User talk:Ponyo/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

TheRaulRomero

Hello Ponyo, I do not know if you remember our friend User: TheRaulRomero, but I have very strong suspicions User: Estela Reynolds that they are a sockpuppet of TRR. Notice the literally sole focus on Miley Cyrus pages, the date of the accounts creation/first edit, just shortly after TRR's block and if it means anything the very Spanish name (which is what originally grabbed my attention). Also notice the frequent use of all caps in edit summaries and invalid reasons for deleting large amounts of content from articles. I may be wrong, but I think they were trying to throw me off with this post. Looks like enough for a Check User to me. STATic message me! 04:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's a sock. I've blocked and tagged the account accordingly; let me know if you see them pop up again. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And again User talk:Ahora, ahora, restored an article that TheRaulRomero had previously edit warred trying to restore. The Everyone calls me Lol account also edited the article in the past. STATic message me! 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Guess you got that User: Kww, if you see their talk page looks like we will see them popping back up shortly. STATic message me! 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still hit and miss communication-wise until Tuesday; note however that there is now a rangeblock in place (thanks to a helpful CU) that may help limit the disruption.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like User talk:SMS (Bangerz), might be them again. Their editing, including adding fake certifications to Bangerz gave it away to me, as TheRaulRomero used to mess with certifications a lot. They have also only been editing related to Miley Cyrus subjects. A check user seems to be appropriate. STATic message me! 22:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it's them. Blocked and tagged!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so. Thanks, also funny response in the Danny McBride section, I got a chuckle out of it. STATic message me! 22:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet back.

Sockpuppet is back... again. Quite distressing for this user to keep coming back. Can't something be done? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Livelikemusic: As Ponyo seems to be taking a short break I am taking this to admins concentrating on socks and vandals. Acabashi (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Update - beaten to it - vandal user has now an indefinite block. Acabashi (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A previous block expired which allowed them to create the Little75 account. I've renewed the block so you shouldn't see them around for awhile.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi Ponyo, I'm very sorry but I'm a new user and I guess you are right that Sukriti Kandpal is the second face of Dr. Riddhima Gupta. I think I need your help on the two articles Gaurav S Bajaj and Gaurav Bajaj. There seems to be uttermost confusion in both of them and I've tried my best to make the differences seen to the readers. It's contrite that I was mistaken but I was just trying to help. Please if you could give me some hints on to how put pictures of both the two distinct actors and in future I will always provide a reference for each and every change that I have made. I want the readers to see the difference, get the correct information on both of them and also be able to identify the work done by each of them as one is a film actor and the other is a well known television star. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurav (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maurav - thank you for your attempts to clear up any confusion regarding the two similarly named actors. I understand that including images of the actors on their respective articles would help dispel confusion, however the images used must be copyright compliant. Uploading an image to your computer does not qualify as "own work" - you need to have taken the photo yourself to make such a claim. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for additional information on obtaining images for use on Wikipedia. Note it is not always easy to find policy-compliant images, though bollywoodhungama.com has given us permission to use their images in certain circumstances (see the licensing details here for example). I have added a templated note at the top of each page noting that there is another actor with the same name in order to help distinguish between the two. Thank you for your commitment to using reliable sources when editing articles, and happy editing!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Yes, please. I'd rather not have those disruptive/offensive edits in my talk page history. Thanks for offering to do so. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reverting my first edit on Dylan Everett. You made one more article better.

CanadianDude1 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you made it better by adding a reliable source! Welcome to Wikipedia :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Re charley webb

But she was fifteen when she joined emmerdale not fourteen her first scenes were in December 2002 and charley webb was born in febuary 1988 therefore making her fifteen when she joined ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.176.181 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If her birthdate is February 1988, then she would have been 14 years and 10 months in December 2002. She would not have turned 15 until February 2003.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jane Kim

This article is semi-protected and pending changes simultaneously. PC will expire in March, and semi will expire in April. Therefore, can you disable the PC and leave the semi-protection alone? In this case, having two protections doesn't make sense. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I hadn't noticed that pending changes was already enabled, but I've fixed the discrepancy now. Note I've also added the article to my (woefully overloaded) watchlist in order to monitor it for any socks busting through auto-confirmed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sofía Vergara

There have been more reverts; extend protection time? --George Ho (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've switched to semi-protection due to the frequency of the vandalism and BLP violations.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Admiral Caius

Can you please take a look at his message .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

All taken care of.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Slim Burna socks

Hey Ponyo, I see you took care of those socks on Slim Burna, but right after you blocked them User:Yazata Anahita popped up, that account is clearly a sock it seems. They fixed the problem the other accounts were warring over, but block evasion is block evasion. STATic message me! 01:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

STATicVapor, I've blocked the new account indefinitely and reset the 1 week clock on the Alice Shedrack account. I've also semi-protected the article for the duration of their block in order to (hopefully) remove the temptation to create new accounts to continue to edit there. Unforunately the range is very large and heavily used; a rangeblock just isn't feasible given the limited amount of disruption.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking those sockpuppets. I believe the same user created another sock account on January 18, 2014. Here's the account: User:Tinted iris. This account only has 3 edits and one of them were made to a page that has been tag for deletion (a page created by the user and his/her sock accounts). I don't know if you guys are aware that this user (and his/her sock accounts) is trying to keep this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azubuike Wokocha from being deleted. This article definitely needs to be deleted because all of the accounts that are in opposition are sock accounts. versace1608 (talk)

Unfortunately I'm a little under the weather at the moment and likely only have a few moments of clarity before the next dose of cold meds kick in. I have however asked another CU to take a look at the AfD to help rein in any socking. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

STATicVapor and Versace1608, Ponyo asked me to look into this and I have issued several more blocks in relation to the above accounts. As Ponyo said, they're operating on multiple busy ranges, and I may have missed some accounts, so please let one of us know if you find any. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

DoRD, thanks for blocking more of Slim Burna sock accounts. I watchlisted the M Trill and Slim Burna articles. These are the articles they will most likely work on since they were the ones who created them. They might try creating articles for artists associated with the two artists mentioned. I'll stay on top of things. I personally think the artists mentioned know these socks. I went to Slim Burna twitter page and saw that he posted a photo of his "I'm on Fire" mixtape article with the caption "my mixtape made history". Both Slim Burna and M Trill are not popular across Nigeria. No celebrity in Africa, regardless of how underdeveloped Africa is, will have only 1, 159 followers. I know Wikipedia relies on reliable references and not on how many followers a person have on a social network platform. versace1608 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alice Shedrack ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• The SPI name has been updated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stanleytux. And thank you to DoRD for picking up my slack. Again.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@DoRD: or Ponyo; I do not want to seem like I am jumping to conclusions, but how weird is it that, I redirected one of Slim Burna's mixtapes for failing WP:NALBUM yesterday, and now User talk:Wrongevidence09 is created and their very first edit is asking me why I did that. Very very specious considering the article has practically only been edited by the various Slim Burna socks, along with being created by one of them. STATic message me! 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is technically possible, however with only a single edit there's no way to say conclusively. I would just keep an eye on the account and if additional suspicious activity occurs then it may bear further CU scrutiny. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

STATicVapor, the account has now been blocked as a sock.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to let you know that they edited the page. I had a pretty good feeling it was. STATic message me! 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching it as well, but if you ever think I've missed anything please drop a note here or at the SPI (which I also have watchlisted). As a sidenote, the referencing in that article is horrendous; there are few that actually meet WP:RS and the majority are just being used to give a false appearance of notability (puffery essentially). What a promotional mess.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi my fellow Wikipedians, I need you guys to investiage this user, Alwayzwetgal. I am suspecting that this user may be a sock puppet. I may be wrong but I would appreciate someone looking into this. This user caught my attention by editing M Trill's article, an article that was created by socks. versace1608 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A combination of behavioural tells and CU evidence makes this a very likely sock. I've blocked it as well as an apparent sleeper account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ponyo, After adjusting this case to the oldest master and seeing additional CU findings, I would be inclined to indef this account as a sock but that would have me overriding a CU block (yours). Do you want to indef the account?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The one week block was when it appeared they were the master account and were only involved in one incident of socking. I agree that they should be indeffed now as the socking is quite extensive.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Took care of it. Thank you for the quick reply. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a message

Why did you delete my explanation why people can warn about vandalism?Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I read on my watchlist why you erased my message. Thanks.Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Posting such a message will only serve to antagonize the editor in question should they happen to still watch the page. Essentially, you don't poke sleeping bears; there's zero benefit in warning an indefinitely blocked vandal account that their user name is inappropriate, nor is stating "I hope in the future, you can make better contribution" three months after their indef block. Please remember WP:BRD - when in doubt as to why you're edit is reverted, please ask the other editor involved prior to undoing the edit. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I Work for Ticketbud

Hey Ponyo,

You have deleted the Ticketbud article. What do I need to do to get it back up? TicketbudHayden (talk)TicketbudHayden — Preceding unsigned comment added by TicketbudHayden (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to wait until your company meets the notability criteria for inclusion and a neutral, unrelated editor creates an article that complies with Wikipedia's policies regarding promotion. In addition, the content you posted to your Wikipedia userpage was simply a cut and paste of the copyrighted material from your website. If you would like to use your account to edit articles on boats, or Jim Carrey, or puppies, or [insert your desired topic unrelated to your company here], then please do, we're certainly happy to have you; however promotional editing is not allowed.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Given your response to me here, you may want to read WP:CIVIL, but it's ultimately up to you how you want to portray yourself on Wikipedia whilst using a name related to the company you work for. I would think it would reflect poorly, but your opinion may vary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi. I'm trying to avoid another edit war with a certain editor and would like to properly get content restored to an article. Could you comment on whether it'd be appropriate to do so at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The way to get the content restored is to get consensus for its inclusion via the ongoing talk page discussion. It does appear that the result of the first WP:RfC was for inclusion of the material, but consensus can change over time. I have no desire to wade into a genre dispute, but it appears that you are receiving a lot of feedback and discussion is ongoing. If consensus is now that the genre you wish to restore should not be included then so be it, it's not a battle to be won and there are plenty of other articles that can benefit from your time and hard work. Editing Wikipedia can sometimes be a frustrating experience, especially when you find yourself in the midst of a number of content disputes. If the fun is being sucked out of it for you then taking a break (whether it be a few hours or a few days) can help put things back in perspective. My preferred technique is to simply remove the article from my watchlist and never look back. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Julia Voth deleted additions

okay understood TY Symbolic by Nature (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Sorry to have to revert you when you were just trying to add sourced content, but if we accepted all sources as equally reliable the credibility of articles would nosedive in short order.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems with transclusions at WP:OPP

Hello, Ponyo. I've answered your query on my talk page. Hope it helps. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

... and again. (Just in case you aren't watching.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hello Ponyo, I respect and thank you for keeping those sock accounts out of wikipedia. Your last edit on Slim Burna removed some external links. Hope I won't break any of your rules if i edit the article.41.190.3.61 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The links were removed as they didn't meet WP:EL. Feel free to attempt to tone down the promotional content in the article if you would like, I don't own the article after all! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo.41.190.3.61 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

oops sorry about LyricWiki, I actually saw it and twitter being used on a bunch of band-related articles here on Wikipedia so I thought it was ok.41.190.3.61 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNO may be a helpful read if you are looking to add external links to an article. If in doubt you may want to run a specific website through the external links noticeboard. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok I got it. Thanks.41.190.3.61 (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Question...

• Why are you giving me such a hard time for helping? Maybe I was incorrect about WP:REVDEL, but I even said "I could be wrong though". Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest I noticed your comments at ANI some time ago and only mentioned it yesterday as I believe the information you provided was actually harmful as opposed to just extraneous. I understand that you are trying to be helpful, I even said as much in my post. The problem is that giving incorrect info is damaging. Why would you comment on something that you admittedly don't know or are unsure of? How is that helping 1) the individual who is seeking admin help or 2) the admin who is reviewing the situation? I've seen many editors such as yourself who spend a great deal of time at AN/I commenting and "clerking"; many times they are admin hopefuls who believe (often erroneously) that their time there will reflect positively on a future RfA - this rarely is the case. I'm not saying that that is your intent, only that that is how it may appear. Again, I can see that your intentions are good, however if you don't have the tools to assist the individual posting their concerns, or don't have pertinent information to add, then offering your opinion (in this case containing incorrect information) is not helpful. I see that another admin agreed, so it's not just me that finds the commentary to be unnecessary.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• For better or worse, ANI is a kind of training ground. I used to hang out there myself. Either way, the onus is on the participant to get something right, since getting something wrong can have serious consequences, sometimes. Moreover, getting something wrong sometimes seriously increase the temperature of a situation. But yeah, Ponyo, I also get the feeling that Erpert is testing the waters for a future RfA. That's fine, and it doesn't mean that you have to get everything right. It does mean that one should be more sure before commenting, and "I could be wrong" is not a helpful disclaimer. Admins are supposed to think carefully before running their mouths (that I haven't been desysopped yet is probably a miracle), and if RfA is a training ground, that's one of the things to look out for: one sees it sometimes at RfA, "candidate is too eager at ANI".

  As a side note, I've tried to indicate to Erpert that their signature is, in my opinion, not a helpful invitation to their talk page for new editors--Ponyo, do you have any thoughts on that? Erpert, try to take these remarks in the spirit in which they are intended: criticism, maybe, but not meant to cut you down. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WHAT DO YOU WANT??? isn't exactly inviting, but I tend to be somewhat lenient regarding signatures given the contentiousness of mine when I was painfully initiated into the Water Buffalo Lodge (for those not so well-versed in Flintstones yore, it involves paddles and degradation, not unlike RfA). Erpert, I am in no way suggesting that you stop reviewing AN/I posts, just that you only comment if you have something pertinent to add. You can completely ignore this advice of course, but it is meant as constructive criticism. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"Hey go suck on a turd, asshat"--that's a very early occurrence of the word "asshat"! Prophetic. Your RfA is notable also for a later blocked sock being criticized by another later blocked sock. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was sockalicious; perhaps a nod to my (then) future CU role? I wonder if there are more prophetic nuggets to be to be mined from that old RfA. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I have no desire to be an admin. And in the future, if someone has a problem with something I say or do, I would appreciate it if it were mentioned it right away instead of letting it drag on (how would I know something bothers someone if s/he doesn't mention it?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If I mentioned every instance wherein I was bothered by someone or something on Wikipedia I'd wear on everyone's patience in pretty short order. Sometimes it's the sum of one's actions that show a concerning pattern as opposed to discrete events and that's essentially the crux of my message above; the concerns I raised weren't related to the fact that you comment at ANI, it's that you appeared to be commenting indiscriminately (albeit entirely in good faith).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

reliable source age Aline Lahoud

Hello,

you will find below a link that confirm year of birth. ( link in French)

http://www.ndj.edu.lb/old/anciens/alinelahoud.htm

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.182.135.145 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the link doesn't confirm the date of birth. It only gives an age (23), but it does not state when she was 23. Also it states that she was in the graduating class of 1999, which gives a possible range for an age, but once again doesn't verify a specific date.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a source to support the 1981 date and have added it to the article.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nur Fet

Noor Fettahoğlu is 5 ft. 7 In tall according to her official website, so what have I done wrong here? Secondly 1.7m is 5 ft. 7 In 1.69 m is some what equal to 5ft. 6.5 In. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.33.7 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

When adding or change biographical statistics in biography articles you need to include the source as you add it so that readers can verify the data. In this case you changed the height without any mention as to where you obtained the info, which is why I reverted. The height was removed altogether as it is not an infobox field that is generally included in articles unless there is a pertinent reason for doing so. This is covered at Template:Infobox person which states the field should be included "If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant." This is generally used in sports biographies.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.33.7 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you plan on contributing to biography articles then WP:BLP is a must read and Template:Infobox person has a wealth of information as to what type of information should be included in the infoboxes. You can continue to edit via IP, but if you create an account you can add articles to a watchlist and follow the changes made; additional benefits can be found here. Happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nina Wadia and David Cage

There have been some reverts, although edits infrequent. Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've extended the protection on both articles. I may switch David Cage's to semi if the attacks continue; we'll see how it goes.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Khatri121 and Satya301

It is not the case of sock puppetry. I am Satya. khatri is my husband,, we both are scientists at IISc. and also my brother in law uses the same computer and internet proxys. his name is Kirtimaan. IISc proxy is same throughout campus for purpose of library facilities. So you will find many other people working from similar proxys.

So we are not silly nor fool. And as far as wiki barn star is concern, it does not matter to us. My husband is big enough that he may have wiki page on him soon. And my brother in law has published much more real peer reviewed publications than any of you https://www.google.co.in/#q=kirtimaan+syal . 117.202.69.217 (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

When a group of related individuals are using the same computers to make the same POV edits, to the point where they are technically indistinguishable, they will be considered one individual (from WP:SOCK: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining"). It's interesting that you state Khatri is your husband, while Khatri states " I know Satya as well, he is a Senior Research Scholar in Dept of Chemistry". If it continues you will likely find your account blocked indefinitely, especially if you continue to evade your block as you have done here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Fan Against Better Judgment Award
	Ha. I will feel your pain tonight. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you know, down 29 at the half--'tis nothing but a scratch! Drmies (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• _{<climbing out from under a sea of empty champagne bottles and blue, green and white confetti>} Why good morning Drmies! What's new?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing new, nothing at all. Actually, I gave up on football after the Iron Bowl. Really, a few seconds before the Iron Bowl ended. I hope you have a splitting headache! :) Drmies (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it was all very much worth it. Now I'm all hyped-up to watch Canada sweep the Olympics. Apparently when I predict things with the utmost confidence on Wikipedia they come true; it's like my very own version of The Secret.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Malicious new accounts

I saw your IAR block of User talk:Endy endy and I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out. I often come across similar accounts, but when I try reverting like you do I get dragged to different noticeboards, getting blocked half the time, while the editor makes a new account and makes the same edits again. I was hoping that if I was to post here, no more than once a week, a list of these malicious accounts, ones like [1] or [2] or [3] all of whose first edits were POV pushing reverts that you could block them under NOTHERE or DUCK. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an IAR block by any means. The account was being used disruptively solely as a platform for their POV and was blocked accordingly. If you note accounts that are behaving in the same manner then reporting them at WP:AIV would be the best venue for the swiftest block. In order to make a WP:DUCK block it would need to be obvious to the blocking admin that the same individual editor was using multiple accounts for disruption, such concerns can be raised at WP:SPI. I'm hesitant to become overly-involved in WP:ARBPIA sanction issues. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually breaking 1RR and blocking someone you alone are in a content dispute with is frowned upon, hence IAR. AIV and SPI are pointless, guess I'll keep looking for someone who can help. Sepsis II (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article wasn't under 1RR sanctions when I was reverting the soapboxing; it came up through recent changes patrol and my only awareness of "Sodastream" was as some sort of home soda machine. Hardly any vigilante rogue admin actions there. I understand that you are frustrated, but I'm really not the best admin to ask for assistance given the type of blocks you're looking for.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Check her official facebook page about her second marriage or even Turkish Wiki about her biography. It was better for you to search about her in internet.Keivan.f^Talk 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Keivan.f. Please keep the messages there in order to avoid fracturing the discussion, the page is on my watchlist.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User Lzdimitar again

Hello Ponyo! Sorry for bothering you again with Lzdimitar (talk · contribs). S(he) persistently ignored all the warnings posted at their talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate, but not entirely unsurprising given their history. I've reblocked the account, indefinitely this time. I left a note about editing as an IP, though I expect that will leave little impression as well. Let me know if you see anything suspicious and thanks for your efforts on the airport articles! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Block

Stop socking

Hi Ponyo, you just blocked my friend Alwayzwetgal while she isn't a sock.41.190.3.64 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I find that very hard to believe. I realize that your "friend" is capable of just resetting their router every time they wish to create a new account, and that there was an attempt to obfuscate the IP data, but there are also behavioural tells your "friend" seem (thankfully) unaware of.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Hello J. Ponyo, i know am not supposed to get into this conversation but i think an editor's behavior isn't enough reason to block another editor just because you think they are similar and how are you sure the IPs are resetted by the editor on purpose it could be a problem or fault. Besides user has requested for unblock. I don't think other suspected socks u blocked did that--197.210.248.70 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

ClueIRC‎‎

It's baaa..ack.... ClueIRC was recreated immediately after you Speedied it. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And gone again (and salted). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

danny mcbride

hey look it up someone ask american comedian seth rogan he will answer your question hey yes danny mcbrides mother is part jewish that is relevent thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.186.118 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You want me to call up Seth Rogan and ask him if Danny McBride's mother is part Jewish? Sure, soon as James Franco and I finish this beer.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

About khatri121 account: sorry to bother, this is my last post

@Ponyo: Has this account been used for abusing any one??? Have i harassed any one or even used any slang in my writings??? Is supporting some one in concept is wrong?? I have not supported the abuse, i have only supported the righteousness of the concept that too because the article is about my race. In 1 day contribution you were able to judge that i created this account only to support Satya301. As next day i found my account blocked. And as per wiki policy making account from 1 computer must be allowed, that's why i could make it.

Any way i request you to delete this account. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael_Talbot_(author)_(2nd_nomination)

Hi there,

I thought you'd want to know I've started an AfD. Based on your previous comment that this survived a previous I called it the 2nd nomination but I don't see any record of the 1st anywhere. In case there was a name change or something preventing me from linking any relevant history I thought I'd reach out to you and see if you can assist. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this is all sorted now. Note that the talk page of an article will generally include a link to any previous deletion discussions.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

James McCaffrey

Sorry. I got the birthplace (Belfast, Northern Ireland) info from IMDb. I see no proof he was born in the USA based on other links in the article. I'll reflink it. Quis separabit? 21:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I had an inkling it came from IMDb, which is unfortunate since it doesn't meet WP:RS. If there is conflicting information regarding his nationality then it needs to be confirmed via a reliable source or it should be removed entirely. I know you do a ton of work on the BLPs of actors (thank you!) so I'm going to plea with you to discontinue using IMDb as a source for biographical data. Consensus has long been that it should not be used (example 1, example 2, example 3), and my own experience via WP:OTRS is that it shouldn't be used. I've dealt with myriad complaints of inaccuracies in our articles from article subjects (and I'm not talking about starlets wishing to shave a few years from their DOB). Many times the inaccuracies were added to the article based on incorrect info appearing in their IMDb bio. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, I understand IMDb biodata is not always reliable. However, there is no conflicting information re place/date of birth. Aside from IMDb there is only one other link which contains no information except that McCaffrey lives/lived in Larchmont, New York. As there is no conflicting info from any other source, reliable or otherwise, the IMDb should stand unless/until contradicted. In any event, references to his being an "American actor" are equally unsourced, unless that covers U.S.-based actors. Quis separabit? 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed mention of "American" as well. I'm not arguing for any specific nationality being included, only that the one used be sourced via citations meeting WP:RS. There has been back-and-forth in the article in the past regarding nationality, and it has been disputed in other venues (see this Times Union article for example). It's not a clear-cut case and therefore IMDb shouldn't be used as verification. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Interesting. I didn't know about the Times Union article, but I didn't do a full Google search. The article posits McCaffrey was born in Albany, but I agree that it is insufficient by itself. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find something definitive, I've been looking for a long time in the hopes of digging up a citation that will stick for either Irish or American. Good luck!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My edits to Slim Burna

Hi Ponyo, I just noticed you reverted the edits I made to Slim Burna. Is it that no one else can edit the article or what?--41.138.168.191 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

IPs being used to evade a block to continue to promote the subject of the article cannot edit it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Please don't go around removing the photos! Photos are public they are copyright so stop touching whatever I do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diorlova (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The images may be available to view on your computer, but they are copyright protected by the photographers, firms, or websites that host them. Unless you took the photo yourself you cannot claim "own work" as you continue to do. Editors who repeatedly upload copyright violations after being sufficiently warned will be blocked; you need to stop and read Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I have placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:Ryopus. You blocked it as a "checkuserblock-account" sockpuppet of Cchow2, which you blocked for a week. The user claims to have created a new account because he/she had lost the password to the old one. Everything he/she says seems to me plausible, and although the user has created four accounts, I see no evidence of abusive use of any of those accounts. My inclination is to unblock, but I am checking with you, as you may have relevant information that I don't know about. At the very least, even if you think there are good reasons for not immediately unblocking, it seems to me that the one-week and indefinite blocks could be switched over. Perhaps you can let me know what you think. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson - you've got mail!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

... so have you! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked Ryopus, and indef-blocked Cchow2, the old account. For one thing, Ryopus gave an explanation of the circumstances which could be true, and for another thing, the block on Cchow2 only had about an hour left to run, so your intention was to let him/her back to editing about now anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a Duck?

based on your comments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dua Malik is this [4] a WP:DUCK? or just a random confused fan? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

it's certainly too duckish to ignore, especially the edits that restore the previous blocked editors disruptive edits. I've blocked them and rolled-back their edits.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

u stressed me

y did u delete my page without knowing me ,,, are u owner of wikipedia ,,, y did u delete my page without letting me know ,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gujjar2781 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Gujjar2781, I understand that you may be frustrated, but blanking and false-tagging articles I've created in retaliation is not going to help. You created a completely unreferenced and promotional biography article. You should not be creating promotional articles about individuals with whom you have a professional or personal relationship. Did you take the picture of the individual yourself as you claim on Commons? You also made the same claim regarding the image you uploaded to Sadia Khan, which was deleted as a very blatant copyvio. If you are unaffiliated with the subject of your article and they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines then I would suggest you use the articles for creation process to create it - this will ensure that notability requirements are met and that the requisite sourcing is in place prior to it being moved to article mainspace. I can email you a copy of the deleted article if you'd like, but please ensure you add neutral, sourced facts only; sentences such as "TV Pundits predict about him that if he get any proper chance he will become great star in near future for sure" are inappropriate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Block user Tommy Journey

You wanted me to tell the truth I'm Shookallen88 with different user name, honestly I done with Shookallen88. I created Tommyjourney so I can start over because Shookallen88 was a failure. I got blocked on Shookallen88 because I didn't stop asking questions how I get unblocked indefinitely, since I messed up by having an edit war between another user, told everyone sorry but no one seem to cared and blocked me for envasion, that pissed me off so I created Parttime account got caught two days later. My IP address numbers changed I thought I could start over with a new account after being blocked for a month. Point is I created Tommyjourney so I can start over and don't piss any other user off by revert unnecessary edits and learn from my mistakes, which I made plenty I deserve another chance to edit on Tommyjourney only, I'm done with other accounts so please have a heart on this so please give me a chance to edit agian. This is the only way I can tell you the truth that you ask me because you blocked my user talk page for improper use of talk page, I thought I was getting ignored agian, I'm sorry about that I thought I was happening agian, so if you want to block me longer I don't care, just wanted to tell you truth, I really like to edit on my account agian. Please don't ignore me and consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.189.116 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you're still socking! Regardless, I've left a message on your talk page outlining Wikipedia's Standard Offer. I suggest you read it carefully as it's your best shot at being unblocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gibbyboy15

Hello again Ponyo, hope you're doing fine! We have another user that keeps adding unsourced content. I've left them a fourth-level warning at their talk page in the last days. It was ignored. This is the diff for the removal of one of their last unsourced edits.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jetstreamer. Is this disruption in general, or do you suspect a link to Lzdimitar?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same person. Lzdimitar (talk · contribs) rarely edited aircraft crash articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just wasn't sure whether to put on my admin hat or my CU beret when reviewing.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You may want to take a look at this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted and blocked for 1 week.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

-TheGeneralUser (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Ponyo! Just stopping by to share some tea! This will hopefully re-energize you and remove your stress when you edit a lot :) Cheers. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, missed this somehow. It's now iced tea, yet still delicious. Thank you!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the userpage assist 8). Unless it is particularly vile though feel free to revert if you want or not, For the most part those things amuse me when they get really creative. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a very unamusing and vile attack, there's no way I would restore it. Hopefully we really have seen the last of the socks, but I'm not holding my breath.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I could tell by my preview it was relatively vile, the funny thing is that people think that shit bugs me lol. I believe we will see more socks too. I'm actually working on a site-ban report request. There were so much willingness to help but language competence problems and than add the dishonesty enough is enough. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Anita Hassandani

The DOB provided for the page Anita Hassanandani was validated with sources provided below:

http://www.bollywoodvision.com/3115/anita-hassanandani-height-weight-age-bra-size-affairs-measurement.html

http://www.filmyfolks.com/celebrity/bollywood/anita-hassanandani.php

http://www.celebritytonic.com/anita-hassanandani/

http://www.bollywiki.com/anita-hassanandani-height-weight-bra-size-age-body-measurements

All these sources provide accurate information about other Indian actors. Links will now be provided after the DOB is added. Contact anytime if you think the sources are not reliable enough. The DOB is being added for the sake of accurate information related to the biography of the actress.

(Mariya Kamran (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

Not one of the sources you listed here meet the reliable sourcing criteria for BLPs; they are all gossip and compendia-type websites, not independent secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking. The DOB is reported differently in various venues and no reliable source has been provided for verification. Per policy when the data is contested it is removed until it can be verified. Please click the links provided in this message - they are critical if you plan on editing biography articles.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hi Ponyo, sent you an e-mail. Thanks. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen it and replied.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

198.228.217.150

Hi, Ponyo. I've declined 198.228.217.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s unblock request and reblocked them for a month, as it's a confirmed proxy server. I suppose it won't inconvenience the socking individual much, but still. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm guessing this is related to this guy and semi-protection of the main targets will end up being the order of the day. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions (IACAPAP)

Hi,

I join you, because I see you are in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests (and I like your name as Miyazaki fan ).

I’m a french contributor, and during one of our AfD debate, I noticed this history.

It seems that someone replaced the content of the article by a content from [5] (copyright violation)

Can you manage the thing ?

Thanking you in advance,

Schlum (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention; the copyright violations have been rev-deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

I noticed there isn't a lot of movement on the page for clerk volunteers and I would like to train to be one. Would you have time or be willing to help train me? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea what the clerk training program entails. Having never clerked at SPI myself (unlike some other CUs), I'm really not the right person to offer training.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks anyways. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Open proxy request

Hi, Ponyo. I have posted a reply to your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests concerning a UTRS unblock request for 67.202.75.53. As I explained there, my inclination would be to unblock. There are other people who know more about the issues than I do, and ideally I would wait for one of them to give a second opinion, but in practice the WikiProject on open proxies is severely under-staffed, and requests often languish there waiting for an answer for an unreasonable amount of time, so you may like to go ahead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've pinged Elockid to see if they has any input.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mind taking a look?

Hey Ponyo,

You mind taking a look at accounts Californiaqq (talk · contribs) and Atlanticpacificocean (talk · contribs)? There are a few other accounts, but they are editing from the same IP. Since you seem to have done the past couple checks for User:William AAAAA, could you please take a look? Elockid ^(Talk) 01:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm swamped today but I'll try to take a look this afternoon.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Elockid, I blocked and tagged a few accounts that were obvious William AAAAA socks (including the two you mentioned above). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

NottobeconfusedwithCanonCannon

Please add user talk page access to your block of user:NottobeconfusedwithCanonCannon, a blocked sockpuppet of Banbifan101(see sock investigation [1]). He's abusing talk page access with threats and fake signatures [2], vandalism via refactored warnings such as [3] and [4]. These are just a few of the many examples from today. Meters (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that. I've pulled the talk page access and reverted to the last clean copy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have reverted but it seemed better to let the troll talk to himself until blocked. Meters (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:40, 25 March 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.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Notes and replied.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

LanguageXpert IP sock

Hello Ponyo. Do you mind taking a look at this IP (39.32.117.248 (talk · contribs)) who is most possibly a sock of LanguageXpert. -- SMS ^Talk 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the noted IP is LanguageXpert, the range they use is highly dynamic; blocking individual addresses will have little affect as they will simply hop to another IP. Liberal semi-protection of target articles and pages may provide some relief. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just another question. Did you check for sleepers when you blocked the last sock, I see some account around the topic that he edit nowadays, created very recently. -- SMS ^Talk 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There were no additional accounts when I ran the check, but they have multiple large ranges at their disposal.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The accounts I was talking about, recently edited article Dhanush, though they look like sock of each other at the least I think I will have to wait for stronger evidence before I make a formal report. Thanks again. -- SMS ^Talk 19:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:34, 30 March 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.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted and replied.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)