User talk:Ponyo/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

I just want to know why why you delete my article Berava (website)

Hi

I tried to do my best to prove that the images i used into my article and the website is totally mine, do you want me to give you my passwords to check if i am the real owner of the website and i have design the logos and images??? Just tell me !! i cant register my website as an official company because i have to pay taxes and my website is still new so i did not even earn one dollar from it and to provide you what you want i have to register it as a company and pay a lot to the government were as i mention i did not earn even 1 dollar till now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiliamH (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 April 2016‎ (UTC)

The reason for the deletion is trifold. First, Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. There was nothing in the article that explained why Berava is significant or notable in any way. Second, the article consisted of marketing jargon clearly designed to promote the company which is contrary to our policies. This leads us to the third reason, the article was a copyright violation as it was a verbatim copy of what appears on another website (hence the marketing jargon noted in reason two). As you clearly have a conflict of interest with regard to Berava, please do not continue to attempt to recreate the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@WiliamH: I'll leave your question for Ponyo to address, but please see the note that I left on your user talk page. You will need to request a change in user name. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

1 : Wikipedia is not a directory of companies well what about: Blocket.se and Mudah.my are those A charity or companies ???!!!! 2: the article consisted of marketing jargon clearly designed to promote the company which is contrary to our policies. Have you read Mudah.my and if you read it why you dont delete it because it also contain and designed to promote for the company ??!! 3: About copyrights, could you tell me how i can provide you evidence that images i use it in Wiki that i have design it and did not stolen from others, how i can give you evidence that the website is mine not for others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WiliamH (talk • contribs)

@WiliamH: Wikipedia has over 5 million articles in varying stages of review. That you are able to point to other articles that may or may not violate our policies and guidelines in no way negates the fact that your article contained promotional material, provided no evidence of significance and included text taken from another website and was subsequently deleted for these reasons. With regard to your copyright questions, instructions for donating images can be found Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bangwiki

Hi again, Ponyo. I just noticed that Bangwiki's user page was edited by ಲವ್ ಯು ಪೂ. Could they be the same guy? This is related to [[1]]. Gracias, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That thought crossed my mind as well, but the behaviour would need to be evaluated to determine if there is a connection and the evidence presented at SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for granting IP range exemption for me! Agboh (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuestra Belleza México issues

Hi, thanks for your work. Please note my changes to quite a few of the series on this topic. It would help in the future if you didn't capitalise titles. Years and dates should not be linked. Note also: "Contestant notes", not "Contestants Notes". Tony (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: My only edit on that article was to revert a blocked sock a month and a half ago. Can you point me to where I capitalised a title or linked a date or wrote "Contestant Notes" in this edit?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Mona778 (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you Mona :) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

Thanks for that, but could you please get the edit summary on User talk:Andy Dingley too, thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, 'tis gone now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Can you please delete my userpage. Thank you--Opdire657 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Greased Lightning!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page revision history

Dear Ponyo,

May I ask you to delete my talk page revision history?---Thanks (Mona778 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

User pages can often be deleted on request, but not user talk pages. Is there a specific edit in the history you would like removed?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Especially those made by User Taichi, whom was condemned for his actions (illegal revert, cross-wiki hounding, etc.) by Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. (Mona778 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

Although you are free to blank their comments to you on your user talk page, there is nothing within policy that would allow me to use revision deletion in this case.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen his edits? (Mona778 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

This, this and this from January? If so, there's nothing that meets WP:REVDELETE in that content.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I'm asking you to do something for me that might put you in trouble, then I don't need it.---Bye, and have a beautiful afternoon (Mona778 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

Using revision deletion in cases where it's not required is definitely a no-no.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sock

[2]. Thank you, GAB^Hello! 22:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. A rangeblock isn't possible, so I've laid down some short-term protections.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Any look-see possible?

Hi P, is there any way to look into this announced socking? What would you recommend? SPI would be kinda fruitless, I think. ? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious as far as CU goes, but with that attitude I'm sure any sock will be as obvious as a flashing neon sign stating "I'm a 5rtfgvb sock".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

CU check

Hi! Can you check this account: ThePlatypusofDoom? The account was registered yesterday and they claim to be "frequent at AfDs" today [3]. When asked about that, gave no answer (link). Also, they voted "keep" at WP:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd nomination), a highly controversial discussion that attracts many meat/sockpuppets [4]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have my concerns as well, but without a corresponding master for comparison I can't make any connections.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hazal Kaya

• @Ponyo:

Dear Ponyo,

Those IPs from Pakistan are back at it again, removing content, adding religion (Islam) into infobox.. Plus, this time they refer their edit to a source (Biography), which was added by me many months ago, and does not say anything about the subject's religion (Islam) or parents! Can you take a look? I think now the page should be semi-protected as you did with Cagatay Ulusoy sometime ago. Best regards (Mona778 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC))

I'm confused. Hazal Kaya is semi-protected and no IP has edited it for ages. Is it another article perhaps?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't be dear! 'cause it's an old post from last month that you forgot to reply I guess, but like you said the page is semi-protected now, so no further action needed at the moment. BY the way, the new pic added to her infobox is a copyvio. I already asked the Commons for its speedy deletion. Here, in English Wiki is your job to delete it (cross-wiki uploaded), I think? Best regards.--Mona778 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed that! Regarding the image, at it's hosted on Commons it needs to be deleted from there (I'm not an admin on Commons, so I can't speed the process along). Once the image is deleted a bot will come through and remove the redlink.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another new one

Hello P - I hope that Spring has sprung nicely in your part of the world. 31.53.67.189 (talk · contribs) is the most recent version of the problem editor that we have been following here User talk:109.151.65.218. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: the list has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/109.151.65.218. MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears they've moved on while I enjoyed my weekend. Spring has definitely sprung and the weather is lovely. Let me know if when they pop up again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This IP has started editing again P. A heavy wet spring snow has just started here - one of those tree branch breaking ones so my back is already aching and I haven't even shoveled yet :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Sorry to hear about the snow. It's 21°c here today, but I'm not sure that will make you feel any better. I'll send warm thoughts your way!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks they do help - well when combined with some liniment :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nagendra again

Hi P, could I please trouble you to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nagendra NJ? One of my suspects has started creating other accounts [5][6], so my guess is that he's gotten hip to the SPI and is setting up for another quantum leap. I need the CU to confirm that Kiran is a Nagendra sock before I can block the other accounts as policy violations. (Why am I explaining this to you? You're a pro!) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All done. Results noted at the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You rock! Wish you didn't have to keep working so hard, but thank you. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Another batch of sock attack on Windows articles

Hi.

I am calling you because you were the admin who attended to this case last time. We have another batch of attacks on Windows articles (Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows 10), some by brand-new editors (definitely socks) and some by IP editors. The attacks have come just as the protection expired.

Would you mind taking a look? Thanks.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Materialscientist zapped them all.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Another thanks

Hello again P. This for your work on the Bigshowandkane64 SPI. the IPs usually stop and the person moves on after being sussed out. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We shall see...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the talk page for Thomasandfriendsnumber1 (talk · contribs) is going to be where they post there new round of rants. I removed it a couple times per WP:BMB but will let you decide on the final way that things should wind up. MarnetteD|Talk 00:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I should have revoked it from the get go; there's nothing constructive that ever comes of allowing tp access to this particular sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right about that. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 15:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Scranton

Your Ponyoship, there seems to be a possible recurrence of a previous troll on Scranton Pennsylvania. (It adds fictitious characters to the "people from..." section.) Anmccaff (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: I started this as a new section, but it initially wound up as part of the previous one. Dunno why, but it's possible i hit "save" before adding the section title. Is that what would happen then? Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you add new material without including a header title it will just mush the various discussions together. And the editor has been warned for edit warring - they're well past WP:3RR.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect their login might line up with a usual suspect from the past, but I dunno how wide a net you can cast when doing that. Anmccaff (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I did take a look through the article history for any obvious suspects, but alas the width of the net available to me is quite limited.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hazal Kaya

Hi,

I think the User finally accepted that he had been wrong all along! [7] Now, will you please readmit the official site to the page? Thank you (Mona778 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC))

My edits carry no extra weight. Anyone can replace the Facebook link with the Official website link if the consensus on the talk page is that it should be restored. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo, I understand. You don't want to take sides, but he said he leaves it to your judgment. I can restore the link myself, but I think it would be more appropriate if you do it, especially after you said that "though the guidelines do lean towards the inclusion of the official site". Regards (Mona778 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

Please have a look at the official site of this one [8], the other actress at least had a picture and couple of more other sites linked to it, so much for the Wiki policy! (Mona778 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

The external links page is a guideline that outlines current consensus and common practice, which is different than policy (such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for example). If you think something needs to be changed, be bold and change it. If your changes are reverted, then you can discuss the changes with the other editors involved.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have presented my conclusion on the talk page of the article, and want to see what other editors think of it? (Mona778 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC))

SPI/Matthew7878

Hello Ponyo. Since you did the CU for WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew7878 last year, please take a look. The private evidence that I mentioned is an email header, which links to a user's real life identity via the account's email address. If you would like it emailed to you, please let me know. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That took quite a bit of clean-up. I've noted my findings at the SPI, protected a number of redirects and salted some titles, and closed the AfD.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They keep recreating the article under various spelling combinations and permutations. Please let me know if you see them pop up again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, will do. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of a page

Regarding Deletion of a page

Hey user Ponyo, sir you recently deleted a page called Param Singh from the wikipedia. Param Singh is a reputed actor on Channel V India and I am the member of his PR team. I want to request you to please remove his name from Articles deleted discussion as we are not able to create a wiki page for him again because every time we create a page some user keeps on deleting it. Can you please give me a solution how can we create a wiki page for Mr. Param Singh and can prevent it from deletion. Thankyou sir. Hope to get a solution from you. CreativeNerd (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• You'll probably want to take your trophy back when you read my response. The article was deleted based on community consensus here and again here. The article continues to be recreated with promotional prose and no regard for the lack of notability noted in the previous deletion discussions. As a member of Param Singh's "PR team", you should not be creating or editing an article on him at all as you have a clear conflict of interest in doing so. If he becomes notable enough that an article would be accepted by the community an uninvolved editor, one whose is not being paid to promote the subject, will eventually create an article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Gadri socks

Hello Ponyo, I hope you are doing well. Should your schedule permit, I wanted to ask if you could review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri for potential sleepers. In particular, there is a concern that Singhsardarji (talk · contribs) may be a related sock. The account was registered and began editing in between two known instances of related socking, but there is also the possibility that this was coincidental. Would it be possible to take a look? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

When socks are continually being created regardless of their accounts being blocked, quite often they have access to several ranges across multiple ISPs making sleeper checks nearly impossible. I'll see what I can do.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

If the IP is acting in good faith, he doesn't need you to speak for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking as an admin responding to a valid request for admin assistance at an administrator's noticeboard.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Tell ya what - retract your attacks on me, and I'll retract my questions to the IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I made no attack whatsoever, I only noted that "Your comment...was unhelpful, rude, showed bad faith and served no purpose other than to cast aspersions" (emphasis mine) which is bang on accurate and I stand by it. I'm certain there are more constructive things you can do than continue on in this vein, which will lead nowhere. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I stand behind my questions as being fair and appropriate to the situation. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What business is it of any non-admin as to why some other user was given a particular block length? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Because when an IP is blocked indefinitely it is often an error, as it was in both cases the IP brought to the attention of Admins.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make it the business of some other user. How would he even know about it? Typically, these kinds of complaints are raised by socks. As regards SPI, don't pull that nonsense on me. You and I both know that checkusers are forbidden from doing anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has done nothing wrong and your continued insinuations otherwise every time they bring up a valid point is disruptive. Have as many suspicions as you want, but unless you are willing to present evidence of policy violations you need to keep those suspicions to yourself. Editors are blocked for repeated accusations of socking without evidence. As I noted at ANI, checkuser requests make up the minority of cases at SPI, the remainder are handled by admins and clerks. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I had already conceded the point to another user, but then you stuck your nose into it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Stuck your nose in". The irony! I know you can do helpful things here, please spend your time on those rather than posting here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have asked a trusted admin to tell me if I'm off base with the questions I've raised about the IP. As for you, since I had already conceded, your followup post served no purpose except to inflame the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A trusted admin (in bolding and italics no less!), as opposed to the shitty untrustworthy admin that I am I suppose? Jayron32, good luck.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I just don't know you, and I got an initial negative impression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would hope that the fact that we have had no negative interactions despite both our long "tenures" here, and that I'm also a checkuser tasked with enforcing WP:SOCK, would provide you with some insight that you are being too forceful with your interactions with this editor who has done nothing to deserve your derision. Raising a suspicion once is fine. Continuing across multiple AN/I (and here) threads when there is zero evidence of wrong-doing is unhelpful and veering into disruptive territory. In the words of my father, you're putting too much mustard on the bun.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Rev/Del question

Hello again P. I am wondering if these three [9], [10], [11] items meet the "potentially libelous" criteria for R/D. Thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

All rev/deleted and editor blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Very nice to have you back in the Wikipedia salt mines :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well look who's back! :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Basic category for biographical article

I'd like to reiterate that, per policy, you cannot add ethnic or descent categories to biography articles unless the category is supported by sourced article content. I've reverted your edit here for this reason. Please do not continue to add such categories.

I know that you have a lot of time only to revert my edits since last year, just because the category I put is unsourced?? Actually, I don't simply put this individual's descent, individual's religion, individual's birthdate without looking around in Google Webs, Google Books.. It is just about I don't put reference link in the article after google. If you see the article don't have necessary sources, why not you simply google and put reference link in that article. Why you have to make that article without basic category (e.g. birth year, birth place, descent, religion)? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This book, titled Southeast Asian Personalities of Chinese Descent: Glossary and index is a good reference to support the Chinese descent category. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alexander Iskandar: I still don't think you've read the links I provided as your message here contradicts it entirely. WP:BLPCAT (which is a included as part of one of Wikipedia's most brightline policies) states "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." (emphasis mine). The source that you are using is a tertiary source and does not meet the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES; it's just a glossary of terms and cannot be used to support the ethnicity of specific individuals. The burden is completely on you to ensure the material and categories you are adding to our biography articles are reliably sourced and meet WP:BLPCAT, and as a Wikipedia administrator the burden is on me to ensure our core policies are upheld. So again, do not continue to add categories to articles unless the category is specifically supported by reliably sourced article content.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What did you mean by asking WP:BLPSOURCES? Is it original MyKad (identity card), passport, original birth of certificate, official data from National Registration Department?? These are primary sources. It is imposibble to be accessed publicly (maybe possible for some cases). So, we have to rely on secondary sources and tertiary sources.. I don't know which sources is satisfiying for you and Wikipedia policy. Is it exclusive interview from the public figure is relevant source to verify information? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

An online glossary/index does not meet the criteria for the inclusion of personal information, nor are primary sources such as birth certificates and passports per WP:BLPPRIMARY. What is required is for secondary sources, specifically those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, to have published the information. Self-published sources can also be used as long as the source is controlled by the subject and there is not reason to doubt its accuracy. If you cannot find such sources then the material is likely not relevant enough to be included in the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Birth based on age as of date

You reverted an edit that I made to Template:Birth based on age as of date way back in November 2015. Your edit summary is rather unhelpful: test - the template is not working, change may have affected it? How is the template not working? Did your revert fix it? Show me an example of how it is not working.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Sorry, I meant to leave a message on your talk page however, as you can see from my contributions, I was called away right after making the change. Whatever you did to the template caused an unknown parameter that broke the display. When I attempted to use the template at Mira Sethi it gave an unknown expression error. When I undid your change from November 2015 the template worked fine again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. When I made that change, it was an import from the sandbox. The sandbox has not changed since then so it is an exact copy of the template that you assert was causing an error at Mira Sethi. Here is the live version using the data from Mira Sethi followed by the sandbox version with the same parameters:

1986 or 1987 (age 36–37) – live

1986 or 1987 (age 36–37) – sandbox

These look identical to me. When I edit Mira Sethi to use the sandbox, and click 'Show preview', I do not get any visible error (I don't know how that's possible because the template doesn't have any error reporting capability). But, {{Infobox person}} does have error detection. Is it possible that you saw something like this:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "birth_dat" (this message is shown only in preview).

(I forced this error message by breaking the name of the infobox parameter |birth_date=)

Because I cannot get {{birth based on age as of date/sandbox}} to misbehave, I am going to revert your revert. Let me know if you see something amiss.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks for testing it before reverting. It was difinitely an expression error that was occurring (either with an exclamation point or a question mark), however all appears to be fine now. I'll let you know if I see the same issue pop up again. Cheers,--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dato Vijay Eswaran listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Vijay Eswaran. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Vijay Eswaran redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

O(+>

re: [12] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling bogus report

Thanks for that, Linguist1111 is a troll I guess. I'm new here, if you have a second, do you have any tips I should know about? --M0N57R0517Y (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Getting started should have plenty of info to keep you busy for a while.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Any thought given to a CU to find out whose sockpuppet this was?

I am having very strong flashbacks to an incident where User:Cuchullain wrongly believed a vandal account that was hounding me at the time, MeNoLike123 (talk · contribs), was my then-nemesis JoshuSasori (talk · contribs), but I only realized far too late that it was almost certainly Ysfan (talk · contribs), and now the latter's having used a sockpuppet is unverifiable. (CU was requested but denied because of the technicality that MeNoLike123 was already blocked and the other user admitted to being JoshuSasori. My reason for saying it was Ysfan is because I called the latter user's edits "unencyclopedic" and he honed in on this, and then shortly thereafter an account appears and reverts all my edits as being "unencyclopedic"; I don't blame Cuchullain for not having known this background, but I was a fool not to immediately realize who it was.)

Clearly this was someone with a bone to pick with Linguist111 and probably a bunch of the editors whose talk pages he vandalized, and it's quite possible it was someone who was recently indefinitely blocked but has not been formally site-banned yet...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Or, worse still, someone who hasn't even been blocked yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who the master is, nor does it really matter in cases where the disruption is this blatant. A quick block and a dose of WP:DENY often works, though it may take repeated applications to be effective.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Need your input

Dear Ponyo,

May I have your input on this [13]. Thanks and have a great weekend (Mona778 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Hello @Mona778: you can have my input on it :)

The date format is different depending on which version of English is being used, WP:ENGVAR says that so long as the article is consistent and there is not a particular national variant of English which the article should take, then the default is to stay with the variant used by the original author of the article. So you were right to change back the change made by the IP address.

But on the other hand, it was not totally correct to tell the IP address that they had made a test edit, because that is not what they were doing. It would have been better to explain on their talk page that we do not change formats to someone's preferred version if there is no reason to do so.

Also "Your edit mean nothing!" is not a very helpful or welcoming edit summary when dealing with an apparently new editor. Their edit did mean something, it was changing the date format to what they thought was correct. MPS1992 (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically there is no reason that the dates needed to be changed, however given that the subject is Italian and the IP was changing the only dates in the article body to European format, it was unnecessary to revert them (though within the guidelines of MOS:DATERET to do so). The last thing you want to do is get in an edit war over something that makes no difference to the article whatsoever. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh right, I did not realise that was a European format, I thought it was just British. Thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Impostor Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking the impostor! Linguist 111talk 00:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snehilsharma

It seems like I still haven't accepted that 2015 has given way to 2016 (the second account on the SPI)! Also, I was just wondering if something came up on the account listed in my response to Vanjagenije. I hadn't noticed that account earlier and just came across it after the clerk endorse. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Curious about decision to hide content from revision history

Was looking at revision history on Michael Sarrazin's page and noticed something I've never seen before where the edit was entirely crossed out and unclickable. Description said "Add some infromation about mikes life, will more then likely piss you guyes off but the truth is the truth, I am just glade to know that Mikie had full and propserious life." Was there any good faith to this edit or was it outright hijacking? Kind of curious to know what it said, and I see in the log that you changed the visibility. Do you remember what it said? Iistal (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If an item has been revision deleted or suppressed from a page it means that it is entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Copying it here in order to satisfy your curiousity would defeat the purpose of the deletion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage

Hi Ponyo - just spotted that deletion on my talkpage. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

NP. It was complete garbage.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unknown editor

Sorry to bother you, but I've just noticed that that unknown editor is back again. He comes back every weekend and adds in sound information and unsourced information in the infoboxes and other random edits and then adds in random quotes in the edit summaries. I see that you keep on blocking him and he keeps on coming back reverting things without sources with his annoying wit. It's embarrassing. Any tips on how to deal with him? I am just a random editor editing my favorite shows like All Star Mr & Mrs, but he keeps on doing this. Should I continually revert? I'm also curious about what part of his edits are unWikipedic. I know that certain things like who created the theme song are unsourced and unneeded, but what about the sound additions? I must admit that I am getting a little tired of this thng continually happening on Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.66.130.12.185 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)samusek2

They mistakenly believe they're being funny and witty, so I decided I would no longer provide them with an audience in any way, shape or form and I'm simply ignoring them altogether. Feel free to revert them (per WP:BANREVERT) if you see any issues as they're a persistent block evader. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios again

As a follow-up to this block, it appears the same user is uploading and inserting more image copyvios [14], [15]. Since you were the admin to twice block this user for same [16], thought you might like to know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生 has blocked them indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A page I found on the new page patrol that I was going to move to its proper title but it apparently says it was done by a blocked user before

Parasparam(tv series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), bringing you up to this as you did delete the page of Parasparam (TV series) before. (Which I was going to move to that). Not sure if this is a sock puppet or what though as I'm not familiar with this one. Wgolf (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Rudhanani (talk · contribs) Here are some links to save you some mouse clicks P. MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: This is not the same user the article was protected against. I've removed the salting so you can move the new article to the correct target page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I love you Jejebel Ponyo

That's a new username from the user creation log. It could be anyone. I mean, we're all terrible spellers and we all love you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

They created the account through an open proxy in order to thank spam me. I'm all for a genuine thanks or two, but this was obviously created for trolling. In the words of Eric Clapton, "No more bad love". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I figured that was likely. I watched for a while, saw no contribs and nothing in the filter log, so I thought I'd just dump it in your lap. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this one is related to Indian film/TV, they seem to love our women editors. I feel very neglected by them! —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Clock

As a sometimes-resident of Baja BC, which is on the same time as your Alta Washington, I am wondering why your page's clock's time is so different from the rest of West Cascadia's. Anmccaff (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Because I always forget to adjust it for daily savings time. Every.single.time. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd thought of that, but it was still different, and wondered if you were on actual sun time. Right now it shows a four minute lag, but I think it was @ 20 when I first looked...well, an hour and twenty, since it wasn't daylightized. I guess the clock is speaking literally when it calls itself approximate. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

About the page Zain Imam

Hi, You just deleted my edits on the page Zain Imam. I'd like to mention that after seeing that the page didn't provide sufficient information I went to listen to audio and video interviews of the actor. Thus all the information I added on the page was from the interviews of the person himself. How could I have added the source to the edits? Aisha2084 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Aisha2084

If it's information that you have heard personally then it cannot be added to the article (as original research) unless you are also able to include a corresponding reliable source. You can learn how to include references here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Meghna Vincent

On the new page feed I found Meghna Vincent which said it was deleted twice by you it appears, looks like this probably is a SPI to do. Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We're well into WP:DUCK territory now, thanks for letting me know.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI/Adrian2526

Thanks for taking care of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adrian2526 and dealing removing the history on the hijacked article content. I didn't notice the activity of the IP address originally. Might it be a good idea to remove the web host content in the history of Miss Mexico International? Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Lucas

Ponyo, could you please have a look at Jessica Lucas for me? I've got a couple of newbie-ish editors (or are they the same?...) who keep adding unsourced or poorly sourced bio info. I've discussed my concerns about this with at least one of these editors, but I don't seem to be making much headway... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Per the section below, I've blocked one of the socks active there and warned the master account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusing ne with "zeedavis"

Who the hell is a zeedavis???! I only use one account and one user name, zhyboo. I don't know of a zeedavis. And isn't it very wrong for you to block someone for no reason??? Who do you think you are, the wik-curity guard??? Lol. You should unblock him, I'm sure he uses a single account like everyone else Zhyboo (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only is the account an obvious behavioural match, you are also confirmed to be technically the same. Deny as much as you want, but you will be blocked if the use of multiple accounts continues.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

IP edits when the account is blocked

Hello Ponyo. I wanted to ask about about GTVM92 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content. Today, three IPs 5.211.35.51 (talk · contribs), 37.129.183.232 (talk · contribs) and 5.74.0.223 (talk · contribs) are editing articles he was active on, the same way. One of the edits in my talk page suggests that the IP is the same user. Can a blocked user edit with IP? Pahlevun (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has called me a "stupid" (نفهم) and signed as "GTVM" in another user's talkpage. I think you should see this oo. Pahlevun (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point GTVM92's block has expired and they have not yet edited; if I blocked them now it would be punitive. The IP editing also appears to have abated. If it flares up again, please let me know.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock

User:Bhand Bhaiya looks like another sock of User:Ishq Hawa Mein.Managerarc™ ^talk 14:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Who the hell is User:Ishq Hawa Mein, I only use one account and one user name, Bhand Bhaiya. I don't even know who the crap Ishq Hawa Mein is. Just because you are using Wikipedia for a long time, that doesn't mean that you will blame anyone with no reason or no prove. I have read other user's messages on your talk page and I think that you just want to bother people. I think that Wikipedia should block you because you are bothering other users. Next time, blame me with a prove..understand... You better understand:- Bhand Bhaiya™ ^talk 13:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Anyone other than me who sees the last part of that post as something of a threat? And it's unfortunately not that editor's only post of that kind, as can be seen here. Thomas.W ^talk 20:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W its not a threat, its a message, and a kind of noble and polite warning to those who falsely blame others without any prove..I have just said him not to blame anyone with prove. it is a message to refrain them from doing wrong and suspicious activities. It's just your perception that it is a threat, and i can't say anything, because everyone has their own perception. And the message that I have send to user here is not a threat too. You mentioned it as a threat but it is not.. It is completely seen that i have warned him not to edit any article in a wrong way. By the way, you didn't mentioned here that I have also created a page for the lovely user here. Bhand Bhaiya ^talk 13:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saying you "will take serious actions toward your account" is a threat. If nothing else, you, not being an admin, can only at most ask someone who is to do something. And you may see it as merely assertive, it comes across threatening. Unless that's your goal, you should try to avoid giving that implication--especially important to treat new editors as mildly as possible (see WP:BITE). Consider the standard WP:WARN2 messages, that have been word-smithed by many experienced editors to begin mildly and then only escalate for repeated problems. DMacks (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that it would be such a big issue...Ok, I'm sorry, it won't happen again...right know I just want to know that how can I upload pics on Wikipedia common?? Bhand Bhaiya ^talk 08:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Managerarc: Thanks for catching that.  Confirmed sock blocked and tagged. There's some significant clean-up to do, I'll see what I can get done in the bit of time I have.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Emraan Hashmi needs to be semi protected. Persistent sock-puppetry going on.- Managerarc™ ^talk 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The UTRS Barnstar
		For absolutely being a cornerstone on this project and single-handedly ensuring it's success by resolving a full 1/3 of all tickets, I hereby award you this barnstar :).--v/r - TP 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you @TParis:! I haven't been as active as I would like lately, but will hopefully have more time in the near future.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios

Dear Ponyo,

This user from India has embarked on changing infoboxes pics with copyvios![17] This must be stopped at once. Thank you.--Mona778 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up what I can and left them a template regarding copyright.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You are one of the best admins Wikipedia ever had! Have a good afternoon.--Mona778 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The user is back in full force![18] Mona778 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've already given them a final warning for the copyvios. Hopefully they'll see whether they listen...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

They're being blocked for two weeks by Commons.[19] Have a nice weekend.--Mona778 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That will hopefully help keep the copyright violations out of articles here. You have a good weekend as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Our mutual friend, Sockie.

user:verita.miner appears to be user:St_o'hara. Where should I take this? Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

----Hi Sockie. I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure I am adding this contribution on the talk section correctly. I am not the user you mention above, however. Please let me know if you have suggestions for me. This will be my first contribution also to the Talk section so I'm not sure I've done this right.Verita.miner (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me amend that to "or Meatie..." Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Anmccaff. I don't know what you mean by this. I am not user:St_o'hara and I don't know what you mean by "or Meatie." Maybe I am missing something in the lingo here? I am happy to take any suggestions you have to improve my efforts. As I've said, I just started about one week ago. Thank you. Verita.miner (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ponyo, I wouldn't block based on technical grounds. If you're interested in my specific findings, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then I suppose the issue is closed (unless Anmccaff would like to open an SPI for a behavioural investigation).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nahh. Even if this is someone returning under another name, or coming in at another's request, so far, at least, they haven't tried to edit together, giving a false impression of wider consensus. I'll let this lie for now. Thanks again for your help. Anmccaff (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ToddP355/Archive

I just blocked Saul Paul5‎ (talk · contribs · count) as a suspected sock of ToddP355. Not filing an SPI as this is an old sock that predates your CU where you were saying that this was all using webhosts. Letting you know in case you want to do something with this info. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I should have alerted Gogo Dodo. —SpacemanSpiff 02:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the tag to confirmed and salted the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sun Vandeth

Dear Ponyo could you please unsalt Sun Vandeth, an article that I am interested in creating. The subject of the article has since made his debut in an international match (see here) and thus passes the WP:NFOOTY qualifications. Thank you very much. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Inter&anthro: Done. I also left a note with the original protecting admin.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pooja

Hi P, thanks for your CU-ing of the Nagendra timesuck. I have no strong opinion one way or the other, but I do think that sometimes keeping a tantalizing article like Pooja Gandhi unlocked can be helpful in sockspotting. In this case I kinda blame myself for not having my hackles up immediately upon seeing new users edit that article. On the other hand, I understand your presumable rationale that if he's gung-ho to edit that article, then locking it up may be the encouragement he needs to find another occupation. Anyhow, just a thought. A good day to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer in leaving a number of honey pots out for early detection of new socks; I'm guessing a third of my monstrous 12k+ watchlist is the Wikipedia equivalent of mousetraps. In this case however, the disruption was so over-the-top that I thought it best to add the protection. Given the scope of the socking it's just a drop in the bucket though.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks, as always. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted sub on "Lollipop (BigBang and 2NE1 song) song sample

Hello, i wasn't trying to vandalize the page. I was adding subtitles because there wasn't any there before. Should i ask for permission? I mean, i would like to help for people who would want subtitles. ~KimKiKeyBum — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimKiKeyBum (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "subtitles". Could you explain?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Yes. On the "Lollipop" song sample, there is a "closed captions" symbol. Where you can turn on he captions or add some (Basically lyrics). There is currently any available, i would like to add them, thanks. ~KimKiKeyBum

@KimKiKeyBum: Interesting, I've never come across the cc option in any article. I suppose it's fine to add, though I'm surprised there are no copyright concerns with including lyrics.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Typically, Wikipedia articles on songs do not contain full lyrics unless the work is in the public domain. It is common to include an external link to Metro Lyrics or another website that contains the lyrics. I believe it is because of copyright concerns and I think the subtitles would be covered by this as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: There's definitely a "cc" button which allows for inclusion of subtitles (which I guess in this case is lyrics) in the .ogg file at Lollipop (Big Bang and 2NE1 song). It does seem to be a copyright conflict to me, but it's really outside of my Wikipedia wheelhouse.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ditto for me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So how do i add the "external link"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimKiKeyBum (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Nevermind. I found it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimKiKeyBum (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

They're back!

Hello there,

Those Islam promoting IPs from Pakistan are back![20] Regards--Mona778 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Beren Saat they're including sources (though I'm not sure how reliable they are, I haven't checked). It's pretty much a content dispute at this point. Note that a recent RfC showed there was consensus not to include religion in infoboxes, so if it her religion is ultimately deemed notable enough to be included in the article in compliance with WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS, it should not appear in the infobox.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cited sources are unrelated to the subject.--Mona778 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's not good. They appear to have moved on, let me know if they pop up again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I will. Thank you --Mona778 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Response

You have it mixed up. I was reverting another user's WP:COPYRIGHT. He literally just copy/pasted it, and the source is dubious. I've been on the talk from the beginning trying to discuss the change and he even deleted the talk at one point. I was protecting both articles, his changes need to be reverted until a reliable source can be provided and he learns not to use copyright. The other user is the one you should warn. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So all 17,433 bytes of material you blanked is a copyright violation from a single source?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. All ~17,000 bytes were added a day ago. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide me the link to the source the material was directly copied from?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Both are cited by the user: here and here. He doesn't even cite pages by the way, just the whole 75 page article. Also note that the context is cluttered into walls of text and has a lot of unencyclopedic language. These are both self published websites for when someone can't get their work published by university, that's why I raised the issue of credibility. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations need to be taken seriously, however I took multiple snippets at random from the text you removed and searched for them in both sources you note above, and I could not find a single match. If you are going to assert that the text is being removed due to copyright issues you will need to provide specific examples. If the reliability of the sources is questioned you can always gauge consensus at WP:RSN. As it stands you are edit warring extensively against editors across multiple articles and dancing near WP:3RR. No matter how right you believe you may be you need to stop the blind reverts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the copyright parts again. However, notice how most of his walls of text don't even have citations. And as I said before, he just cites the entire book at the end of some giant paragraphs, but no page numbers. Also I've tried searching for nouns from his walls of text such as: Georgian National Guard, Sioni, Cholokashvili, Katharinenfeld, Makashvili, Sadakhlo, Ayrum, Tsulukidze, Privolnoye, Korolkov, Troitskoe, Lamballo (several from every paragragh) and I'm getting no results in his sources. He also cites the numbers 100, 200, 560, 600, 4,000, 6,000, 6,500, etc. but I'm getting no results for these either. I'm suspecting he made up most of this info or or got it from a Georgian language website that's not a reliable source. Please check these nouns and numbers yourself, all of his walls of text seem to be without source and need to be removed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Oatitonimly, reproducing a large quantity of the data, claims, and opinions contained in a single source isn't a copyright violation as long as the wording has been changed. It is a content issue. There are I think questions to be asked about such an intense use of this one source for so much article content. It seems to be a self-published work [[21]], and the second citation [here] is actually the personal webpage of the author of the first source. I remember seeing a discussion about Andersen's maps being used as a basis for Wikipedia maps, if you can locate that discussion it might be useful in deciding how significant this author is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

On a separate but related note, can you help me with User:Gala19000 this user is constantly vandalizing, making personal attacks, and edit warring on pages I've edited, as you can see in his contributions right now. I opened up an enforcement request about a week ago but it has been ignored so far. I cannot clean up this user's vandalism (literal vandalism, he is duplicating pages with several copies of them) without going past 3RR anymore but as has been the case for the past half year, no admin cares that over 99% of his edits are reverts and personal attacks. He's really overqualified to be blocked for life at this point. I opened up a talk page discussion on those articles a week ago, which he is ignored, and now he's still reverting my edits while telling me to go to the talk page no less. I cannot stop his vandalism without edit warring and the admins are neglecting to do anything about it. Can you help me? --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Many of the topics you are editing are covered by discretionary sanctions. There is advice there as to how to proceed when you find yourself in such a dispute.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I already did, like I said. The admins are doing nothing about it. Oatitonimly (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You are still edit-warring. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of the AE filing is sanctions against all of you edit-warring at the various articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in an awkward spot. TMG is adding walls of text without sources and you're warning me for removing them, meanwhile Gala is not only removing my sourced edits just because he doesn't like them but is also literally adding doubles of pages and the admins aren't batting an eye, yet if I remove this I get in trouble for edit warring. And please comment on my above response as well. --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to adjudicate on disputed content. As you already have an open AE thread, admins who handle those requests will review it in due course. What you do need to do is to stop edit-warring, in will not help your case and may lead to a reviewing admin blocking your account for WP:3RR. Ensure you have consensus for your edits, and if you are having trouble with ascertaining what consensus is, perhaps start a request for comment on the relevant article talk pages.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

At least some of it is not disputed content. If, through ineptness in editing, an editor is adding into an article two and sometimes three duplicates of that article's content then it is not a content dispute. No editor will dispute that having three copies of an article's content inside the same article is wrong. And since nobody (probably not even Gala19000) is clear about which of the copies inside the same article new material has been added, it is very difficult to have content discussion on that new material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Jodense Valenciano

Okay so Jodense Valenciano was actually protected as it turns out for autoconfirmed users-so that, Jodense Valenciano (actor) and Jodense Valenciano (singer) need to be salted! Wgolf (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

All done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser check

Hello. Could you please do a user check on user:Poopupoooppooooooooo, user:Poopyfartweinerpoopr, user:Peepoopfarts and user:The new tikeem cumberbatch. I would like you to look for sleeper accounts and block their IP address if possible. CLCStudent (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 has already noted at the May 10th SPI that a range block isn't possible. There's no point in checking for sleepers if there are multiple dynamic ranges at play. They are creating the accounts sequentially upon blocking, not in bulk. We're well into WP:DENY territory, just report the socks at AIV where they'll be blocked in short order.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article

I need my deleted article data of science19 and the reason and also what to do so that next time its not deleted? Thanks! Pjpa12 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted for the reasons explained by GAB on your talk page. The article was promotional and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. I'm concerned that, even if rewritten, the website would not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (as outlined here). As a final note, if you are affiliated with Science19 you should be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

(Another) deleted article

Hi, I feel your deletion of the Hannah Wolfe article was unfair and unjustified. Hanah is a CTO of Ghost (blogging platform) (you'll now notice a dead link on that page that your deletion created!) and less interesting members of that team (mentioned later in the article and having lesser involvement) have wikpedia pages that have not been deleted, for example Darren Rowse is equally boring if not more.

So I request that you at lest grant us access to the article so we can preserve the work we've done, but also please consider that this article was written as part of a community effort to address gender imbalance in wikipedia articles and maybe Hannahs page just needs to be "as good" as the others and not better.

PuZZleDucK (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't make decisions as to whether to keep or delete articles based on how "boring" the subject is, there are specific criteria that are used to make the determination. In this case, the article made absolutely no assertions of significance other than Wolfe graduated from a business school and then was hired by her "long-time friend" to work at a blog software company. WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE includes outlines of the type of criteria and sourcing required for inclusion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

O.k. I want to improve the article, but I'm not the only author... could you please provide access to the work you deleted! How can I improve a collaborative effort when I've never seen my co-authors contribution? I also know of another person I could recruit to help, but I've got nothing to ask them to help me with.

PuZZleDucK (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are affiliated with Hannah Wolfe or the Ghost Foundation you should not be creating an article about her as it is a conflict of interest to do so. The article was bare-bones when deleted and contained no information that shows the individual meets the general or specialized notability criteria for inclusion. Is it another Wikipedia editor you would be asking for help, or would you be asking someone you know personally to also edit the article?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was at an event Women on Wikipedia in which the goal was to contribute towards a more equal gender balance on Wikipedia. It seemed quite poignant that she is the only non-linked name on the page despite having helped written the prototype (which is _very_ different to "working at a blog company")... one of the males linked to on the page "just writes blogs".

I have no damn idea who Hannah is, she was on a list of notable-women-without-wikipedia-pages. We found out about Ghost and assumed that was her main work and put together the basic article. I had to leave early and my research-buddy-for-the night continued the work after I left, maybe she did nothing, but I can't tell because it's gone.

So for starters I could talk to the event organizers and ask them why she was on the list? or if that fails find out who put them on the list and ask them.

PuZZleDucK (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can restore the article as it stood at deletion to a subpage of your userspace or email you a copy of the content if you want to look over it first. Let me know which you prefer.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Odette Annable's date of birth

Hello Ponyo!

I found the info on her imdb page. Indeed, I don't know if the date was reliable enough, so I checked it by looking at the messages on her Twitter page, which are public. However, I apologize that I forgot to cite any of the sources, I didn't think that her date of birth was debated. Thank you for your message! 79.115.168.36 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that per long-standing consensus, IMDb does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in biography articles. You can read more about the reasons for this here, here and here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives

Annoying-ass me again! The Days of Our Lives page lost its protection, and that sock has hopped two IP's to immediately continue their editing! livelikemusic talk! 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

How annoying (the IP-hopping, not you!). I've re-protected the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I'm glad it is not me who's annoying, however, I noticed the page was not re-protected! Hoping it can before Monday hits and they return once again to continue their disruptive ways! livelikemusic talk! 23:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I've protected it (again) for three months. Ponyo, if you had a different duration in mind, feel free to change.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Quentin Cooper

Was this a misclick?? The edit doesn't seem to tally with your edit summary, anyway. Yours genuinely confused, Qwfp (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

That was definitely a mistake on my part, pulling from the wrong revision. I've fixed in now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense now, ta! Qwfp (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

		Cookies!
		{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Dear Ponyo, forgive me for my revert it was unintentional![22] I guess I hit the wrong button, and after it went live I found out about it, but the actress indeed is married to the actor, so I restored it with a reliable source. Regards--Mona778 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you Mona.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Champagne

Ha, I just randomly saw your comment on the Kip's Bay talk page about popping corks if I returned. No plans to, but thanks for thinking of me :-) -- Tan39 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.212 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo

Boi I be handing out Ls taking them is where u shine since I'm handing them out I guess your next in line Okkkooo (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's you're as in "you are". Example: "You're now blocked from editing".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh snap! I know I'm a horrible person, but this cracked me up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha, this just made my day! :-) 2607:FB90:811F:E2AA:0:2A:1815:BC01 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Waldemar15

Hi! Maybe Ashley_md's account is a sockpuppet of Waldemar15. In es.wikipedia Ashley_md's account was locked because it's a sockpuppet of Waldemar15 (Covervisit/Oglesruins/etc etc etc). Regards! --Sofree (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues that make me hesitant to block. On es.Wikipedia, Ashley_md is blocked for socking, but the master is not named. On Commons they are also blocked, but as a sock of Levyn17oc, an account that has no edits here on en.wikipedia. The technical evidence is a weak  Possible, but without further evidence that this is Waldermar15, I don't feel comfortable blocking the account as a suspected sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Ponyo, I'm looking at this guy Wikiuser10indian cinema, and I notice that he's created another account which has not been used yet, which is suggestive of dirty editing. I'm not quite sure who the master is yet, although I'm seeing some intersection with ArjaanKarthik007 socks. Got any insight into this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't see any obvious master or additional accounts outside of the one you note above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for lookin'! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

172.87.165.70 / 73.232.111.6

• 172.87.165.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 73.232.111.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi Ponyo,

Your last block on this IP was a check-user block, and it appears to be back to editing again. I don't know if it's the same user as before, but you might want to be aware of it... Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:811F:E2AA:0:2A:1815:BC01 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

+Note: I've added one other IP. (I'm the same user as 2607:XXXX IP, but now using a different one). 172.56.42.144 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• The main account associated with the IP is not currently blocked, so it's not being used for block evasion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hello, and welcome back!

Dear Ponyo it seems that we have a new round of copyvio uploads from Armenian users, See here.--Mona778 (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the image and requested speedy deletion at Commons.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Quick and responsive, simply the best!--Mona778 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Outing

Welcome back. I hope you had a nice break.

Is it considered WP:Outing to reveal only the occupation of another editor? My interpretation of the policy is that you'd have to also include the company for which the editor works to constitute outing. Am I correct?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You could have at least lobbed me a softball in my first few moments back! The nuances of our outing policy is not my specialty by any means. I would think than any linking of real life identifying information that has not been provided by the editor in question would be...undesirable. I've done it to some extend with obvious PR agents and the like, but asserting someone's occupation as a fact if the editor hasn't disclosed it themselves? I wouldn't take the chance. There must be some knowledgeable folk watching this page that could give a more policy-based response.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Without checking to see who's around, I'll nudge this along the easy way. @GB fan: @DoRD: @Daniel Case: Three's enough for now. A softball, huh? Hmm, please explain in 20 words or less whether Wikipedia really exists or whether it's a figment of our collective imaginations. Support your explanation with diffs (whatever those are), which don't count toward the 20 words.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The policy says "job title and work organisation" so I would presume that either piece of information alone would not constitute outing, which still doesn't mean it's always OK to publish it IMO, as it may be taken as an implicit threat that the publicizer has information that would more clearly identify the other person, regardless of whether they actually do.

And, there are situations where an occupation may be so limited in nature (elected national-level official) or carry certain legal encumbrances (law enforcement) as to effectively hinder the so-identified editor by that identification alone. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged for some bizarre reason, even though I am quite sure everyone values my every thought on every issue. But my own humble opinion is that it's a judgement call. If they say something harmless like "Floquenbeam, I know you're a forest ranger, so I think you can help me with this", I think calling it "outing" is a stretch. If they say something like "Floquenbeam is a forest ranger; I have more information on him, but I won't disclose it due to WP:OUTING", then yeah, that's obviously done to intimidate and is outing for all intents and purposes, and I'd be willing to treat it as such. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel and Floq, and it wasn't a "bizarre reason", it was intentional to give you an opportunity to indulge your usual eloquence. I didn't know you were a forest ranger.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I could live my life over again, I'd be one. I bet forest rangers don't lay awake at night worrying about work. And I bet their blood pressure and cholestrol and BMI are 70% of those for people who live in cubicles. And they always look happy. (wistfully) Yeah, if I had to do it all over again... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm going to take the easy way out and say, "What Daniel and the would-be forest ranger said." As with how a lot of things work around here, it really depends on the nature of the information and how it's presented. Yes, as usual, it's a judgement call. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• If anyone cares to look at the context of my question, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1candidate, the resolution of which I'm still pondering. If Ponyo or DoRD has any input to the socking issue, it is of course welcome. As for the alleged outing, based on what I know, the policy was not violated. However, I am mildly curious what made these editors state their opinion as to the user's occupation. Not curious enough, though, to go back through the entire history and figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blut und Boden

Thanks. I fully intended to indef at the next jape from the fellow user, but I didn't like to do it over a "threat" on my own page. Came better from you. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

I'll leave the inevitable unblock request for you :) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent blockee..

...might need their talk page access revoked? Thanks -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're a star, thank you! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)