almost the same as it was in the article. So I believe your review will be helpful in this case. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Although the material on User:Yohan indunil would certainly be inappropriate for article space, I think it's borderline as a user space violation and wouldn't worry about it too much (unless it continues to grow into something looking like a resume). The Swarngarg user page however was more promotional (I have a book coming out! Check out my blog! Here I a on Twitter! etc). I think I answered your question, but if I missed something let me know and I'll be happy to expand/clarify. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

NRA talk page

Hi Ponyo, regarding this edit, I'm puzzled by your (and others') response to the obvious violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Isn't the proper solution to respond with an explanation of Wikipedia's policies, rather than to revert the offending edit? After all, this is a talk page, not an article. By my understanding the reversion is technically a WP:TPO violation. Plus, as a practical matter it merely exacerbates a (rather silly) revert war. (P.S. I'm picking on you rather than the others only because your an administrator so hopefully you can explain to me what I'm missing.) Cheers, --Nstrauss (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP's edits were pure vandalism/trolling which is why they were reverted. Edits such as this and this make it obvious that the IP's sole intent was to cause disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I gotcha. Thanks. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Happy

Season's Greetings, Ponyo! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette! I just finished stocking the fridge/freezer/cupboards full of goodies for Christmas dinner (which I crazily agreed to host this year). I hope you have a relaxing and satisfying holiday :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And a very happy holiday season, and new year to you too!

Thank you for all you do here at Wikipedia, you make this place better, my friend. Have a great holiday season, and I'll see you around some biography or another soon, I'm sure! (And re, vistas, I just submitted a residency application to try and get somewhere even crazier, it's a long-shot, but boy, would that be a nice gig.  :) ) --j⚛e decker^talk 18:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Ponyo! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

IP disruption

Hello, Ponyo, and happy holidays. The category-meddling IP-jumper has returned with a real vengeance in the last 48 hours or so, resuming their "descent"-focused mass-editing of BLPs with a whole slew of IPs on the 166.137.101.140–80 range. I've just reverted a lot of unsourced and/or misleading edits, and wonder whether it would be prudent to block the range given the large number of unhelpful contributions (166.137.101.128/26 (talk · contribs) – similar to a range that is currently blocked).

Elsewhere, 24.184.120.253 (talk · contribs) seems to have picked up righted where they left off shortly after the expiry of their latest two-week block, adding unsourced content and making unhelpful category and interwiki changes to various articles, such as Raquel Alessi.

Best wishes for the New Year! SuperMarioMan 03:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not a very good present! I've blocked the single IP and laid down a two week soft block on the 166.137.101.128/26 range. I can extend it and disable account creation later if they start up disruption on that range when the block expires. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the end of it. The IP-jumper is resuming their editing from the 166.137.89.128/26 (talk · contribs) range, with IPs such as 166.137.89.143 (talk · contribs) and 166.137.89.174 (talk · contribs).

And I agree – Christmas-themed Whac-A-Mole is a dull gift... SuperMarioMan 03:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I soft blocked that range as well.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to pester, but should the 166.137.101.128/26 (talk · contribs) range be re-blocked? The misleading or unhelpful edits have been slowly creeping back in over the last two or three days from addresses such as 166.137.101.144 (talk · contribs) and 166.137.101.173 (talk · contribs). SuperMarioMan 10:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've reblocked the range for three months.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yet another range is now giving the same trouble: 198.228.200.0/26 (talk · contribs). Specific IPs number from 198.228.200.18 (talk · contribs) to 198.228.200.45 (talk · contribs). SuperMarioMan 00:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, he's all over that range. It's been locked down before for disruption and block evasion so I blocked it for three months. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tatyana Ali

Hello Sir-

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing regarding updates made to the Tatyana Ali (American TV/Film Actress) page, that don't seem to be up to reliable source standards.

As I inserted as references into the categories section, the source for these updates is IMDB, and the link was provided. Here it is for your reference:

an additional source is NNDA.

This is an existing external link and Wiki's Reliable Source standards. If these Sources are not reliable, could I ask where other ethnic, religious or descent categories are sourced for this particular article?

Here are a few additional sources, if they are deemed fit to the reliable source standard:

1. Jet Magazine, November 23, 1998, Archive link provided below

The categories updated were, namely,

Actors of Indian descent American people of Indian descent American actors of Indian descent Trinidad and Tobago people of Indian descent

Please let me know if there is any further information I can provide to be of assistance.

Thank You very much.

Warmest Regards,

AR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.3.205 (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you saw the note I left on your IP talk page, so I will repeat the information here. Tertiary sources with user generated content such as IMDB and NNDB can be included as an external link but do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for biography articles. The Jet magazine article does meet the criteria but only supports the inclusion of the categories Category:American actors of Indian descent, Category:American people of Trinidad and Tobago descent and Category:American people of Panamanian descent. To meet the requirements of WP:BLPCAT the categories cannot be added unless they are supported by sourced article content; the content needs to be written into the article, along with the Jet magazine source and then the categories can be added. If you get stuck and are unsure of how to add sources the volunteers at the help desk can lend a hand. Good luck with your editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why

Why are you always trying to block me for no damn reason?? At the momment, I am trying to rid the r&B/soul black female singers of having "pop music" in their musical genres (which you probably add) and I am trying to add Angel Taylor, Kim Yarbrough, Gwen Sebastian, and Erin Martin to the notable contestants. Do you have a problem with black female singers being successful in their own right??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.81.68 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you still believe that your edits are not disruptive despite the many explanations on your talk page is disappointing. Have you ever even read any or the important policy links that other editors have pointed you to time and time again? You cannot change genres and add unsourced personal information to biography articles at whim, period. State your sources, discuss potential changes with others, and seek help when you're unsure - that's how Wikipedia works. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dilshad Vadsaria's page Edit

Hello There,

Thank you for the message on my Talk page. The birth year for Dilshad's has a reference in the August 2011 page 98 of the issue of Vogue (India Edition) that can be accessed online here : http://target.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416182125&o=int&prev=sub&p=99

For the month and day please refer to this article in the Maxim issue posted on their website here : http://www.maxim.com/slideshow/girls-of-maxim/14008#

The edits I made reflected the above sources September 14th, 1985

Please let me know next steps!

Respectfully... and Happy New Year! Arnaud

Arnonyc2000 (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I'll take a look at the references a little later today to see if they can be incorporated into the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi There, Just following up on the above. Would the 2 references mentioned (Vogue and Maxim article) would satisfy the policy for reliable sources re: Edit of biography for living people ?

Best, Arnaud Arnonyc2000 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the Vogue interview states she was 26 in 2011, which puts her birth year as either 1984 or 1985 (we have a template that auto-calculates and updates this information). I have added the template along with the September 14th birth date from the Maxim page to the article. Thanks for your help in tracking these sources down! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi ... I was trying to understand your deletion here. Could not figure it out, and there was no edit summary other than what we use for vandalism (indicating reversal), so I thought I would ask. Happy new year. You can answer here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. Unfortunately there is an IP hopper who has been active for a very long time adding as many WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS categories to articles regardless of whether they meet the requirements for inclusion. They try to hit as many articles as possible before those who are aware of their history catch on and can try to mitigate the fall-out. There are likely some false positives in the bunch, however sorting through 100+ quick-fire category additions each time they switch IPs is a bit of a nightmare. If this particular revert is indeed a case of collateral damage them please do feel free to undo my revert. Wishing you the best in 2013, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Understood -- if they are adding massive innappropriate cats, I can understand a mass revert. Just let me know (here) if you disagree with my assessment. If I have a chance, I'll glance and see if there is any more gold in the chaff, and if so do the same there as I did here. Best for the new year, and good bumping into you again. BTW -- It might be helpful to indicate with specificity on his talk page the reason for his block, so other editors can divine what is afoot. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi -- I just took a look at the last 15-20 or so, and it seems that there was RS support in more than half (though it was lacking in the rest). I reverted you on 10, per the above, but wanted to point it out to you in the event that you want to consider self-reverting. It doesn't seem in this sample that most of his entries were violations. Just the opposite -- most of them are RS supported, and appropriate, and should not be deleted. The last I touched was such an example -- the reason the person is even notable in the first place relates to the fact that they are the religion he indicated -- see Evelyn Kozak. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP is very well aware of our policies regarding the inclusion of religious categories. After years of the same behaviour I am not working through hundreds of of their edits to catch the ~50% that may be supported by sourced article content; it's exhausting enough trying to keep up with the revolving IP addresses. The lack of a correct category in a biography article is really no big deal when compared to the inclusion of an incorrect or misleading one - with this specific IP-hopper it's best to err on the side of caution. Kudos to you for taking the time to ensure the inclusion of the specific cat is warranted, it's certainly appreciated. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your good work. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

I will be leaving a message for you there in a few minutes. --Rschen7754 23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Noted and replied. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI about User:Chevroletfan123

Yo, Ponyo, just letting you know that I think you misread the block log: this guy's block expired, and I reblocked him without removing talkpage access, so he posted that request in response to the latest block as normal. (No idea why it's a renoame block, but whatevs...) Not a big deal, just thought I'd let you know that this doesn't really fit the situation. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, looks like I did. The fact that it was a rename request and posted at the top of the page instead of under the other declines threw me off as well. Looks like they've been infinitely more naughty than nice this holiday season though so I suppose it's all moot now. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct Storage of Information

Thank you for your contact, can advise as to where to store (Safely and Reliably?) information may include the following? [redact] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romance buggy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a Word document on your own personal computer - it's not appropriate for Wikipedia so please stop posting it around random articles.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

THere are About 67,800,000 results (0.29 seconds) Google Results found for "computer has broken" and you are telling me that I can use this as reliable?

I have actual hundreds of this data and am to access the "cloud" for better storage and security.

No, Wikipedia is not a personal "cloud backup". Please stop posting these addresses here. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Abi Titmus

Good edit! I was just trying to remove a v bad wording, but your edit/removal was better! Manxwoman (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help; even if the sentence had been reliably sourced it really has no place in a biography article as it casts aspersions without any real relevance. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I do hope you don't mind, but I was so impressed that I 'stole" your orange banner at the top of your talk page and have used it on mine! If you do object in any way, I will of course remove it, but... here's hoping! Manxwoman (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of Derrick Williams (footballer)

I was doing NPP and I came across this article. Looking at the revision history, it's clear the page has had a problem with BLP violations, but in my opinion, the Pending Changes Protection is unnecessary. It's obviously slowed the rate of edits quite a bit, but it's not apparent that it's the best way to halt and prevent BLP violations on the page. The unconstructive edits centering on Irish nationality originated from a total of five unregistered users: 86.42.8.86 (talk · contribs), 86.44.179.184 (talk · contribs), 86.44.249.31 (talk · contribs), 86.44.247.30 (talk · contribs), and 86.46.141.77 (talk · contribs)). The first, you will note, has been blocked after ceaseless edit warring and countless warnings. The others though, are a different story. In general, they haven't been meaningfully contacted about their edits and why they are not constructive, and to me it's reasonable to guess they may not have any idea what they were doing wrong. The editors reverting their BLP violations (especially Murry1975 (talk · contribs)) tried to use edit summaries to communicate, and as a result, the problem failed to solve itself. Coming back to the central point (apologies for my long-windedness), I believe that by now the page protect is no longer necessary, and if the problem returns, it can be solved with proper communication and, if necessary, dispute resolution. Thanks. Rutebega (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They IPs are all the same disruptive block-evading editor that is currently under multiple rangeblocks in order to limit damage to Wikipedia articles; although your good faith is admirable, treating them as a new user and attempting to educate them each time would be futile. Murray left a note on the article talk page explaining why the edits are inappropriate, however in cases like this the IPs will rarely attempt discussion - it's much to easy to reset their router and keep chipping away at the article. It's important to note that the Level 1 pending changes protection does not prevent IPs and new accounts from editing, it simply adds a level of moderation to ensure edits added to this BLP are sourced and non-disruptive. I would seriously hesitate to lift the protection as there have been BLP issues with this article from the week it was created through to when I set the protection based on a request at RFPP. I believe it's more important to ensure that information added to this BLP is properly sourced then to have the IP edits be immediately visible to readers. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sidharth Malhotra

Hi Ponyo, I saw your revert on Sidharth Malhotra which I think was the good edit by the IP. IP made the heading which was missing on that article. I hope you can undo your edits on that page. Otherwise, thanks for blocking that IP for violating other BLP articles. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Thank for letting me know, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you! (I guess if I'm a member, I can send 'em out too!)

	Hello, Ponyo. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! --j⚛e deckertalk 00:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for signing on with the project! Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tanya Levin

Hi, do you mind if I work a bit on this page using the previous material from before your redirect as a basis? This person has written at least two other books, "Crimwife" and "People in Glass Houses", which might have attracted sufficient attention to establish notability as an author (I'm not sure yet). As an aside, it seems inappropriate to have a redirect to the church that this person has criticized. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think you can create an article that demonstrates notability beyond the single event then please do. I would suggest leaving a note on the talk page explaining your intent and using Template:Under construction to avoid anyone reverting your changes prematurely. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps the single edit that I made, adding that one of her books was short-listed for a significant prize (and adding a bit more), might do the trick. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:164.116.223.244

For reference, the "threat" I made on this user's talkpage is a meme, it was a response to this message. I can see that it might look bad if someone doesn't understand the context. Kind regards, James086^Talk 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't think you had suddenly gone rogue. The death threat they made is brightline though - revert, delete, block. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I might be completely wrong. But something is wrong concerning the IP that I have reported at Admins intervention against vandalism, it just feels like the user is someone who has been blocked on his original account. If not the IP is very rude in comments and overly argumentative and does heavily edit articles, and bites established users that questions his edits. All I ask is that you take an extra look. Thanks.[5]---BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your concerns. First, this certainly doesn't belong at AIV as the edits are not vandalism. Second, the difs you provided on the AIV report to show disruption appear to be courteous exchanges and valid warnings. You mention "warning established users for no reason" but the two difs provided show two new editors being correctly warned for vandalism and copyright violations respectively. Is the IP a brand new user? Perhaps not, however unless you can show specific disruption or are able to provide evidence of abuse of multiple accounts I'm not sure what you would like me to do. I will however leave the AIV report open for another admin to review. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The recent information on the page for Cliff Stearns

he recent information on the page for Cliff Stearns is neither promotional or biased -- one is sourced to a newspaper article and the other to a news release on a web site -- again neither promote this indivdual or his work -- they only provide recent information from a reporter who covered hum for many years and what Stearns is doing now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.214.222 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Any information that is added to an article that reads like ad-copy is promotional in nature and your use of a press/news release as a source shows as much. The information added to the article must be written in a completely neutral fashion in order to meet Wikipedia guidelines. You are including entire paragraphs of content extolling the virtues of Stearns in a way that is entirely non-neutral and that is why it is being reverted. Please read the conflict of interest guidelines on your IP talk page and do not continue to restore the promotional material to the article - you will be blocked if you continue. I see that you reverted my removal of the promotional content as "vandalism"; you should also read this link to see what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Harese Youssef

Hi,

I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef. Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiboul (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't "keep" deleting it, I have only deleted it once. It has been deleted two other times under the title "Hares Youssef" and three times (by other administrators) under the title "Hares youssef". The article has also been declined multiple times via the articles for creation process. The article was deleted as a result of this discussion and will continue to be deleted unless the issues that lead to its deletion are addressed. If you are at all affiliated with Hares Youssef then I urge you to review the guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I was contacted by Micig to provide more references which I did and still doing. Please read carefully before deleting.

I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef. Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashout (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I will move it to your userspace to work on it, but I can't restore an article that is essentially a verbatim copy of an article deleted via WP:AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I was contacted by Michig to provide more references which I did and still doing. Please read carefully before deleting.

I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef. Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiboul (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You've just re-posted the same message here (as has another editor). I've already replied above. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was at AfD and I closed the discussion. The community decided that the article should be deleted, so it was deleted. I don't believe that I ever contacted User:Jeiboul to provide more references. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Michig, that certainly helps. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

What about the article of Hares yousef which is on discussion. May I get your attention and advise on how to contribute to this subject!! In the discusion it is clearly stated that the person is notable but ill referenced. I do believe that this issue can be resolved easily if you republish the article for me to add/modify some references

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiboul (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that you may be too close to the subject to write a completely neutral article. Are you able to advise if you are affiliated with Hares Youssef? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Aasishj

Hi Ponyo. Apologies for blanking the user page there. The reason was (ironically trying to be in accordance with WP:DELTALK) because I was deleting one item (which was the spam) -a serious violation i thought- and forgot that, as that was the only item on the page, it would have the effect of blanking the page! I should have wriitten, deleted entry instead of blanked page maybe-! Anyway thanks for pointing that out. Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 20:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You did the right thing, spam and promotion should be removed from the page, even if it results in a blank page. In those cases I usually tack on a {{subst:Welcomespam}} template to replace the blanked text, although in this case it looks like they've been previously welcomed and blanked the note (genrally not a good sign). What admins rarely do (except in cases of severe abuse/BLP violations/copyright issues) is actually delete the user talk page. Carry on! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for the speedy deletion of MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards. Much appreciated. Apologies for the accidental creation, I didnt realise what I had done until I had done it. I shall endeavor to be more careful next time. See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done it before too (proof), so now worries there!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotion

Hello. I believe that you had deleted this page yesterday, as advertising. I'm a bit confused by it at this point to be frank, but just in case the re-add was not correct, I thought I would bring it to your attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I read through it again and came to the same conclusion as yesterday, it's just too promotionally toned to be kept. Perhaps if it was an article I could try to find some sources and stub it down to neutral facts, but I can't very well do that to someone's userpage. I tried to explain things on their talk page, hopefully it will bring some clarity. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. Nicely done.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Though apparently the editor does not agree, or is not reading the posts on his talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that as well so I've left a less flowery request to cease recreating the article. _{crosses fingers}--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)