This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ponyo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Ponyo -

I noticed that information was deleted from my article on Miodrag Radulovacki in the "Personal Information" section. The delted information was factual and verifiable information about Dr. Radulovacki's family. Can you please let me know why this information was deleted. I would like to keep this information in the article. Thanks, GrantradulovackiGrantradulovacki (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The information was removed based on an email request. We typically do not include detailed information on family members who are not independently notable as it constitutes a privacy issue. Due to similar privacy concerns I cannot divulge any details of the email, but the request was legitimate so please do not restore the information. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My name is Grant Radulovacki and I created this article. My father's name is Brad Radulovacki. I have a brother, Reid Radulovacki. All of us would like to have our names included in this article. If you need me to send you an email or anything else to verify this request (my father would be happy to verify this request as well), please let me know. Grantradulovacki (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo - My father just sent an email to Raymond (one of the OTRS Administrators) to verify our interest in being included in the article about Miodrag Radulovacki (my father, me and my brother, Reid). I see that the section where I originally included our information has a protection template. I'd appreciate your feedback as well. Thanks, Grantradulovacki (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it can be frustrating to have the information you wish to have in the article removed, however there are very pertinent reasons, both for privacy reasons expressed through OTRS, as well as through Wikipedia's BLP policy, that protect the article subject as well as any individuals named within the article. While you can mention the number of children your father has (with a source included for verification), naming their names, occupations, and grandchildren's names is a privacy violation regardless of your desire to have it included. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, can you please block the following IP user, User:86.171.233.197. You have previously left a second note on this user's talk page, but it did not prevent him/her from making disruptive edits. Recently, he has been destorying content on articles related to STAR Plus channel (such as the following page Diya Aur Baati Hum, this user totally changed the content on this page and created an article with a new name of an upcoming series (no promo on-air, or nothing on the channel's official site in regards to this made up new TV series). He/she also totally destoryed the STAR Plus channel's template by adding all made up titles of series' that don't even exist. Please block him/her from making future disruptive edits. I understand, we have to leave note on user's page to stop them from making such edits, but previously I have tried this with several other IP users who have vandalized articles. But, it don't matter to them because the IP address fluctuates every few days later or so... Please block this user this time! Thank you. Your wiki friend, Survir (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Survir - the IP has been blocked for disruptive editing. If they start up again please let me know. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, first of all, thank you for all your help. But I believe this IP user has not been blocked yet. I recently checked (3 January 2012), this user is still able to make edits. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you blocked him/her on Jan 2, 2012. Can you please double check. Thank you! Survir (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the IP on Jan 1st for 31 hours. They appear to have made a scattering of edits since the block expired but have not edited since yesterday. If they pick up again let me know and I can extend the block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, I believe the block was not effective. This user is able to make edits. Now he/she has been creating false articles, such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sapnon Hai Pyaar Kii Kahaani and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chand Toh Aai Hai Roshni. Both of these articles are hoax and the titles of the series' do not make sense. This user has put words together to create titles. Both of these articles are hoax. Please block this particular IP user for atleast a month, so the next time he/she make edits, will atleast think twice before making such edits. I apologise to trouble you, but please help. Thank you! Your Wiki friend, Survir (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason they were able to edit is because the block was only for 31 hours. By the time they resumed editing the block had expired. I have reblocked for an additional two weeks - we normally do not jump from a 31 hour to one month block unless we are certain of the stability of the IP. I have also deleted the AfC candidates as obvious hoaxes - even the links used as references were falsified and all related to another program. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia are welcome, but the next time you add wrong dates to Wikipedia, as you did here, here, and here, you may be wished a happy new year to help you to remember. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder - perhaps I'm simply in denial that another year has come and gone? Turns on The Cure and parties like it's 1984.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I did the same thing too a few times. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have left a comment on the Talk page, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd join me in discussion. THanks. Twafotfs (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I was reverting the re-insertion of the contested material as part of BLP enforcement (specifically - if contested leave contentious material out of the article and seek consensus for restoration on the talk page). I think it would probably be best to leave a note of the discussion on User:Alison's talk page as she was the editor who originally removed the material as WP:UNDUE. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will do, thanks. Twafotfs (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

You claim that I vandalised an article entitled 'Jack Montgomery (actor)'. In fact I did no such thing, indeed I have never even read that article. It was probably a different user with the same IP number.

User 86.186.50.84

The warning was not false - whomever was using the IP address 86.186.50.84 in November 2011 vandalised the Jack Montgomery article. All editors have a contribution history - you can see the November edits from your IP address here as well as in the article history here. If you would like to keep your editing separate from other accounts that may have used your IP address in the past you will need to create an account. Creating an account will also allow you to maintain a watchlist of your favourite articles. Instructions on how to set up an account can be found at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for protecting my user page from vandalism = enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just received a notification that the article I created on Nina Power has is being considered for deletion. I don't edit wikipedia much. So, I'm sure as what I am to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMcCann (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to express your opinion regarding whether the article should be deleted - the discussion can be found here. If you would like to review guidelines on contributing to AfD discussions there is some helpful information available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to an AfD discussion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand. What's a BLP subject? Has Nina Power requested the entry to be removed? Despite what is said in the talk page, I have never met the subject, and I'm not in contact in any way with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMcCann (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

'BLP' refers to "biography of living persons" and the policy that protects the subjects of biographies (see WP:BLP). You've done absolutely nothing wrong in creating the article, the subject simply would prefer to have the article deleted for personal reasons. You don't have to participate in the discussion if you do not want to; there is no requirement that the article creator chime in at the discussion. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If she wants it removed, I have no problem with that. There was war over the page at one stage. The talk page has quite a bit of untrue nastiness in it. And it was really more about certain people having a problem with her than the page. Some people really have a problem with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMcCann (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quickly deleting that user talk page as an attack page. I noticed after nominating it that it was a clear legal threat against an individual - in fact, the page specifically called for legal action to be taken; should the editor be indeffed? Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an odd case in that normally we block until the editor issuing the legal threat withdraws it - as the page was deleted entirely there is nothing for them to retract. I also had my finger on the block button, but it felt a little odd to block them without any warning whatsoever - hence the 4im warning. I'm watching them closely and will block immediately if they try to pull another stunt. If you catch something I may have missed just pop me a note here and I'll take care of it ASAP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed oversight over that page due to the personal information contained. You beat me to zapping it, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you beat me to the OS request - I have the email half typed in another tab. Teamwork! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already oversighted—zapped within 60 seconds of me emailing them, so I guess one of them happened to see it too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to e-mail oversight after the article had been deleted, since who could see it at that point? --NellieBly (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrators can. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Out of interest, is it ok for a blocked editor to remove their block notice? Trafford09 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors cannot remove block notices if there is a corresponding unblock request open (declined unblock requests also cannot be removed while the sanctions remain in place). While it may technically be ok for Supermhj8616 to remove the notice, it ultimately achieves nothing - his block is indefinite and the block notice will need to go back up if and when he applies for an unblock. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see - thanks. I'd just wondered whether there was merit in the notice remaining, so others would be aware of it (although of course it's also shown on his user page & block log). Anyway, it's the first ever time we've had proof of his/her interacting with any talk page - maybe we should be grateful - lol. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference would be for the message to remain, but it's really not worth getting caught up in an edit war over. As you noted there is a bit of irony that of the 100+ messages on their page, this is the first one they've reacted to in any fashion. Perhaps that is a good sign, but I won't bet the house on it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

With you all the way. I wasn't going to take action if you didn't see fit. The main thing is s/he can't cause further damage on that a/c for now (but I'll be watchful for further aliases). Best, Trafford09 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If anything suspicious pops up just drop me a note and I will take a closer look. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Unfortunately I stumbled over a user who is acting like a wikipedia dictator, deleting valid AND interesting information from articles because of personal taste (over and over again).
He does not start a discussion before deleting, he is not understanding at all and despite warnings that I gave him on his talk page, does not stop.
Could you maybe talk to him about that? That would really help the quality of a lot of articles on wiki.
Thanks a lot. DISRUPTIVE USER: QuasyBoy - signed:  AmblinX  19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

add. talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuasyBoy#Disruptive_editing_on_Last_Man_Standing_.28U.S._TV_series.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmblinX (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that this is being run through the gauntlet at ANI; there's nothing further I can or am really willing to do here in what amounts to a content dispute. My best advice is to keep a level head even when frustrated and ensure you follow the guidelines for dispute resolution. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ponyo – seeing your comments at User talk:Slideshot, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slideshot. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks of the link, I added a brief note of support at the SPI. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quack quack: User:Rtyd. Please block him as a sock. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocked and tagged. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Any reason that you put Amanda Penix back in "1970s births" instead of "1978 births"? I think that 1970s births should be reserved for people for whom we don't know the exact birthday. When you reply, please put a talkback icon on my talk page. Thanks, Phoenix!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there has been an editor who has socking in order to add a mixture of acceptable edits with the insertion of factually incorrect material in biography articles. There edits have been reverted and now need to be assessed individually to see if they were valid. In the case of Amanda Penix the edit was indeed valid and I have fixed it to display the more specific category - thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

hello just wondering why you removed the external links i added to the wiki pages for David Ross and Cosalt

Fretdust (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The links were removed as they were advocacy links supporting a specific cause. This contradicts both Wikipedia's guidelines regarding external linking as well as the policy against using Wikipedia to promote a cause. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok that explains removing the savecosalt links, but what is wrong with linking to an impartial discussion forum that discusses what that wiki is meant to be about. Fretdust (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We generally do not link to forums (this is also explained in the external linking guidelines, specifically WP:ELNO point #10 "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." If you are willing to make an argument as to why this specific link should be included, you can begin a discussion at the external linking noticeboard, but please do not restore it to any article without consensus from that noticeboard that the link is appropriate. Thank you, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. I'm trying to create an article for Grand Traverse Resort and Spa and noticed you continue to delete the article. Can you provide a little guidance on language. I feel that the latest version was pretty much fact based and not promoting the property. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonluca (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am not repeatedly deleting your article, it has been deleted under two separate names by two separate admins based on a list of speedy deletion nominations. The list is composed of articles tagged by deletion by the New Page Patrol. In the case of the Grand Traverse, the article did not specify what made it important or significant. Please review WP:ORG which has a set of criteria that a company is expected to meet in order to have a Wikipedia article. With regard to advertising, it is often difficult to maintain neutrality when editing an article with which you are at all affiliated, which is why we discourage such editing. With all the templates and notices being thrown at you on your talk page I understand that it can be overwhelming, but WP:ORG will help you understand what the community is looking for with regard to company inclusion, and WP:COI includes guidelines and editing expectations if you have affiliations with an article subject. These two links should help you moving forward. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This guy keeps recreating the article, formerly in article space and now on the dead talk page. Please SALT this.

Thanks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

All done. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block--I was considering the same thing. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of support! Heads for the janitor closet for mop and bucket. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I ran into them a day or two ago; the recent edits made it clear. Well done, and I see you cleaned up all of their other stuff as well. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes well, today has certainly not been a "yellow highlighter" day by any means. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I did something fun: SS Sirio. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done; thank you for picking up the slack :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, what a mess. There's the image he uploaded as an album cover, but as he included no copyright info we have no idea if it's genuine or not, and since it's an orphan it's probably best to delete it. See here. There are also some wacky user subpages he created, such as this and this phoney discography. Thanks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You've already done the lot. Thanks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Dear Ponyo! What do you think about the article Diana, Princess of Wales? Can it be a good article or no? Please, answer me soon. Keivan.f^Talk 08:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have very much experience with reviewing articles for GA promotion. My best suggestion would be to evaluate the article against the criteria listed here and if you believe it meets the criteria to nominate it for review here. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Keivan.f^Talk 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit: why redact, when that phone number is in the EXIF data of the image?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone made the error of posting their phone number in another area, I don't see why that privacy issue should be replicated elsewhere. It's not rev-deleted, just courtesy blanked. Many people don't realize the potential for misuse when posting private data such as phone numbers and email addresses online; I was simply trying to help them avoid many crank calls. It can always be restored or viewed in the history if needed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. Thanks for the explanation.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No I just don't want it clogging up my page. And what editors? --Shylock's Boy (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What editors? Every editor who has commented at the BLP noticeboard discussion, in the Judi Shekoni edit summaries, on the article talk page, on your talk page, and any editor would like to join the discussion at any of these venues. You want to add a birthdate to an article that is both contentious and not supported by Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources. Your attempts to do so have been reverted. You now need to gain consensus on the article talk page that the birth date you wish to add can be used. This consensus will come from discussion by all editors interested in contributing at the article talk page. If there is agreement that the date can be included, then, and only then, should the date be restored. All of this information is basic Wikipedia policy and claiming ignorance of it when it has been explained to you several times by multiple editors does not exempt you from having to abide by it.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did not alter any information, the article and sources CLEARLY say that she is born on August 1st, not the 6th.LAUGH90 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The date has been changed so many times by so many editors it was difficult to keep track. I've removed my latest message from the article talk page as well as your talk page as unwarranted. I hope that you will keep the article on your watchlist and help protect it from future vandalism, it's practically a full time job! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does the Tweet say "happy birthday today"? The person tweeting could have made it up entirely, or could have been talking about an upcoming birthday. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that would be an appropriate topic for the talk page. I have no idea how I even came across the page in the first place, perhaps a request at WP:RFPP?, and I would be deliriously happy if those involved could come up with a definitive solution to the date flip flopping problem. Whether the 1st of the 6th is of no matter to me, as long as it's verifiable. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I have discussed it on the Talk page, which, I agree, is the place to discuss it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the reflink confirming Shawlee's date of birth, as does IMDb. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's a wee bit of problem as neither IMDB nor most online genealogical sites can be used as reliable sources, and certainly don't override sources such as The New York Times. Would you mind reverting your changes and checking at WP:RSN to ensure that it is ok for use in this particular instance? Every previous thread I have reviewed regarding sites such as ancestry.com, findmypast.com and related shows a consensus that these sites require original research or conjecture and therefore do not meet WP:RS, especially for contentious information. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the colloquy re findmypast.co.uk, whose information comes from the General Registry Office of England and Wales, and it was not discredited as a potential or reliable source, although concerned were raised about the paywall. Quis separabit? 19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The first to comments are "Commercial genealogical site != generally accepted as a "reliable source" and "Such sites usually have their information sorted by subscribers, effectively turning it into a user-generated source. Even if they are sorted by professionals, it's kinda WP:OR to say "this record is indeed about the person this article is about". The only person in the argument who asserts it is a reliable source is the new editor User:Moneysuch, who is actually advised not to use it anymore, and then yourself, which was added today. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll contact WP:RSN but there's no need to revert yet, IMO. I am curious if you are saying that ancestry.com, based on census records, etc. is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia or is this your personal opinion. Findmypast.co.uk is based on the records of the General Registry Office of England and Wales. I agree IMDb is not reliable per se, and I shouldn't have even added it to my initial comment above. If you are planning to undo all edits based on these reliable sources, that is more than a "wee" problem. In this case, the Associated Press was merely reporting Shawlee's estimated age as the info was not available, and this was picked up by the NYT. The Social Security Death Index (ssdi) is based on Social Security Administration records, and while not 100% flawless, as nothing in life is, due to human error or the occasional lie by someone trying to make himself or herself younger, it is assuredly a reliable source. Yours,Quis separabit? 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely based on previous discussions and consensus at WP:RSN. You can view all previous discussions on a topic by searching the archives via the shortcut near the top of the page at the noticeboard (see these results for example.) Findmypast is also disputed as a reliable source (see this for example). As the use of such sources generally do not pass muster when reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard then they should not be used - or certainly not used to override sources that have long term consensus as being reliable. I have no intention of starting some sort of crusade against the use of these type of databases on Wikipedia; I simply have this particular article watchlisted and was curious as to how you came to a different date than the one supplied in the article. How do you know that the AP was estimating her age and the NYT picked it up? That would certainly be useful to include on the article talk page. Could you please drop me a note when you start the thread at WP:RSN so I can participate as well? Thank you, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, request for advice at WP:RSN is done. Quis separabit? 19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, can you please block the following IP user, User:109.145.228.211, this is the new IP address for the same user we blocked the last time. I have left two warnings (both on different days) on this user's talk page, but I don't think he/she even pays attention. This user continues to create blatant hoaxes. I have already proposed some for deletion which recently got deleted, but now he/she created another one, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naam Ki Looteri Apna. Can you please block him/her. I believe this user does not have enough understanding of the Hindi language because the articles' names do not make sense at all. This user keeps copying info from other TV series' articles and copy/paste under the title he/she plans on creating. Please help! Thank you, your wiki friend, Survir (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for two weeks; thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, I have proposed the following made up TV series article for deletion several times, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naam Ki Looteri Apna, but few other Wiki User's have removed proposed deletion templates. Can you please help! What I don't understand is that where/how can you find sources for TV series that does not exist/ed as per to the user's who have removed templates requesting. Can you please help delete! Thank you!Survir (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As another admin has declined speedy deletion I don't feel comfortable over-riding their decision. What I have done is left them a note on their talk page and asked them to review the speedy deletion decline. Let's wait and see what they say ok? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

I noticed you deleted the disambiguation page I attempted to create for the term "forensic architecture". I am a newcomer to the world of wikipedia editing, so I could use your advices: Indeed, it is not "obvious" to me why this disambiguation is unnecessary. I am a researcher affiliated with the project Forensic Architecture, and it is after discussing with the Principal Investigator of this project that we decided to create a disambiguation: we want to avoid an unjustified monopoly of the term - which pre-existed our specific project and the expanded meaning we're developing. I just re-created the disambiguation page, since I only noticed the red banner mentioning your deletion at the end of my editing. Please let me know how to make this nuance fit the wikipedia structure and format. Kind regards,

(Conferaces (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

WP:MOSDAB contains all of the Manual of Style guidelines for disambiguation (DAB) pages. These specialised pages are designed specifically to list the various pages with the same name in order to aid in navigation between articles; they are not meant to be used as dictionary definitions or an exhaustive list of possible uses of a word or term. In this case there is only one actual article titled "Forensic architecture" and the second entry is a definition - this does not meet the requirements for DAB page creation. In order for the creation of a DAB page to be necessary, there needs to be more than two possible article targets, which is not the case here. In addition, each entry must contain one single blue navigable link that is directly relevant to the entry (e.g. the term is explained further on the linked page). This is also not the case with this DAB page. It is an invalid disambiguation page and meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you would like you can leave a message on the DAB Manual of style talk page for additional input and suggestions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo,

My name is Noel Griffin and i am the chairperson of the Blue Jean Country Queen Festival which takes place in Athboy, Co. Meath each June Bank Holiday Weekend in Ireland. I notice you deleted a page regarding the above subject last year. I would like to create a page regarding the festival but do not wish to break any rules or as the terms have suggested, have any "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Can you please inform me further as to what i can create or is any page describing a festival content and aims disallowed?

Thank you for your time,

Yours sincerely,

Noel Griffin Festival Chairperson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejeanchair (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As the chairperson of the event you have a distinct conflict of interest and are threfore strongly discouraged from creating an article on the festival. This page has suggestions as to how to proceed if you would like an article created for your organization. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

I am writing to request to undelete a page, "Newcom Group". Newcom Group is an investment company in Mongolia; and its portfolio includes the largest Mobile Network operator (Mobicom Corporation) and largest domestics airline (Eznis Airways) in the country. It is building the country's first wind farm. Articles on the wind farm has been published by a number of global media, such as Financial Times, Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal.

So I kindly request to undelete this page, as I believe it is a notable company, one of the largest investment company in Mongolia.

Best Regards,

BoldTsogt (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)BoldTsogt

The article was deleted as there was no significance asserted for the company within the article. I've taken a look at the deleted page and there was not even any content - it consisted solely of an infobox template and the company logo. You are free to start an actual article on Newcom Group; my best suggestion is to use the article wizard, and please review the notability criteria for companies to ensure this company meets the guidelines for inclusion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to our previous correspondence, your Audit Subcommittee candidacy page has been created. Please visit the page to review (and if necessary, edit) your nomination statement, as well as answer the standard questions. You should also keep watch for any further questions the community may pose. Feel free to contact myself or another arbitrator if you have any questions. Once again, thank you for your offer to serve on the subcommittee. –xeno^talk 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just apologizing for not deleting that unnecessary information on the talk page that I posted 2 years ago. I don't think I knew what I was doing then. I'm much better now. But yeah sorry for not deleting it. Adam Barnes (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all, I just noticed IPs going in and refactoring the information occasionally. As it no longer seemed to be needed I thought it better to remove it then leave it open to further manipulation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have put warnings all over the page to stop users adding information that the band do not want to make available. Will you please advise me how I stop you guys changing Danny's page. I work directly for the band and the label. Please advise and do not make any more changes until you have.

George James Script HQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScriptOfficial (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think an important first step is for you to read WP:COI which is a set of guidelines to be followed by individuals who edit articles with which they are affiliated (I'll post a copy on your talk page as well). When you are doing reviewing the material there you will see that no individual or group owns a page, nor can they tell other editors that they cannot edit a page. Any updates or changes that you do make need to be in full compliance with Wikipedia's reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies. Any edits that go against these policies will likely be reverted. A final note, as your username represents a person or group you will need to change it or it will likely be blocked and you will no longer be able to use it. Instructions to do so can be found here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for semi-protecting that, it definitely needed it. That's probably the only tool I wish I had as a non-admin. For an article avging about 25,000 page views a month, it gets far more than its share of vandalism. Which is completely to be expected.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When it gets to the point where there are so many vandalism hits that it's difficult to even find a clean copy, it's overdue for protection. I don't think young Mr. Mahone's article will be without its shiny silver padlock accessory for quite some time. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ponyok,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes to make it more neutral. I don't know how I can further edit this to make it to your standards. Your notes on what doesn't work is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.48.113 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything that was added can be confirmed on her IMDb page. Do I need to cite that as a resource?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.48.113 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 

The information you added needs to include sources so that the readers can verify the information added. IMDB does not meet the reliable sources criteria (see WP:IMDB and WP:IMDB/RS for specifics). Note that if you are at all affiliated with the subject you are writing about (in this case For the Love of Money (film) and Jenna Mattison), please read Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since creating a page for the band Diagrams, record label full time hobby have released an album and arranged tours leading to a trail of press and radio play, is it now Ok to publish this page?

FTHDigital (talk)

It could be. My best advice is to create the article in your userspace (example User:FTHDigital/Diagrams (band)) and work on it there. Once you are satisfied that it is well sourced, neutral, and meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for bands you can move it to main article space. The article wizard can walk you through the process. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

hi i used my broadband to edit adnan al aroor article but i forgot my ip is gonna be recorded (it begins with 4) so can u remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.49.170 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

...already being handled at User talk:Edgar181. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

True to form, the anonymous user quickly returned under another IP address to make more or less exactly the same edits. Obvious block evasion. SuperMarioMan 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, the new IP is now blocked as well. Let me know if you seem them pop up anywhere else. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another IP, exactly the same editing style. SuperMarioMan 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

...and blocked. Thanks for letting me know!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet again... SuperMarioMan 21:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Still causing the same trouble on pages such as Rami Malek. I'd file a report at WP:AIV, only this user's activity is very intermittent. Would it be worth re-protecting articles such as Malek's (in the case of this particular article, the only edits that have been made so far this year have been either those that introduce factual errors or revert the same)?

Oh, and congratulations on your recent appointment to the Audit Subcommittee! SuperMarioMan 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Without edging too far into WP:BEANS territory, I'd prefer to leave the Malek article unprotected. Please feel free to shoot me an email and I'd be happy to expand on why. I'd block the IP for a short bit but they seem to have hopped off this particular address so I'm not sure it would do any good, and given the extensive range of IPs they appear to have at their disposal a range block won't help. Unfortunately at this point it appears the only current option is to identify the IPs as they come up and block accordingly. I'll see if I can think of an edit filter that could help reduce the disruption as well. And thanks for the congrats! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I know IMDb not considered 100% reliable, but the fact that Ms. Lyons has her IMDb page linked in her official website (http://www.brookelyons.com/), maybe there is validity to that birth date. If she did not want her birth date known, a date would not be put up on IMDb at all. QuasyBoy 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be a more substantial reference than IMDB, which is no way whatsoever meets reliable sourcing criteria for personal info (see WP:IMDB/WP:IMDB/RS for example). A link to IMDB on her website does not mean that she has vetted and agrees with all of the information presented on the website and I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume this is the case. As BLP policy dictates that contentious information should be removed until a reliable source is found this bit of info should not be included until it can be verified through a reliable source (it's unfortunate that she does not include some biographical information on her official website!). There have been many instances wherein we have received emails from BLP subjects or their representatives via WP:OTRS lamenting that we have used IMDB as a source for their date of birth, place of birth etc. and they question why we allow it to be happen. This is why, if questions as to the validity of a date arises, and the only source is IMDB, it's best to remove it completely until verified. This is supported by policy, and could ultimately save volunteers from having to answer another angry email from a (rightfully) frustrated subject. I hope this reply doesn't read as preachy, it's not intended to; I'm only attempting to explain why I'm so obstinate against using that particular user-generated site. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just made a search on Veromi.net, here's what I got: [1] QuasyBoy 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Veromi.net doesn't meet WP:RS as it calls for conjecture (assuming that the names results are the person in question). There has been previous discussion regarding Vermoni here as well. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then, I found this Twitter post from her [2] dated November 8th (the same date on IMDb) mentioning that date as her birthday. The account is not verified but the same Twitter account is listed on her website. QuasyBoy 22:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can use the twitter link as the source and copy this whole conversation to the article talk page? That way if the veracity of the date is challenged in the future we can just point to the talk page discussion and sources already compiled. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. I guess in the mean time, no birth date info in the actual article then right? QuasyBoy 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if you link to her twitter message in the article and point to the talk page (with this discussion moved there) it should be ok. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do, what about the year? (1980 is the only one we know about), add that that to the article as well? QuasyBoy 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately she didn't tweet "today is my xteenth birthday!" or somesuch (because that would be too easy right?). Let's go with the day/month for now and I'll keep my eyes open for a reliable source for the year confirmation. For what it's worth I checked LexisNexis and a couple of other pay sites I have access to but came up empty handed.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Thanks a lot for the help. :) I'm gonna copy and paste this discussion to Talk:Brooke Lyons. QuasyBoy 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I noted that you're able to do edit summary wipes and would appreciate if you could do one for this creative technique which resulted from an expletive the same IP added on his/her previous edit. The IP has already been cautioned on vandalism. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of expletives outside of gross BLP violations or personal attacks are not covered under the revdelete policy. Simple vandalism such as what occurred at The Little Prince does not rise to the level that meets the criteria for redaction. Note that this is my interpretation of the redaction policy, please feel free to approach another admin with your request if you disagree. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo!

I need help regarding The Scripts page and Danny's page. Can you help me remove content the band do not want displayed? I also need to add some points. This is verifiable from their official webpage. I can also find other sources online. If you could help me add the information, it would be appreciated.

I can get the band management to contact wiki to verify the requests. George Script HQ Digital for Epic Records and Essence Digital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.117.150 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello George, please use the article talk page to outline and discuss any changes you think need to be made to the article. This is in compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines that I pointed you to in your previous message to me above and also on your account talk page.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are still quite a few facts, particularly in regards to her credits, that are still missing citations that were not tagged. I just went a head and tagged all of those inline. A bit tedious to do all of them, however it is done now anyhow.Aaron Booth (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find the tagging way way over the top, and I'm one of the staunchest WP:BLP/WP:RS editors you're likely to come across. I think if you re-read WP:BLP and WP:V you'll see that tagging every single iota of information within the article is excessive. To meet Wikipedia policy "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged" (this is directly from the lead of WP:V, the bolding and italics is my emphasis). If a specific role is challenged then it should be removed or tagged for citation, but not every sentence in an article requires an inline citation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Particularly in dealing with her two more recent roles there needs to be a citation. I tagged the personal life line due to the fact that the citation present has been subject to link rot. Obviously citing every role for an actor, with a long list of credits, is excessive. However, when the subject only has a handful of credits, and only one is cited (and now looking back at that citation, it does not, from what I can find, verify that credit), then at the vary least her more recent and substantial roles need to be cited. Since her roles that would make her WP:Notability, are those that are uncited.Aaron Booth (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the reference you tagged as a dead link and it is a perfectly viable reference. The reason citation templates are used is to lessen the impact of linkrot - in this case the reference has the name of the paper, the day it was published, the title of the article, and the author. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever that the link be available online and therefore the link rot is inapplicable as a reason to tag it for citation. To reiterate, you are taking guidelines to the extreme of what they are intended to cover. The roles are mentioned in most of the references already linked in the article - the Flipped role you tagged is covered in reference #1. You tagged her role on A.N.T Farm as "citation needed" but the official website for the program is also included in the references (reference #2). I won't revert your overtagging of the article, but it certainly is not standard procedure. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that Chicago editor hit wikiarticles for a while and, as you say, this return hasn't been too disruptive yet. As ever I appreciate your vigilance and the time you take too keep me informed. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, can I get some help with the article Aramis Knight. There is a user that is insisting that everything be removed without a citation. Can you consider reverting their most recent edit? Thanks. -Aaron Booth (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify Aaron Booth's statement about me: my belief is that WP policy says that BLPs—particularly those of minors—should not contained unreferenced information. I'm fine with adding tags saying that the article needs further referencing, and I'm fine with removing the unreferenced info. However, Aaron Booth (who has admitted that he has a WP:COI) would prefer that the article keep the unsourced content without the tags. Based on policy, I disagree.

I do admit that I'm curious as to why he posted here, given that he hasn't tried discussing this on the article's talk page and that (so far as I know) you've never looked at the article. It certainly doesn't appear to be any part of WP's recommendations for dispute resolution.

Anyhow, the TL;DR version: feel free to ignore all of this, imo, as it's no big deal. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted here because this is the most recent user that has helped me with BLP sourcing policy and practice. But tagging everything on a page is overzealous. If everything you are saying and chose to do with this article is question is accurate, you may be interested in editing Daniel Radcliffe significantly. His birth date is un-cited, as well as many of the statements on that page. Frankly, with a COI, I am in fact more interested in ensuring that the article is well written and accurate. Why would I want to spread false information? Particular in reference the a birth date, and birthplace. I asked for help on the article from another user. This is something that you yourself has done in regards to this very same article. -Aaron Booth (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this has sorted itself out. If there is a dispute regarding content, please follow these guidelines for dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You deleted Lauren Hodges claiming the article was an "exact replica of the article that was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lauren_Hodges". This was not, in fact, the case. I was the creator of the original article and I participated in the AfD. A new article was created by another editor more than a year after the original was deleted. In the intervening time, the actress had appeared in additional movie and television roles and new sources were available to extend her biographical information. Having kept a record of the earlier article, I added and re-referenced the older material; however, the new article differed in several ways from the article that was deleted under the AfD process. I therefore request that the article be restored so that editors may continue to work on improving it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article, in its state upon deletion, was a near exact replica of the article deleted at AfD; the sole difference was the addition of two credits at the end of the article (one a television series, the other a film that does not even have coverage in Wikipedia). This is not enough to override the original close at the AfD where the deletion was based on sourcing issues and borderline notability. In the AfD there was mention of you keeping a copy of the article offline in order to "continue working on it to add sufficient sources". There are no additional sources, you simply pasted the old deleted article onto the newly created article. The original OTRS complaint of article inaccuracy and limited notability that led to the first AfD has been raised again - nothing has changed. You are of course welcome to raise the matter at deletion review if you believe that the new version of the article addressed the concerns raised at the AfD and provided a a substantial enough change that the original AfD close of "delete" would no longer apply. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not simply "paste" the old article into the new one. I had to rewrite it for tense and update the references which had been deadlinked. I will consider your suggestion about deletion review, but I am surprised that you called into question the notability of the actress (see Google search with >12000 hits). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey, when you pull up both articles and place them side by side they are near mirror images. The external links may have been updated in the wikicoding, but they are identical when compared to the deleted version. I am not calling into question the notability of the individual, I am noting that the AfD that resulted in the deletion of the article called into question the extent of her notability and the lack of sources; that has not been addressed with the recreation of the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

They are certainly very similar, but the significant difference isn't the article itself but the fact that the actress now meets notability guidelines by virtue of a greater body of work and more coverage. More sources are available (as evidenced by my rudimentary Google search just now), but no Wikipedians have worked on it since I added back the old stuff. When I have some free time, I will work on improving the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! If the notability and sourcing concerns can be addressed within your draft prior to reposting, then there should be no concern it will meet the G4 criteria when it is recreated. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ponyo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.