This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

I suspected as much. See here. What convinced you (putting aside the technical details)? And how are you, btw, long time no talk?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I ran a check on User:Denmark's Great Dane and then on the blocked ranges they were using to suss out the master. Your two accounts popped up in one of the ranges, I sorta tripped over them. I have a crazy work update for you, I'll email you soon. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well? No fair teasing and then not following through. You managed to welcome those new poor schnooks to our little group.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

But that was just a single word and exclamation point! Anyhoo, email sent.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

I thought It would be helpful for the readers to know the reason why the show's ratings was bad, which is why I added those sources. Anyway thanks as always, and don't work too hard! 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:8D7E:ED49:4474:491E (talk)

As it's sourced it would be relevant for the article on the program itself, however the poor ratings have nothing to do with Ulusoy's appearance on the show so it's not relevant to his article. Does that make sense?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Corecting a ping does not notify the pingee. Pings only work if they are done in one edit. So, you need to repost it completely (re-sign, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much knew that but thought I'd throw caution to the wind regardless as I was too lazy to repost it. This is a common theme with me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I never think of you as lazy. I do sometimes think of myself as lazy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm definitely lazy. @Courcelles: tell Bbb23 how lazy I am.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

She's not lazy, she's just conservative with effort! Courcelles (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Or in other words efficient. You lose, Ponyo, two against one.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you revert my edits? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I did. Also note I've requested help with the clean-up here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So what you expect from me? You expect me to put sources? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I expect you to not add categories regarding an individual's ethnicity or religion into an article unless it is supported by reliable sources that demonstrates the subject identifies with the given ethnicity or religion, which is what I explained on your talk page. Could you also explain what relation you may have to the account Edi344? You returned from a very long break and picked up editing the same subjects within a week of my blocking that account for WP:BLPCAT violations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In Malaysia, the Malaysian citizen who are constitutionally recognized as Malays is expected to be a Muslim no matter if he/she is pious person or not, speak Malay language although he/she only able to speak informal Malay language, and follow the Malay customs although it may seem unclear since the Malay customs may varied according to the places. That's how constitution works. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If the individual does not self-identify as Muslim, we do not force the categorization upon them. Similarly, you need to consider whether the religion or ethnicity is a defining characteristic of the individual. If not, it shouldn't be added. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have relation with the account Edi344. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) AI please read WP:CATDEF as much of what Ponyo is referring to is spelled out there. MarnetteD|Talk 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Although the person is recognized as Muslim on identity card (Mykad), it does not guarantee that he/she is proud with his/her religion. I highlight your advise, "unless it is supported by reliable sources that demonstrates the subject identifies with the given ethnicity or religion," and "If the individual does not self-identify as Muslim, we do not force the categorization upon them.". I do agree with your advise and have to reconsider and spend time to recheck my latest edits. Thanks for reminding me. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If you could help in reviewing the edits it would be very much appreciated. It's time consuming as I have to read the entire article and evaluate the sources to see if the edit can be restored. This article is an example of where the religious category would be applicable, if reliably sourced, since his religion is part of his political stance.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First step, I already added five reliable sources for justifying the Kitingan's self-identifying religion and ethnicity. I hope that you don't revert my edits, give me time to recheck my edits and provide reliable sources. Your co-operation is my pleasure. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And a couple of others - you deleted them, but they had been newly-created by category moves, and as a result some history got deleted as well. I'm not sure they're all the best-named categories - I think a couple are certainly not - but in those cases I would have moved the categories back to their original names, to preserve the history. If you don't mind I shall do that tomorrow, I think. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please fix them as you see fit, with an eye to WP:BLPCAT.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I'm off to bed for now, but I shall do it upon my awakening. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 10:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You blocked user:NewMutants but he is still able to send mails. I recently received one from him saying that "he'll be back and no checkuser will ever be able to catch him" (can send you a screenshot if you want). Apropos, I request blocking his email rights too. Thanks.—TripWire ^talk 08:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: as Ponyo is away, can you please look into this matter as this blocked user is still sending me useless mails. Though I couldnt care less, but he shouldnt be allowed to abuse this privilege. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 10:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: You shouldn't get any more. Ponyo, I checked but feel free to reverse my action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. TripWire I'll make sure to yank email access for any future blocks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're probably doing something selfish like enjoying your weekend. What is the world coming to? Whenever you see this, let me know what you think should be done with the SPI. It's unusual and I'm failing to come up with a Solomonic decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comments you made at the SPI; if he doesn't want others to be concerned about his edits he needs to stop flipping back and forth between the IP and his account, especially if he's editing the same topic area. Obviously the undisclosed logged-out edits were similar enough and caused enough concern to raise alarm bells for at least one other editor. As the connection has now been disclosed via the SPI, perhaps the entire issues is moot?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the SPI disclosure is enough because there are too many editors who would never think to look there. I realize it's unusual, but what about a disclosure on his user page, just like any alternative account except in this case it's an IP?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an option if they still want to mix logged-in and logged-out edits given that they have admitted it is indeed their work IP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I don't do much sock stuff anymore, but [1] is an odd first edit, at least to me. --Rschen7754 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo will know more about this than I, but based on the IPs used and the kinds of edits, I suspect William Pina. I can't confirm it because all Pina's socks are stale. BTW, that's not the only odd edit this user has made. It's the first of many.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely William Pina.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing to me when editors can suss out an editor who is socking, even from relatively few edits, and link it to another editor who might have edited months or years ago. I guess you have to know their "tell" or maybe there is some secret sock instinct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsuccessful socks are creatures of habit and always return to the same articles/topics/arguments and are spotted eventually due to their familiar behaviour. If they would just edit other topics in a constructive manner we would never think of connecting them to their old accounts and they wouldn't be blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: In this case, the first edit was to identify one of their blocked socks... sadly, the number of blocked accounts becomes some sort of bragging right with quite a few LTAs. --Rschen7754 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I don't get what motivates them. I suppose that sometimes an editor receives a block and then decides, "Hey, if I can't edit, I'll cause trouble because, hell, I'm bored."

But there have been thousands of identified sock masters and most only come back a few times and then, the person moves on. Relatively few sockpuppet masters end up becoming LTAs so I guess it's easy to keep tabs on the regulars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I cannot possibly fight over my own content. I deleted my content as it was mine to delete. Do I need to explain myself on this.

TheRedPenOfDoom intentionally ignored my valid arguments and even used insults to address my edits. I am Vianen, and I wish my content to be DELETED. Nows how do I go about this!

Eraser of Stalker Edits 23:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Eraser of Stalker Edits 23:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talk • contribs)

• C.Fred deleted the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And the editor is blocked. That certainly escalated quickly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi P. These brought me the chuckle that you enjoyed few days ago. I'm glad that some of us get to smile in the face of the drahmaz that goes on around here. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to return the favour.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo—I see you just revdelled the grossly insulting material on my talk page. However there have been revisions to the page since then on which the said insults remain. I'm actually quite happy for this to remain so people can see what this guy said (and how I replied), but if you'd rather remove it, the revisions since then need to be revdelled as well. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: It's your call, I can revdelete the remainder (which I obviously missed - sorry!) or un-delete what is hidden. It was disgusting, I'm sorry you had to see it at all, and I've blocked the IP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I'd rather have it undeleted so people can see it, if that's okay. Thanks for your help Ponyo, and I hope you're having a good week so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it per your request. Let me know if you change your mind at any time. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo, I appreciate it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

He's posted again on my page from a different IP: [2], [3]. This I would like revdelled, please. Thanks —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if I missed anything.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again sir. My talk page has been semi-protected for a month now so hopefully this should be the end of it. Cheers, have a great weekend —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not much of a "sir", but I'm happy to help.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 06:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And replied...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So, Ponyo (by the sea!), I have this OTRS ticket VRTS ticket # 2015092610018353 from the creator of this page, which you deleted as a blatant hoax. She claims to be a representative of a legitimate think tank, and would like her page undeleted. I told her I would contact you and ask for some elaboration on the blatant hoax reasoning. She seems rather sincere... Check out the ticket if you want to learn more. Ping me with questions or any other response you may have. THX! KDS4444^Talk 09:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444: The article was created by a prolific and disruptive sock master and included sentences such as "its pork and objective analyses indicate that some of the most popular paradigms" "dams are absolutely essential for the regional pigs of all countries at a certain time" and "international institutions or private sector chipped marshmellows". The institute may be real, however the article that was created (and subsequently deleted) was a hoax.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. Now, the person requesting undeletion claims to be the creator of the page, and stated in her OTRS ticket that the page was subsequently modified by someone else and then deleted. As a non-admin, I can't see the original edit history of the page to see what accounts were used to create or modify the file prior to deletion, nor what content it had along the way, I can only see that it was deleted and the reason for deletion. Could you fill me in on what I can't view? I can then take this back to the OTRS client and go over it with her. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 23:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444: The excerpts I provided above are from the very first edit/creation of the article, which also included "Furthermore, in spite of the current global rhetoric, they are unlikely to work in most countries at macro- and meso-level policies, programmes and baked beans". The sockpuppet/creator of the article was Denmark's Great Dane.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for locking the page down - I could've sworn that I'd done that myself at one point. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no benefit to anyone in leaving that page open after today's edits. There's venting and then there's outright disruption. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo, I note that you have already visited User talk:Cruks in the past. I just saw that this relatively new user is throwing templated warnings around at other editors, even as he reverts constructive edits that are being made pursuant to standard MOS provisions, etc., to his favorite articles. See, e.g., the recent edit history of John Cryan. I don't want to see anyone get blocked, dragged to ANI, beaten with a wet noodle, etc., but someone needs to take this guy in hand and explain the way of the wiki-world (or at least its basics) to him. Since you already have prior history, I nominate you for the job! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had the perfect storm of family and work obligations over the past few days that have kept me completely offline. It looks like Philafrenzy has told them to stop adding inappropriate warnings, and Cruks has barely edited since then. I'll keep an eye on the situation, but the warning to Edwardx was absolutely unwarranted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words of reassurance! Edwardx (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo. I was really just a passerby when I saw the situation and thought the whole thing was a little odd. I mean, it's not like Wikipedia doesn't have it's share of characters, but, well, this one stood out . . . Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

This user with an ip address 39.55.171.195 (talk · contribs) from Pakistan is a vandaliser. Would you check it out? Thank you much (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:BDF7:E0DF:66F7:72D5 (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC))

First, this appears more to be a content dispute as opposed to outright vandalism. Second, they are no longer editing. If you believe that an editor is engaging in outright vandalism (according to WP:VAND) then the best place to report them is WP:AIV.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I see! Thanks anyway. By the way, welcome back! (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:3DA8:5407:7D4:611 (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC))

Thank you :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, Apologies for contacting you again, but I wonder if I could ask for your advice/action? In the last 24 hours 208.54.38.175 (talk · contribs) has embarked on a torrent of personal abuse, per WP:NPA on myself and two other editors on the Ted Bundy Talk page and edit warring on the article page, although they have - so far - not exceeded 3RR. I and the other two editors have presented the evidence for the statements made on the article and asked, via the Talk page, that personal comments should not be part of any discussion. However, they have continued the personal abuse in the latest reply to DoctorJoeE. Is this a case for, at least a warning, or a temporary block? Do have a good weekend. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the above, user has been blocked by another admin for being a sockpuppet. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the socking continued on for a while until the page was ultimately semi-protected. There seem to be plenty of eyes on the situation should it flare up again. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, As you've handled the recent Nair related CU stuff and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rabt man, can you take a look at 106.51.20.13 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ), the exact same articles and now "do not meddle with the identity of an entire community" which is sort of duckish for me. I had issued Rabt man a final warning to mend ways or an indefinite block after a BLP vio in addition to all the other stuff, then this IP started editing Talk:Nair and Talk:Ezhava as well as the other haunts of St Thomas Christians, Caste in Kerala etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's Howdy Doody Day! Nope, that's not right. It's Thanksgiving Day in Canada, and my good guess is Ponyo won't be back until it's over (she's been off-wiki all weekend).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A wonderful time to retreat up north from Vancouver I guess, perfect for a drive up and down Highway 99, but I've waited so long on this IP that a bit longer probably won't matter. —SpacemanSpiff 19:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are undetected proxies at work (which is a possibility), the IP is unrelated to Rabt man. A strong behavioural overlap can trump CU data however. If the IP is being disruptive then they should be warned accordingly; either something productive will come of the warnings or they may end up blocked regardless of any connection to the proposed sockmaster. Now I'm off to continue digesting my Thanksgiving feast! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ACT is a relatively new ISP and only picking up subscribers and are laying cables based on who signs up, don't think there's any proxying involved. There's a behavioral connect, but that's been there across sock farms. The AE sanction will kick in on the article and talk page soon, so I guess we won't have this problem in a few days. Enjoy the rest of the turkey! —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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

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

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

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

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Hello Ponyo. About your recent comment. Are you suggesting these two editors might be related? At first sight they have little in common. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The two users made nearly identical back to back unblock requests to UTRS via the same IP (link here). I'll take another look...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ok, what apparently happened is that Simpleabd wanted to post multiple unblock requests via UTRS. As he already had an open request the system (correctly) blocked him from doing so. In order to circumvent the programming he used the same IP and email address to post a subsequent appeal, but used the name of another currently blocked user (Bog5576) to do so. In the thousands of requests I've handled at UTRS I've never seen a user attempt this. I've blocked them from making further appeals through this route and pointed them to WP:BASC. I've also removed my invalid comment from Bog5576's talk page. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, you learn something new every day! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. I was working on an update to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aboobackeramani but you're so wonderfully quick! I am pretty sure that SunnyCJoseph (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sleeper judging from [4]. Sriharitvm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also involved, they edited the Calicut Review incarnation that was a soft redirect to now deleted ml:കാലിക്കറ്റ്‌ റിവ്യൂ according to Liz. Do you want me to file that based on behavior? Should I contact a steward in regards to the remaining articles on .ar, .ks, .tr, and .ur? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sam, it's always a pleasure hearing from you. I've blocked SunnyCJoseph and added him to the SPI. Sriharitvm is certainly  Possible based on geolocation, however I'm not confident enough in the results to CU block the account. I've salted Calicut Review, however if there is cross-wiki disruption it certainly wouldn't hurt to give the Stewards a head's up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. I have removed the paragraph that had been authored by us on the dredging page. If it is OK for others to plagarize OUR content, but not Ok for us to list the right source, just not interested in contributing the content.

Wvonmayer (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If the content itself was previously published by you then it's correct to remove it altogether as it is likely a copyright violation. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

————

Yes, indeed. Especially since we are the ones who created and contributed the content in the first place. Ironic to see how it was Ok for someone to plagiarize our work as their own for so many years, yet now that I try to credit the correct source.... I am not allowed.

Wvonmayer (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's why using talk pages is so important, it brings a clarity that edit summaries just can't match.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am Omid Kurdistani. My father and my mother is originally from Bukan and from Tehran in Iran. Omidkurdestani (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only accept information that is published in reliable sources that allow our readers to verify the material they are reading. Anyone with a computer can create an account and claim to be a specific individual, therefore you will need to verify your identity via WP:OTRS. Please see Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects for additional information regarding how to proceed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem with the Kurds? I see that you are chasing the Kurds all over the Wikipedia day and night and erase everthing related to them, don't you have a life?!!!Salar Kamangar is Kurd and the source that you want is his Kurdish tribe Kamangar which is very famous in Iran and he is related to Farzad Kamangar who has been executed by the terrorist persian islamic regime in Tehran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chawimin (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. You may want to consider dialing back the hyperbole and false allegations. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you add a protection(pc or semi) to the article. Too many editors(Ips and non-confirmed users) are vandalising this page. Chander 09:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected it as readers and editors were adding their own personal names and info to the the article. It's too active for Pending Changes in my opinion, but we can switch it if the activity level drops.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I understand you have blocked the IP with a CU block, I just wanted to inform you that I am currently reverting the IP's vandalism. Are there any other IPs with the CU block, that you are allowed to reveal, that you want me to take a look at as well? --JustBerry (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It does seem like a handful of the edits may not actually be harmful. Let me know what you decide. --JustBerry (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There are also seemingly unnecessary, yet similar, edits from the IP, such as this. --JustBerry (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the only IP from this specific account I have CU blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi the details were taken from his biography from another site.. All of which were relevent. Can you please add them back? if you need then check http://www.filmyfolks.com/celebrity/tellywood/varun-kapoor.shtml

for all the details. His birthday was in an interview which i saw on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.128.58 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please actually read the links I left on your talk page, specifically WP:RS and WP:BLP. I know there is a lot to take in, but it's important and it is policy. filmyfolks is not a reliable source and what you saw on youtube is not verifiable.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

[5] Actually, I think that category may be appropriate, because she is an American of Malaysian descent even though the she is also of Malaysian-Chinese descent. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: As long as it meets WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS then please feel free to restore it. The master account linked to this IP was adding the categories regardless of whether they were supported by sources.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see the block had expired when later returning after having previously posted an unblock request (somewhat delayed due to busy with RL) while the block was still in effect. Thank you, Ponyo! – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

This Mahir007 (talk · contribs) keeps deleting article's refrences. You already reverted he/she once on page Hazal Kaya, but he/she keeps doing it again! Would you looking to it, and warn he/she somehow? Thank you (84.198.115.51 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC))

There are indeed some very concerning sourcing and copyright issues with their edits. I have left a note on their talk page and cleaned up what I can.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC): Yes, but He also keeps removing portions of page content, and templates from articles like those at Hazal Kaya's page that you restored on 09/15/2015. Anyway, thanks a lot, you're great! (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:597B:65AA:91F8:7E00 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC))

Thanks so much again, as you may notice I've been quite active at AfD especially nominating several longtime troubled articles and not only I have been nominated them all day, I intend to review my notes and continue nominating (I certainly wasn't looking forward to waiting three damn hours). Cheers and thanks again SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, are you able to email? I have some comments that would be best offwiki as they are sensitive. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sloopcaptain. Much appreciated.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually... this topic, just noticed this: 71.189.193.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks fairly dynamic and they've likely already hopped to a new one. Let me know if you see anything current pop up. (And thank you for the kitten, I'll call him Little Houdini).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll set Little Houdini after them, assuming Darwinbish doesn't recruit him first.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it appeared as one on the detector from that site is the thing. Wgolf (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the detector isn't infallible (which is why it's always best to double check). It appears to have been triggered by the use of common names and Wikipedia's "external links" phrase, but I don't actually see any textual copyvio.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure now-though not sure if the film is notable looking over it. Wgolf (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you have finished yesterday the SPI relating to User:Pbfreespace3 (which I filed) and Bbb23 archived it. But I just found another sockpuppet: User:Hogg 22. It is probably the original sockmaster since it is a relative sleeper. It had 28 edits from 13 October 2012 to 10 September 2015. And suddenly became very active a few days after User:Pbfreespace3 was blocked, making 64 edits from 5 October 2015 to today, on completely different topics from before… Could you do a quick checkuser on it (I am 100% sure it is him)? Or do you want me to file a new SPI? 82.123.247.27 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The accounts are technically  Unrelated. If you file an SPI it will need to be based on behaviour.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I will indeed file an SPI. 90.46.246.79 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

These people with an ip addresses (119.158.45.163 (talk · contribs), 119.160.119.99 (talk · contribs), 119.160.116.80 (talk · contribs), 119.160.119.166 (talk · contribs), 119.160.116.159 (talk · contribs)) from Pakistan have started again to add Islam as religion and so on ... to the article. Would you as promised keep an eye on the page, and if you see fit (like Cagatay Ulusoys's page) protect the page?---Regards (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:15FF:CB5E:1DB9:22BE (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC))

Only 119.158.45.163 has edited the article since I removed the BLP-issues, the rest are from August. I think it's a bit premature for protection, but will continue to monitor it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, here's another Azul411 sock for you: diffs, User:Sardddan.

Just FYI, I'm very interested in the Galileo affair, but actually have no feelings either way for Michael White or Redondi. This wasn't always Azul's focus on the article, but it has been recently for whatever reason. -Darouet (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the obvious sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this still him? User:84.45.236.96. Doug Weller (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. The continued complete and blatant disregard for our BLP and sourcing policies is makes it an obvious case of block evasion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi honorable administrator

Please preventing of adding fake heights to Iranian actors and actress such this and sabotage by user Erfan 1375 and some IPs that are shown my contributions page possibley could belong to the user Erafan 1375

thess Ips like user Erfan 1375 adding only fake heights to infobox part of Iranian actors and actress

Thank YouWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox has done the needy in this case.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that troll. GABHello! 21:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yum. Editor's have enough to deal with without having to put up with blatant trolling.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sophie Hunter

added links pointing to Palestine and Malcolm Ross

Es Devlin

added a link pointing to Touch the Sky

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My IP 103.27.171.54 has been blocked (disabled) by ProcseeBot. Can you please help me out as to how to apply for IP-Block exemption rights as i am unable to submit an appeal. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP is correctly blocked as an open proxy; Port 80 was still open when I checked it just now. Given that you posted here, you are obviously able to edit without the use of a proxy so you're not eligible for IP block exemption as you don't meet the "extraordinary need" criteria as outlined at WP:IPEC. Note this doesn't mean that you're not a trusted user, only that you don't qualify for IPBE as you are able to edit through other means than the blocked proxy.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I got a blind email from you regarding a block lift request; is this the proper place to discuss that? Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you make an unblock appeal via WP:UTRS perhaps?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yupper....no, that'd be "no, actually. Just the the unblock template. Anmccaff (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I just double checked your request and it was indeed made through the WP:UTRS email system. The only message from me was to advise you that the block had already expired so I'm not sure what there is to discuss.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. All I used personally was the on-page. More to the point, though, I wanted to discuss the substance, not the mechanism. Anmccaff (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The appeal originated from your email address, that's the only way I could have replied to it. The substance of your content dispute isn't relevant to me as an administrator, however there are multiple dispute resolution methods available to you. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not according to me, or, perhaps more reliably, my outfolder, it didn't. That aside, I understand that you, like other admins, do not deal with content disputes, and don't see where I raised that question. Anmccaff (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it would show in your out folder because it's sent internally via this interface. Regardless, you said above you wanted to talk about the "substance" of your appeal, which I took as you wanting to discuss the content dispute you were involved in. At this point I have no clue what it is you want, so go ahead and illuminate me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a tall order; I thought Miyazaki already took care of that better than I ever could. No, my question was about blocks, possible mistakes about blocks, and how they are reviewed, as well as about my own minor example. Since a good many "editors" -and even a few admins- make decisions about filing, or who to block based on previous blocks, and apparently even on resoundingly declined AN requests, there really oughta be a mechanism for noting which actions were borderline, which were, in retrospect, wrong, and which reflected incompetence or malice by the filer. It appears, however that there isn't a way of dealing with this, except case by case? Anmccaff (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A late reply as I'm battling a head cold and, at approximately 20:00 UTC yesterday, the head cold won. If you still believe that the block was in error and wish to pursue the matter the I suppose WP:AN would be the most appropriate venue. If you would like to receive broader input as to the blocking policy and block review process as a whole then the village pump would be the way to go.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no hurry was or is needed; the personal stuff is stale, and any changes to the big picture would probably be glacially slow. I think, though, that the system is slightly broken, and that gives a real advantage to....less useful?... wikipedians who know how to game the system. Good luck with the sinuses et al; when I get one a' them head cold thingies, the majority of my upper teeth feel like they are abscessed at the roots. Nothing to take lightly, these "minor" viruses. Anmccaff (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It won't happen again. I will assure that all accepted revisions are sourced. CLCStudent (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. You can always research and add a reliable source, if you can find one, prior to accepting an edit. Most DOBs and stats added to the infobox without a source are coming from IMDB or other "bio" compendia-type sites that don't meet WP:RS. Thanks for your help! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do you change a infobox royalti in the article Safiye Sultan? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, I reverted your change that jammed all of the information in horizontal form, making the template virtually unusable for anyone who wants to add or change the fields in the future. I restored it to the format it's suppose to be in according to Template:Infobox person.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed your concern here about this user. I just wanted to leave him a warning too for still using constantly fake edit summaries, and as well as continuously adding unsourced/uncited content (mostly pov-related), but hes had already so many warnings. Any opinion what to do? I can drop 50 diffs if needed that show that he still uses fake edit summaries, as well as drops no-brainer content. Most of his edits are very problematic. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up. When you attempted to salt this page earlier today you appear to have salted the talk page instead. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think there was a page move involved and I somehow ended up on the talk page. Given that socks have attempted to create the page under a number of names to circumvent protection, leaving the talk page protected as well probably won't hurt.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you recently removed my page called The EZ Life I feel that it was wrong and would it be possible to put it back online? The page is about two YouTubers (a couple) they have over 130,000 subscribers and there channel is growing very fast. I understand it may not seem important but to their fans it is. Zach and Emily ( The EZ Life ) both have a pages on Famous Birthdays ( http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/zach-lawhead.html ). Lots of different YouTubers have Wikipedia pages ( that might not seem important but to their fans it is ) and I feel The EZ Life should have one too. I know that the page will have people look at it and edit it. I appreciate you reading and considering this! Thank You very much!! Eroncam3 (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)eroncam3

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on notable topics; it sounds to me what you really want to create is a fan page. There are a multitude of websites and social media venues where you can pursue that goal, but we don't create articles on random YouTubers who do not meet the notability criteria. 130,000 is not that significant, in comparison to those who do meet the notbility criteria (e.g. PewDiePie and Rhett and Link). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ashertom95. Hi Ponyo. Can we close this two-for-one deal on this one? Take care. Dr. K. 06:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ponyo. Dr. K. 22:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The user Amy Cyrus is still a copyvio problem (you blocked them once already), e.g., [6]. Please address. --Lucas559 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely. The one week block apparently made no impression, so they're blocked until they demonstrate an understanding as to why they can't just cut and paste material from other websites. Thank you for letting me know.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Ponyo, you helped me get someone unblocked a few months back, which I appreciated. In return for your kind assistance, I bring you nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. User:Drmies has thrown you to the Alabama Alligators, with the suggestion that you run for arb. [7] My sincere condolences, for I agree with the good doktor's prescription. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I like to dedicate the time I have available on Wikipedia to trying to make things a little better and easier for those who are building the encyclopedia, whether through their content creation, gnoming, or BLP monitoring. I prefer taking action as opposed to talking action. I don't think I'd be a good fit for ArbCom; all that work only to come up with proposals and results that satisfy no one. While I certainly appreciate the trust that you and the Good Doctor have placed in me, I believe my strengths lie elsewhere.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective that is an excellent nom-statement, for an arb-run. Yes, there is a lot of talking. Yes, sometimes it seems precious little of the talking leads to results that satisfy (either inaction, or worse, counterproductive action). So although I won't twist your arm... much ... I do think that your keen desire to make things better for building the encyclopedia, is very much an arbcom-member-trait I'd like to see, in as much abundance as can be managed. There are good people on arbcom, and they are trying very hard to Improve The 'Pedia, but it is not so E.Z. to accomplish in practice! Please keep the idea in mind, to cogitate upon a bit further, and if you seen an opportunity where your skills and work ethic could be used to make wikipedia better overall, by making arbcom better, I would urge you to carpe diem.  :-)     Thanks for all you do, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

i was wondering why my page got deleted its for my project in my class and i dont understand because i sourced everything and with the picture i went through wiki commons to source all my pictures. could i get feedback so i could post again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagillard (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read the explanation posted on your talk page regarding copyright policy on Wikipedia. If you have further questions after reading the relevant policies regarding copyright, I'll be happy to expand on the reasoning.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy actions :) -Officialjjones (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome for the speedy speedy.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this is the first edit to this userpage maybe a simple deletion would be easier/better than Rev Del, but the edit summary [here] seems to qualify as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." Thanks, Meters (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it, as well as their sandbox where they posted the same offensive comments. I'm happy to help, but if you were an admin you could take care of such issues yourself (hint hint).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've considered it, but I'm just back from a break. I don't mind death threats from vandals, but I get disillusioned watching some with power (admins, even former arbcom) who know better throw their weight around. I greatly respect most of the active sdmins I've dealt with or watched, and I would hope that I would follow their examples if I ever took up the bit. Meters (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You could forge your own path! As I said though, I'm happy to help in the meantime.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you have undone a lot of the GENUINE content from the Armeena Khan page. She starred in Bin Roye which released all over the world and it made history. Her pictures are constantly removed and her page vandalised by both admins and regular bad users. Armeena is a star in Pakistan, there is no doubt. DAWN news in Pakistan is a huge newspaper and you cannot discredit it. http://www.dawn.com/news/1196406/bin-roye-getting-overwhelming-response-worldwide Google bin Roye if you have ANY doubts about who starred in it and how it did at the box office. We need to find a solution here because you can't just discredit a star like this. We need to insert a picture and we need to update her projects without proper removing them. You need to advise on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbagepatchdollkids (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well if the individuals behind the giant paid editing marketing push wasn't using multiple accounts (hello brand new account!) to add blatantly promotional material to the article on a daily basis, then there wouldn't be an issue. If Bin Roye is popular, that is something to add to the Bin Roye article. The incessant inclusion of promotional copy full of puffery, peacock phrasing and reference spam is a detriment to the article and the BLP subject herself. Have you read Wikipedia's terms of use regarding paid editing? How about our policies regarding neutrality, abuse of multiple accounts and promotion? Who is this "we" you speak of? The company being paid to puff up the article into a promotional mess?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You marked Skydive GB, Bridlington for speedy deletion due to A7, however this is in the similar layout to other British Parachute Association dropzones, with no lesser or greater content. For example, London Parachute School.

Please reconsider?

BPA Drop Zones

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkshire-rus (talk • contribs)

The article was tagged for deletion by another editor, though I was indeed the admin who acted on the speedy deletion request. The article itself consisted of only three sentences essentially noting the existence of the organization; there was nothing in the content that demonstrated why the company was notable in any way. Please review WP:ORG, and if you believe that Skydive GB, Bridlington meets the notability criteria for inclusion outlined therein, I would suggest starting an 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.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The message you left on my page. I know your saying that we don't have to put everything we see on an article. What else that you typed mean? How much community's vitalines did I break? (WikiEditor905 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC))

Don't put everything you see on an article, even if's it's a reliable source. If it's for privacy, then why would celebrities put their babies full names and birth dates. TMZ.com got a hold of Adam Brody and Leighton Meester's daughter's birth cerficate. But they blocked out their address and other signatures. (WikiEditor905 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC))

We err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting the privacy of minors. It does not matter what a gossip website has done to obtain and publish such private information, we don't propagate such rumours and gossip at the expense of the children and family members involved. I've pointed to the policies that support removing the full names and exact birth dates of minors unless they are independently notable from their parents; you can disagree with those policies, but you must abide by them if you would like to edit such articles. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How do you recommend we stop this guy? They're very persistent. GAB^Hello! 22:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a rangeblock slowing them down somewhat, but they do have a couple dynamic ranges available to them. Easiest just to block them as they pop up. If I miss something, please ping me here. I'm pretty busy for the next week or so, but I do have some kind and capable talk page stalkers who can plonk the accounts if I'm not around!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. GAB^Hello! 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that sock is at it again--Yankees10 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Noted. They've been globally locked per usual.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello P. 5.81.235.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the most recent version of the rape doesn't happen vandal. They seem to have taken a new tack by posting on a ref desk page. Unfortunately, the post has been responded to so I don't know whether others would object to its removal. I hope you and yours have a delightful Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 05:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The main sourcing issue has been taken care of, so it may be worthwhile to see how it goes without protection for a bit. I'll be watching it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, Just to inform you that our block evading, rape addict has resurfaced under yet another Northern Ireland, UK; IP: 5.81.235.234. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Also noted by MarnetteD above. I've blocked the IP as they've been mucking about on it since early November.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thnks for your help, I hadn't noticed MarnetteD's post above. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo. Our friend appears to be back in the form of this user. A recent article creation was a direct copy and paste from nbafamily wikia, where User:Lilk846 does most of the editing [8]. Also, Kelly Murphy (volleyball) was edited by the IP address and the new account in a very similar way. Also, when communicating with User:Bagumba, the user edited the last section on the talk page to start a new section, rather than pressing "new section" on the top of the page – both User:Lilk846 and all their socks have done this in the past. What do you think? I think it's very obvious. Frustrating, but obvious. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for evasion. The talk page edits made it a cinch for DUCK. The older socks are probably stale now, but is it worth a CU to rule out any sleepers, based on the history on multiple socks?—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There was also Lauracortez00, which I've blocked and tagged as confirmed. Thanks to both of you for letting me know she was back (and unfortunately appears to have learned nothing regarding BLP policy while they were away). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit Subhash Ghai..AlyssaRachelleSara (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlyssaRachelleSara: That's odd, neither have I. The message pertains to this edit as well as this one where you replaced clear instructions to include a reliable source with an unsupported date and actually removed a source from another section. You have done this in a number of article, so moving forward please ensure you are not adding or changing personal information in biography articles without including a reliable source.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Privacy of minors__Due to privacy concerns, please do not include the full names and birth dates of minors unless they are independently notable. WP:DOB and WP:BLPNAME touch on some of the reasons why we err on the side of caution regarding this information. Thank you,--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. There are countless pages with the names and DOBs of children. The parents give press releases with the names, lengths, weight, and more! 173.66.63.102 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What is not true? The policies I noted in my message to you? That's hardly an argument as they clearly exist. If there are other articles that contain the information then it can be removed unless there is consensus for the inclusion of the full names and exact birth dates for that specific article; you don't keep privacy violations in all articles because they might appear in some articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

So basically what you're saying is this > "No Way A PICTURE" can be obtained from the web and added to the article, period. Even the ones with the source to english wiki... am I right!? (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:7460:598A:81F5:9414 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC))

No images can be added to the article that do not meet the appropriate licensing criteria for inclusion. The Free Use criteria used in some articles cannot be used when uploading images of living persons for their articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks as always for been such a help. By the way, would you keep an eye on this ip 180.94.80.115 (talk · contribs) which has embarked on an absurd editing on Kaya's article?(2A02:1810:3812:AD00:10AE:B0DE:4C86:8A23 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)).

It looks to me that they're trying to be helpful, but just don't know how. I've left a note on their talk page should they return.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Can you please take a look at this article? The references are unclear and I'm not sure about which tag I should use on top of the article. Besides the "External links" section also seems to have a problem, because it includes all of her official accounts' links. The other actors' articles seems to not have such links. Keivan.f^Talk 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bit of clean up and tagged it for a copyedit and for full references as they are all bare urls. Hope this helps!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You also corrected the form of links. But as I just want to know, which tag should I use for an article with unclear references? For example, these two articles (1 & 2) have such references. Keivan.f^Talk 13:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The bare urls tag is probably the most relevant.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi P. I hope you are well. This is so great that it makes me say "Ouch!" Puns like this - that are good and bad at the same time - are what keeps me getting up in the morning. Many thanks. Have a delightful weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't encourage me! You won't be able to stuff the pun-slinging genie back in the bottle!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add talk page access to this block. This is a bit much. Meters (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Normally editors have some leeway to vent, but that was indeed over-the-top.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki din't get the point the first time I removed it... Meters (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The article Jubin Nautiyal recently reappeared on my watchlist as being re-created. I cannot remember or see why it had been deleted previously, was it a creation by a sock? ( the other edits by the creator have a feel that are not entirely in sync with a new editor.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case it's just a recreation of an CSD A7 deletion. Not what I was expecting given the rampant socking in this area, but there you go!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ponyo. I'm here to inform you about a recently added copyrighted image in Nur Fettahoğlu's article. I'm %100 sure that it needs to get deleted. As an administrator I think you are able to do it right now. Thanks anyway. Keivan.f^Talk 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons where I'm not an admin, so I nominated it for speedy deletion there. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(tps) I deleted it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're an admin on Commons as well? Excellent....(tucks that tidbit of knowledge away for future reference).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: this edit

What you may not realize is that this is not a change by Glory Johnson which would require a reference, but an update to reflect the fact that the Tulsa Shock have moved to Dallas and changed their name to the Dallas Wings.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. I checked her USA basketball online profile listed in the references and they still showed the Tulsa Shock name, hence the revert.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That user is back as an IP and doing daily episode count updates, and you told me to come to you if they return following the ending of the page's protection. Just thought I'd let you know that! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the protection on both Days of our Lives and Emmerdale.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bold and the Beautiful is the next target... since the protection was lifted, an IP-hopper has removed the reference and have been doing daily updates. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Actually, the information earlier I provided was 100% correct. But I don't have any strict proof to prove that. But I will request you to please Refer her Instagram and Twitter Account and some more third-party News Articles.

A brief explanation regarding the precision of the information provided earlier: Check the two surnames, Parekh belongs to her, Gohil belongs to her husband Parthiv Gohil. Please have a look.

Thank You..

The issue here is that the other editors who were adding birth dates that conflict with the one you provided also likely believed that the information they were adding was 100% correct. This is why we insist on the inclusion of reliable sources in such situations as it allows readers to verify the validity of the content they are reading. The Instagram and Twitter accounts you linked to are unverified and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source (see WP:SELFPUB). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't sure how to request a new report and there's no suspected socks to compare it with. I wanted to know if a a checkuser be done for 7uperWkipedan as suggested by NeilN here. 7uperWkipedan was incorrectly tagged as a sock of AndresHerutJaim when he was actually topic banned from WP:ARBPIA and then indefinitely blocked for not complying with it. However, as pointed out here by Jeppiz action needs to be taken against the sockmaster, who had not been identified and there may also to sleepers still in operation. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to go to your talk page to chat but I got caught up in another sock check after reverting. Elockid ran the checks with regard to that particular SPI. I'm not sure how much information they will be able to divulge, but they would be the right person from which to request clarification.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I missed the section in the "template usage" box as otherwise I would have got rid of that as well. However given that you clearly seem to object to the edit I've started a talk page discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire point of the template is to denote users who no longer edit the project. You may disagree with it, however blanking the template usage instructions and documentation that have been in place for years in order to continue to use it incorrectly on your own user pages is wholly inappropriate. I have no idea why one would want to use a template that is blatantly misleading to other editors when there are readily available alternatives that more accurately reflect reality, but that's neither here nor there I suppose. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not the reason I blanked it - I blanked it because I believe, and I still do believe that that instructions shouldn't be used to remove the retired template from other people' user pages as WP:UP gives latitude. I would not have made such a change just to use it on my own page. You'll note that I didn't remove the definition as there was no reason to remove that, as I say I strongly disagree with the definition, but it has been there a long time and there is no contradictory guideline or policy, so I agree removing that without discussion would be wrong. However, in my opinion, I believe suggesting users removed it from other users pages is a different situation as it goes against the WP:UP guideline and so I did not feel it inappropriate to boldly remove it. Dpmuk (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, on a second look at my edit, I did remove a bit that was quite definition like and I may have erred a bit there - I might have been better rephrasing the first sentence I removed. But I assure you my purpose was to try to stop people removing the template from other people's user page - I probably could have done that better. Dpmuk (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've noted my opinion on the talk page. While I wouldn't edit war to remove the template from a user page where it doesn't apply, I reiterate my concern that the template documentation should not be removed in order to allow for the template's use in a misleading fashion and in a manner that allows for gaming the system.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. As I explain on the talk page I don't think using it the way I do is generally misleading - it may be to the small percentage of editors that have read the template documentation and/or WP:RETIRED but not to editors in general. In fact I think using "semi-retired" in this circumstance is likely to be more misleading as it implies I may actually respond to their copyright or admin issues. I thought carefully about what template to use and decided retired was the less misleading, which is why I thought it inappropriate for someone to use that statement in the documentation to remove it from my page. I don't feel it was necessary for a specific statement about gaming the system is necessary as that applies to all user templates and that was part of my reasoning in deciding to be bold.

Obviously the appropriate place to discuss the template is on its talk page. I just didn't want to leave you with the impression that I made the change I did just to have it on my pages. My intent was to try to stop that statement being used as a basis for edit warring the removal of the template. I don't feel that there is, currently, consensus for such drastic actions especially given the leeway explicit in WP:UP. Dpmuk (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, Regret to inform you that our Northern Ireland Rape addict has again surfaced with a mass of same style edits under the IP 31.54.250.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can I, once again, leave this with you?

I must say I am very concerned regarding this person and wonder if there is any further action that can be taken to stop this? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. Unless there is an explicit threat of harm to others or themselves, wherein WP:EMERGENCY applies, there is nothing that can be done about the individual specifically. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo, Many thanks for your help. Is it worth protecting The Searchers (film) article and Talk page for an ind. period? This is where we have had the most, but not all, problems? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I only see 1 recent edit from them on The Searchers (film) article, and talk pages are generally left unprotected except in cases of extreme disruption (and even then only for a short period). Although frustrating, the best way forward is to simply block on sight. I appreciate you (and others) for keeping an eye on the articles and reporting when the socks pop up. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

This user from Pakistan Has embarked on an editing misleading info (Gossips, Islam as religion, deleting sources...) on Wiki articles, can you check it out? I already restored the contents to their pre-editing by that user, but I am almost certain he/she will be back for re-editing.---As always is nice to have a good administrator like you here thanks (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:84FB:DCA2:DC84:C983 (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

I've blocked the account as a confirmed sock of Ishq Hawa Mein. Thank you for helping to clean up their edits!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

Thanks for the swift action for blocking that user, but I think this user with ip addresses from India might as well be blocked. 'cause despite repeated warnings and rollbacks from Wiki patrols he keeps vandalizing the content on Adını Feriha Koydum article. Can you check? Best regards(2A02:1810:3812:AD00:EC0E:C009:F3F0:BF1F (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)).

I semi-protected the article for 3 days. This will keep the editor from hopping from IP to IP to continue making the disputed changes and compel them (hopefully) to discuss their suggested changes on the article talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope so too! Really! It's amazing why some people just can't differentiate between introductory and the plot!? Regards(2A02:1810:3812:AD00:D199:E38C:6AA5:7767 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)).

The reference for unique spelling of surnmae of Urwa Hocane and Mawra Hocane has been added. WikiBulova (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've fixed the citation display so that it only appears once in the reflist.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That is clarified, that G5 only applies if the author was already banned or blocked, either a sock-puppet, or in violation of a topic-ban. In this case the author was blocked for blatant promotion after legally writing the article. Many such articles, created for blatant promotion, can also be G11'd. That one cannot. It isn't blatant advertising or spam. It can be MFD'd, or will die in six months. I think I will go with MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

How this user Legacypac can be able to nominate a Wiki article for deletion!? Can you look into it? Thank you much(2A02:1810:3812:AD00:A530:D0B8:2D66:A737 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)).

If the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria the article will be kept. The best way to demonstrate notability is through the inclusion of reliable sources. On a not-so-related note, Legacypac, please don't refer to a 24-year-old woman as a "girl". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate pages for deletion. There are guidelines on what should be on Wikipedia, including WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Is she a boy? 24 is not very old. Legacypac (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A girl is a child. A woman is an adult. At 24 years old, she is a woman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Legacypac, although you were likely unaware of the negative connotations, the use of "girl" when speaking about a grown woman can be demeaning, especially the way you used it (twice) at the linked AfD.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that my sandbox would get deleted? I had been told by administrators that sandboxes were allowed to be posted as long as there wasn't inflammatory material. Some recent edits have prejudicially made me a wider target recently. (ScreenJunkiesMovieFightsandTVFights (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC))

See WP:NOTWEBHOST. Looking at the page, it was at such a level of detail that it was more suitable for a fan site, not Wikipedia. It was in no shape to be a Wikipedia article and sandboxes are for working on articles, not for hosting non-related information. That's my opinion and I'm not speaking for Ponyo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As was explained to you here, that is incorrect. Wikipedia is not to be used as a webhost for content unrelated to article creation and related collaboration. There are many websites that you can use to host your tens of thousands of bytes of material and laundry list of youtube links on your favourite program; there is zero benefit to Wikipedia in providing you with a free webhost to keep it here. I can email you the content so you can post it elsewhere if you're so inclined. I have no clue what "Some recent edits have prejudicially made me a wider target recently" refers to, so I can't help you there.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well it's obvious that you don't need the content emailed to you as you just restored it wholesale. It has again been deleted. If you believe there has been a procedural error in the deletion you can take it to deletion review, however if your sole purpose in contesting the deletion is so that you can continue to host the content here it will be declined.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Not wholesale. The two of us spent several hours rewriting a good chunk of it. (Andrewjshick (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

I don't like your attitude of removing statements and discussion in talk page it is causing disruption. I can't reply to thin air. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: The edit was made by a block-evading user, so you are essentially responding to "thin air" as they are unable to reply. As I noted on your talk page, you are free to restore the edit as long as you take responsibility for its content, but labelling my completely valid revert as vandalism is incorrect.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Seeing that your a CU, is it possible you can do a CU on a possible Sock? Misdemenor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is evidence of socking I can. I will be logging out shortly though, so if it's urgent you may want to catch another checkuser. You can also start an investigation and I will take a look as soon as I can.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I opened an SPI case [9] Misdemenor (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I at least have my data emailed to me? I was clearly prejudiced against in the recent deletion talks by bringing up issues (you can't honestly say you would have otherwise found this as the page stood for several months), and I didn't have a chance to backup my data. Getting the data back would take at least 10 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The content of all three sandboxes have been emailed to you, please don't attempt to post it on Wikipedia. Note that as you are  Technically indistinguishable from the indefinitely blocked ScreenJunkiesMovieFightsandTVFights I've blocked your account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo,

thank you for the information. In fact other wiki pages are stating about the relation or relatives of the person. That's why i edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogender (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The content was unsourced but correct. --The Avengers 08:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's correct you can add the sources verifying its correctness. Then both editor and reader benefit. Win/win!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have recently expanded the articles of Beren Saat, Meryem Uzerli and Serenay Sarıkaya. I'll be happy if you take a look at them to see if they have any grammatical errors or not. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the references used on Nur Fettahoğlu's article seem incomplete. You maybe able to improve them as you did with Tuba Büyüküstün. Keivan.f^Talk 07:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't expand the references at Nur Fettahoğlu. I think there's a gadget that some editors use to expand refs, but I don't use it. I've tagged the reference section as using bare urls so that others who are so inclined can expand them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen that you have placed a warning message on User talk:Chica7776. While the message is valid, the editor receiving the warning seems to have just lose a friend/relative, hence their creation of a memorial page for them. Please consider replacing the warning with a less strongly worded one. Thanks, Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As you cannot see the deleted article that they (and their sock) created that was very obviously a mix of vandalism and threatening material you would not know that, however. The material has been oversighted and both accounts blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Successors to User:BrandonRuanoAlvarez7151977, User:BrandonRuan77 and User:BrandonBarnes715: User:BrandonBarnes77 and 2607:FB90:218C:AC98:0:B:795B:9501. Robby.is.on (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi P. yet another of our NI IPs has popped up as 31.49.26.115 (talk · contribs). So far this one has only posted at the "refdesk entertainment" so, other than the block evasion, they haven't gone to their obsession (yet) but I thought I'd let ya know just for the record. I hope that you and yours are proceeding through the season of tinsel and mistletoe in fine form. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Which one is this again? Sorry, they all blur together after a while.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry P. I should have been more explicit, This is out Northern Ireland IP hopper. This User talk:109.151.65.218 is the page where we have been tracking the various IPs. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes...now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

31.49.26.115 (talk · contribs) returned to editing after the block expired P. Even a lump of coal is too good for this one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, Trust you are well? Could I please bring to your attention the activities of Connerdn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Bow Group article. This user is reverting sourced links on the article and has done so for over five times in the past 48 hours. The previously unexplained reversals have been reverted by ScrapIronIV and myself. Additionally, this person is now making threats of legal action against editors for reverting their "edits". Can I leave this with you please for action? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

They stopped after the 3RR warning. If they continue they can be reported at WP:3RN.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Ohnoitsjamie: Hi guys. I only just recently started using AIV and SPI, a few weeks ago, after years of dreading it. I have had pretty much all very good experiences and I am surprised at the efficacy and swiftness of the service. The user interface is a nightmare until I figured it out (and now it's merely bad), after having failed repeatedly over the years. Anyway, this baby kitty right here is hoping for the day of real quality assurance and reputation for the Wikipedia userbase someday. Until then, he's extra extra grateful for your service.

— Smuckola(talk) 00:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

He looks very adventurous; I'm going to call him Percival.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

lolololol — Smuckola(talk) 00:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will eventually get easier as you get used to it, at which point someone will make radical changes to improve it and you'll have to relearn everything. Percival is cute, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Coast Bridge made only one edit before being blocked, and 1) the edit was correct (see my comment when reverting your reversion) and 2) the edit summary is clear, correct English and doesn't profanely rant, so it doesn't sound all that much like Janagewen. User:Sir.Mot is pretty clearly Janagewen, but I'm not so sure about User:Coast Bridge. Guy Harris (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: It's definitely Janagewen. They are technically indistinguishable from the Sir.Mot account and they admitted that they were Janagewen on Meta (resulting in a global block).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo. I hope you don't mind but I hid those two revisions because I'd rather not have the area I live in plastered all over talk pages. I hope that's ok. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely understandable.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

I noticed you reverted one instance of inappropriate archiving of talk page. You might want to be comprehensive and delete this as well: Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archive 1.

But of course, feel free not to trust me and double check; you know, the old "look before you jump" principle.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Already done :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Ponyo as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you MarnetteD. No stockings hanging under the mantle for me this year, I've had enough socks to last a lifetime!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hi Ponyo. After you protected the article, a new user again changed the language box by adding Madhesh next to |states= and by replacing the link to Terai, Nepal. Madhesh is not a state nor country, and the region's name is Terai, both in Nepal and India. Not only Madheshi people live in the Terai, but several other ethnic groups as well. So naming the region Madhesh is misleading and moreover a highly political issue at present, in view of the conflict going on since end of Sept 2015. Therefore, I suggest to revert the links to Terai and stay out of politics in regards to this article. -- BhagyaMani at 113.199.245.25 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC) because I forgot my password while travelling.

If the information added or changed is obviously incorrect then please correct it, however be mindful of edit-warrring and ensure your open a discussion and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution suggestions.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood. Capitals00 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As these are IP addresses there is nothing I can add to the SPI (per our Privacy Policy), though Xtremedood's block should be extended if the reviewing Clerk or Administrator believes there is continued socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for a wonderful holiday season! Have a good time with your family, and take care. (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:7807:9DF6:CE4:544 (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

Thank you!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. The vandal you just blocked is evading for more vandalism.[15] — Smuckola(talk) 20:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(passing admin) It's blocked now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

This user Tanisha saini (talk · contribs) from India has embarked on ‘disruptive editing’ (deleting ‎International broadcasts & changing subject's name been credited with, etc). Can you look into it? Thank you, and have a great new year's eve. (2A02:1810:3812:AD00:CC37:F300:8812:10F (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

.

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

== Happy New Year, Ponyo! ==

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

I'm so original -- third time someone has used this template on your page! :) Thanks so much for the protection; do you know of any long-term sock deterrence strategies?

Best of luck in 2016,

GAB^Hello! 23:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi,

CAn you please update her image? shes my client and i handle her digital media...Thanks...

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30