User talk:Ponyo/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I was hoping look into something for me. About ten days ago you blocked this user as a sockpuppet. He/she came to my attention when he created an article on

Note: Replied via email on Aug. 3.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that silly remark from my talk page and blocking the anonymous user who made it. Much appreciated! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing

Thanks for letting me know; I've blocked the named account. With the IPs (which may or may not be related) I generally give them a level 2 and then a level 3 warning, then block if they don't stop with the BLP violations. The IPs are so disposable they just pop onto a new one so it's essentially whack-a-mole.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow your lead on the ips. Has anyone discussed a range block? --

talk

) 22:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately a useable rangeblock is not possible due to the very large ranges being used. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Ponyo. Can you please direct me to the case page for the sockmaster of these socks? I do like to investigate possible links to a new user currently active at Pakistani celebrity articles. Thanks -- SMS ^Talk 10:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't an SPI page as the technical data is confounded by the number of ranges being used. At this time I've been essentially playing whack-a-mole as the accounts pop up. This appears to be a marketing network being used for promoting minor Pakistani/Lollywood actors and programs as opposed to a specific sockmaster, and the disruption goes back years. The main concern is that the articles created and the information added often include copyright and BLP violations as well as falsification of references. If you have a specific account you would like me to look at you can note it here or email me if you prefer. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, if you can look Jiah Amin (talk · contribs). And I think it would be of great help if we can have a category that list all these socks or a Long Term Abuse page. -- SMS ^Talk 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I already blocked them this morning and deleted the article they created as a

G5.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

17:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, you may want to look over the thread here as you were the CU checking into him. I've blocked another of his socks. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, it helped in detecting this sock. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that you recently blocked 76.117.236.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). User:Areusure4 says that they used to edit as 76.117.166.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that wasn't very smart.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you a troll or something? :) -- 76.117.166.209 (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please undo the "per WP:BLPPRIMARY)" as the edit is well researched from the actual case file which I have given as Reference.Rest is up to you.I wanted the actual case file on the article created on Manu Sharma,to give it authenticity.The facts are not straight.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The material you are trying to add is already summarized through the use of

against Wikipedia policy which is very clear on the subject: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I differ -this article clearly points only to a criminal case .This is not a Biography.It contains only what happened in a particular case ,which has again re-opened at the High Court of Delhi. If it was a Biography with a mention of some criminal activities by a person,which was debatable ,I would have not included this edit. It is maligning a person on Wikipedia by making him a criminal based on a single judgement.The entire article is based only on one case.Manu Sharma is not a habitual offender nor a terrorist.Please remove the article itself before some one sues Wikipedia .Then you block the judgement.Strange editor.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the article is a

BLP umbrella as many of the individual's involved are still alive. The court case is already covered extensively in the Manu Sharma article through the use of secondary sources as is required by policy. Edit warring to restore verbatim sections of the court documents violates this policy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You ! Meanwhile let me inform you on a personal level that I am Intervenor in person to this case (I.A.9098)linked to Indian Intelligence,and I tried to bring truth in the eyes of the public.You are an editor at Wikipedia.Just for your interest as to how people like us work,I am sending you a link.Can you judge from sources quoted by you on the Jessica Lal murder case , as to how the links below ,are connected to the case ?Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1. http://www.dpsbhilai.in/contents/aboutus/principal-mess.php . 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki . 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_missionaries 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Lab 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McMillan 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Cox_Report_controversy

All Helpful Wikipedia articles.So I cannot differ with u people.

Well, as an

"to bring truth in the eyes of the public". --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I have moved this discussion to the appropriate location. If your going to continue to post, please do so there.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And so it is. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in our previous discussion (and I'm too lazy to go to my archives to check), but I have found some of their edits contain copyvios and there has been falsification of references if they ever do bother to use them. Mess indeed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I had in fact missed that.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 03:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider it a long overdue "hello, haven't seen you in a while" :)--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Ponyo. My page (above) got deleted. I don't care about the page, it can be deleted as long as it wants. But, I'm kindly asking to be able to copy all text from my page, to be able to put it in a file on my computer. I'm sorry my page didn't meet the Wikipedia articles for creation criteria, and I hope I could get it back. I hope no harm is done in this.

Thanks a lot, Mattythomass (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you temporarily enable email in your preferences I can email you a copy of the deleted article. I'm willing to do so only if you agree to not attempt to post this material anywhere on Wikipedia.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now enabled my email. Therefore, I promise not post text from the article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Mattythomass (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed you a copy of the article. You can disable your email now if you would like.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to send both of them off on another compulsory wikibreak? Whoever keeps adding various uncorroborated "descent" categories to BLPs has been all over these ranges in the last two to three weeks – I found more than a dozen instances a few days ago, and two today. SuperMarioMan 21:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

3 months this time.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They've switched to another, closely-related range:

WP:BANNED shows, there is some precedent for banning the most disruptive anonymous users ("IP hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan", and others). Any registered user with a block log so heavy would have been shown the door long ago, and the revision history of Mpho Koaho says it all. In addition to watch-listing commonly-targeted pages, I've been keeping a list of all the suspicious IPs that I've encountered, and currently come up with roughly 220 addresses (most of which I'm fairly confident, judging by the editing behaviour, have been used by the same person). I would be interested in, and very grateful for, your perspective (as a blocking administrator) on the banning argument. SuperMarioMan

02:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the new range for 3 months and the single IP for 2 years (they've been consistently using this IP for nearly two years). I have to run out for a bit, so I'll respond further regarding the block/ban distinction soon.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

They're back again. Curiously, this IP address seems to originate in Italy rather than New York (or another US state), but it's clear from the editing pattern that the operators are one and the same. What are your thoughts on proposing a community ban for this user? SuperMarioMan 15:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone is off on an Italian vacation! Ban's work when there is an identifiable account to ban, which isn't the case here (it is also why you won't find any IPs listed

LTA IP hopper is de facto banned and therefore any of their edits can be rolled back and the IPs blocked on sight.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected that the anonymity would be a strong counter-argument. Since you've mentioned

WP:LTA a few times in block summaries, would it make sense to create an actual LTA subpage? Something like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal is what I would aim for. There is already User:Jim1138/24.164.190.130 BLP issue; however, the scale and frequency of the problem are such that a page in the project namespace, dedicated to centralised reporting and tracking, would help tremendously in drawing the attention of the wider Wikipedia community - in my opinion, anyway. SuperMarioMan

00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say that what I added about Martha Howe-Douglas was correct. She has tweeted about her husband and birthday several times so have changed it back but if you are still not happy, and want to change it back I wont mess with it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meggie1tr (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I tried to find verification of the birth date or her marriage and could not (there was some press regarding her being in a relationship, but no verification of a marriage). Even Barry Castagnola's official website does not assert that they are married, she is referred to only as "award-winning actress/writer Martha Howe-Douglas" in relation to work they have performed together. Your having viewed mention of the information on Twitter does not meet the sourcing criteria required for

original research) and I have therefore removed the material again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite sad this sockpuppet case is continuing to need to be re-opened. Wish there was more the community could do! Wingard. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the clerk handling the most recent case has locked up the latest sock as well as an IP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Indented line

Hi Ponyo, the "Jennifer Schwab" page I created was deleted by you for the following reasons:

21:12, 20 August 2013 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted page Jennifer Schwab (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-schwab/)

I understand the Wikipedia is not a promotional platform; however, I did read the section on notable living people, and I believe that my colleague, Jennifer Schwab, meets the criteria. She is a prominent figure in the "green" community and people have suggested that we create a Wiki page that can be updated and edited regularly.

Can you please give me some advice on how to move forward creating a page for her that will not be taken down? I spent a lot of time creating the page, and I used Huffington Post as an external reference for Jennifer's biographical information.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjmalan (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. Creating an article regarding a subject with which you are closely affiliated presents a

notability criteria for inclusion I would suggest requesting an article here (under the most appropriate profession header). Assuming she meets the aforementioned notability criteria, a neutral editor who is not personally involved with Ms. Shwab will likely create the article in the future. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For your kindness! Let's drink! Cheers! :-) -- L o g X 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the coffee. It's tough with new editors who have a conflict of interest, they believe they're doing the right thing by adding information and removing possible errors, but they really need to use the talk page to suggest changes. Hopefully Jmaichuk6191991 will understand that using the talk page is the best way forward.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Have a good time! -- L o g X 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please delete my User page alone? Thanks -- L o g X 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's done by an other administrator. You can ignore this post! Thanks -- L o g X 16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Could you please revision delete these two BLP violations [1] [2]? Also, could you pending changes protect that page indefinitely? It has received a lot of BLP violations. Just to let you know, I left a request of that page on

Thank you for reporting the BLP issues with the article. I've revdeleted the two edits in question and another admin has enabled pending changes for the page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help today with the request. -- Zigger «º» 10:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for unblocking me. If you could redact the IP from the history, I would appreciate it. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All done! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You're awesome! -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

uhm, Manish Sudhir Patel is as Indian as the name can get, and just because no one mentioned his heritage in the article doesn't mean he isn't one...now we have to 'source' such minute things like that as well?--Stemoc (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless they are supported by sourced article content (see

original research and not sufficient. So yes, per policy, in BLPs we do need to sourced such "minute" details as an individual's ethnicity.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

well you can always google "manish dayal Indian" and provide the source yourself...i will not waste my time talking about such "minute" problems :P ..--Stemoc (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I could try to do the sourcing work for you, however the

reliable source that shows that the BLP subject is of Indian descent (and identifies as such), then it can be included. The category is unrelated to the subject's notability and should never be added solely based on supposition. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

04:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo, back on June 30 you blocked User talk:82.30.29.154 for six months. It looks to me that this same user might be back quite a bit early using a new IP address, 82.30.28.143.

The new address is editing some of the same articles (i.e., Glee and EastEnders actors and characters), usually changing infobox info or images, or adding unsourced Personal life sections or material in actor BLPs—here an edit that had involved adding a copyrighted image to Commons is being deleted—and you can see on User talk:82.30.28.143 that the warnings are already starting to accumulate.

Thanks for taking a look at this when you get the chance. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted and blocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking care of it. Sometimes you're doing a revert and there's this strong feeling of deja vu... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For the heads on up on how to use the talk pages. -DeCombray (talk)

You're welcome! You can use the same subpage system (e.g. User:DeCombray/insert article name here) for any articles you want to work on prior to moving to article space. Thank you for your contributions!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo,

Please help delete this obsolete archive thank you. --Amazonien (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages (including their archives) are almost never deleted; the preferred method is to blank the page in such cases. If you are experiencing vandalism in the archive I can semi-protect it for you as no-one (other than you) should bed editing your archived pages.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo, I think you and I stepped on each other when fixing the Northampton page. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think I was the one making the negative edits about the Konkrete Kids. Lingjo `~~`

Nope, I realized you were trying to help but didn't quite catch all the vandalism.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

_{PS In order for your signature to display correctly you need to use four ~ (or use the signature button in the edit box).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)}

Thanks : ) Hopefully it works this time Lingjo (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It worked :) I've left a welcome and some helpful links on your talk page. The Teahouse is also a great venue for new editors to ask questions when getting started. Happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am not associated with Justin Willman. I was simply trying to expand his stub entry with factual information provided in various interviews, most of which were already cited on the wiki. Additionally, the way the content was previously arranged was messy and so I added the headings like you would see on any other Wikipedia page. I do not understand why you removed all of my changes, when I am just trying to be a good-natured participant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisrob123 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. With regard to your edits to the Justin Willman article, there were several issues that led to my reverting the edits which I'll expand upon here. First, you repeatedly and inexplicably blanked the

The Manual of Style for biographies is a helpful guideline for new editors looking to expand an article. The Teahouse is also a great venue if you get stuck and have questions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnlinwood (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summaries, as well as explained on your talk page, your edits are being reverted as you are adding

WP:RS; there is a lot of material there, however it will help you understand what the requirements are regarding sources in biographies.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ponyo, when you have a moment, could you take a look at this discussion on my talk page? If you need more background, let me know. I'd like your thoughts on what you think is best. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If they had only used the IP to attempt to make contact with you to ask a question I could see giving a bit of leeway, but they also used it to evade the block to edit. Again. One of the reasons that the Standard Offer calls for a six month break from editing is to judge whether the editor is really committed to abiding by policies and guidelines and willing to make the effort to prove it. Coming back every couple of weeks to poke around with questions and evading the block with edits here and there just demonstrates that Shookallen88 still doesn't have the self-control to not sock. As their original blocks were for edit-warring (which is very much a self-control type issue), I think it's best to block the IP and reset the clock on the Standard Offer. Given their previous interactions, if you provide any leeway outside of the specific wording of the standard offer they will likely become confused as to what edits they can and can't make via IP. It may be helpful to point out to him that you have email enabled if they have any questions regarding the Offer, however that may be opening yourself up to a continuous series of unblock requests and questions. Fun! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

_{Psssst Bbb23...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)}

Heh, I blocked the IP for a month this time. Thanks for spotting it. I couldn't decide whether to revert his revert. Part of it seemed right, and part of it was unusual, and I wasn't sure. I'll leave his edit in place and leave it to others to do what they want with the article. Feel free to revert him if you think it's best. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I reverted your removal of text from

(talk page stalker) I don't think it's particularly frowned upon to remove clear, unsubstantiated personal attacks from others' talk pages as Ponyo did here; that's pretty standard, I think. But in this case, removing it wasn't necessary, as Timtrent does explicitly ask people not to remove personal attacks from his page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Writ Keeper, that is indeed my interpretation as well, though I wouldn't have removed the false claim had I seen the edit note on Timtrent's talk page regarding personal attacks. Sometimes the finer details are missed when working from popups.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi chaps. Thanks for leaping in to protect me. As you have seen, I don't mind personal attacks at all. They tend to stay for ever as a reminder of the attacker. I have to go and have a look for what I missed now! Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What a lot of hassle. Ah well. I've left what I hope he perceives as a friendly, certainly neutral, message on his talk page inviting further good contributions. If the offending article that caused all this brouhaha gets citations and the bloke is notable at all then the article will be welcome, of course. It seems he read my user page, found "my first article" and had a go at it. Looks like it took him a shedload of research that he might have used better to source the article that had to be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 07:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

For the

Happy to help. I've watchlisted the article now, so hopefully we won't see a recurrence of the disruptive claims. (P.S. Why aren't you an admin yet?) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Not sure. But if I were I wouldn't have to bug you guys with these §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Came upon the possible IP they might be using with Webportalavro and added to the sock report if you'd like to report and comment; looks like a Warsaw proxy.

) 03:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it would appear that TRCG has now discovered the world of open proxies. Not much can be done other than blocking on sight and rolling back the edits.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Thanks for fixing my weird AWB edit on

Rokhsaneh Ghawam-Shahidi.. I dunno how my AWB setup managed to think of male actresses, but good to see it fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 19:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine "English male radio actresses" would be a very exclusive category indeed! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

IP 77.70.28.120 is back

77.70.28.120 (talk · contribs) and their master Lzdimitar (talk · contribs) are back, with the addition of unsourced content into many airport articles. I've reverted just a few of them and templated the IP with a last warning. Just to let you know, given that you were the blocking admin. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for three months. When you've racked up as many blocks as Lzdimitar (via his account and IP), they can hardly plead ignorance of the issues raised. I didn't block indefinitely as I still hold out some slim hope that they will see the requirement for sourcing and communication with others. It's unfortunate as they could be a productive editor, but every attempt at communication has resulted in *crickets chirping*. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Need your help on the page - Shraddha Kapoor

Hey! Can you please fix the DOB issue on this page? Some editors were ready to start edit warring if some changes were been made. Have a look when you find some free time! Thanks!! --    L o g  X   16:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already semi-protected the article through to May 2014 in order to help keep some of the unsourced content out. There is some discussion regarding her DOB on the talk page, but it's pretty fractured. Editors are simply making assertions as to the "correct" date as opposed to actually discussing the topic and analysing the sources to come up with a consensus as to which (if any) date to use. I also have the article watchlisted as it is prone to BLP violations. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article's talk page and even my talk page is been cracked by the editors! I don't know how to react to them! --    L o g  X   16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just let the editor on your talk page know that the correct venue for discussing disputed content in on the article talk page. If the talk page discussion goes nowhere, or consensus cannot be reached, there is always the option of starting a

Request for Comment to draw in additional opinions.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

16:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! I really appreciate your help! --    L o g  X   16:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter Bossman

Hi, could you please add the OTRS ticket number to your reply at

my talk

20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The ticket number is 2013092310012493, although that doesn't make it verifiable as very few editors have access to the OTRS Quality queue. This is why I also included the inline citation to allow for verification by readers and those without access.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --

my talk

10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

G13

Please, after a G13 deletion is postponed by an editor for another look, don't immediately delete it,as you did for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elings Park International Raceway. I don;t know that we have a regular procedure, but normally I think it should go another 6 months, as it would if the person postponing also edited the text. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article, I certainly wouldn't have deleted it had I noticed it had been tagged for a second look. I was curious as to how I missed the re-tagging as a hold and noticed that adding the {{AfC postpone G13}} template didn't modify the G13 tag other than to make it appear the SPhilbrick had been the one to nominate it for deletion. It would probably be better to remove the G13 tag altogether, as you did, to avoid any confusion. Regardless, mea culpa. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

Fyi,IP User:2601:D:380:B5:4D9E:7115:6E3B:A32D materialized to vandalize an article after you blocked User:2601:D:380:B5:562:1691:8C15:A901. Coretheapple (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank for the note. They only made the one edit, and given the dynamic nature of the IPv6 addresses they will likely have moved on to another IP by now. Please let me know if you see them pop up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael V. Gazzo

He's on the Wiki list of Italian-American actors. I should have put the category in AFTER I revised his bio.

talk

) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do ensure that the category is supported by reliable sources within the article prior to adding it. If any entries cannot be verified by reliable sources they should be removed from the list as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note I have also reverted your edit to

of the highest quality. Third party sources and gossip-type websites do not meet the reliable sourcing criteria. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

18:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

date of birth

Hello Ponyo. I noticed on the Internet Movie Database that James McCaffrey is born on 1959. Belfast, Northern Ireland. McCaffrey's age is 53 or 54 years old. Thats all. Bye! Marec2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marec2 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marec2 - note that

verified and included.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Help

Is there any procedure to suspend a edit history in my own talk page? If so, can you please tell me how to? --    L o g  X   20:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You can send me an email if you want the info to remain private....--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been done by an other admin Thanks for your response! --    L o g  X   21:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

--    L o g  X   21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted and done.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --    L o g  X   21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do Not Revert Edits with out reading them.

Read the damn edit and article before reverting under the false pretense of NPOV. You did not do that as the time stamp shows you instantly reverted the article. That is your responsibility to do that. You reverted an edit that summarized some key, well documented, and well referenced points that were briefly mentioned in the intro. I suspect your judgment is lacking or you are just a lazy editor. Do not come to wiki to stack up edits so you think you are more important in the fantasy land,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.246 (talk • contribs)

Read articles before reverting edits that is your responsibility. You are edit warring. Violate the 3RR and I will report you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.246 (talk • contribs)

The only "key points" you summarized were negative ones. This leads to a completely skewed and

WP:UNDUE lead. All viewpoints need to be presented, not just those that you want to drive home. If you believe that the current lead is insufficient, then you can begin a discussion on the talk page to discuss potential changes with other editors. Whatever consensus is reached at the end of the discussion, the lead will need to be balanced and neutral.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. As your edits were reverted as

WP:BLP-violations you must get consensus for the changes on the talk page. Edit-warring to restore the disputed and wholly negative material will only result in your IP being blocked. Editing Wikipedia is not unlike flying the friendly skies - a failure to check your heavy baggage at the door will lead to hefty penalties.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(

powwow

) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete my account

I no longer want to take part in helping wikipedia grow. Please delete my account Zabranos. Thanks for everything. And sorry for anything I did toy hurt you. Peace. Zabranos (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. If you wish to retire, you simply stop editing. Best of luck in your future off-wiki endeavours.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I delete all the contributions and talk page I took part in? Zabranos (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot delete your comments from article talk pages, but you are free to blank your user page and user talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Karen S Hampton

I've corrected my Karen S Hampton (Indiana) fiber artist page because another fiber artist named Karen D Hampton (California) contacted me to correct my page and remove her information. It had some of her information and some of my information combined. I created a revised version to correct the mistakes, citing the wrong person. The new version is in my sandbox. Could you publish the corrected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen S Hampton (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If the information in the

this page helpful if you find inaccuracies in a Wikipedia article wherein you are the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting vandal edits on Shraddha kapoor article

Hi Ponyo,as you have suggested I have provided a reliable source and added the real birthday of Shraddha Kapoor on her page. The link is from CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) which is a legitimate association of cine artists in Mumbai(http://www.cintaa.net/about-us). It has famous actors like Jaya bachchan, Anil kapoor, Aishwarys Bachchan, etc among its members. So it follows logically that their source is reliable to confirm DOB of Shraddha kapoor as 3rd March 1987. But there is a user by name Smauritius who is keen on removing any link which confirms Shraddha's real age. Also to confirm further, check these two links where her brother mentions her age(http://bollywoodstarkids.blogspot.in/2009/05/shakti-kapoors-son-siddhanths-first.html) and her aunt Padmini kolhapure talks about her mother's pregnancy in 1986(http://www.filmfare.com/features/we-share-everything-except-our-husbands-padmini-kolhapure-3651.html). I already made an edit by providing the link mentioned above but Smauritius has removed it without giving any edit summary or explanation for doing so. He/She looks to be a 'fanatical' fan to me. So please verify the link I have provided for the DOB and lock the article so that no more changes or deletions to the DOB are made. Wikipedia must provide only authentic and correct information and not the information which suits some people. I hope you look into this regard and take the necessary steps to prevent any more users tampering with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose$keel (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 October 2013 (talk) Rose$keel (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, come and view the history about Shraddha Kapoor, The Userpage, had been already in edit war due to her age conflicts, Secondaries sources and creditable ones proved her age differently. We came to a conclusion not to add her age. Despite, talking a user kept on reverting edits. As a senior come and check the page ...Shraddha Kapoor..

Archana Ramdonee 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smauritius (talk • contribs)

Ponyo, the said edit war has always been because of Smauritius who interfered with the adding of reliable links. This can be verified from the history of Shraddha Kapoor. Also check the talk page of Smauritius and you can see that the user has been involving in a similar edit war with other users too and has been warned twice already. Still he/she is continuing with this behavior. Any link can't get more legit than the one I have provided for DOB section in Shraddha Kapoor but the user is finding issue even with it. It is plain that this user is a vandal and a fanatic to boot. Please take appropriate action as the administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose$keel (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• sign your posts with with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}
  15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rose$keel, the CINTAA, is not a creditable source at all. It is a Community website, where everyone can owned a specific account. I had visited the site, you said only Bollywood personalities are the members, which is false absolutely false, there are many randoms members. I had a doubt on you, Rose$keel, Disgrl, Marikagirl12 are same users with multiple accounts, i have a doubt on that, please check their IP Address... i have doubt but i am not sure...

Archana Ramdonee 15:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the source does not meet

WP:RSN. Rose$keel, as the validity of the source has been questioned, please stop using it until it can be properly vetted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not acting like a Vandalism i am just giving my point of views, Shraddha Kapoor age are indicated differently in different websites. Newspapers and prestious magazines claimed her age differently. Here are some links,

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-21/news-interviews/38693520_1_dad-air-hostess-father-shakti-kapoor