Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

User: 109.151.65.218

Hello Ponyo, You recently made a temp block on the above user, but they have re-surfaced again with the same unhealthy edits concerning rape - see their recent contributions. I really feel that it is time for this person to be permanently blocked together with their other IP addresses:-

IP: 86.145.115.96 IP: 81.155.101.252 IP: 86.128.136.63

All the addresses are in Northern Ireland, UK. In the past they have also left strange notes on the reverters Talk page, showing their unhealthy obsession.

Can I leave this with you please?

Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reblocked that specific IP. I've already told the editor that they are de facto indef blocked, I just can't technically block the IP's indefinitely as they are dynamic. Please let me know if you see them pop up elsewhere.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. I'll continue to keep an eye on all the IP addresses they "edit" from. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Ponyo, I'm afraid our "editor" with the unhealthy obsession with rape has surfaced yet again on various Talk pages, this time under 86.144.108.22 (talk · contribs) - again located in Northern Ireland, UK. They appear to be hopping from IP to IP, with their strange ideas. I'm seriously worried about this person. Can I leave with you for action please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The IP is now blocked. At this point we're clearly in whack-a-mole territory. They make themselves terribly obvious, so we just need to block and revert the damage when it appears and hope they tire of their shenanigans.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ponyo, Many thanks for all your help. I fear we have a seriously disturbed person here. By my records they have been using at least five different IP's, usually making the same alterations and asking the same comments, which has already been answered. All this has been going on for ages now. I just hope they eventually get the message. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi, I've found potentially more sock puppets of User:Mujhideen101 for similar edits, I'm fairly confident both Loyafghan101 and Muhammadali1001 are sock puppets. I'm not so sure about Afghanfootballteam, but probably worth a look at. Thanks Flickerd (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There were a few socks in the drawer, Loyafghan101, Afghanfootballteam, Muhammadali1001 and Defeatvictory, all of which are now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about CU

No, don't worry, I'm not going to bitch about it, or demand it be done, you've closed it, and as far as I'm concerned, it's closed. however, on this CU , you gave a reason for not doing it as "no overlap". Since both users only edited the same page and made exactly the same edit that would strike me as overlap. Is the official definition of overlap not the same ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The editors had no overlap in account usage, that is they were not using more than one account contemporaneously in order to cause disruption. Given the first account only made a single edit months ago, it's just as likely that they forgot their password or abandoned their account. <shrug> I see no basis to use the checkuser tool in this situation, though you're free to approach another CU if you feel strongly about it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I won't ask for a CU (like I said, you closed it, therefore I consider it closed as well ). Thanks for the explanation, I understand now what you mean when you said "overlapping accounts ", and I agree with you. Thanks again. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Happy to clarify.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

Ponyo, Have sent a personal email. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please block a blatant sock?

Valoo the Cuddly Dragon is a rather blatant sock of User:John Daker, what with removing a sockpuppet notice from the page of one of the socks and blanking the edit filter request pertaining to him, both within minutes of registering. Going here because acknowledging him would only encourage, I suspect, and you were the latest active admin in the block log. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

2014 Bird flu outbreak in Kerala

Hi Ponyo,

I'm currently working on an article for an ongoing H5N2 outbreak in the U.S. I couldn't help but notice that the article 2014 Bird flu outbreak in Kerala was a blue link from Template:Flu just several hours ago, and now the article has been G5 speedied by you.

I happened to have a glance at this article earlier (particularly for getting category ideas for my own article), and though I didn't read in-depth, I recall it being nothing out of the ordinary as far as an article should be. It seemed fairly complete and sourced, to the point that nothing stuck out at me at least. It possibly was even a valuable article.

It doesn't appear the article was ever deleted before. It was reviewed back in February, and that is the only other entry I see besides the speedy today. I hate to think the only reason this has been deleted is that the user who created it was previously banned (which the G5 seems to imply). I have no clue about the history of this user, nor any sort of situations that might be involved with the article beyond what I see in the log, so I'm certainly not trying to get into the middle of anything crazy here.

Since you speedied this article, I figured I'd ask you before checking elsewhere: I would like to request that you restore the article, with history, to my userspace. I'd like to have a look, see if I can make any improvements if needed, and re-launch it.

Thank you,

OrbitHawk (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@OrbitHawk: the article was created by a blocked user who is socking extensively and they were the only substantial editor of the article, hence the deletion. If you would like I can email you a copy of the article so that you can review the material and make use of the sources if you would like to recreate it (in your own words). Given the blocked editor's history with copyright issues it would be helpful to have the article rewritten from scratch by a knowledeable and willing editor. Please let me know if you would like me to send you a copy. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If the article appears to be a copyvio, please do e-mail it. Otherwise I stand by my request to have it restored into my userspace. Either way, I'll do what I can with it before it goes live again. Thank you for your help! --OrbitHawk (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@OrbitHawk: The article can now be found at User:OrbitHawk/2014 Bird flu outbreak in Kerala. Good luck! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem at an article you edited once not too long ago

Since you're an admin, can you help make sense of something I explained at this article's talk page? It concerns genre warring you recognized as sock puppetry months ago. Should the page be protected again or is enough explained warranting blocking the possible socks? Dan56 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dan56: They're more MariaJaydHicky socks ( Confirmed against last blocked sock Rahmastrike). I've semi'ed the article but you may want to go through the contributions of the following accounts I just blocked to mitigate any damage:
Let me know if any more pop up.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

LTA Troublemaker

The IP you recently blocked (36.231.118.169 (talk · contribs) is a long-term abuser troll named Sven70 (talk · contribs). He has already edited the talk page to attack you. I recommend adjust the block settings, pull talk page access, e-mail, etc. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Geez, if they're going to attack me they could do better than <waves hand in general direction of the IP talk page> whatever that was. Regardless, I've pulled talk page access as they're obviously just going to start throwing up bogus unblock requests.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I believe he was trying to call you a "disabld8inashol!!", which would be a "disabled (person)-hating asshole!". It's his most common insult. I'm closer than ever to writing a LTA report on him because he is just really a disruptive troll. He loves to hit Jimbo Wales' page and the main page with his claims of persecution of the disabled. Very tiresome. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
How curious. Are they insinuating that I hate disabled people? Or I'm disabled and hate people? They should be more clear so I know how offended I should be. Sorry you have to deal with such folk.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Likely?

Hey, I just blocked User:PifEnglish & HerculeGerman for vandalism since the account was a hoax only deal. Some of the hoaxes were animations like this one and this one. Since I'd brought that one BambiFan01 sock to SPI, I wondered if this was the same person trying out a new sock. There's nothing blatant here like there was with the other one- it's mostly just the propensity for creating hoaxes about animated shows that sort of set off tingling alarms. It's not enough that I'd open up a new SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 tracked down the culprit whilst I enjoyed a lovely summer-like weekend.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible (very!) sockpuppet

You recently (yesterday?) deleted several pages,"G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)" that are back again!

Recreated by 'new' user Roshan025 (talk · contribs). That name strikes a chord with me, somewhere! Possibly Arshad Roshan.a.a (talk · contribs) aka Roshan014 (talk · contribs) ? - 220 of Borg 13:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: Who may also be interested. 220 of Borg 13:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a very obvious sockpuppet. I reported this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshad Roshan.a.a for record-keeping purposes and to request a CU check for sleepers. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. Yes rather obvious from the edit histories of various pages. The clever number change from '014' to '025' nearly fooled me though! - 220 of Borg 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I particularly enjoyed this edit of his, which he made right after I pointed out in the SPI that his other accounts' user pages list him as living in Jeddah. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
And that sneaky Bbb23 strikes again! Roshan025's been blocked, and I just zapped the latest account The Indian 001.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

David Easter

Hey Ponyo I personally knew David Easter so I dont need to cite a source when I was there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgunnsm2 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jgunnsm2: Actually you do still have to provide a source, especially if reverted or challenged about an edit (which has happened 3 times now), and especially if it is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP). 'Personal knowledge' is not a reliable source (WP:RS). If you have a source for him having lived in Claygate, fine, but being "a model neighbour knocking on doors to let them know they had left their car headlights on." is what we call unencyclopaedic information. 220 of Borg 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better myself, thanks 220 of Borg!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup! 220 of Borg 02:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi

Per AFD, I'd like to bring back Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's back now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Why did you remove the image from the article Ivan Maryadaraman w/ no reason provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jksamnjason (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited the Ivan Maryadaraman article; the image was removed by a bot.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ludovico De Luigi

Hello, first sorry for my english.

I edited the article regarding my father and my edit was rejected because of "conflict of interest". Off course I understand that would be difficult for me to be objective to write about a subject where, like in this case, I'm involved.

But in this case I'm not writing nothing like opinions or point of view. It is a fact that my father isn't still married with Janice Lefton since, at least, 30 years ago. Janice born on 1915, she died many years ago and my father, about 30 years ago, got married for a second time (and divorced 5 years ago). I would not write any of these information, just change the sentece "Ludovico De Luigi IS married to the American artist Janice Lefton" to "Ludovico De Luigi WAS married to the American artist Janice Lefton". In an objective point of view, you can't write that he is still married to Janice Lefton as you do not have any proofs about it and your sources (PeggyGuggnheim collection link) doesn't say he is still married as the text your are refferred to is related to an event that happen about 50 years ago (1967).

I do not want to do polemics, but, as I am son of Ludovico, I do not understand how you can take a link of a webpage and report the information in it and think it is more reliable then my word (as I am son of Ludovico).

The link you took is this: http://www.guggenheim-venice.it/inglese/collections/artisti/biografia.php?id_art=51

Other thing: my father (and my) surname is "De Luigi" and not "de Luigi". The title of the page is wrong and I do not know to correct. Last thing, my father real name is Lodovico but he choose to call himself Ludovico instead (kind of pseudonym). I do not know if it is important or not...

These last changes are not important and I will not "fight for my right", but the information that my father is still married with Janice Lefton is simply wrong and with no proofs.

About the information I can give about him, if you want I can give you documents to proove my truthfulness.

Best regards

Luca De Luigi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deluigiluca (talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Any personal information that is added to or changed in Wikipedia biography articles must be supported by a reliable source to allow for verification of the information. Purporting to have information that is not verifiable is original research; reader's need to be able to verify that the content of the biographies are accurate and that can't be done if you are adding your own personal knowledge or experiences to the article. As the current state of the marriage is disputed I have removed it from the article altogether in order to be compliant with our policy regarding living persons.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Gohar Kheirandish

Hi,

Thanks you for reviewing my edits on Gohar Kheirandish page. Since you reverted my edits because of not citing the changes to a non-wiki source, I was wondering if it would be acceptable to cite websites in other languages such as Farsi or not?

Masoudnbox (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masoudnbox: Sources do not need to be in English as long as they meet the reliable sourcing criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

JetsAndYankees4Life

It appears JetsAndYankees4Life (talk · contribs) is now editing under LastResort4All (talk · contribs). User has done this numerous times now.--Yankees10 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the account and reported it to the Checkuser email list for a global lock.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo (film)

Hi. I've seen you around WP, but now that I've seen Ponyo your username has taken on a new (and positive) meaning to me. It makes me wonder if there's any association. I see that you've been around since 2007, but the movie came out in 2008. Are you half goldfish, half small child? Do you like ham? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Alas, my username is unrelated to the great Hayao Miyazaki's work. I do like ham however.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Rev-deletion needed

I do not feel that this info should remain public in edit summaries. [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's public information easily available via the geolocation link on the IP's contributions page. There's nothing close to rev-deleteable in the link you provided.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert at BBC Two

Hi,

I've just reverted your revert of an IP edit at BBC Two – you marked the revert as minor and didn't provide any explanation in the edit summary, which normally implies it's reverting obvious vandalism, but I don't think the edit you reverted is obvious vandalism at all.

Let me know if I've missed something?

—me_and 09:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Me and: The edit was made by an long-tern absusive sock who hops IPs daily to evade their blocks. Rollback automatically marks such edits as minor. The sockmaster is blatantly recognizable by their nonsensical edit summaries and their addition of unsourced dates and biographical data to (mainly) music articles. If you are able to verify that all of the material added by the sock account is correct you can of course restore their edit, but you are thereby taking full responsibility for that edit, including its accuracy and adherence to NPOV.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't realised there was a sock ban involved here. It's a bit sad that the edit doesn't get a description to note that, but I guess that's just the limitation of the tool.
Thanks for the explanation. Given WP:BANREVERT I'm going to undo almost all of my revert, given I haven't personally verified the facts, except for the one bit that I am confident of.
—me_and 18:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If there's anything salvageable then that's a positive. This sock's been active for years. If they'd just source the content they add and cut out the disruptive edit summaries we probably wouldn't even notice them, but I suppose that's part of the fun for them.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, by "the one bit that I am confident of", I mean adding a wikilink to Boy Meets Girl (BBC TV series) without actually changing any article text. I created that article, and it was the addition of the wikilink meaning I got a notification which started me looking at this in the first place. —me_and 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Maithali protection level

Hi Ponyo. On 21 May 2015 you template-protected Maithali (log). As template protection is only meant to be used for templates, or other highly transcluded pages, did you perhaps mean to select a different level? Thanks - Evad37 [talk] 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That indeed looks like a mistake on my part - clicked the wrong setting on the drop down menu when I restored the semi-protection. Thanks for letting me know!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 03:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
One more: the redirect Maithils of Nepal was also template-protected. Thanks - Evad37 [talk] 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed as well.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Found a couple more Ponyo: User talk:SlotWiki‎ and User talk:CountryBoy99‎ (both protected 2 June 2015). Thanks in advance, - Evad37 [talk] 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem is back

Hello P. The problem IP from NI is back and editing from this IP 86.147.239.46 (talk · contribs). This one is only posting on talk pages so far. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, As I have previously stated: whoever this person, IP 86.147.239.46 (talk · contribs) is, they are seriously disturbed. If these views start to reach articles again, can I suggest that the various articles are protected? Many thanks to MarnetteD for spotting this problem again. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome David J Johnson. One thing to be aware of is that talk pages for articles are rarely protected. It is possible that this may be the reason that this person has moved to posting on them and not in the article main space. While rev/del would get their stuff off WikiP a) I don't know if the edits even qualify for r/d and b) I don't know if it would slow them down. At least there are several editors who know about this and are there to delete the posts when they show up. MarnetteD|Talk 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I was trying to suggest the various film articles, not the Talk pages. Think I'd better have a glass of wine!!! Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
...and now blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you P. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Anytime.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

They returned again as 86.145.115.93 (talk · contribs) P. Now I used the previous thread and it is now in the middle of your talk page so if you would like me to start a new thread at the bottom for each new appearance just let me know. MarnetteD|Talk 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

...aaaaaaand blocked. That was a quick catch!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The person popped back up again today as 86.144.110.160 (talk · contribs). They are hitting new article talk pages but the theme is basically the same. MarnetteD|Talk 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Alexyflemming

Since you're on SPI duty... Could you block this very obvious sock of Alexyflemming (Ayka3b) - or would I need to open an SPI? Alakzi (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm completely unfamiliar with this sockmaster, so I would need to do some digging/comparisons etc. before blocking. It may make more sense to start an SPI. Pinging any admins or Checkusers familiar with the master might speed up the process.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks Ponyo. I'll get round to it eventually. Callanecc closed the last report - maybe they could take a look? Alakzi (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with it either, so it's probably best to file and SPI with evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I've opened an SPI here. Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craigmiller123

Hi Ponyo, hope all's well. I had a question about the CU stuff at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craigmiller123. I recall that The Editor Formerly Known as Summer PhD filed an SPI on 17cmiller recently, and since we just identified a sockmaster Craigmiller123 whose name looks similar to 17cmiller, I thought I'd inquire if there was any possibility he was related. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Other than the slightly similar name, the behavioural overlap is lacking (cartoons, hoaxes etc vs. adult programming and networks). I did however block the newest sock you raised at the SPI. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, coolio. Much obliged per usual. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181

Hey, just a piddling question. Did you confirm the last listed puppet when you ran your sleeper check. This is simply a record-keeping, tagging question (a non-clerk tagged the user page, which, of course, they shouldn't have done). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

They were using a webhost, so I locked it down for a few months and just left the tag as "proven".--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 01:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this fall under any policy?

Hello again P. I can't remember if there is any policy about this where someone is creating talk pages for editors that do not exist. I mean other than WP:NOTHERE that is. If this is something to ignore that is fine. OTOH if there is a place to report it just let me know. Cheers and enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This rings a bell, but I can't remember who it is. Looks like Dennis Brown put an end to the spree.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I try not to blind block very often, but this one was obvious enough. His talk page reply might give clues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I notice that and thanks to DB. I wonder if the accounts created, by adding a talk page message, will be used in this threat. Should those messages be speedied? Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to not delete them as they can be useful later, but will leave that decision to someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts about this DB. I've been here over ten years now and there are still new things to learn! Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser for Socks?

I happened on the recently-blocked User:Jennapaige22, and wondered why you had been chosen for abuse here. Then I looked at Jennapaige22's contributions and I noticed an early vandalism from 2011 of Woody Paige. And I saw you had recently removed vandalism by User:Helperouter112782 from that same page. Looking at Helperouter112782's contributions, it quickly became clear they're both the same person. Helperouter112782 made 10 edits and then vandalized Lee Corso and Woody Paige, while Jennapaige22 vandalized Woody Paige in 2011 and then made nine more edits before vandalizing Lee Corso. Both have used similar deceptive edit summaries - "fixed a spelling error and 2 grammar errors" and "fixed up 2 grammar errors and 1 spelling mistake", and the kinds of vandalism they do are the same - compare this and this. The blocking reason for Helperouter112782 includes "+ likely block evasion", although their vandalism was from before Jennapaige22 was blocked, so there presumably was a suspected third account too. Both are indef blocked, but I see you have checkuser and I wonder if it's worth a sleeper check to look for more, as this does look like a person using throwaway accounts for vandalism. Mr Potto (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Edhor3332902309 is a good candidate for another sock. See contributions, which include similar vandalism to Lee Corso and a similar deceptive "fixed up a few spelling errors and 2 grammar mistakes" edit summary. Also similar punctuation style here as here. Edhor3332902309 is not currently blocked. Mr Potto (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Goodgumd0990s too, also vandalizing the Lee Corso article, with "fixed 1 grammar error and 1 spelling error", and again a string of edits to get confirmed first. This one is blocked. Mr Potto (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There's been long term sock disruption at Lee Corso and Woody Paige (likely via the User:Jaredgk2008 sock master). At some point I'm pretty sure I ran a check on a couple of the recent accounts, but the IPs were too varied and dynamic for a range block, hence the lengthy semi-protection and WP:RBI response. It won't hurt to have another Checkuser take a look at the recent activity to see if they can come up with a workable rangeblock.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It'll be interesting to see what the SPI throws up. Mr Potto (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

What happened to the Andrew Levine article? Is it archived somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.84.62 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The only Andrew Levine "article" on Wikipedia was deleted in 2011 as it consisted solely of an outpouring of complete gibberish. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible return of Biar122

Hi.

An editor notified me with this edit about two accounts Credot (talk · contribs) and Tastegash (talk · contribs) that might be operated by the same person to get advantage in that discussion. When looking at the contributions the first editor recieved a strong warning for edit warring on 18 June and then made his last three edits on 20 June after that, while the second account started editing on 21 June. That is a bit suspicious.

Then I remember other issues in the past on that article with Betterday123098 (talk · contribs), a sock of Biar122 (talk · contribs), and I Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Biar122 is full of socks. Could this be two new accounts?

As I am not very familiar with sockpuppet process and dont want to accuse editors without strong reason I was wondering if you could take a look as you seems to be familiar with Biar122 when looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122/Archive? Thanks in advance. Qed237 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are definitely Biar122 socks. I've blocked them both, as well as the likely sleeper Acress123.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible "joe job"

Hello. There's a problem on articles related to Pakistan where your help, as a checkuser, is needed. A single user, now editing as The last Watch but previously editing as 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is being attacked by a whole group of pro-Pakistani editors who try to get him blocked. They've already made one attempt at setting him up (see this discussion) and I suspect they've made a new attempt today. The previous attempt didn't get the result they wanted, but they did find out that The last Watch's IP geolocates to Swindon, UK, so today's probable "joe job" attempt was made by an IP in Swindon. But it's not the same ISP as The last Watch uses, and I can't imagine that he's so stupid that he'd try to edit logged out when everyone is after him. As a checkuser you can also see technical similarities and dissimilarities, and judge if it's probable or not that it is the same user. Linking the 82.* IP to The last Watch is no problem since he's done it himself (see the discussion I linked to). If you find it a proper thing to do checking if 31.49.253.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and/or 82.132.245.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) matches a registered user account active on articles relating to Pakistan would also be helpful. Thomas.W talk 10:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit on my talk page by a throw-away IP (geolocating to the same town as another IP that was blocked yesterday) shows that The last Watch's opponents know that he geolocates to Swindon, which further increases my suspicion. Thomas.W talk 10:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record I am based in London not swindon I usually deal with IPs from India this is the first time a ip from UK edited on Indo-Pak pov articles hence the reason I am pretty sure its a sock of Last Watch man as I used to be the only ip based in London who edits on Indo-Pak issues....86.164.38.93 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Your IP geolocates to Feltham in West London, just like 86.164.37.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who was blocked for a week yesterday for POV and disruptive editing. Same ISP and same town as you, and a probable case of block evasion. Your claim that it's the first time an IP from the UK has edited Indo-Pak articles is patently false, BTW, I know of many such examples. Thomas.W talk 11:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You obviously are unable to read I said this is the first time a Indian nationalist ip has edited from BRITAIN I thought I was the only one. By the way your friend Last Watch Man will be outed as a sock so enjoy your favouritism while it lasts and try and read comments properly. 86.164.38.93 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Save you time, this my IP 82.11.33.86 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

While Checkuser can be helpful in determining possible connections between accounts, its of little to no use in cases as you have outlined above. This is for several reasons. First, Checkusers will rarely link IPs to accounts. Second, Checkusers cannot check users at their behest to "prove" innocence. If you believe there are sockpuppets involved in this dispute then your best bet is to start an SPI where you can log the evidence which can be reviewed by admins and/or SPI Clerks. Finally, you should note that obtaining accurate geolocation is a crapshoot on British IPs and any info obtained with regard to location should be treated with a grain of salt.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Save your breath, Thomas.W. The IP was a sock anyway. His account is blocked and probably autoblock on the IP. The experienced editors stalking it were not doing it out of animosity rather its WP:DUCKiness. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't share your view, what I saw was POV-pushing from both sides, as I have clearly written a number of times. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add the following or something similar to Long Eaton 82.153.198.194 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Collapse same promotional content removed from article

Along with Long Eaton's Brass band, Long Eaton also has its very own marching carnival band. Formed in 1971 by a group of talented musicians the Long Eaton Militaires Marching Carnival Band was born, its aim was to bring friendship through music. The band has twinned with over 21 global bands and has very strong connections with one in particular. The 1. Große Karnevalsgesellschaft "Völl-Freud" 1929 e.V. Tanz- und Fanfarencorps. Both bands share an iconic piece of music which has been wrote for them in particular. Friendship through music. Along with the connections made with the German band 1. Große Karnevalsgesellschaft "Völl-Freud" 1929 e.V. Tanz- und Fanfarencorps the Long Eaton Militaires has had the chance to be able to perform in front of royalty across the globe both in the UK and in China. Their uniforms are something that you cannot miss; red, white and blue, they are very iconic but with a modern and eye catching twist. The upbeat musical arrangements along with the arena display skills keep any audience engaged.

Hi there I can not seem to find your message on my talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.198.194 (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of posting your promotional blurb anywhere on Wikipedia. You are blocked for ignoring warnings to stop adding the material to Long Eaton and are now evading that block by posting here under a different IP. You need to read the warnings left on both pages and stop posting the inappropriate content. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Admirenepal is back

as User:Never gonna See me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sheesh. I sometimes wonder whether it is worth the hassle. I understand the massive potential collateral damage but in my dreams think of an edit notice that says something like "Hi, sorry but we've blocked this range for 24 hours due to abuse. If any user happens to know the operator behind the AdmireNepal account then feel free to chase them down the street". Only something a bit worse than "chase them down the street". What are they getting out of this? Presumably some of their edits are holding, which makes it worth their while. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think they believe they're here to right great wrongs and spread the truth; such socks are often more entrenched as they see it as a mission to complete. A short term range block will do little to stop them, but on the other side of the coin they are easy to spot due to the SPA-type edits.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
They seem to have fixated on me and keep editing my talk page. They use a spoofer for sure based on the IP range on my page. I don't know why they fixated on me because I didn't report them in the first place; they were discovered due to the fact that I reported them for a different reason. I forget, prolly 3rr or something. Two were by the most recent caught sock that I reported and the next one by IP to let me know they're still being the hat of a rear-end and IP socking. I got one before that as well that was extremely rude that might have been them or might not. Ogress smash! 19:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agrochola schreieri

Hi there. You deleted Agrochola schreieri under criterion WP:G5 however this appears to be a real species of moth: [2]. Could you undelete and semiprotect if vandalism is a concern, or per WP:DENY perhaps cut and paste the content to a new page? Not sure what would be the best action here, but I think WP:BATHWATER applies. Curious to know your thoughts. Ivanvector (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It could very well be a real species of moth, however the de-facto banned editor that continues to sock extensively used dubious sources, added invalid info in some instances and left all the clean up to others. The article consists of an infobox that may or may not be accurate and a single line of text. As recently as yesterday I had to report them to emergency@ for making death threats against another editor. You are welcome to recreate the article (I can email you the sparse content if you would like to vet the material) however this sockmaster's edits are not welcome on the project.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks for the background. Shame to lose what might be valid info, but given the user's history and pattern, I agree probably best to leave their contribs deleted. If you don't mind emailing me the article, I'll see if I can merge it into another article, or post at WP:INSECT for advice. Regarding SPI, should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stern review/Archive be merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stern review~enwiki/Archive? Cases older than June 9 are missing from the combined archive, and it's not intuitive to find them because of the redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the archives are a bit of a nightmare due to the local renaming of the account, but I'm unsure as to how to go about fixing it. Callanecc performed the moves after the rename, perhaps he can lend a hand? I'll send you a copy of the article text ASAP. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector:, it doesn't appear that you have email enabled?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops, well I guess that explains why I never get invited to parties. Fixed now. Ivanvector (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You never get invited to parties because you're from Toronto (zing!).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Poojjan ccresta and Admirenepal

I am beginning to suspect User:Poojjan ccresta‎ is user:Admirenepal. Has anyone checked their sockpuppetry patterns? Ogress smash! 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we've been aware of this for some time. There is some overlap in subject matter and geolocation, however there is no definitive answer as to whether they are two distinct sockmasters. At the end of the day it only really matters that disruption to the encyclopedia is prevented regardless of the accuracy of the tagging in this particular case.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I was only asking because merging the cases might enable us to locate further socks, as I know for a fact they've got a few running (they have been tweaking my nose on my talk page about how pointless sock reports are). Ogress smash! 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how merging the cases would help locate more socks?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

reported for your pro gay flag

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Reported for your pro gay liberal agenda

The thread is here Ponyo Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting an admin. Considering its nature it may be gone by the time you get back here. In spite of this have a delightful weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Needless to say, I have blocked the offending (and offensive) IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. The flag is not intended to be a permanent fixture, it was only meant to show support for inclusiveness and acceptance. There were a lot of horrifying and tragic events taking place across the globe yesterday, I believe a nod to love was needed.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

regarding article sethi

hi my name is gatty sandhu. i have noticed that you have reverted back my edits that were correct and you have made them incorrect again. i request you to please let me correct the details as it matters a lot to people of sethi clan. please do not revert the edits made further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gattysandhu (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


reference----- Sethi,(ਸੇਥੀ) also known as Seti or Sathi is a common surname among Jat Sikh clans of the Punjabi and Rajasthani people. Although this gotra of jatt clan has similar spell with Sethi clan of khatri sikhs who adapted Sikhism during the 18th and 19th centuries and originally followed Hinduism. Both are entirely different gotras although they have similar spell, jatt clan being called as ਸੇਥੀ whereas khatri sikh clan being called as ਸੇਠੀ. from website---sikhiwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gattysandhu (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks...

...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. They're much appreciated, and I hope I shall be able to live up to the honor. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if you still consider it an "honor" after 3 months or so ;) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao In regards to our conversation on my talk page. Ponyo has a great story about admin requiring cleanup. She is also one of the admins you can go to for help and info. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you M! Though I don't remember what the story is in this case? Perhaps I've logged too many clean-up hours to remember any specific one.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - I'm sure I shall be leaning on a number of y'all heavily at some point soon. :-)
And I shall still consider it an honor, yes. There's nothing in the English language that says I can't curse an honor after it's been offered me. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ponyo I thought it was something to do with blanking something - like the main page - or maybe it was a range block that was too wide. It might even have been another editor. Oh well I remember chuckling about it when I read it. I did want Ser to know that you were there to help in case anything came up. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm certainly here to help. Unless Ser does something to end up here. That's above my pay grade!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

I have updated the page by writing her new drama serial Shert .There is absolutely nothing wrong in that.The page looks incomplete and provides information about Ayesha Khans work that was of 2014 and not that of 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogandcool (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary and on your talk page, you added promotionally-toned commentary to the article lead as well as repeatedly linking the same terms. You are welcome to add content to the article as long as it is worded neutrally (e.g. not this: "considered as one of the most successful and leading pakistani actress till this time") and is supported by reliable sources.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Another Cdswalkthrough sock?

A new [User:Cho Bu] has been systematically going through Chinese historical biographies inserting relatively trivial content into the lead and changing headings, all with bad grammar. This behaviour of making blanket changes to Chinese historical biographies reeks of Cdswalkthrough's modus operandi, though I can't be sure if they are the same person or not. Can you help take a look? Thank you. _dk (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case the user appears technically  Unlikely to be Cdswalkthrough. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Underbar dk: turns out it was a sock after all. At first the technical data threw a red herring as the geolocation was odd, however now that we have more edits to review there are a couple of obvious technical overlaps, and combined with the outright quacking I've blocked the account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Girl groups

Hi again. Sorry to bother you with this sort-of-random request, but I wonder if you could email me another article which was deleted quite some time ago? The article was List of girl groups; it was deleted at Afd here. I don't know who actually deleted the article but the Afd was closed by PeaceNT who appears to be no longer active. A new redirect was created some time later and I'm involved in a discussion as to its fate at Rfd right now. A potential outcome is that the list is recreated from one broken out of List of all-female bands and I'd like to see if there's anything in the old article worth preserving, or if it's worth merging the old list's history. Thanks again! Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, on its way to you now. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I should have asked you to restore it to my userspace, if you can. I'll put it up for WP:G7 if we don't use it. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. That's more difficult as I would have to move the page in order to userfy it and, as you know, there's a current RfD on the article/redirect. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, that is tricker than I expected it to be; I thought deleted pages lived as separate entries in the database and you could just sort of do what you want with them. Thanks anyway, I'll get back to you if we need admin help after the Rfd closes. Ivanvector (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey just so you know I posted a question about this at WP:AN. The thread is here. Thanks again. Ivanvector (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Okie dokie. Hopefully someone with broader move/hist merge skills than I (i.e. just about any other admin) will be able to come up with a solution.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings and a question

Ponyo, we've never interacted before, but I've seen your name come up from time to time, and other editors I highly respect (namely MarnetteD) think highly of you. The thing is, I make an attempt at neutrality, especially when I disagree with the content of an article, and I attempt to follow the guidelines as much as possible. This is my small attempt to make the project better, and in some small way to make the project more credible. I'm not even sure this is an issue, but if it is, could you point me at the right notice board/project at where it should be addressed? Here's the thing. As per WP:GALLERY, it says "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." Recently, I've come across several articles like List of historic properties in Phoenix, Arizona, which seem to go against this. However, there are plenty of articles like List of works by Henri Chapu, which are close. What's the line? Is there? Am I way off base? I don't pay much attention to who is or isn't an admin, but I happen to know you are. Sorry if I'm bothering you, just seeking direction. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 23:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As a content issue I would suggest posting your concerns at the MOS:IMAGE talk page. It looks fairly well trafficked, so you should be able to get some feedback there.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Be well. Onel5969 TT me 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

RevDel query

Hi Ponyo,

Bit of a strange query here. I have a user that added their own name to their user page about 9 years ago. They then removed it from their user page 9 years ago and they're now asking me to revdel it for privacy reasons? I'm checking if this would be ok under revdel policy? I wasn't sure if there was some sort of time limit it would need to be reported in and even if I could revdel it given that they added their name in the first place? I'd rather check before I do anything--5 albert square (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no rev-delete criteria for removing personal info unless you are deleting the material pending oversight. If the editor wants the material removed they should email oversight-l (via this form). As there are no specifics provided here I can't guarantee the oversight request would be granted, however that's the right place for the editor to request the removal.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Celebrate like it's 1867!

Happy Canada Day Ponyo - a few hours early that is. Eh hoser I hope that you and your family and friends have a marvelous time. Che(hic)ers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's hoping I find a mouse in my beer. Free brewskis for everyone!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it a duck? Is it a plane? It's Ryanjay redux

Hi Ponyo. Whenever you have the time. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you as always Ponyo. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello, I have heard what Abhirami's age was through a program she was in. I can provide the link to the program. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.217.235 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The link to the program would need to meet Wikipedia's external linking and sourcing policies; that is, we cannot link to copyright-violating material. If you would like to post the link here I can take a look and let you know if it can be used. You could also take it to the Reliable sources Noticeboard where other editors could evaluate the link to see if it can be used.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Macdowell Colony Medal Day award

I saw your recent comment on a Talk page, where your wrote "The notability of the award has been disputed by multiple editors and the current consensus is that the award is not notable, therefore you should not be adding it to any articles unless and until that consensus changes." Notability is NOT a requirement for being part of an article—it's a requirement for getting a separate article—so your objection is erroneous. Verifiability is a requirement, along with all the other issues like BLP, UNDUE, COI, etc. Choor monster (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor working on behalf of a company to add an award of dubious notability across a very large amount of articles is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, they're here solely to promote their interests. Edit warring to restore the award despite the concerns raised when they have a clear conflict of interest in doing so is disruptive. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand your response even less than your original. How is a non-COI deciding that verifiable (of irrelevant notability, as you mention again) information ought to be in an article edit-warring or disruptive? The COI did it all wrong, yes. But lots of COIs do it wrong and non-COIs rescue their improper contributions. Choor monster (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability isn't irrelevant. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The hatnote on that policy statements directs to WP:NOTABILITY. With regard to your questions as to how it's edit warring, the single purpose SPA account added the award across 30? 40? articles. Their edits were all reverted (not by me), they were notified of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines (twice) and their response was to ignore the information provided and restore all of the promotional content to the articles. So if you want to assist the admitted Communications Manager (i.e. PR rep) with spamming their non-notable award into multiple articles, that's your prerogative I suppose, but don't expect me to support it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability remains 100% irrelevant: you are now badly misunderstanding the very concept of a hatnote. Hatnotes direct readers attention to other WP entries that they might be searching for, nothing more, nothing less. As it is, nothing in WP:INDISCRIMINATE suggests there's anything wrong with a minor non-notable award being listed as part of someone's resume of awards.
Did you click the link? It says: "See also: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information" in the same section. And again, the policy states "Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I've highlighted it this time as you appeared to have missed it. So again, if you want to support promotional editing and paid advocacy in articles I won't stop you, but our conversation here is done.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? No need to click even. I pointed out the statement you are quoting is part of a hatnote, which means it is not part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and you reply by just quoting the hatnote again? Sheesh. And I had explicitly pointed out, again—see my paragraph below which you obviously didn't bother to read—that I am quite aware that Verifiability doesn't guarantee automatic inclusion, and you respond as if I'm unaware of it. Choor monster (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm always open to being won over by a persuasive argument, however this is not such an argument. I find your position to be mistaken and at this point I'm certain you will not be able to persuade me otherwise (and likewise vice versa). As I noted above, this conversation is done.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I came here to point out a clear-cut mistake on your part, off to the side, so to speak, and that did not work as expected. I believe the question of this Award and its place on WP is of interest, and you have not addressed it correctly, and so I will continue to pursue it, first the User's talk page, then a relevant WP forum if necessary. I am making a last post here as a friendly head's up. I will not ping you unless you ask otherwise, since I presume you're happy to let others point out my apparently obvious mistakes. (And I will not put the edits back either. If down the road consensus says they are OK, well, heck, let the paid guy put them back with permission.) Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am quite aware that verifiability alone is not sufficient, as I stated in my first comment above: "along with all the other issues like BLP, UNDUE, COI, etc." Choor monster (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
My comments do not apply to Edward MacDowell Medal, which as a separate article, certainly needs to satisfy notability. If not considered notable, that article/list could be merged into MacDowell Colony, so long as it is verifiable, etc. Choor monster (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the Edward MacDowell Medal is definitely a notable award. There are many newspaper articles about the award going back 55 years. A recent biography of Georgia O'Keeffe had significant coverage of the award. An essay by William Styron discussing the award at length was included in an anthology of his non-fiction writings. The New York Times republished a book chapter from a biography of Mary McCarthy that discussed how two bitter enemies, McCarthy and Lillian Hellman, had both received the award. I linked to those sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward MacDowell Medal. Did anyone do a Google Books or Google News search before concluding that the award is not notable? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My sole interaction was with the PR account who restored the content after it had been removed. I was not involved in any of the redirect/merge/deletion discussions myself. I might be able to trace back and find the links to the discussion(s) if you'd like, however it may not be until tomorrow as I'm heading out for the day. Also, if the consensus is that it is indeed notable and should be included, anyone can restore the edits. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Reply of your message on my talk page

Ponyo, i read the message you sent on my talk page, I wanted to inform you that the hidden note was firstly not written by me but was a written by Fushion007 you can check the history, well Premise basically means the outline which is of course common sense instead of provoking policies all the time. Secondly only the Promotional poster has copyright, not others, these are permissible for wikipedia, previously promotional poster seen in main info box but was replaced by the logo hence shifting to the production section and its contents are more useful to public that way ensuring the cast. Thirdly I would like to add that the article is undergoing problems, the information should be reliable, all unnecessaries are removed. Now coming to my disruptive editing, I only remove the unreliable Information, not the genuine one, the images are helpful for the public so im not removing them. Secondly policies you talk about? large number of similar pages have such information similar to Diyar-e-Dil, why not editing them too when they too are disruptive with only two or three references. Sammy.joseph (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:108.3.162.35

you blocked the above IP for 24 hours yesterday. Less than an hour after the experation of his block, he is back at the same article adding the same edit without discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this was aptly handled by NeilN (talk · contribs).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing alert!

What do you think of this?! Alarming! - 2601:42:C102:B8DD:B1D2:F11E:E1C2:D0C9 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

IP User(s) 213.107.135.34 & 82..1.231.104

Hello Ponyo, I wonder if you could help please? IP user: 213.107.135.34 and IP user: 82.1.231.104, who appear to be the same person is inserting unsourced information and poor grammar on the Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh, John Cannan and Robert Black articles. I have reverted these "edits" twice, but they keep reverting back and in some cases have exceeded 3RR. Is it possible to protect these articles to stop what appears to be vandalism, or at best poor knowledge of the way Wikipedia works? With thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. Sorry for the delay, I was away unexpectedly. From a quick review this issue seems to have resolved itself; please let me know if I've missed something.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ponyo, Yes all seems to have gone quiet for the moment. This person whoever they are is an expert in poor English. I'll let you know if they reappear. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

IP User(s) 72.82.149.82 & HearandLookFan

Hello Ponyo, I wonder if you could help please? IP user: 72.82.149.82 and IP user: HearandLookFan(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HearandLookFan), who appear to be the same person is inserting unsourced information, he or her was previously blocked many times, for illegal edit articles. I have reverted these "edits" more than twice, but they keep reverting back. Is it possible to protect these articles to stop what appears to be vandalism. With thanks and regards, Evanex, Evanex (talk) 1:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked HearandLookFan as a confirmed sock of FallandSpringOlympics.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.

Thanks for patrolling [3].

The bot seems to be stalled, but is very nice to use when the updates are within hours of potential copyvios--Lucas559 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What Do You Reckon To....................

.................this user? It's the nature of their edits to Jimbo's talk page, plus if you look at their most recent edit to his talk page, they quote WP:NPA in the edit summary. That's not something I'd generally expect someone who's new to know about.--5 albert square (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

They're trolling. Or they were before I blocked them. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure if they were a sock or not.--5 albert square (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pricelizer page deletion

Please let me know the reason for deleting the profile and what is needed for it to be acceptable as a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattias Milger (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted under the A7 criteria for deletion, namely there was no credible importance or significance asserted for the company. Please review WP:ORG, and if you believe that Pricelizer meets the notability criteria for inclusion outlined therein, I would suggest starting a draft article in your user subspace using the article wizard which will guide you through the creation process. This will give you extra time to work on the article at your leisure without worrying it will be immediately deleted. Once it is complete it can then be moved into article space if sourcing and notability guidelines for inclusion are met. Please be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and the Wikimedia Foundation's policy prohibiting undisclosed paid editing if you are affiliated with Pricelizer.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello P. It looks like the moved it from the editor moved it from the sandbox to article space Pricelizer with in seconds of the sandbox creation. I don't know if it was improved any from the deleted version but it still reads like an advert to me. I hope you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
SuperMarioMan zapped and salted it. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo too

FYI. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've emailed the Stewards to request a global block/rename. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda

Hello,

I think that Valleyofdawn (contributions) is a sockpuppet (at least a meatpuppet) of Averysoda who you have blocked. On the article Arab Liberation Army, Valleyofdawn appeared a few hours after I reverted Averysoda whereas he had not contributed for months and now that Averysoda has been blocked, Valleyofdawn is coming back. What is your mind ? How can this be checked ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You can start by looking at my contrib list here and in the Hebrew Wikipedia which extends many years back. I created the emblem for the ALA and has been following this subject for a while. My first contributions there were in 2013. Valleyofdawn (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pluto2012: Valleyofdawn does indeed have a long history on he.wikipedia, whereas Wlglunight93/Aversoda have zero edits there. I'm more inclined to believe the timing of the edit is a coincidence and don't believe there is enough evidence to warrant checkuser at this time.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection for "list of The League of Gentlemen characters".

Unprotection: Not been edited for nearly a month, doesn't seem a likely target for vandalism anymore, thus semi-protection, or indeed protection at all, is no longer required.

Thanks, Gotha☭  Talk 23:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Gotha☭  Talk 23:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has been protected to prevent persistent sockpuppetry, not vandalism. As the sock was active on the article talk page just 5 days ago it shows that the protection is still required.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Fair enough, but surely what a sock does is vandalism. Can you not block the sock? Come to think of it, are you sure it's a sock? The only odd thing about it appears to be the large number of edits, which is hardly confirmation of sock puppetry. Thanks,
Gotha☭  Talk 00:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
They are IP-hopping via a very large dynamic range making blocking ineffective, which is why the semi-protection is in place.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for elucidating
Gotha☭  Talk 02:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem, it's good to revisit long protections from time to time to ensure the lock is still required.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this you?

That bought the Enchanted Forest. If so count me in as coming to visit. I may well be straying beyond middle age but I am still a sucker for theme parks like this. Especially family run ones. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

ZOMG OUTING! Seriously though, I've driven by this many times on road trips but was never allowed to stop and visit. I may have to change that.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be toooo fun. Here's hoping that it fit your schedule in the not too distant future. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
If it happens I'll make sure to donate a load of images to Commons.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Todd Frazier

Thank you for protecting that page. While you're online, could you please block 24.142.181.145? They have vandalized the page past the point of receiving the level four warning. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for trying to keep things under control there.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and no problem. It's the right thing for me to do as a Wikipedian to revert any vandalism I see. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Note on my Talk page

Thanks.--A21sauce (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User: 86.144.110.160

Hello Ponyo, Very much regret to say that our Northern Ireland "rape" fiend is back - yet again with at least three edits - all of which have been removed by other editors. If this continues I believe there is a case for this IP to be blocked. Your views/action welcome. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've already notified them they are defacto indef-blocked here, so it's block evasion and merits an immediate block (which I've done). Thanks for letting me know.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As always, many thanks for all your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As ever my thanks as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User: Frazer07

Ponyo, I'm sorry to bother you again, but I'm having trouble with the above user on the Sainsbury's article. This user has inserted uncited, unreferenced POV edits an has reverted three times in the last hour, despite warnings. Can I leave this with you please. Thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Turning-in now! Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Catsue

Hi Ponyo.
I noted your last warning to this editor. You may also like to peruse the edits of 24.135.72.179 (talk · contribs) and about 5 similar IPs, who are also making un-sourced or uncited edits to astronaut BLPs. e.g. @ Slayton [4] and @ Glenn [5]. I listed them in detail here, and also mentioned them here. I wonder if they are related to Catsue in any way? - 220 of Borg 18:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any relation. Catsue is more interested in US entertainment articles, and the astronaut interest appears related to The Astronaut Wives Club. The handful of astronaut bios they edited are fictionalized on the show.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah. That makes it a little clearer. I haven't seen that show, or even heard of it before I saw it referenced in the edits.
The IP editor/s though are possibly still a bit of a problem, and editing as of Wednesday 17 July. Interestingly the last edits are related to the The Astronaut Wives Club! [6] Perhaps they are coincidentally removing some cruft that Catsue added, like the actresses who played the astronauts wives? 220 of Borg 02:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning from a noob

Hi Ponyo, '220' here,
After my last post about astronaut BLPs I looked up the page and noted I had posted back in June too. Bad recall on my part, I was rather surprised.

Having 'buttered you up', what do you think of this. An account, with only ten edits giving me a vandalism warning for removing a flag [7] from an infobox, per WP:MOSFLAG. I have done that a lot, as I believe that that guideline permits it, and also discourages the use of flags in the cases I have removed them. I have read the policy a bit more thoroughly since this morning, and it has raised some doubts, but no one has ever told me I am in error. What do you think ?

Anyway, this supposed 'noob' editor has a funny habit, which I have seen elsewhere recently, (trying to recall) of using just 'thanks' as an edit summary. I have seen such vague summaries used in an attempt to hide vandalism, and it is certainly not very useful, which I have said to the editor here as an addition to a 'Not assuming AGF' template. AGF, I suspect this is not a new editor, using a warning template on their 10th edit? (Now autoconfirmed?) Seems very unusual. It could be a sleeper, as they have been editing since at least 2nd of April.

Hope you are about, or a TPS Admin can advise or help me, regards. 220 of Borg 04:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is all apparently connected to the Pakhanjore page, where I removed the flag. Another editor there also uses thanks/s as an edit summary. See Renuka sarkar (talk · contribs) who created that page in February. They received a Wikilove message from 'my' noob Eden will (talk · contribs) on Eden's 8th edit. Odd! --220 of Borg 04:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Good catch. I've blocked Eden will as a  Confirmed sock and given Renuka sarkar an only warning regarding WP:SOCK violations.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I only just noticed the block, thanks. 220 of Borg 21:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete as creation of sock in violation of ban?

Due to your recent blocks of the editors of Shalu Kurian, it is unclear if just the two accounts are involved or if the block is from a previous sockmaster and so the page would be a speedy delete as a creation in violation of the previous block? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked in to it myself, but the comparison to the deleted article is night and day with regard to the sophistication of the grammar. My money's on paid editing, but I don't think it's a CSD G5 speedy situation. It really needs to be stubbed down though, and I've deleted the image as a copyvio.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nepalese sock again?

Is Wikipoudar (talk · contribs) another? I've lost track of their current interests because of various article protections. No rush, as I'm reverting most of their stuff per WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It sure is; I've blocked the account. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You beat me to finishing the clean up also - BONUS! - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm back from holiday and feeling refreshed. I may have even have cracked a smile doing the clean-up!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Marc Pelosi

How's it going? I understand the title Marc Pelosi has been protected from creation which I'm pretty sure was due to the fact that people have been trying to create the page despite it not being notable. I just created an article under the title Marc Pelosi (soccer) because he made his professional debut for the SJ Earthquakes last night. Can you unprotect the title and then move the article that I just created from Marc Pelosi (soccer) to Marc Pelosi? – Michael (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All done!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Thanks. – Michael (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem; you were the one who actually wrote the article so the kudos go to you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

IP: 99.27.64.193

Hello Ponyo. Can I please bring to your attention the activities of the above IP. They have vandalised various murder case articles by inserting wrong date information, which has been reverted by various editors: including MarnetteD and myself. They have also left a nonsense contribution on my personal Talk page, which has been reverted. Can I leave this with you for action please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The changes without sourcing are definitely problematic, but are you sure they're incorrect? In this edit they changed the age of a victim from 24 to 23 and the corresponding source says "Then, sometime just before dawn on May 1, 2010, the Jersey City prostitute, then 23, with a shy smile, large, dark eyes and tumultuous background, was gone."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, I did leave a final warning that the continued addition of unsourced dates etc will lead to a block. It looks a lot like original research, as opposed to outright vandalism, to me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Certainly the contribution on my Talk page and some of the edits I considered vandalism. We shall have to wait and see if they continue changing dates for the sake of changing. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

John Kassir

Here is another ref for John Kassir's birthdate. Reliable enough? http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2014/10/24/celebrity_birthdays_october_24_2014 DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: No, unfortunately. "On this day" and celebrity birthday lists do not meet WP:RS as they are published without the editorial oversight required to meet WP:BLPSOURCES and often propagate errors.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

But you approved a similar source in the case of Richard Kiel. His birthdate wasn't mentioned on any reliable source. Then I found this http://www.gosanangelo.com/entertainment/celeb_bdays_20140609121510820 and added it as a ref for Kiel's birthdate, which was approved. So what's the difference? DrKilleMoff (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Richard Kiel birthdate is supported by this article in The Guardian. The celebrity birthday inline source is superfluous and should be removed.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that article in The Guardian had yet not been written when I added the Standard Times ref since that was before he died. DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

With over 12,000 pages on my watchlist I imagine I miss a lot of things. It could be that I saw that it came from a news source without realizing that it was a celebrity birthday column. It could be I never noticed it at all. I have no clue, but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't meet WP:BLPSOURCES. As multiple dates have been proposed, and as no reliable source has been found for verification, the date of birth stays out to comply with BLP policy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I find your "Working oneself up" terminology offensive. Mr Potto (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, do you not think it's a condescending way to refer to an adult? Mr Potto (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I think it was an apt description of the temperament being displayed at the SPI where you were making off-the-cuff statements such as "I'm taking all these pages off my watchlist and some other sucker can waste their life chasing it" and "don't waste any more of your valuable time here on my account". I can't imagine how you would have to twist "working oneself up" to make it a childish insult. You are clearly seeing whatever you want to see. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope that when you get to my age you might have found it within yourself to be a little more accommodating to the interpretations and feelings of others rather than assuming that your own interpretations constitute objective truth. Until then, I wish you well. Mr Potto (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a presumptive statement given that you have no idea what my age is. Regardless, as I noted in the SPI, sniping and infighting only serves to provide trolls with the additional attention they crave. There is zero benefit.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, so if I'm now being presumptious (and I'd wager actual money that I'm right about our relative ages), then perhaps you might be advised to not make presumptious accusations that I am guilty of "Working oneself up"? You clearly think that I am 100% wrong here and that my questioning the official line constitutes "working myself up", and you seem to be impervious to my complaints that I find that offensive. Anyway, this is your talk page and you do not seem open to considering other people's feelings here, so I will not post here further. But in the years ahead of you, I do hope you can develop a better sense of empathy with those you are supposedly trying to help. Mr Potto (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The entirety of my statement at the SPI was "Were (sic) clearly in Whack-a-mole/RBI territory here. Working oneself up to the extend expressed above by Mr. Potto only feeds the trolls. We're all on the same side folks". This at an SPI of a troll who has made explicit sexual threats against me via various socks, where I'm simply pointing out that getting worked up is just adding fuel to the pathos. And you're so offended by that single comment that you come here to call me condescending? Good luck to you on Wikipedia, I'm sure our paths will cross again, hopefully on better terms.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You really don't have any empathy skills, do you? Mr Potto (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, you're convinced you're right and I'm wrong, so I'll just make an effort to avoid you, and I ask you not to try to judge me again in future and will take my leave now. I do hope this interaction is of benefit to both of us.Mr Potto (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no empathy skills?! Ok, I'm obviously being Punk'd. Is it you MarnetteD? Or perhaps Courcelles? Or maybe the devious Drmies? Wait, this must be Darwinbish in disguise. Regardless, this conversation is done. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong in that, and seeing as I had already posted it I thought it better to strike than delete. I don't know what the rest of that reply means, but I'm happy to assume good faith and I forgive you for your "Working oneself up" slur even if you won't accept that it was offensive or apologize for it. I agree that we're done. Mr Potto (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it was just a joke, as I'm well aware of Ponyo's empathy, and have always found it substantial. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles, are you sure you're not confusing it with my substantial love of Malborough Sauvignon blanc?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's a far easier skill to use than genuine empathy, so... no. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't rightly know what Mr. Potto is doing here, and given cleanstart I don't really know what they were doing here. What I do know is that a. "working oneself up" is not offensive terminology, and I am speaking as an acknowledged authority in offensiveness, and b. the shit that SPI regulars and CUs in particular get can be very hard to swallow (ew) and we owe them the proverbial debt of gratitude, and c. Ponyo has plenty empathy, and more patience than many editors I know. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I for one appreciate Ponyo's deflecting Mr Potto's pique away from me and at her. I'm not "condescending"; I'm "patronizing". I don't have Ponyo's empathy skills but I was really trying to be nice. No good deed goes unpunished. And no, I don't know why Drmies uses letters when most people use numbers. Shades of Paul Reiser.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I can but agree with and echo Drmies post. Ponyo's patience and empathy are part of what keeps this project ticking over. I wish Mr P could understand that trolls enjoy it when they irritate one editor. They like it even more when they get good faith editors irritated with each other. Unfortunately this seems to have been a day to make molehills into - well not full fledged mountains rather unneeded hummocks. MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate people's comments here, and I accept there was nothing but good faith behind anything anyone has said to me. But it is also clear to me that Wikipedia's free-for-all management, which leads to one admin telling me to do one thing one day and another telling telling me something else the next day, does not fit with my temperament. I withdraw everything I have said that could be construed as criticism of others, I apologize for any distress I might have caused, and I wish you all well. Mr Potto (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Likewise, Mr Potto. As for different admins saying different things--well, we're not all the same, and we don't always interpret everything the same way. If you want to know what the real truth is you can always ask me. But let me add that many people know that if a thankless, technical, and tedious job is to be done in the SPI area, there's always Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Manasi Parekh

Hello. Thanks for dealing with the article and blocking Manasi Parekh for user name violation. I reported the user name at WP:UAA two days ago, but my report was declined with the claim that having a user name that is the same as the name of the celebrity whose BLP they added unsourced fancruft to doesn't violate any rules... Thomas.W talk 18:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's interesting given that the username policy states "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name" and "If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided". This was clearly an individual using the celebrity's name to add content to said celebrity's article with or without the celebrity's consent.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Scroll down a bit here and you'll find it. I obviously didn't agree with it but there wasn't much I could do about it. Thomas.W talk 19:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in the phrase "agree to disagree" ;).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

SA 13 Bro

Sockpuppetteer might be back, but since the range is different I have not filed an investigation yet. Date change on Nichiren, which I reverted. 95.83.249.21 (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs)

That IP is dodgy and I've blocked it. If it happens again let me know and I'll restore the protection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Arun Pudur

Hi, just to let you know that the article you deleted Arun Pudur has been recreated by a new editor. This by an account that was created just yesterday. Taking to SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't exactly a "new" editor. It's the same sockfarm as this group. I've blocked Nocompromise11, WTheGreat and Sean daj this morning as confirmed socks and redeleted the article(s) (with a 3 month dose of salt). I imagine they don't get paid if they can't produce an article, so I'm sure we'll see them (and others) continue to pop up with article recreation under different titles to skirt protection. Pinging Bbb23 just as an FYI as he was looking at this yesterday as well.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, okay. Yeah, I took a pretty careful look and it wasn't at all clear to me that Sean daj was anything other than a well-meaning editor who happened along -- but I'm sure you know what you're doing. There's been some confusion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32 about the connection, so I'm not sure if you wish to post anything there. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The technical evidence between Sean daj and WTheGreat was very clear. I have no clue how they've been tied in to the TimeQueen32 SPI however.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And neither do I, anymore. It was a comment made by User:Smartse that caught my eye and led me to this SPI, and the diff is now gone. I hope I haven't caused confusion by raising this at the TimeQueen32 SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It's no biggie. And thanks for letting me know about the recreation so I could round up more of the socks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Funny, I felt that Sean daj was editing like a promotional account, but I couldn't find a behavioural smoking gun, as it were. I'd considered taking it to SPI and asking for a CU. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The BLP in question received a burst of coverage (mostly WP:NOTEWORTHY rather than in-depth) during the past few months, for instance CNBC.[8] The basis of the CNBC article, and most of the other follow-on-newspaper-coverage, is Wealth-X rankings, which claim a net worth of four billion bucks for the BLP. There are 19 hits for that organization, Special:Search/Wealth-X, but the main article about the entity seems to be Ultra_high-net-worth_individual and also High-net-worth_individual. If the $4_B claim is true, the BLP would be ~~#400 on the List of billionaires published annually by Forbes (this is two wiki-hops away from the Wealth-X articles via the Billionaire see-also), and tied for fifth place in List_of_Malaysians_by_net_worth. I don't know where the BLP's corporation Celframe would fit on the Fortune and Forbes lists of high-value companies, or on the Inc Magazine list of fast-growing companies; it is privately held, and thus might not disclose such info to the magazines in question. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Rock Solid Talent Entertainment, Phil Taylor (owner/manager), and Sophia_Radisch (owner/singer)

Hi Ponyo, just a heads-up, these are some user-accounts you blocked recently, I am trying to school the two people involved in the record-label-company in question about wikipedia over here --

If you want to give some questions to Sophia as well, please feel free to wade right in. Note well, however, that from what I understand, she is the age ~16 singer from Canada/Swansea, and her manager Phil from the UK proper is the one who created the user-account-in-her-name , and made the promotional edits therefrom (logging in "as" her because he is her biz-manager and assumed wikipedia was like twitter and didn't care if the execSecretary/bizPartner/staffer made the tweets or the actual named person made the tweets). She seems receptive to logic, and if she continues to learn the ropes well enough, I'm planning on telling her to ask to be unblocked. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Noted.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ponyo, can you please verify that 1) Sophia is cleared for takeoff into mainspace and 2) that my advice to her & Phil is sound? See completed checklist. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't anticipate any further issues. Thank you for your patience and diligence in helping Sophia with this matter.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Related, this sock-drawer is still open, does Sophia (or Phil) need to do anything about it? Ping User:Bazj and User:K6ka, who look like they know about the sock-investigation. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The puppetry I saw was focussed on repeatedly recreating Rock Solid Talent Entertainment which is now salted, and on adding spam to List of independent UK record labels. I can't speak for the other material Ponyo saw.
While I'm uncomfortable with so much of the change of heart happening off-wiki on IRC, it's good to see somebody positively engaging after a block. No objection to a WP:CLEANSTART. Bazj (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Bazj, I can positively report that no change-of-heart whatsoever occurred at IRC (and methinks User:Huon will confirm this), when Phil the RockSolid CEO showed up there, he was complaining mightily about how notable RockSolid was, and after we directed Phil back into on-wiki-space (he was having tech-savvy-related-difficulties with autoblock) over at User_talk:90.199.59.159 (note UK geolocation) his complaining did not cease. The actual change of heart, was when instead of talking to Phil the talent agent, who had since 2014 been *impersonating* Sophia by logging in under her name ("I thought it was my right as her agent"), it was arranged for me to instead talk directly to Sophia the age ~16 singer herself at User_talk:184.144.144.30 (note Canada geoloc). Now that Phil is no longer going to be logging in as "her" methinks the repeated attempts to spam RockSolid will simply cease. Whether it comes to pass that Phil the talent agent is also someday unblocked as User:Welshmusiclover (e.g. after six months of abstention) remains to be seen, but Sophia and Phil are not the same human, and to my mind this pretty much explains the "sudden shift" in receptiveness between July 29th and July 30th, because on the 29th I was talking to Phil-representing-Sophia, whereas on the 30th I was finally talking directly to Sophia-qua-Sophia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

About profile Ayeza Khan

Dasgourav7 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC) What I did or edited to the profile named Ayeza Khan, is very true and verified. So I request you to don't remove it.

@Dasgourav7: If you had read any of the messages I've left on your talk page you would note that policy dictates that the information you are adding must be supported by reliable sources to be included. In this specific case multiple dates have been proposed making the date of birth contentious and therefore only the highest-quality sources will be accepted.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dasgourav7 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Ponyo, what I did or edited to the profile named Ayeza Khan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayeza_Khan ) is very true and verified. So, I request you don't remove it from the page. Please reply.

Dasgourav7 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Ponyo, do I need to update the reference first to update or edit the infobox? Help me to sort out the thing, how to edit an infobox? Please reply. How to add reference?

Dasgourav, if you have found a reference that is truly WP:RS, then it is easy to add. Here is an example, when you click 'edit' you will see what I did.
* Hillary Clinton was born in 1947."[1]
That is all you have to do. But, your source must satisfy WP:RS as a magazine, newspaper, television news program, or similar. The source above is National Review, for instance.
If you have a proper trusted source that gives the information, just add the information, immediately followed by the source, to the body of the article, and don't worry about the infobox-stuff.

References

  1. ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421301/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-ideas-outdated
Somebody will happily help you fix up the formatting, and add the data to the infobox, once a WP:RS source has been found. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Renuka Sarkar

hi Ponyo , Please let me know why flag of india was removed from info-box of pakhanjore by User:220 of Borg and not in the pages like mumbai, delhi , pune , kanpur , surat ,agra , meerut , Amritsar, nashik , jodhpur , there are 300 plus pages where flag of india is used in the infobox.

Please notify me what should I mark while contributing to the page . Becoz i am an contributor and not from Typo Team .

And my apology for sharing my IP address with others and It wont happen again , I will be more careful while editing . — Renuka 22:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know why an editor reverted an edit you've made, the correct person to ask is the editor themselves (in this case 220 of Borg). With regard to edit summaries, you should use them to explain the edit that you are making. This page should be helpful.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Appeal for un-deletion of article in Wikipedia

Dear Sir/Madam,

I like millions of other users use Wikipedia for my school related research works. Wiki pages are concise, precise and neutral. I was searching for Mr. Arun Pudur wiki page as it is our assignment in school to write about top 10 richest Asian's under 40. Few days ago there was an article about him and now it was deleted for not meeting Wikipedia terms and conditions. You are an experienced admin and I am sure you have banned them for good reasons. But the content on the page was accurate and well referenced. Mr. Arun Pudur is a well known public figure in Asia and someone or some people created it. Keeping the wrongful users aside I request you to kindly look into the content only and please revert back the page.

I am a brand new user and inexperienced in Wikipedia to create pages so I don't want to create a new page and face any consequences as I am still learning editing. I can put an appeal in Requested articles page for page creation if that is what I have to do.

As a new user I request your guidance and help for that page.

Regards Shana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shana.SD79 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • What an amazing coincidence that you were assigned this project and read the article in the 2-3 days the article was live and that you are editing from the same geolocation and ISP as the blocked editor(s) who are in all likelihood looking to have the article restored for money. On the off chance that this is indeed just a crazy coincidence, Google has a search function you can use to assist you in your research. Here's a link to get you started. Good luck with your school assignment. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your kind reply.

Based on what you are saying I am not surprised that geo-location and telecom company is similar. The assignment is for all students in Form 3 of our sekolah. We are from Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (National Secondary School) Form 3. Our school is SMK Vivekanada, Brickfileds. Many students cannot afford computers at home so we use school provided computers for our assignment. In total we have 90 students in form 3 in different divisions. This may be the reason why you stating that my geo-location is the same. In Malaysia 95% of the country uses only one telekom company which is owned by the Government. We are a Government aided school so all our computers use Telekom Malaysia Unifi broadband connection.

Thank you for sending the link. Due to a typo the URL showing the article was wrong. If you search Arun Pudur you will have hundreds of articles about him (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=arun+pudur&safe=off&tbm=nws . Me and my friends (3 of us) have spent many hours and collected over 70 unique news articles about Mr. Arun Pudur in many languages and in many countries. If you want I can send you my research for you to verify all of them as good references.

Mr. Arun Pudur Wikipedia article was sent to us by one of our classmate in our school via our assignment page. So everyone had found the Wikipedia page of Mr. Arun Pudur.

Sir, based on this I suspect that one or few of our school students did the page or edited the page without knowing the consequences. I feel that is why you think it is some paid person. I doubt for Mr. Arun Pudur who is a well known person with so many news about him in CNN, Bloomberg, NST, Wall Street Journal needs a paid submission. It is probably a big mistake and coincident that students who have no idea about wikipedia did a mistake leading to banning of all.

Our submission of my assignment is on Wednesday. We are suppose to read in front of the class. I can ask my English teacher and our computer science teacher to help us better understand Wikipedia and help create a new page for Mr. Arun Pudur. I can send you the article after it is done. I hope you will help us to publish our first Wikipedia page. Please consider our request Sir.

Thanking You, Shana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shana.SD79 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This was not a case of a student or two making a mistake while attempting to fulfill a school assignment, it was clear abuse of multiple accounts with proxy use and obvious intent to deceive on multiple articles displaying all of the hallmarks of paid editing. The fact that the Wikipedia article has been deleted and protected against recreation in no way impedes you from completeing your project to "to write about top 10 richest Asian's under 40", especially given that you note you "collected over 70 unique news articles about Mr. Arun Pudur in many languages and in many countries". --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected Master/Sock

Gooday. I have recently been superficially involved in a SPI. I have been investigating (observing) controlling behaviour (beyond WP:Stewardship) and sockpupppetry for over two years, and I contacted you earlier this year to query CU functionality when a new editor was, IMO, spuriously accused of being yet-another sock of an historical master; unfortunately I only learned of that SPI after closure and block of what I believe was an innocent newbie on another continent to the Sockmaster (whom I had identified IRL much earlier).

Turning to the recent investigation where an editor has similarly been very controlling, obsessively in a series of articles with narrow-defined topics (98% singular topic area), this editor was exposed as a Master/puppet and blocked for six months from June. This editor has - against my specific recommendation - quickly successfully-appealed the block.

After the June block I have expanded many articles and seeded test edits to place articles from the same topic area on Watchlist looking for patterns and immediately have noticed a new Master/Puppet arrangement. Whereas I do not feel the two sequences are connected, I do not know where to go with it. It is diificult to AGF, as there seems to be no reason for multiple-usernames other than to unduly promote the second identity, so I have strong reservations.

The Master is Sunshineramsey and new identity is AliceQuayle. I have cleaned up and toned down the contributions including removal of IRL name from images "by Alice Quayle" ([9] and [10]) and removal of prominent images from within an extended infobox, but the critical evidence is that both identities are included in upload details on the same unique type of hand-drawn images (referred to as 'maps', the stock in trade of Alice Quayle IRL). The illustrations appear to have been already hard-published, so there are considerations of WP:DCM and WP:PROMOTION, as well as the dual-login details.

I know you will want to apply leniency and don't bite, but I am unsure whether it would merit CU at this stage? Or is it too obvious to need that? Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • My best suggestion is to open a sockpuppet investigation by clicking "How to open an investigation" on that page and outlining your evidence. If you request checkuser then a clerk will review the evidence and endorse the request if a checkuser appears needed; even if they decline checkuser the evidence will still be evaluated on a behavioural basis. Let me know if you run into any issues with opening a report.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I also have my first AfD to nominate so I have already been reading-up on that sequence.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It used to take me about 15 minutes to cobble together an AfD. After all of these years I think I have it down to 10 :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

hey ponyo why did you delete my page

please let me know why did you delete my page and also what i can do to publish my page. please let me know if i'm violating any rules and regulations.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulkhader21 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read the messages and associated links left on your user talk page explaining why Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising or promotion. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_28&oldid=1190255250"