User talk:Ponyo/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

User:L3w15

Hello again Ponyo, to Inform you the above user L3w15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that you blocked recently is again at work adding unnecessary sub-heads and deleting warnings on their Talk page, which I understand, is considered vandalism. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: I previously blocked the editor for socking; unless there is evidence of serious continued disruption I don't see any immediate need to reblock the account. Do you have examples of specific edits you find disruptive? Also note that I reverted your restoration of their user talk page; while archiving is preferred, with few exceptions there is no policy against blanking your own talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC

Rightly or wrongly, I had seen other editors stating that deletion of warnings was considered vandalism. This user is making changes to TV pages without stating any reason for the changes. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If other editors are stating that, they're simply incorrect. It's a common enough misconception, but there's nothing barring an editor from removing warnings and block notices from their talk page (just not declined block requests on current sanctions).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Many thanks for your help and advice. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Scintillating conversation with erudite editor

What is wrong with stating religion or stuff? That’s retarded if you have a problem with that Wyatt sterba (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Well, for starters you could read the policy pages I provided on your talk page. Or you could just keep vandalising articles, calling people "quack's and "retarded" and get blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Stop posting my edits are “racist” you loser. I bet you don’t even know who Nikola Vucevic is because your Canadian and all you do is watch hockey probably. You honestly have no life if you are getting triggered at people just for stating facts. You probably work at McDonald’s and flip burgers Wyatt sterba (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Likely socks or meats

Hi Ponyo. There are two users Kanta Deb (talk · contribs) and Chandrakant Sarkar (talk · contribs) and their sole purpose of their edits are anything related to Agartala, esp Agartala Airport. I see both users are hell bound in renaming the article. If one's edits regadring the renaming (including the move) are reverted, the other comes in to redo the same. They might as well be WP:MEAT. Could you run a CU and check out if they could be socks? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: Based on geolocation it's  Possible that it's the same user, but it could very well be a coordinated effort.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo. I'll keep an eye on them and if their behaviour does get worse, I'll file an SPI. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ponyo, looks like the disruption by these users does not seem to stop. Please see Talk:Agartala_Airport#Requested_move_12_July_2018, there is one more user Omkar moon (talk · contribs) coming from nowhere to support the move. All these accounts seem to be SPAs. Let me know if an SPI is required. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: And SPI would be a good call if the disruption is ongoing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Block evading proxy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.251.148.50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

@Volunteer Marek: I'm not sure what you're wanting me to do in this case?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link, same person. Here: [1]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hard blocked now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Our edits may have crossed yesterday

making things a bit more confusing regarding User:MAdkins164 and Bitcoin Center NYC. I don't think Madkins164 is the most bothersome editor in the world, but what can I do other than just revert the spam? Basically I think he is just clueless regarding why we don't want ads and what we do actually want.

I do think he has qualified for sanctions under Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#Log_of_notifications, but that's not my call. If you're not familiar with these sanction or just uncomfortable with them, I'll suggest you ask User:MER-C or User:TonyBallioni to take a look. Since you've already dealt with him, it looks like it's your call.

Anything you want to do (or not do) is fine with me, but I dislike a situation where my only possible action seems to be multiple reversions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Well they've been notified of the sanctions and hasn't edited since I left them the COI/PAID warning, so we'll just have to see where they go from here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

An old acquaintance

User:PancakapleMapleSyrup up to the usual. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I see you have deleted Draft:Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media as it was created by a user in violation of block or ban.

However, I had worked a little bit on that article, and I would like to continue working on it. Is is possible to move it to my user space? Say User:Huldra/Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media? Huldra (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: I've turned that subpage link blue for you. If you find that having the article in your userspace attracts some unwanted sock attention, let me know and I'll semi-protect the page in order to allow you to work on it in peace.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated! Huldra (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yippee!

Hiya P. I hope you and yours have a superb vacation in the Rockies. Safe travels. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

PROMO at Hrid Majharey

Hey Ponyo. Regarding the recent edits on Hrid Majharey. Keep in mind that the edit warring policy doesn't really distinguish between who's right and who's wrong. If the disagreement continues, you need to take it to the article's talk page or you'll be seen as being equally at fault with the other editor. --Xover (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy dictates who's right and wrong, and an editor with an apparent conflict of interest who edit wars to add/restore blatant promotional material and copyright violations to articles is most definitely in the "wrong", both in the spirit and letter of our policies. I removed a chunk of promotional crap from the article on July 10th and then cleaned it further two days later. The only revert I have ever made at the article was to restore the "advert" clean-up tag the COI editor was removing. I have zero concerns regarding my actions there.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts to make this encyclopedia as incredible as it is! Mona.N (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's hot!

I hope you had a wonderful time!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Much too hot for my taste! The heat followed me back. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ponyo_insult:_i_dont_think_you're_reading_or_comprehending_any_of_the_policies 2601:155:8300:1659:4536:B605:9536:DB40 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that. After this comment I have zero interest in engaging with you further.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• User is still on the same track; I'm dropping a range block. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Noted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, did I tell you that a little birdie told me this was User:Bigshowandkane64? Some people never grow up. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Mosstacker

Is Mosstacker related to IanDBeacon? This is the Editor Interaction Analyser. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I would expect any two accounts that focused on vandal fighting to have a similar overlap (see this for example).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Understandable. I was just surprised by IanDBeacon requesting page protection for a page (Mohammad Tawhidi) that they had not edited shortly after Mosstacker had been reverting. When I saw that both account had also edited Paul D. Thacker and Autism Speaks within an hour of each other I thought something might be up. I don't know who the sock master is, but this might be something to keep an eye on. Of course if CU suggests that what I am saying is not plausible then ignore me. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

CheckUser block

Is there any documentation of an investigation into User:Techairtc? I don't see anything here or at the CheckUser wiki. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It's Architect 134 joe-jobbing as per usual.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion

In case I'm overreacting, could you take a look at Talk:Qinnasrin? I think it should be obvious what I think is going on from the article's history. The South American IP addresses do give me some degree of pause, but they show up in lists of open proxies when I do a Google search. The behavior is quite consistent with previous socks (obsession with Catholic and Syrian topics, pinpointing the location of Qinnasrin, etc). There's also a history of using South American IP addresses, especially to complain about how I revert the sockmaster's edits (see this complaint for a really transparent one). If you think I'm wrong, feel free to unprotect the page and/or unblock the IP editors. But I'm pretty convinced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I've sent you an email; WP:BEANS and all that...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

An IP being abusive

Hi @Ponyo, Bbb23, and Abecedare:.

223.230.196.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

is vandalising various pages by adding abuses. I have tried to control their vandalism by reverting but the edit summary also needs to be removed because edit summaries used by them is also full of abuses. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also:

• 223.230.196.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 223.230.140.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Revdelled the edits/edit-summaries. Semi-protected the articles that were repeat targets. Seems to be spewing indiscriminately at any Delhi-related (and also some other) pages, so I wouldn't be surpised to see them at it again. Abecedare (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up Abecedare. @Jakichandan:, this type of vandalism will likely get a faster response if reported at WP:AIV.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare and Ponyo: Thank you. —Jakichandan (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Abecedare: They are back again as 223.230.143.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since this case is already going on here I didn't go to WP :AIV. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked IP editing from 223.230.128.0/17 for two weeks. It's a large range but has surprisingly little potential collateral. The majority of IP edits in the last two weeks have been from the vandal above (I found a number of additional vandalism sprees by this same individual) and the remainder are essentially test edits and unsourced changes.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you. Their edit summaries should also be deleted because it is full of abuses.— Jakichandan (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'd revdeleted a bunch of the others ones I came across but missed the most recent ones. Done now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you. — Jakichandan (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo, Bbb23, and Abecedare: They are back again as 106.198.215.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please take a look. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

All taken care of now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. —Jakichandan (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Another sock vandal

It was created after the last sock was blocked by you [2]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

UTRS request 22155

Hi Ponyo!

Would you please be able to take a look at this request that I've put on hold on UTRS please? It's a CU block and I'm not familiar with the sock. I'm unsure what to tell them. I have posted on Berean Hunter's talk page but not received a response.--5 albert square (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What Kuru wrote in the appeal was spot on. The appeal should be declined as it's just a group of socks spamming Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Whatever block they are coming up against is working as intended. Do you want me to decline it? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, no it's fine thanks. I will decline them. Hope you enjoyed your time away - it's boiling here in the UK!--5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

We're under a heat warning on the island here as well. Stay cool!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Need help

I’m blocked from editing mobile but I’m not User:184.56.47.51. I think the block you made on him has effected unrelated IP users. 2600:1009:B015:CA7C:C998:F076:FEF9:2CCF (talk) 9:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That IP has been used extensively by a specific sockmaster for months and appears to be working exactly as intended to help prevent further disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Also Some of the edits you keep reverting aren’t sock edits at all. The one on Cancellation (television) has missing italic marks and the one on Imagi Animation Studios has a link that is just a redirect to the page. 7:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For someone who has been socking as long as you have it's surprising that you don't know what a "sock edit" is. Any further messages from you here will be removed unread.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

deletion of talk pages

Thank you for comment in my User talk page, I agree, it was my mistake. But I currently still do not understand why in Polish Wiki rules are other (see: pl:Wikipedia:Wikietykieta Nie ukrywaj wpisów ze swojej strony dyskusji – w dyskusji użytkownika znajdują się wpisy: uwagi, prośby, wskazania, opinie innych Wikipedystów. Wpisy w dyskusji nie powinny być usuwane przez użytkowników, do których się zwracano – oprócz tych, które ewidentnie mogą obrażać innych lub są atakami osobistymi. Stare wpisy powinny być archiwizowane z linkowaniem na stronie dyskusji. ----> this page has been most propably translated from ENWiki). What hapen that rules in PolishWiki and in ENwiki are different each other ? I have acount in Wikipedia since January 2009 and it was suprising to me. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Were changes on ENwiki or more developed rules? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Each wiki has its own policies and guidelines. There are some policies that are based on Wikimedia Foundation requirements, our privacy policy for example, however the day to day rules are determined by the consensus of editors on their respective wikis.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In case when user want to resign from Wikipedia (for example the user want to be blocked), he/she could delted all of his/her comments in archives of disscussion? I ask only due to fact that I remember that I found this situation authentically (when someone has wanted to do it) but it not happened finally Dawid2009 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

They could blank the discussions from their talk page, but it would all remain in the page history if other editors or administrators needed to review previous discussions. User talk pages are not deleted, however, in order to ensure the talk page history is available for review.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I just want to mention that I mentioned you in this discussion.[3] No action is required on your part, this is just a courtesy notification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser question - what if I find an IP that I agree with, on the same ISP as me

(sorry for the obtuse subject, but it was the best I could come up with)

So, let's say I stumbled upon a RFC where an IP editor has commented, and I agree with their view. However, I noticed that we're within the same IPv4 /16 range, and they geolocate to a city within a driving distance (60-90 minutes). Do I need to notify a CU about this? I realize that it's certainly not required (most users don't even know/recognize their IP or a similar one), but what would be the best practice? Notify a CU (which may seem like a deliberate attempt at misleading any potential CU investigation), or ignore it because it happens all the time? Obviously, I picked the first option this time, but just wanted to know, for future reference.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I've never been in a situation like this, so - better safe than sorry. =) byteflush _Talk 21:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• The "ignore it because it happens all the time" option would be best. A /16 range is very large and unless there is a specific reason to suspect you of socking would never lead to a check of your account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. I thought so, but just wanted to be on the safe side. =) byteflush _Talk 23:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dusty867676

Thank you for checking into the dispute. I have no objection to the block on Dusty, but "indefinite" might be overdoing it without any IP evidence that it is a alternate account. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be a globally locked LTA. Checkuser also showed spatterings of logged out vandalism.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the lock is actually because the account got compromised (password got posted in public). The next account was blocked at here and also community banned at simplewiki (but not locked currently). They actually self-requested that account to be locked today at meta so they can "create new account after the period has expired"... I doubt they've got the competence to edit here. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 23:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about yet another notification but don't forget to revoke talk page access. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 23:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RevDel on Emmure

You need to go 2 more revisions back, it was first added by an IP (and reverted by ClueBot) and the BLP violations are still visible in the history. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Emergency page protection

Hello. I would like to make an emergency protection request for Juanpi because the vandalism is ongoing. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block

Hello,

You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that administrators who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, administrators would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Lightning fast

Blocking the Granados sock was lightning fast. :) Thank you very much Ponyo. Take care. Dr. K. 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I do what I can.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

footvolley

The user: Sumanuil kept deleting external links for two organizations we have worked for over a decade on. US Footvolley - usafootvolley.org and pro footvolley tour at www.footvolley.net we don't understand why the user continuosly maliciously removes our links? in addition, we tirelessly found links as references from bonafide newspapers proving history and put them into the body of our text. this user maliciously removed all of them. strange. dangerous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c (talk • contribs)

I've semi-protected the article due to your continued disruption. Stop spamming the article with links, stop personally attacking other editors, and request changes on the article talk page in accordance with WP:COI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

continued disruption? more like the continued deletion of history. NOBODY IS SPAMMING ANYTHING. what are you talking about? We added REFERENCES from bonafide media sources. who is this wikipedia police that knows nothing about the history of the sport we work with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c (talk • contribs)

If you review the information and links provided to you, all will be illuminated.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

P-Diddy?

Padma? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Computer says  Likely. There was also Micahinert, which I've blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing edits

The edits on Steven Jorens page are correct and should not be removed. Gobusdays (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Gobusdays, have you read the information and links I provided on your talk page? If not, please do before editing further.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you I know about Steven and Tamas because I am a sprint kayaker from their area. There is written and published information as to their paddling history and their paddling careers now. How can I add the information without it becoming removed? Should I add references if I add information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobusdays (talk • contribs)

Yes, in order for the information to be added it needs to include a reliable source.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Years of birth and death

I have added years of birth and death for the 11 regular characters here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M*A*S*H_(TV_series)#Characters but one editor says that info is not appropriate. Who sets this standard? I think it's useful encyclopedic info which people appreciate seeing in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk • contribs)

The year of birth or the actors who portray the characters in the program in irrelevant trivia, which is why you continue to be reverted when you try to add it. If you believe the dates should be included for this article, you need to get consensus on the article talk page. If you believe all cast articles should include this information then you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User Talk attacks

Just an FYI, the three IPs that hit my User Talk page are all by the same person. He shows up on Wikia/Fandom wikis every so often to voice his discontent. I was the one who happened to be there on his latest visit and fended him off. I won't name him, but he does have a sockpuppeteer category here. He may return after the protection on my Talk page expires, but it's nothing I can't handle and doesn't bother me. —RRabbit42 (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@RRabbit42: Feel free to ping me if you they kick up again and want your page protected (or if I'm not around you can request it at WP:RFPP).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Paddington sock

Thanks for that. I was contemplating starting an ANI thread about this chap was charging in like a bull in a china shop and making too many mistakes, but this saves me the time ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't divulge much, of course, but you can safely assume similar edits to terrorism-related articles from Softbank Japan IPs are from the same sockmaster.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, we really shouldn't have articles like 2018 Westminster suspected terrorist attack, at least not right now this minute. However, the last time I tried to AfD an article like that per WP:NOTNEWS, I got an avalanche of speedy keep !votes on the grounds that the article might be encyclopedic eventually and gave up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but that is an unwinnable fight to take on.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Good job catching that little mistake of mine. Thanks for letting me know! Swarm ♠ 16:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Prayer vandal

Wow, nice reflexes. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks <cracks knuckles>.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Lazarus arise

Would you mind looking at UTRS appeal #22390 whenever you have a chance to see if there is any technical data in the UTRS request that might link it to other accounts here. Given that its an IPBE request from a Lazarus account I suspect it might be compromised and being used for UPE. Sorry to bother you here rather than in the UTRS feed, but I thought it might be good to reach out since there was no recent on-wiki activity. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I've responded there; not much to go on unfortunately. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking anyway. Much appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A Favor

Would it be at all possible if I could ask if you could delete or hide the personal attack the now-blocked troll Trimplant directed towards me in the edit summary?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I rev-deleted it as it crossed the line from a personal attack (which isn't really rev-deleteable under policy) into "slurs, smears" which are.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you very much.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Solo

The user removed my comment from his talk page because it shows how he accused me of edit warring in the article for Solo: A Star Wars Story when it clearly was not the case according to Wikipedia rules. I demmand he at least archives it so it serves to me as a defense just in case I get blocked. Have you followed my edits or those of the user in question? --Kronnang Dunn (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kronnang Dunn: The reason for the removal is irrelevant as there is absolutely no policy that prevents the editor from removing your message if they choose. You can "demand" as much as you want (as long as it doesn't become disruptive), but there is no corresponding requirement for RustedAutoParts to meet your demand. Did you read WP:BLANKING? Specifically the last sentence which states "Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule"? I'm not interested in your content dispute, I'm interested in ensuring you don't end up with a 3RR block due to your misunderstanding of what can and cannot be removed from a talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ponyo

Why are you deleting all my revisions? I removed the link to the pdf of the site I cited in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cossack420 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cossack420: Please read the messages provided on your talk page. You are adding walls of text to Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate that includes text lifted directly from [this document]. The document is not a reliable source and the content is a copyright violation.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable source? It comes directly from the Kyivan Patriachate. I did make some minor changes to it. I also removed the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cossack420 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a single primary source that is being used to substantiate an extremely large amount of material. Per WP:RSPRIMARY, "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.". Also, you have not addressed the copyright concerns. Including the link is not the copyright violation, the use of the text is. In addition to the policy concerns, adding full paragraphs of text from a government document into an encyclopedia article does not help maintain the neutrality required.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

City of Split page (dating style)

Hi

I have added my arguments to the talk page outlining why the dating style should be reverted back to the BC-AD style. Please read through them as you will see that the edit I made was in good faith and should be upheld, particularly given the evidence I point out in said discussion.

One point I would like to add is that you argued that the current style (BCE-CE) has been extant for several years and shouldn't be altered. While that is true it could be easily be argued that the BC-AD style was extant for almost 10 years prior to its arbitrary changing by 'Lemmy C' in 2014.

Thanks for your message. Zulu1963 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, now you can see if there is consensus for your preferred version. If you find that there are few editors participating I would suggest starting an RfC - this would be particularly helpful as it appears that your recent interests center primarily on making such dating changes on a variety of articles.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for responding, I'll look into setting up and RFC. Zulu1963 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		for the most original block basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was irked. The Vietnam war? Really?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Benniejets socks

Hi Ponyo, Thanks for the recent Extended confirmed protections on Group of Seven and Group of Eight. IMO, we need ECP's on some other articles as well which have recent constant disruption from the editor and his socks for the past few months. Nuclear power in Italy, National wealth, List of countries by wealth per adult, Great power, Middle power, Nuclear Sharing. Please let me know if I need to put in a formal request for all these or provide more evidence to convince you. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I've been evaluating the articles for semi-protection as the socks pop up. Nuclear power in Italy has been edited by a single sock in the previous 12 months altogether and the rest of the articles show sporadic socking by this sockmaster over months with no sustained activity. I don't see enough disruption to semi the articles in question. I've watchlisted the SPI and will continue to evaluate the need for protection over time; if you want to seek a second opinion via WP:RFPP that's perfectly ok with me. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this as of now. I have all those pages on my watchlist for now. I will ping you if I need any help. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating; thanks for your help in keeping a lid on the disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

See this

[4] Noticed the IP making personal attacks, traced back the original blocked IP who is blocked until Nov 6 so blocked this accordingly. Love the implied threat. I suspect this is someone with an account, maybe blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime blocked one of their IPs globally. They're active across multiple projects with the IP you just re-blocked, it should probably be globally blocked as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Although that's a shorter block. How do we get that done? Doug Weller talk 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I pinged There'sNoTime, who was the blocking Stewart on the older IP, so we should be good to go. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had revi deal with it in #wikimedia-stewards ^connect. Probably the quickest way to get their attention. TNT might want to block longer, but at least it’s immediately handled. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You're a star. Many thanks, Tony.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• This edit summary needs oversight. And the IP needs to be blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 20:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rev-deleted, not oversighted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access

I feel things like this warrant revoking the blocked user's talk page access. Would you agree? Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I could care less about the personal attacks against me, but they dragged someone else into it, so tpa revoked. It amazes me that this particular sockmaster can't figure out what keeps giving them away, both from a CU and behavioural standpoint. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

IP sock of Knson

On 16:16, 23 August 2018 you blocked 86.148.0.80 for 72 hours as a block-evading sock of Knson. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knson.)

The block ended on 26 August, and he/she resumed making the same kind of edits as before from that IP. Please could you give him/her a longer block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, for two weeks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the talkpage cleanup. Always appreciated. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry for the hassle. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Szlachta

Hello!

Currently you protected article Szlachta, which is good. But unfortunately you protected the version with statements that are under discussion now. Could you please revert and protect page to one that does not include states that are under discussion until consensus will be found. Thank you. Korwinski (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For additional information please see discussion page. Korwinski (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Whichever version I had protected would have been the "wrong" one for one of the editors concerned (see WP:WRONGVERSION).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet previous version does not include any statements that are under discussion for which user Excess started edit war for. So there’s no harm to users viewing this Wikipedia article. While current edits includes edits that are completely misleading (Anti-Polish one) and are actually false (second part).Korwinski (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

All of which you can discuss and get consensus for on the article talk page. If you are able to come to some conclusion regarding the content prior to then I can unprotect the page at any time. I understand you are frustrated, but what I can't do is make a judgment on the content prior to protecting unless it contains BLP violations or vandalism. I strongly suggest you use the options outlined on the dispute resolution page to bring in additional editors to the discussion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Again. User Excess added questionable edit. And then another one. I started discussion. And then he violates WP:Consensus and starts WP:Edit war. I have no problem with returning any previous version that does not include questionable statements. Korwinski (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, as the protecting admin I cannot become involved in your content dispute by picking a side (see WP:INVOLVED). The purpose of the protection was to avoid blocking both of you for edit warring. You're welcome.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

So user violates WP rules and adds questionable information, and the best solution you chose was to leave questionable statements in the article misleading users in the meantime. While mine proposal to remove them (and not add anything else) for time being, until this dispute is declined simply because of another WP rule, ignoration which by user Excess was the reason to cause this issue in the first place. Nice one. Korwinski (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As you clearly are not listening to the reasons why Wikipedia's policies required me to protect the article as it was, we can end this conversation. Your time would be better served on the article talk page than here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

MyLidlThrowaday

Do you know who he is? E-mail if you prefer. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, didn't look too closely once I saw the proxies, but there are plenty of masters that play that game. Total waste of our very valuable time.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Szlachta#"Anti-Polish"_Uprising

Talk:Szlachta#"Anti-Polish"_Uprising

Thanks for not blocking. Reference uses the specific words "anti-Polish," and another user decides to revert/delete the reference as their evidence that reference and supporting references (Encyclopædia Britannica) are wrong. Pursuing RfC and Mediation. Thanks for help. - Exxess (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ponyo, I'm not very familiar with Exxess (talk · contribs). Is this how they normally behave? If it is, perhaps some direct advice - seeing that this was roundly rejected. If not normal, we may have a compromised account on our hands. If it had been a newbie, I would have suggested WP:NOTHERE - but their first edit was eleven years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, I just protected Szlachta to prevent the back and forth between two editors who had been arguing through edit summaries for days. It's definitely a touchy topic, so I'm not entirely surprised that there's disagreement and some lashing out (not that that's ok). I don't see any evidence that the account is compromised; Excess has been editing consistently for quite some time (see this for example). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

NO, it's not a compromised account. Focus on the discussion, which i am advancing, and another using is REVERTING references from reputable sources because they think the words anti-Polish for a past historical event equates to stating Polish death camps for Nazi concentration camps, a huge current issue in Poland. The cited references use the specific words anti-Polish. Do we have to take a WORD COUNT of instances OF BOLDNESS FOR EMPHASIS, a matter of personal taste, instead of focusing on the discussion? (rhetorical question) - Exxess (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Exxess: stop with the bolding and all caps. It's rude, obnoxious, and does nothing to advance your arguments.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tlmw.

Sorry that person is causing you undue stress. I am trying to do nothing to escalate the situation while continuing to deal with what I see as problematic edits on pages that otherwise be overlooked. Peace. PaulCHebert (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been here a while, it would take significantly more to up my stress levels. I have to admit though, being labelled a "hunter killer team" in collusion with you is more on the unusual side of things.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

your recent removal of shared material from a G8

Hi. No doubt you were alerted to a contribution to a page titled "Convention on Cybercrime Reporting" or suchlike, which you then proceeded to purge, as the contribution was archived in the historical edits, I suspect. That page has since been G8 exempted, so, if you please, go ahead and restore that what you have removed. It would not be advisable to persist in making false-representations of puppetry,evasion,conspiracytheoretics, or other "suspected" transgression (progression) to act against this IP contributor. If you disagree with an edit made to an article proper by an IP or user thats ok, but talkpage contributions needn`t always be annihilated.126.3.22.218 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This might interest you

as you reverted someone in the range.[5] Bish is better at me at finding the full range, but I found a slew of old blocks on both individual IPs and a smaller range. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. (And Bish is better at just about everything than me...so we're in the same boat).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

CU Again

<Clears throat ostentatiously/>

I've done a long check on you my friend
And I'll tell you all about it when I CU again
I spent a long time, blocked your VPN
Nab those webhosts, sleepers, proxies when I CU again
When I CU again

(Oh oh oh oh, oh oh oh oh...)

GAB^gab 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's...that's...spectacular! Charlie Puth ain't got nothing on GAB!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

NI Troll

Hello Ponyo, Many thanks for your block of IP:31.48.251.152, but could I also point out that they are also "contributing" under 5.80.140.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps you could deal with this too? I have reported both IPs to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218. Thanks and regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your Username

This is just something random, but where did you get your username from? It seems like you had this account before the Studio Ghibli movie of the same name was released. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an old nickname; just coincidence that I share it with the brain child of the great Miyazaki.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hayao is one talented person for creating beautful Anime films. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in here with a sudden realization/question: I have always assumed it was two syllables: "PON-yo," like the second syllable of "upon" followed by the vernacular greeting. Now I realize it's probably three: Pony-O. Can I kindly, albeit selfishly, trouble you for clarification, now that I'm utterly unsure? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Your first instinct was correct, it's "PON-yo". Not that I have anything against ponies! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

unblock request in limbo

I was wasting time looking at CAT:UNBLOCK and ran across User:Waspex, with a request pending since August. Looks like you opined that their explanation was technically feasible, and any admin was free to unblock if they bought the explanation (and addressed the use of two accounts). It also looks like they've tried but failed to ping you. I'm inclined to unblock (if they even still want it), but I can't even see where they misused the alternate accounts in the first place so I'm worried I'm missing something big. Any additional info? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: If I follow the breadcrumb path I left early last month when I ran the checks, I had concerns regarding undisclosed paid editing brought about by a request for advance permissions after creating an article that looks like it may have been UPE. In the PERM request Waspex noted they had another account and that they had multiple articles waiting for review when the account had only created one. A check showed that the Waspex account and the Rapid43 and MaxMilchmann socks were created in the same two week time frame and all of them created similar user pages after they had begun editing, with similar edit summaries, but purporting to be different people (Rapid43 Waspex created with edit summary "'Ello" MaxMilchmann created with the edit summary "hello" StarshipC with the edit summary "intro"). The edit summaries between the accounts all looked similar, with a few idiosyncrasies across the accounts. I outlined some of this in the SPI. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that clarifies; so it looks like you may have nipped the creation of an UPE sockfarm in the bud? I agree that draft article has a whiff of UPE to it. I'm not 100% sure it's a slam dunk. I'm tempted to unblock with a fairly ungentle comment about UPE and sockpuppetry and see what happens. Would you object to that? Am I being too gullible? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Their explanation is feasible, but I really wanted an admin to look at the behavioural evidence with fresh eyes (as opposed to my tired jaded ones) in lieu of making the determination myself. I trust your judgment implicitly (that's not hyperbole), so if you think it's worth a shot to extend them some rope along with a clear warning regarding UPE and using a single account, I support that.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll do that. About to go offline for a bit but will come up with something later today. I just find it a pleasure to have a minor disagreement with someone I respect. I know that sounds odd (I mean, technically this isn't even a real disagreement), but do you know what I mean? No worrying about whether you have ulterior motives; much easier to admit you could be right and I could be wrong than if you were a jerk; no worrying that I'll have made an enemy if I decide to do something you don't agree with; and an excuse to come to your talk page and say "hi". Seems like it should be that way 99% of the time. Also seems like it isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I do indeed know what you mean. I'd rather be wrong occasionally and serve up a genuine mea culpa than to never be challenged at all.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done If you think I wasn't strict enough, feel free to pile on further. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits of Helene Walsh's page are removing accurate and appropriately sourced information

Several people have added information to Helene Walsh's Wikipedia page that are not only accurate but are sourced from legitimate media and supported by numerous screenshots of the Facebook post in question. There is no reason that negative but true information about a person's bio should be removed from a Wikipedia page. She made the post. She defended the post. She removed it ONLY when the press picked up on it and she got backlash that she apparently didn't expect. She is currently holding public office and running for re-election. This is legitimate information about her that people ought to be able to find. If she wishes to post something defending or apologizing for her actions, she should do so. But to act as if she didn't post something awful on her Facebook page and then defend it against criticism before removing it and trying to pretend she never did it, is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackermomrocks (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The material was removed as a violation of Wikipedia's core policies. Screenshots of Facebook pages are not reliable sources, nor are local political blogs and webites. All of this was explained on the talk page prior to the page being protected from edits from additional throw-away accounts and IPs being used solely to post a controversy section to the article, nearly doubling it in size, contrary to WP:UNDUE. Editors who are interested in adding the material (or not, as the case may be) can use the talk page to discuss the extent the single event should be included, assuming reliable sources can be found to support its inclusion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a block

Hi Ponyo. This is the paperwork. Subject to the usual disclaimers of sorry to bother you, if you have the time, etc.. Take care. Dr. K. 08:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo again. No worries, DQ's pixie dust cleaned them up. Take care. Dr. K. 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New message

Hi Ponyo, I would like to draw your attention to the the wiki page of "Draupadi" which is undergoing constant vandalism and removal of large chunk of sourced information. Blocking of the users is not helping, as the said user is constantly creating new accounts. Could you please look into the matter? My id is panchalidraupadi. I am trying to undo the vandalism, only to be reverted every few hours.

Panchalidraupadi (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Cyphoidbomb was all over this.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockmaster q

Ponyo, just wanted to confirm if the sockmaster of KARNSANGINI (talk · contribs) (whom you blocked) is User:MKS Harsha (SPI)?

The user is back as KarnaArjuna4 (talk · contribs), and I wanted to make sure before I tagged the latest account. Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I duck blocked KARNSANGINI based on obvious socking here, which is why it's not tagged to any particular master. If you'd like I can check KarnaArjuna4 against MKS Harsha, but I'm not sure it's necessary if the behavioural connection is a slam dunk.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the socking is as obvious as it ever gets (see User:KarnaArjuna3, User:KarnaArjuna2...) and have gone ahead and blocked the latest avatar.

Fwiw, I now believe that User:MKS Harsha (SPI) = User:KINGPORUS (SPI), although confirming that and tidying up the SPIs may be more of an academic exercise and perhaps not worthwhile. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

IP Thing

I keep removing the IP header because it is incorrect, and this is not a shared IP address, so quit adding that to my page. Is that simple enough for you to understand? Or do you just like being an annoyance? And seriously, threatening me with a ban because I'm trying to fix an error? That is extremely childish and petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. At any point in time you could have actually explained why you were removing it; even an edit summary would have sufficed. Also, I wasn't threatening you with a ban, I noted that following your previous blocks your habit of reverting instead of discussing was still evident and would likely lead to a block (see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF); that comment still applies.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Paresh Rawal

Hi Ponyo,

Thanks for your help on the Paresh Rawal article a few days ago. I didn't notice that the source for the birth date was a celebrity database, so I'll have to remember to check the sources a little more thoroughly in the future.

I found a couple of news articles about the actor that mention his birth date as May 30, 1950, here and here. I'm hoping that these are reliable enough to use as sources in the article, but since the actor's birth date has been changed a lot lately, I wanted to get some kind of consensus before adding it back in.

I posted on the article's talk page a few days ago about the proposed change, but haven't gotten any replies yet. Since you seem to be pretty good at this, I wanted to see if I could get your opinion before I made any further changes to the article.

Thanks,

Random character sequence (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Random character sequence: The first link, bollywoodlife, is a blog and definitely not a reliable source. The second, at first glance, appears more reliable, but if you look closer you can see they've lifted their images without any type of attribution and there is no information on their website as to where they obtain their information, their privacy policy or disclaimers. That's dodgy and doesn't meet the "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required to be considered a reliable source. I will make a note on the article talk page as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I know I already posted on the article's talk page, but thanks for helping me out with this. I feel like working on it helped me have a better understanding of the WP:DOB and WP:RS policies. My 30 second google search didn't pull up any better sources, so I'm just gonna leave it as is for now. Random character sequence (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This message makes me happy, Random character sequence. Having a solid understanding of reliable sourcing requirements when it comes to BLP subjects is invaluable, both to the Wikipedia community and to the individuals who have articles here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

IP 31.51.79.213

Hello Ponyo, when you reverted the IP user 31.51.79.213 and added the link to WP:BANREVERT in the edit summary, who exactly is the banned user that was adding these edits under the guise of an IP? I could find nothing about this IP user at WP:SPI and do not know where else this could be found. Curious, Loopy30 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: this is the relevant SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo, I still don't see this IP address on the SPI page, or any other in the same range, but assume it was the fallout of the SPI. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I had blocked one of the IPs previously and recognized them when they popped up on my watchlist. The IP belongs to the same ISP and geolocates to the same location. No SPI needed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop

Why are you harassing and bullying me. That wasn't a edit war. I was doing my job on Wikipedia. you don't get it Ponyo.Wizard2988 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Jesus wept. I'm fairly certain that if a dime magically appear in my wallet every time an editor falsely cried "harassment!" or "bullying!" whenever another editor disagreed with them or tried to warn them that their behaviour is inappropriate, I could afford a pretty fine bottle of Knob Creek to grace my bar. It minimizes the seriousness of true harassment and bullying each time the accusation is thrown out in such a flippant manner. You have a propensity to edit war as opposed to attempting to discuss issues and come to a consensus using article talk pages. Do you know how I know this? Because your article talk page contributions amount to bupkis. Some people learn from their mistakes, others...not so much. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef. (Wizard, not you...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oy. There are some days the inverse would be welcome.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It would almost be worth the consequences to watch the uproar if I actually did it, and then walked away from WP for the day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Just don't do it on a Friday afternoon; I'll never make it through to the weekend.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination of Draft: Adam Barber

Hi Ponyo, I've updated the personality and cited more material. Is it possible to remove the Speedy Deletion Nomination? Thank you for your assistance, Best Devatos (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Devatos: The speedy deletion template was removed after I moved the article to draft space. Well done on updating the draft, it looks much better now with regards to meeting our notability requirements; though I can't guarantee the article will never be deleted it definitely no longer meets the speedy deletion criteria. Do you want me to move it back to article space for you?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, You've made me very happy and thankful! I'm glad you like the updated personality. I still have a way's to go; it's coming along little-by-little. Wiki is new to me (and I am enjoying it) but I'm racing to make a notable person entry quickly and be respectful of the Wiki rules and etiquette and as you can guess, I'm learning much along the way. I would deeply appreciate your help in placing [Draft: Adam Barber] back to article space [Adam Barber]. Thank you for your gracious assist. Best, Devatos (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Devatos: I've moved it back to article space (Adam Barber).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)