User talk:Ponyo/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Sultan Rahi - filmography

The above article is new and I tried to move it to Sultan Rahi filmography to be consistent with other like articles, but you protected the target. I'm not privy to the whole background so please either delete this new article of move it to the proper name. Thanks, --PinkBull 18:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted previous versions of the article as they were created by a sockpuppet account in violation of their block. The protection was actually made by Amatulic, who I've pinged to take a look at your request for unprotection.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, but in my opinion this isn't necessary.

The new article created contains biographical content that should be included in the original Sultan Rahi article.

The Sultan Rahi article is quite short in content, and already includes a filmography section. Expanding that section with the information in this new article won't do it any harm, particularly if the formatting is improved.

I recommend merging instead. I see no need to split them apart. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem eminently sensible to me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple socks are still attempting to recreate the page so I've restored the protection.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hi Ponyo, I have strong evidence that the same individual is using the following array of IP addresses:

• 103.56.218.190
• 103.56.218.191
• 103.56.218.192
• 103.56.218.193
• 103.56.218.194
• 103.56.218.195
• 103.56.218.196
• 103.56.218.197
• 103.56.218.198
• 103.56.218.199
• 75.34.85.183
• 75.34.101.112
• 170.75.163.164
• 213.47.114.206
• 208.54.86.170
• 194.118.108.193
• AfricaTanz

1. Does that constitute a violation of the sock puppetry restrictions on Wikipedia?
2. This person has been trolling my edits for about three months, erasing, reverting and changing what he finds, without discussing his intentions. For the past 3 months, one of his user IPs was blocked, but the block recently came off of:103.56.218.197

Thank you.

Fsmatovu (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• If the IPs are being used by AfricaTanz to evade their block, it is indeed sockpuppetry. At some point there was an edit filter to help catch the edits, but it was disabled. Perhaps Callanecc, who is more familiar with this sockmaster, can provide some input? It would also probably be a good idea to list the most recently active IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. Go to WP:SPI and click on "how to open an investigation" and enter "AfricaTanz" in the sockmaster box and click submit. A report will pop up where you can enter the IPs and your evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Certainly looks like it Fsmatovu. Could you please submit an SPI (as Ponyo) suggests so we have a record of it? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Spring Breakers freak deletion

I was trying to access a page made by Spring Breakers freak (specifically List of Crash Bandicoot video games), but it said the page didn't exist and that it was part of a mass removal of that user's pages done by you. Is there any good reason why that user's pages all got deleted along with their account? It doesn't quite make sense and is really just an inconvenience for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.51.246 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Their account wasn't deleted, it's right here. As the articles were created in violation of a community ban they were deleted under this criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

G5'd draft restarted - new sock?

You recently deleted Draft:Yet Another Cleaner as a G5 (Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). It has been re-started by a brand new editor, and considering the reason for the last deletion (and that the 'start' of the new draft seemed to be a complete article) I'm not sure if Arthurj8283 (talk · contribs) could be a new sock? Bringing it up here as not sure on the past author/blocked user etc. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not a new editor given they recreated the article with the exact content of the deleted version. I've blocked the account and redeleted the article. Thanks for letting me know!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

no worries. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

Thanks for getting the IP in the range of the other one earlier. Please see the message at the top of my talk where yet two more IPs are added to the mix. Admittedly, the one beginning with 7 actually made a good edit, but then comes to my talk and links himself with the vandals. It's enough to make a boy paranoid! Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IPs and semi-protected one article. I imagine it will continue on for a bit, let me know what else pops up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time in as many weeks this has happened. Both times, the initial IP began with 138. Don't think it's a coincidence that this started after I played a part in getting a particular editor indeff'd. Oh, well. :) Thanks for your help. John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And they're back, vandalizing my talk. It's 172.56.9.115 this time.John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you want me to semi-protect your talk page for a bit?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Only if the wack a mole game gets too tedious for you. John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if you change your mind.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now 70.56.49.68 is quacking. Pls block and protect. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to NeilN for stepping in here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And yet again,172.56.12.224. Yawn. John from Idegon (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

AIV got it. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally deletion. Claiming copywrite

You deleted the page for Seven Factor due to copywrite infringement. Citing a page from sinister guitar pics. Seven Factor endorses sinister. The page you listed was about seven factor. Please correct your mistake and re instate the page you accidentally deleted. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.95 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Seven Factor endorses Sinister guitar pics, you cannot copy content from other websites to Wikipedia unless the material is appropriately licensed (see WP:COPYOTHERS). In addition, this article was previously deleted as a result of this discussion. The new article was far inferior to the one that was deleted by consensus and didn't address the issues raised in the discussion, so the article would have been deletable under other speedy criteria as well even if it hadn't been a copyright violation.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The article said it was deleted due to copywriter issue. It listed Sinister Guitar picks and linked an info page about Seven Factor. Sinister got that content from Seven Factor. Sinister does not own a copywrite to that content. And the i formation in the wiki article was not taken from them Since this was an error can we please in undelete it?

In regards to previous articles that is about a person. This article was about an Alternate Reality Game/Art project. They have the same name but are not the same article. Or about the same thing. Therefore the new article should not be addressing issues regarding the previously deleted. If this article was inferior in regards to information it would seem a better solution might be to expand the article instead of delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.149.104 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether Sinister or Seven Picks owns the copyright is moot. The fact remains that the material in the article was copied from another website without the requisite licensing. You could write an article in your own words, though you would have to include reliable sources and demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia reliability criteria. I suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation to do so.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:SNCB Info

User talk:SNCB Info, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SNCB Info and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:SNCB Info during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Everymorning talk 01:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please disregard this message, you didn't add the content that led to this MFD, SNCB Info did. Everymorning talk 01:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI discusion about Sonam K Sonam

You left Sonam K Sonam two warnings, so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sonam_K_Sonam. I vaguely recall some sockpuppetry similar to this, which may be what you referred to in your last warning [1]. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I gave them a final warning, summoning all the AGF I could that they were possibly unrelated to the previous socks making the same type of edits. They ignored the warning and carried on adding the unsourced, poorly sourced, falsely sourced (mixed bag!) and promotional junk. I've blocked the account indefinitely. There's likely a massive amount of clean up necessary due to the dodgy use of sources, I'll try to chip away at it this week. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I really can't keep track of all the BLP problems going on in the going on in the Pakistani-, Bollywood-, Lollywood-related articles. Did I work with you in the past on some of the socking going on? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Likely, I've been down this particular rabbit hole for at least 2 years. Incessant puffery and unsourced edits. You can tell they're working from some sort of template provided to them. So painful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Watchlisted your talk page to help me remember. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown

Ponyo, could you please perform CU for this case? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The results of the CU have been posted at the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Television

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my input would be requested, I really have nothing to do with these articles save for the occasional checks on the prolific sockmasters that pop up at cartoon articles. Could you please link to the actual discussion? You've only provided a link for the main project page. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied, though it may not be the answer you wanted to hear. WP:DR is the best route forward here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My hero

Thanks for your work here. If I block these characters as sock operators, do you think it will run afoul of WP:INVOLVED? Since I'm a new admin, I'm really trying to get real-world experience so I don't do anything that could be considered by my peers to be biased or dodgy. The only real interactions I've had with these socks have been at Balochistan, Pakistan where I didn't see eye-to-eye with them about certain content they were trying to keep out of the article. Thanks Ponyo! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to leave the block to another admin. In this case SpacemanSpiff did the needy.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo

Hello, Ponyo, i have noticed that you blocked the user User:Sammy.joseph. I wanted to say can you blocked this user for a while, because he interrupt edits mine just because he doesn't like. Specially in an article Dayar-e-Dil, i have developed this article to my best with authentic material, but after every two or three he adds unsourced material, adding cites like imdb, vedio.pk and many others. I tried thrice to have a conversation with him and even explain in a nice way what should be written or not. But he never listens, i don't know about any other article being interrupted by him, but i am tired of him because of his uneven and illogical edits to Dayar-e-Dil help me if you can. Fushan007^Talk 11:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

A suggestion

You might want to cut off TPA for 159.122.133.226. Also, perhaps RevDel the contents of their edits (the socking instructions), if that is possible to do with RevDel? Best, BMK (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get a chance to pop back in last night like I'd planned. Looks like someone else took care of it though.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

New IP for old problem editor

Hello P. 81.152.242.6 (talk · contribs) popped up today hitting some old articles and some new ones. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No I'm Spartacus!! Blocked now, have a great weekend :) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The line and scene are perfect in their own right. Thanks to Monty P the moment I hear or read it I also remember "I'm Jehovah - and so's my wife" :-) I hope you have an enjoyable weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Troubled editor

Hey Ponyo. Just thought I'd let you know, our troubled friend is back editing again as I knew they would be, straight after their IP's block expired [2]. And what do they, start editing the exact same way again, the way that got them blocked originally on their main account. I've followed this person's talk page comments on all their sock accounts over the past year and I knew they would be back at it as soon as the block ended. Now, I'm not necessarily advocating blocking them straight away again on the IP, but they have gone straight back into what they used to edit like (no difference what so ever) and they are still evading their original block. What do you reckon? You mass reverted all sock edits last time, will it be a similar situation this time? A permanent IP block is the last thing to do really as they have shown over time, they are incapable of recognising what to do in order to appeal their original block. DaHuzyBru (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I also just saw their failed ping message on the IP talk page, which is another fluff ball message similar to the other ones they have left before. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

<Insert enormous sigh here> There are some serious competence issues at play. I've reblocked the IP for now, as it is obvious block evasion, and will figure out how to address the larger issues tomorrow.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Enormous sigh hardly covers it... I've gone through and re-added some of their contributions, as a number of them were genuine, and have left a reply at the talk page. It's a struggle with this person, not sure if we will ever be able to get the message through to them about requesting an unblock. However, I think it's futile at this point. With their constant block evasion over this past year, a successful unblock request is unlikely. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hi Ponyo, I wonder if you could revdel this? It looks like something that shouldn't be left in the page history. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 16:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done Saw the thread title on my watchlist and figured I'd stick my nose it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I used a mix of Oversight and Revdelete and set pending changes as there is a history of privacy issues that often pop up in secondary school articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if a "pending changes on all school articles" policy would fly? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. only because a "delete all school articles" policy wouldn't... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've dusted off my giant rubber stamp should such a proposal be made. I've given up on ever getting to use it to endorse pending changes/semi-protection of all BLPs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

only because a "delete all school articles" policy wouldn't... I like the way you think ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We can barely even get "delete any school article" to fly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sabinbik22

There's no chance to get my account back? I had a lot of plans to do for wikipedia. I never meant to do something wrong, that was just a rule that I didn't know. I'm really sorry I won't do any account from now on. I need a chance because I didn't know about this, please give me another chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.38.13 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded to here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean I can get back only my first account? 151.34.206.124 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to request an unblock from your account talk page using the instructions provided on that account talk page as I have already explained to you. You cannot continue to post here, or anywhere on Wikipedia, other than on that talk page. The irony of pleading your case for an unblock for socking while continuing to evade the block is not lost on me. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The "rape" editor

The editor that you indefinitely blocked for POV editing regarding rape seems to be back in action as 81.152.242.6 (talk · contribs). This appears to be the same editor as 81.155.98.249 (talk · contribs) and 109.151.65.218 (talk · contribs). Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the heads up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IP block exemption user rights

Hi Ponyo, Thank you for reviewing the user rights. That you have suggested “As your use of VPN appears to be a personal preference as opposed to exceptional circumstances”, Could you please elaborate on what do you mean by “personal preference”? I do not use VPN for personal preference, but I do use VPN for enhanced security in my browsing session which I already been affected by Hard IP address range blocks, The IP address appears to be blocked by User:Elockid who has the rights of checkuser (similar to you), Therefore – How am i suppose to bypass these blocks? --♔ MONARCH ^{Ask me} 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I used "personal preference" as you noted in the request that you choose to use VPN when editing in public areas. The granting of IPBE for anonymized editing is only provided to editors who "are either being hindered by restrictive firewalls, or for exceptional reasons must edit via anonymous proxies" (from WP:IPEC - emphasis mine). This is different requirement than the typical IPBE that is provided to trusted user who gets hit by range blocks intended for another user. It doesn't mean that you're not trusted by any means, only that you don't meet the criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I understand now, I will explain the full reason why I use VPN, In most of time when I'm out on unsecured networks i do use VPN and on other hand I'm using Wikipedia at work which I'm restricted from editing articles (The network administrator doesn't allow me to access to Wikipedia), But I'm able to access Wikipedia using VPN and i cannot edit articles, As reason of that I had to use it on public network (unrestricted and unsecured) therefore, I don't feel safe to use Wikipedia on unsecured network and my VPN service is already been blocked by User:Elockid, I'm isolated from accessing and editing Wikipedia, that's why I'm asking you to grant me IP block exemption user rights. As you have seen my account records – I did never abuse or vandalise other articles or editors, Thus appealing to you that I need the IP block exemption user right to bypass editing block on VPN which was already hit by Hard IP address range blocks, I'm not suggesting you to unblock the VPN service (probably there are other users who have recently used my VPN to vandalise and abuse Wiki). Please reconsider my request. Thank you! ♔ MONARCH ^{Ask me} 00:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This request is on hold while I consult with another Checkuser.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you, Please do soon as possible. --♔ MONARCH ^{Ask me} 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I would like to know what's the current status of this? Why it's taking so long to assign it? ♔ MONARCH ^{Ask me} 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It will take as long as it takes to properly review your account. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

IPBE declined. Your sock account has been blocked indefinitely and your master account blocked one week.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo, This is what i'm trying tell you, There are users in my IP service, The IP is actually shared IP proxy (in my proxy service which i use to bypass firewall restriction), The account i used to create was the proxy server where as i cannot use my actual IP Address to create my Alpha Monarch account because of firewall restrictions, Now you're accusing me of creating sock-puppet account AbrahamFernd. That AbrahamFernd doesn't have direct connection with my account but i have seen that account involved in page patrolling also that user did use speedy deletion tags on articles i was monitoring. Now i'm really confused how come that AbrahamFernd is using same IP service as mine. Please see this one: WP:SHARE and you'll understand what actually happen.

If you go back to my original response above that i have clearly stated there are users in my IP address which is not solely for me, I have also been told by my ISP provider that my IP Proxy is not dedicated server, Its actually shared IP and its the same IP proxy that AbrahamFernd (i'm guessing it) probably used. But i'm able to bypass the restrictions using IP Proxy (I used to create my account with Proxy server from my ISP provider), Therefore, as a reason of that i did ask for IP exemption user rights because i cannot edit or access Wikipedia using my actual IP Address (Because of firewall restriction) thus i had to use IP Proxy to bypass it, Now my choice is to switch to VPN server which is a dedicated server that has already was blocked by User:Elockid and only this is the reason i'm here to ask for the rights to bypass the block that was imposed by User:Elockid ♔ MONARCH ^{Ask me} 06:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Evading your block is a fantastic response to being blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. If you do it again the block will be reset. There is no chance whatsoever you will be granted IPBE, and given your denials of knowledge of the AbrahamFernd account, you obviously are completely unaware of how Checkuser works.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of creation protection of several Cambodian football articles

Dear Ponyo, I am contacting you as a non-administrator who is interested in restarting several Cambodian football articles, namely Rous Samoeun, Hong Pheng, Sok Sovan, Nen Sothearoth, Ngoy Srin, Ouk Sothy, Va Sokthorn, and Moul Daravorn. These aricles were deleted because they were started by users with bad history and the fact that they were not notable, which was true at the time, but all the subjects of these articles have since gained notability. I have the sources here to show that all of the subjects of these articles pass WP:FOOTYN: source for Rous Samoeun, source for Hong Pheng, source for Va Sokthorn, source for Ouk Sothy, source for Ngoy Srin, source for Moul Daravorn, source for Nen Sothearoth. As you where the administrator who deleted these articles I thought it would be best to contact you over this issue first. Thank you very much. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone, other than block evading accounts, is free to create the articles as long as they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I see a couple of the articles were salted; I'll remove the protection so you can edit the pages.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

problems

hello dear Ponyo, Im writing in english but if you speak spanish I can send a messagge in spanish. The matter of this message is that I had received an email in June about I had to send my authorization to publish some of my pictures in Wikipedia page, after that, my page was deleted, then I sent an email to Wikipedia asking about the reasons of these facts, from Wikipedia explained to me that some people who made my page had problems like he was blocked,and they sent me your contact, so I need to know the email or other way to comunicate with this person, because this action was a big problem for my career. I ll appreciate your collaboration because my Lawyer wants to contact this person, I want to start legal action against him,

my email is (Redacted)

thanks for your support

Maria Raquel Bonifacino (Redacted) www.mariaraquelbonifacino.com http://www.mariaraquelbonifacinopinturas.wordpress.com www.mariaraquelbonifacino.wordpress.com www.mariaraquelbonifacino.bligoo.com @mariaraquelboni fb: MariaRaquelBonifacino.Autor http://www.mariaraquelbonifacinophotos.com representada por www.diegoriosmodelos.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.136.20 (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted as it was created by an editor who was using multiple accounts contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is important to note that if you or your representatives have paid or have offered to pay an editor to create an article about you, that editor is very likely to be blocked for violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use prohibiting undisclosed paid editing. Assuming that you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, an uninvolved editor will eventually create an article about you. It is a conflict of interest for you to attempt to do this yourself. Finally, please do not make legal threats anywhere on Wikipedia as doing so is grounds for an immediate block per our policy regarding no legal threats.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 22 August 2015 (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.

LFaraone 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hazal Kaya's page has been vandalised by an IP address from Pakistan # 119.xxx.xxx.xx. May I ask You to keep an eye on it as you do for Cagatay Ulusoy and others. Thanks 03:22, 24 Aug 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:8C71:18C2:CAB8:7BA5 (talk)

I will keep an eye on it, but I edited the article substantially in order to bring it in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The material removed can be restored on a case by case basis as long as it's reliably sourced and relevant.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

LanguageXpert

Hello. I noticed that you seem to have blocked a number of socks of LanguageXpert, and thus probably are familiar with them. Both Malik.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SaharZIRIZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem like obvious socks to me, adding dubious material, including a large number of maps etc, to articles relating to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and other parts of that general area, including SaharZIRIZ adding material uploaded by Malik.223 on Commons as own work, images but that on closer inspection turn out to be copies of existing images, such as File:User-demography.PNG, which I have nominated for speedy deletion there as being a lower quality copy of File:User - demography.svg (the name of the uploader on Commons for that image is "Michael", but a click on the name reveals the real uploader, "Malik.223"). I could file a report at SPI but that would require creating a hundred diffs to satisfy the clerk, so I start by posting here, hoping that you can see the similarities without all those diffs. Thomas.W ^talk 12:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The technical info doesn't match LanguageXpert, but there was socking going on, so I blocked the accounts. They were also mentioned as possible socks in this SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There are so many sockmasters active in that arena that it's hard to keep track of them. If you have some spare time I also have two others, a named account (PradeepBoston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and an obviously (per their edits and name/geolocation) related IP (96.252.71.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) that my gut feeling tells me are socks of someone, and that might match some master known to you but not me... Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandaliser

User:Ishq Hawa Mein is a vandaliser. Would you please chech his/her contributions and if necessary delete his/her account. thanks 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:98BD:7149:8C02:2D48 (talk)

In addition to likely being related to a giant promotional sockfarm, they've continued with the adding unsourced and inappropriate content to BLPs despite a previous one week block. I've blocked the account indefinitely, but suspect they'll pop back up under a new name in short order.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Email

You got one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Give and ye shall receive.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lifeline Ophelia

Hi,

Thanks for running the CheckUser!--5 albert square (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

They generate socks and sleepers in batches, so it's always best to run a check.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

You really are if not the foremost, then one of the best administrators I ever encountered here in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Very responsive, and decisive.--- Take care! 03:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:1060:A3C5:109D:A6C7 (talk)

Thank you, that's very nice of you to say.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome.---22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Admirenepal

That jerk is a real machine, isn't he? I notice ppoojjan ccresta or however you spell it created a number of articles he later picked up. Ogress _smash! 01:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly determined.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka Suggestion

You reverted my edit on Waqar Zaka because it's poorly sourced. Just read the sources and search about Waqar Zaka. I haven't added any wrong content. He is a singer, VJ social worker and television host and nicknamed Daredevil. You can verify it from newspapers DAWN and The Express Tribune. Please just do some work before reverting my edits.--Musa Talk  18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read the sources, that's how I verified that some of the sources you use 1) do not verify the content added and 2) are unreliable. It is also why I partially reverted your edits and kept what meets WP:BLP and WP:RS. The burden is on the individual adding information to articles (i.e. you), not those who are ensuring the policies regarding living persons are met. As I noted on your talk page, the occupation field and lead sentence are to note an individual's primary occupation, not every interest or passing hobby. Doing charity work does not make one a social worker. Nearly every celebrity has a charity or social concern with which they are closely affiliated, however that does not make them a social worker. Brad Pitt, for example, started a Foundation and donated millions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. He has also started other notable charitable organizations, yet he is not a "social worker" as denotes a specific profession. My work at this time consists of cleaning up your edits, I don't have time to do your work for you. As I also noted on your talk page, instead of making specific changes to the article you are reverted back to the same misleading version which includes unsourced personal info, misleading content and the less important but still incorrect overlinking of common terms. That's not acceptable.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Take a look here, particularly my comments and Valerius's block log. When I posted my first comments, I didn't realize there was already an existing SPI about the user. Had I known, I would probably have done more than warn them. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation of Shulinjiang

Although I appreciate your efforts to solving the issue at hand in the SPI, I want a clearer explanation as to why you only blocked one of the IP addresses. I've provided evidence satisfactory enough to enforce an indefinite lock against IP addresses on the pages that Shulinjiang edit wars on. In light of recent events, this IP address is one of the eight I reported and has continued edit warring on the Type 99 tank article. Khazar (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't block just one IP address, I blocked an entire range (199.116.175.0/25) that encompasses all of the 199.116.x IPs you listed in the SPI. 162.74.52.147 was used for a short spurt only and hadn't been used in weeks, so there was no point in blocking it when I reviewed and closed the report on the 28th. As Shulinjiang has obviously returned to the IP, it is now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SA_13_Bro/Archive

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SA 13 Bro/Archive: You may remember closing this gigantic case with "As SA 13 Bro hasn't edited since the report was filed several days ago, and the two target articles have stabilized following protection, any action now would come off as punitive. That being said, if the disruption resumes please ping me and I'll take further admin action." The other named account that was suspected as a sock had too few edits to confirm behavior, and it was dropped.

I know it's been a while, but he's back, and is literally taunting and threatening me because he was not blocked here. I don't know if it's appropriate to remind him that the case, which as you can see involved 12 additional IP accounts to edit-war for months, was dropped because he stopped editing and we don't do punitive blocks, because this is the worst kind of behavior predicated on a kind of abusive Wikilawyering. Please review the alleged IP edits and evaluate for yourself the likelihood it was his socks. Ogress _smash! 19:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page and am monitoring the situation. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A Favour please :)

Hey Ponyo,

I hope you're well.

I need to ask you a favour. I started a discussion at Talk: Cheryl Cole to move the article to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. The move request has been open for over 7 days, no comments for a few days now so I'd say consensus has been reached to move it. However, as I instigated the move request I can't close it! If you have a few moments would you please be able to close the move request and move the page? It's fine if you can't :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone much speedier than me has already closed it!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think it was possible to be quicker than you Ponyo! That was speedy, I didn't even see the move take place, I just suddenly had Cheryl Fernandez-Versini suddenly on my watchlist! :D--5 albert square (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

As you have adminned in the caste area before, I'd like your feedback on an AE/ARCA proposal I'm putting together -- User:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2‎. Feel free to modify directly and/or place comments at the discussion page of that sandbox. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Napolish

Napolish (talk · contribs) mentions you by name on his user page in a edited version of your user page. Also, he's Admirenepal. Or the other Nepal loon ppoojjan ccresta, if they aren't the same person. Ogress _smash! 09:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My Clarification

I am Nepalese and a fan of Ponyo, but not a sock fock of admire or anyone else. I am new and just want to pass time editing and contributing my knowledge on Wikipedia. (107.182.228.73 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

• Obvious socking; account blocked and IP blocked as a proxy/webhost.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Nineth Kazekage.
Message added 12:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

re: your email. I noticed this myself and have blocked the account. I'll update the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding??

I hope your apparent reference to me as a "sock" in your edit summary at the Manisha Koirala article was some sort of misunderstanding, otherwise we are going to have some problems. I am not a sock -- and spare me my checkered past and indiscretions -- and have been just me since 2009. Please explain. Quis separabit? 00:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: if you look at the immediate article history you can see this is the sock account that was blocked. If you made any edits coinciding with theirs that were removed in error you're welcome to restore them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I did look to see if there were any intervening edits that might be the "sock" you referred to but didn't see them, and given that the revert was immediately following my edit and the exact size as my edit ... (I am 50, so all my senses are failing, except paranoia!) Sorry. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Rape Addict" is back again......

Hello Ponyo, Regret to have to inform you that our Northern Ireland "rape addict" is at it again! This time working under IP: 109.151.68.104; with the usual nonsense on The Searchers Talk page and Chato's Land. Can I leave this with you for action please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was watching the IP to see whether it would stick or just cycle through. As they are clearly still editing from it I've blocked it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet again on The Searchers today. I am seriously worried about this persons's state of mind and the way they are vandalising Wikipedia. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Making a page

Hello, my name is Jack. I work for Low Down Deep Recordings was wondering if you could allow we to make a wikipedia page for 'Logan D' as I understand that it has been deleted in the past, so I was just asking how I go about making the page without it being taken down. If you could let me know that would be great. Thanks, Jack. Information for delted page -

   22:53, 16 July 2015 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted page Logan D (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Jacksouthwood1 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Jacksouthwood1 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that Logan D is the founder of Low Down Deep Recordings, the company you work for, I would strongly suggest that you do not attempt to create the article as you have a distinct conflict of interest in doing so (as did User:Lowdowndeeprecs who made the first, now deleted, attempt).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Justin Ryan (band)

Hello,

The article I am trying to post is about a award winning performance group. I have performed on hollywood films and have toured all over with Grammy and Billboard award winning musicians and songwriters. How do I make a nice looking/professional article?

Thank You Justin Ryan Sam Ash Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejustinryan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy prohibits self-promotion. autobiographies are strongly discouraged and most result in deletion as being promotional and in violation of Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. If you believe that you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria then you can request an article here and an editor without your inherent conflict of interest may eventually create an article assuming you do indeed meet the notability criteria (noting that notability is not inherited, that is your work must stand on its own regardless of the acts you have been associated with). 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ferociouslettuce/BezosFanBoy

You might want to look at the IP 74.88.36.181 as well. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Whoops, I see you just did. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this will be the end of it; let me know if you see them pop up elsewhere.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do. BMK (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

IP 71.190.67.49 seems to be their latest incarnation. BMK (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hard on the heels of a account sock that NwlinWiki blocked, comes 208.54.37.158, a new IP sock. BMK (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and could you please semi my talk page? Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. Let me know if you'd like it adjusted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope this offsets any resentment you may have regarding my overdue sockpuppet dues.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No really objectionable edits yet (except they re-added cats I had deleted because the parent cat is already in them), but the brand spanking new editor IvritSheli went to edit the Cooper Union financial crisis editor in their 4 edit. Their 3rd edit was to complan to the protecting editor that they couldn't edit the talk page. Probably worth keeping an eye on. BMK (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'll give you a pass on the dues, but you'd better bring something to the potluck dinner next month! BMK (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, smoking gun alert. The new editor quacks "bmk" just as all the socks of Ferociouslettuce have. I suggest that's enough for a block, or at least a look-see. BMK (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by zzuuzz as obvious sockpuppet. BMK (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry dues

It has come to my attention that you are a sockpuppet of me, however, in consulting my financial records, I do not see that you have ever paid any dues into the BMK Sockpuppetry Fund. Please rectify this situation at your earliest convenience, since I am trying to buy some really neat stuff and I need the money. All the best BMK (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I promise to send the cheque as soon as my Checkuser/Oversight/Admin paycheck arrives. I haven't seen a single payment to date, so I anticipate it will be substantial and will easily cover past dues.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Darn, I wish I had edited that article so I could be part of such an illustrious group. At this rate it is going to turn out that there is only one person editing Wikipedia and everyone else is just a sock. Hmmmmm, I wonder who that person could be? I hope you both have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 14:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"At this rate it is going to turn out that there is only one person editing Wikipedia and everyone else is just a sock" is pretty much what I think every time I end up down another promotional sockfarm rabbit hole. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about P. recently I have seen Bbb23 have to spend big chunks of the weekend dealing with a huge sock farm of just one person. My thanks to you both for your work and my sympathies for having to put up with it. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My mistake.

Recently reverted you on the "suicide is not a cause" thing. Thought I was reverting someone else who reverted you. Still seems to be two to one, but are you for or against? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I self reverted and scoured translated news articles to see if I could find the actual cause of death to render the issue moot, to no avail. I left a note on the the talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Araria Ijtema

What's wrong with the page, please visit the site over Google, it's completely verifiable that Araria Ijtema is eligible to be on Wikipedia. There were more than 20-25 lakh presence of Muslims in the ijtema. My request to you is to approve the request of recreation of the page, yeah of course, we'll be doing moderation to the page. References:-

(Ashrafulhaqueararia (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC))

References

Not sure if it's worth opening an SPI

Hi Ponyo. Not sure if it's worth opening an SPI for just one edit but nevertheless this is Ryanjay1996: Defjoe65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One edit it may be but, combining R&B and position-warring all-in-one, it is certainly Ryanjay. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's quacking. Here and here is confirmed sock Masonmars65 and here is Defjoe65. I've blocked the account. And thanks for fixing the ref display above!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ponyo for the analysis and the followup. You are also very welcome. :) It was a pleasure. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI Work

I see that you are one of the more active CheckUsers. Do you mind reviewing Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#JustBerry? I understand that training groups are made in batches, but you should probably review this discussion too. If you reply to my message, please ping me. --JustBerry (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Re: the latest mess

Hello
Thank you for clearing up the mess left by EnderWiggen/GammaCepheus/JonasPoole yesterday. Much appreciated! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You have email!

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

And back to you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

NI Rape addict

Hello Ponyo, regret to inform you that our block evading "rape addict" is back under 31.54.250.79 (talk · contribs); again placed in same area of Northern Ireland, UK. I have reverted "edits" re-instating collapse of Talk page on The Searchers. As I have said before, this person seriously worries me. Can I leave this with you please. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo, Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi P. This edit came after your block. I don't know whether it would be worth notifying OTRS UTRS with our concerns about this editor. While we don't have a LTA report as yet we have been tracking the IPs used here 109.151.65.218 (talk · contribs). I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He mentions UTRS (Unblock Ticket Request System) and there is nothing in there from him, either as an IP or under their purported username. I think we can safely disregard.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

D'oh my mistake on the acronym. Thanks for checking on things. MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet again after block with 31.54.250.79 (talk · contribs) - with several edits on 19 September 2015. David J Johnson (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it - blocked for a week.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to report that they are making the same points on 109.151.65.201 (talk · contribs) Talk page. I have deleted, but there is something seriously wrong with this block evading person. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Another one for you: 109.151.67.245. Clearly the same editor judging by these actions/comments: [3] and [4]. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet again109.151.67.245 (talk · contribs)Asking the same question and editing Talk page. Have deleted "contribution", but Talk page needs protection from this NI Rape Addict. David J Johnson (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:SyriaWarLato

I think the block on SyriaWarLato needs to be updated. It still says four days. Kiwifist (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply of your Message on My Talk Page

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} I saw your edits on my talk page, and I wanted you to know that I don't work for, or receive financial compensation for my edits.Sammy.joseph (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

(moved from User talk:Ponyo/Sparkly Shiny)

Hi Ponyo,

I dont understand why you reverted my changes. I do understand about image & personal information authenticity but I really don't understand what was the purpose behind reverting the changes of filmography of Aanchal Munjal. I just made it that in tabular format

Your explanation highly appreciated.

Regards!! Sandeep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdm2211 (talk • contribs)

@Sandeep: You made several interspersed edits and I wasn't sure I could tease out the good ones from the ones adding the unsourced personal info. I've gone back to the article and restored the tables per your edit. Was this helpful?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection of my talk page

I appreciate the concern but Gabucho181 doesn't pop up that much and I'd still like to get messages from IPs, particularly as I leave messages on IP talk pages inviting comments on my talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually protected the wrong page, sorry about that! I've unprotected now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Talk Pages and Admin Status

You endorsed a "page owner's" comments to me here. I replied severely, but later came here and looked over your Talk page. I was mistaken to challenge your position as an Administrator. You're efficient, humane, and kind--and spot on. I still disagree vehemently with your comment. If you study the AfD page where the 'conversation' began (and especially note the closing remarks), I hope you'd agree that the other editor's comments were written from a fan/ethusiast/hobbyist POV, amplified by a patronizing remark. And I really did learn from the experience.

A few additional factoids. I found a few urban dance articles that ARE very thorougly documented as WP:N--obviously not nominated for AfD. As a youngin, I was a huge fan of Sam Cooke. I could write rapturously (and badly) about the sound of his voice--it still moves me 50 years and more later. I don't, because it would be OR (and because I think it wrecks the experience for writer and reader). If you check the article history, you'll see I've worked to clean up the story of his death and keep intact the seamy, ugly side of it--because it's documented, not out of any POV or fan/non-fan issues. Part of any editor's task is to be part-gimlet-eyed-accountant!

Lastly, I was wrong and a bit trollish to label the editor a "hobbyist," and won't do it any more. Regards Tapered (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks. I appreciate the note. Have a kitten. Speaking of kittens: there's a naked six-year old (straight from the bath tub) running through the house looking for Aesop's Fables. Really cute. Mrs. Drmies and I frequently can't believe we made one that cute.

Drmies (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He's cute, I think I'll name him Benedict. HANDS OFF Darwinbish!! This one is mine.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfair Tagging based on your investigations

Refer page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invading_the_Sacred

Another user has pasted following tag line:

I have no connection with User:Searchpow and this is at best a case of coincidence. This tagline is tarnishing my reputation and damaging hard work that I have done in compiling this article. I earnestly request you to highlight the facts that I am a totally independent of User:Searchpow.

I have also marked this issue to NeilN

Adiagr (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• A dormant account, editing from your geolocation, is revived solely to support you in a content dispute. Another account, editing from the same geolocation and from a device identical to yours (and from the same IPs used by the revived account) also pops up on the same day to edit the same article. All on an article that had been edited a total of 8 times in the 6 months prior to the July 2015 content dispute. Is there a possibility that it could all be coincidence? Yes, because  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. That being said, I stand by my results at the SPI that if the other accounts are not you, that it is likely a group of editors acting in concert with each other. I note that the accounts in the SPI were tagged as confirmed, which was incorrect, and I have fixed that. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on your confirmation, SpacemanSpiff had blocked accounts. Now if you fix this error (which is gracious on your part), you should also do something about the followup action. An extremely harsh action of blocking has been taken on inconclusive evidence. I request you to initiate a process so that such drastic blocking can be rectified. I also request you to particularly review account "Searchpow". This was a genuine account that actually countered many of my points in the "Talk" page. Adiagr (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. I've corrected the message-boxes at Talk:Invading the Sacred, following your corrections to the userpage-tags of the suspected sockpuppets:

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the banner is rather obnoxious. The likely sock accounts are blocked and Adiagr's block has expired. I think it would be sufficient to simply strike the comments of the blocked accounts as is done in AfD discussions. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks user:Ponyo Adiagr (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Kunal Kapoor

Hi Ponyo,

I am sorry if I have not followed the rules properly while updating the Wiki of Kunal Kapoor (Shashi Kapoor's son). But the information I have provided in correct and genuine.

Thanks, Ripal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripalparmar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ripalparmar: It may be correct and genuine, however, as I noted on your talk page it must also be supported by reliable sources and be pertinent to the subject's notability as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Notable immediate family members can be included if reliably sourced, but the Category:Kapoor family is adequate for readers who wish to navigate to articles on the extended family.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:TZLNCTV

Since you dealt with a recent sock of User:TZLNCTV namely User:AC325 and mentioned something about UTRS when blocking, just thought I'd mentioned Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Socking at school? Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. TZLnctv protested ad nauseum on their talk page that they would never sock again. Until they did of course. Fool me once...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ferociouslettuce

User:108.58.49.34, based on this edit to your talk page, which I reverted. BMK (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: Looks like Bbb23 took care of it. I've now suppressed the edit as well. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Danke. BMK (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Boaxy

Hello, Ponyo. User:Boaxy, who you recently blocked, made edits to Frankie Grande that appear to be vandalism, and then used an IP that appears to be a sockpuppet to edit war there. Can you please take a look? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankie Grande is of African descent which is why I added the categories. I didn't add sources and I apologize. I forgot to login so I'm not using a sockpuppet. Boaxy (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boaxy: You were adding that Frankie Grande is African American, not of African descent. The distinction is moot however as the categories cannot be added to the article unless supported by reliably sourced article content that demonstrates that Grande identifies as such (which is covered at WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS). Regardless of whether or not you forgot to log in, edit warring to restore BLP violations to an article is unacceptable - don't do it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That "don't do it again" is so nice and polite for you to add. I mean all I did was make an honest mistake. Boaxy (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually said "don't do it". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Muktimohanworld a spam account.

Who knew, huh? HalfShadow 22:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Complete head scratcher. And you may want to fix the misspelling in the title of this thread :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno; seemed kind of a correct spelling, really... HalfShadow 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A Freudian slip perhaps?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Freudian slip/comedy gold, tomayto/tomahto... HalfShadow 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Janagewen again

Thank you for the prompt attention to his latest SPI. He's really not a huge problem, just the worst case of WP:STICK I have ever seen. Jeh (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have the SPI watchlisted and saw it pop up. If our most determined sock masters would put even a small percentage of the energy they use to disrupt the project into doing something productive it would make a huge difference.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking of IP address 122.53.156.34

Hi, Ponyo,

I am an OTRS volunteer. We've received a message via VRTS ticket # 2015092710014533 regarding an IP account you blocked. The person claims to be unable to create a login because of the block— I am not sure I understand the technical problem being faced, but I do know that I don't have any power to change it. I am wondering if you might be willing to look at the OTRS ticket and see if you understand what is being talked about. Can you do this? Please advise. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 11:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC) (Ping me with any questions or concerns).

@KDS4444: I've responded to the ticket. Unfortunately the information you were providing them was incorrect; the IP is hard blocked so even if they could log into their account (which they explained they couldn't do) and even if they attempted to create a new account as you suggested (which is impossible due to the block) they still wouldn't have been able to edit through the block. I've provided them some follow-up information and advice.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Beenleigh State High

You seem to have removed edits to "Beenleigh State High School" which I made 30 September. I was a student at the school in the 70s as was Mal Brough - I thought it might be useful to add our names to the alumnio of the school as we have both achieved some degree of public recognition.

Mike Kaiser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.93.14 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The material you added was removed as it was not supported by reliable sources as is required by policy. Personal experiences and memories are not verifiable by Wikipedia readers and as such cannot be added to articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)