Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45


My edit a few minutes ago

Thanks for fixing my edit a couple minutes ago. I was looking at something on that page, and I hit the delete button by accident. I was actually in the process of undoing it when you did it for me, so thanks for doing it for me Kp201 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Gamble Kennedy and Anne Gamble Kennedy

I've completed reviewing the draft, and as of revision 835822800, I think it to be ready for mainspace. You are the protecting sysop, so I'd like to consult with you before requesting that it be unsalted. Thanks, Vermont | reply here 01:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: I've unsalted the target page as requested.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I've gone and moved it to mainspace, and will keep a close watch to ensure that a neutral tone is maintained. The page creator has a COI with the subject, and there are a few inconsistencies with sourcing, but I think that in it's current state it is suitable for mainspace. Please feel free to draftify it if you disagree. Vermont | reply here 19:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

New Rest, Repose draft

Hi! I've been working on the creation of a new article for Rest, Repose. I saw that a version of the page had been deleted (I'm assuming due to inconsistencies in sourcing) so I did my best in properly writing a new version. Since you're the one who removed the page previously, would you mind checking it over to ensure it's ready for proper release? It can be found in my sandbox here.

One note - I've not done work on Wikipedia specifically before, though I have worked on several smaller Wikia sites since 2013 so I understand the formatting required. But in terms of publishing Wikipedia content, this is my first attempt. Thanks! ShatterClub (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@ShatterClub: When I deleted the article tow years ago it consisted of two sentences and a couple of basic tables. There should be no problem if you would like to move your draft into article space.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

104.172.39.100

You checkuser blocked this one a while back. He just added what looks like a bogus street address to Ralph B. Clark Regional Park.[1] See [2]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The account that was behind that IP is no longer blocked, so the edits will need to be judged on their merit as opposed to viewing it as a socking situation.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oversight request

Hello Ponyo. Can I ask to use your powers to hide the following diff. It's been a backwards kind of day so I've accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed my own IP addresses. It is weird, but this request is probably better be hidden also. Wish many HAM your way. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've revdeled it, pending true oversight from Ponyo or another oversighter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Writ Keeper, looks tight! Infinity Knight (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I've oversighted the IP address. @Infinity Knight: it's much much quicker and efficient to email the oversight team if this happens again. Thanks to Writ Keeper for the assist.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

PaintBrush

Hey Ponyo,

As suggested, I've removed all the external link, not sure why my edits are being deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KheSam (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@KheSam: The content is a cut and paste of material from the Monarch website, which is a copyright violation. Are you affiliated with this account by chance? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What are "good hand/bad hand accounts"?

I was disappointed to see that user LovelyGirl7 was blocked indefinitely, and I would like to understand why. The header of the notice said "good hand/bad hand accounts" and I have never come across that term - can you point me to somewhere that explains what she did that was so egregious? Your comments indicate it was pretty severe: "your actions are so over the line with regards to community expectations that an indefinite block is more appropriate. You didn't get caught up in the moment, you set out specifically to deceive Wikipedia editors." In my interactions with her I have not been struck by anything more than beginner's enthusiasm, so for my own education I would like to understand just what the problem was. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:GHBH. An easy example is when the puppet makes an unconstructive edit and the master reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: A "good hand"/"bad hand" routine is a form of sockpuppetry in which a user has at least two accounts: at least one account that is always helpful and at least one account that is continually disruptive. The two accounts usually play off each other for what the puppeteer thinks is a "convincing effect" of two users arguing, but which, to any external viewer, is obviously just a scripted dialogue. LovelyGirl7's confirmed sockpuppets can be found at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LovelyGirl7. (It turns out there are quite a few!)
Like you, I have interacted with LovelyGirl7 quite a bit; please consult my comments at Talk:K2-155d/GA1#Copyright violations check for further details about my thoughts on this matter. I have actually been rather suspicious about LovelyGirl7's behavior for a while. "Her" excessive complements and unusual interest in an all-male high school in Kentucky both tipped me off that something was not quite right. I still think he or she (as I explain in my comments, I am not entirely sure which gender the user really is) is not all bad. I looked at some of the "bad hand" edits and they all seem to be nothing more than poorly-thought-out and immature stunts for attention. I suspect that the real LovelyGirl7 is probably a generally well-intentioned, but insecure, teenager looking for attention and social validation. I have also left a note on LovelyGirl7's talk page expressing advice on what to do if he or she decides to come back to Wikipedia at some point in the distant future, after he or she has sufficiently learned his or her lesson. I would recommend reading that also, after you read my other comments. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: I think your assessment here is spot on.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23 and Katolophyromai: Thanks for the explanations, both general and specific. I get it now, and I am reminded why I never want to be an Admin. I thought the advice on her User Talk page was especially generous and hopefully this will eventually just be an interesting story about how a good editor got off to a rocky start. Time will tell. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: I would like to hope that too, but, frankly, I am not hopeful. I have never heard of a user being successfully rehabilitated after engaging in sockpuppetry; they all seem to quickly revert back to their old ways, especially when they have as many puppets as this one did. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sign

Allow me to explain how you sign your posts. Many new editors fail to sign. Naturally, we block them for even a first offense, but I think you can learn from your mistakes.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

OMG WP:BITE much?! That's it, I quit!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the sage advice. I will endeavour to do better in the future.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at my user page

@Ponyo, Bbb23, SpacemanSpiff, and Sitush: Hi. A user was probably looking to post comments on my talk page, but he ended up putting comments on my user page (there by creating my user page). Could you please fix it. Thanks. -Jakichandan (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pinging Sitush afterwards like you did won't work, Jakichandan. You must do the ping on a new line and sign again. I've done it for you now. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I will take care from now on. Thank you. —Jakichandan (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page, please engage with the person on their talk page. I'm not leaving a note there as it's likely to just confuse an already confused person. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you. —Jakichandan (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

UTRS template error?

Hi Ponyo!

I was on UTRS earlier, I had to use the "Global, defer to Meta template" and I couldn't help but notice "you can post an appeal on your talk pagel". Obviously "talk pagel" is supposed to be "talk page"! I'm sure I've seen on there that you're one of the tool admin, are you able to correct this at all please?--5 albert square (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks 5 albert square! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your Comment

Not sure what it's about either. --JustBerry (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever they were up to they appear to have moved on. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of Andrew Lambo Death Hoax

Thank you for reverting the edit on Andrew Lambo. I reverted the listing on the recent deaths page, then looked up the account of the user. It appears that he is a single-purpose vandal account. You seem to have tons more Wikipedia experience than I do, and I do not know how to go about blocking this guy, but it appears to me that such a block would be appropriate. Eauhomme (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eauhomme: The always efficient Bbb23 has blocked the account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible to hide revision.

Hi, I added a missing plot template to the Trolley Troubles article, without realising that the plot was under Story. I understand that this situation is not usually suitable for hiding revisions, but for embarrassment reasons, is it possible to hide my revision there? Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H.I am good at fighting windmills.. 18:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@In Memoriam A.H.H.: There is nothing in the revision deletion policy that would allow for hiding any of the edits you made to that article.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the quick response. In Memoriam A.H.H.I am good at fighting windmills.. 20:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

hi

Sorry about adding the VANDAL page warning. How can you help Wiki by removing this User:Melcous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Look in the GRIFFIN GUESS history, this person does nothing but vandalizing the page.

That's not vandalism, and the fact that you think it is further exposes your conflict of interest with regard to Guess. I've responded further on your talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

hi Rick

Hi,

I'm in no way trying to create more issue here, but the user that is adding "new facts" are not facts at all, likely they belong to a person who has a vendetta against Mr. Guess and his page. Just look at the nature of those changes. Moreover, the last "edit" this guy did was deleting the entire page, images and other information that has stood since 2009.

My goal is to keep this account in good standing. I use to work for one of Mr. Guess's companies over a year ago. So currently this is a integrity request for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseykukui (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about a respected editor who has been here since 2014, has nearly 60,000 edits and who has volunteered her time and skills to create over 100 articles on notable women, a vastly underrepresented subject on Wikipedia. You shouting "VANDAL" and calling her a liar in multiple venues because she had the audacity to try to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards is beyond the pale. As a former employee of Griffin Guess, you should not be editing the article directly but should instead be requesting specific edits on the article talk page. Your inability to remain neutral on the topic is precisely why we have policies and guidelines in place with regard to such conflicts of interest. And I'm not Rick.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words Ponyo :) I took a couple of days away from wiki and came back to this bit of a mess. There was an IP who added unsourced negative content to the article a while ago, but Kelseykukui has confused their edits with mine and then I guess not taken the time to read my edit summaries and the relevant policies as to why I removed their promotional content and external links. I appreciate your calm head in this, and again your affirming words about my editing. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Open proxy

My little Ponyo, I see you blocked 207.10.104.58 for two weeks yesterday. Afterwards, they went to Commons and attacked me on my page, and were blocked for a year as an open proxy by User:Steinsplitter. I thought we probably want the same here, so I blocked them for a year as well. To be absolutely frank, it was more because it made me feel smart to block "as an open proxy". (Yeah, like I can identify them). Was that all right? I do have a sneaking suspicion we don't deal with OP's in quite the same way on en, so please change the block if it wasn't. Also, how about a global lock? Bishonen | talk 15:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

Your visit here plus a warm cup of tea makes for a lovely morning! There's no problem blocking the proxy for a year, though a global block is likely unnecessary; they're blocked on the only two projects they've edited, and this sockmaster has access to proxies out the wazoo so will just jump to another one.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, two of my favorite women on Wikipedia talking about proxies. How utterly delicious. I wonder if I'll see anything so enticing when I finish the 2007 version of Persuasion tonight.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I bet they drink plenty of tea in that film. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Teacups, yes, but I wonders, I does, what's in 'em?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Wonder no more!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you've pinged Green Giant now. I don't know any stewards, myself. I've posted a request for protection of my page on some Mediawiki help page, no doubt the wrong one. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
Nobody has replied, so definitely the wrong page. Shrug. It's not important. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
Too late, you’ve let the genie out of the lamp now. I’ve globally blocked the IP for a year. Let me know if there are any further attacks. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC).

Yes, how dare you delete it!

(They are referring to Draft:Lol. Chose not to reply to their message per WP:DENY.) Thanks for deleting it. -- JustBerry (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem-o.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible socks

Ponyo, Jetstreamer and I have a concern of three users restoring the same edit on IndiGo. I am kinda skeptical to raise an SPI as there is only one edit overlapping with these users, but all are new. You can check the details here. Could you run a CU and see if these users are related? — LeoFrank  Talk 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

They're not restoring the same edit. The information is similar, but it wouldn't be surprising to see new editors updating an article if there had been a recent change in fleet size. With only a single edit each, the technical evidence would be very limited. Dshreyas97 and Dshreyas1997 are probably the same editor, but there is no overlap in their edits so it could be an instance of a forgotten password. If the situation gets more out of hand, or if there is overlap across multiple articles, I will take another look.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure thanks Ponyo. I'll ping you back if there's any disruption again. — LeoFrank  Talk 03:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting referenced information

why have you deleted my referenced additions to the article 'Paisley'?, please explain Rameezraja001 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rameezraja001: I left a clear explanation on your talk page. Did you read it?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
i dont think it does, because (a) i dont see any reason for you reverting my referenced additions i dont think you can remove my referenced information without posting any solid reason for example, dubious source, my edits not reflecting information of the source etc. (b) issuing no warning to the guy who reverted my edits with properly referenced information despite i asked him not to do so without clear justification (c) threatening me that i may be blocked for edit warring and not doing the same to the other guy. Rameezraja001 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rameezraja001: You have no consensus for the edits you are making at Paisley, and multiple editors have reverted you and explained why on the article talk page. I have absolutely no involvement in the topics you are editing; the warning was given by me in an administrative capacity to ensure you are aware that the burden is on you to get consensus for the changes you want to make. Your edit warring to insert disputed POV content has now spread to other articles and will lead to a block or other sanctions if it continues.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
you are an idiot Rameezraja001 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've got pretty think thick skin and have been called much worse, however your personal attacks on Kautilya3's talk page tips your disruption into block territory. When your block expires you'll need to use the talk page in order to get consensus for your edits when reverted.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello P. I hope you are enjoying the seasons move towards summer. I am wondering if you mean pretty pink - pretty thick or pretty thin skin. I know this is a lame attempt at humor so please feel free to remove it., I just hadn't had a reason to stop by and say hello in many moons. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitely thick, though also pretty pink. And you can stop by for a chat anytime! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for looking out for my talk page! :)

Missvain (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

An idea for checking that an entity is notable and avoid the all or nothing situation.

I am just thinking out load here. We could propose that there is an intermediary step between not notable and notable. I call it nameable, worthy of being named. I am not sure how to implement it within the Wikipedia framework. So, I just have a functional definition. Being a nameable person, business or place, etc. is an intermediary step before being notable, worthy of having a Wikipedia article. The difference is that you only have an external web page associated with the name, not an entire WP article. It's simpler for the contributors. No need to create entire articles just to show that entities are worthy of being named and have an external link. Contributor would be able to use the external link of a nameable entity as we use an internal link within Wikipedia. This is an exception to the external link rule, but it is controlled - the entity must be nameable. The criteria to be nameable should be about the same as to be notable. It would not be more work for the community, because the work that is done to check that an entity is nameable would be reused to make the person notable - no work is lost. The motivation to do the work would be the same. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I can reply to myself. I suspect that the issue is that the Wikipedia page plays the role of some kind of cache that store the changing state of the external pages. The point is that the external page can move, etc. Having a WP page for the notable entity makes for a more robust system. For the same reason, Stackoverflow does not like answers with only an external link. Well, maybe it's good the way it is. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Dominic Mayers One of the major problems with WP protocols - my pet-hate, and a major reason for me no longer contributing much in the form of prose - is covered in WP:VNT. Unsourced content was written 12-10 years ago, and due to the rise of the uncontrolled internet, anyone can establish a website with no historical archives (or affiliations to such) and plagiarise content from others. Well-meaning editors then come along, see the maintenance tags and keyword-search, citing from a website where the content could have come from WP. It's all centred around what WP clings to under the guise of being published, which now, latterly, has a different implication. This is a major design-flaw across all topic areas, and much of my time is often spent trawling through the article history to find the uncited original content - but it's only when I can recognise a likely error.

I am a specialist editor and there's no way under the WP-establishment that I can correct the corrupted content that has resulted in history being re-written, disseminated around the world via the WP high-placed search engine returns, and re-used. They are now citing via {{cite av media}} very recent, made-for-entertainment TV shows as a way of seemingly-proving historical, potentially-disputable, article content, where someone has been paid to express their opinion-only as an on-camera interviewee. It's not going to improve, or go away. BTW, we hyphenate after the 'y' in England.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not directly related to my "proposal", but what you say is interesting. I am new at WP and decided to edit the Falsifiability article recently, for no specific reason - I was just a bit fascinated by this subject. I observed what you describe (an unsupported WP claim copied in some book, which I considered as a potential secondary source for WP), so I believe you. It's a terrible situation. It is sad. Really, every thing on the WEB, even on WP, is not so reliable and it contaminates books (not only ebooks). In my case, the unsupported statement was that Popper viewed mathematics as a natural science, which makes conjectures that can be false, because of Godel's incompleteness theorem. I found the exact same claim in a book written at a later date, using the exact same sentence as in Wikipedia, and there was no reference to WP. Instead the reference was a book written by Popper, but that book does not support that claim. BTW, given that we have dates, at the least when we consider books or journal articles, if the exact same content is being reused, it is possible to know the original source. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You wrote "... there's no way under the WP-establishment..." I understand that also, but this is true every where. It's very difficult to change anything within any well established system. This is why progress proceeds by revolution. Old systems die and new systems emerge. A new paradigm usually requires a new generation to spread in the society, because the old generation sticks to the old paradigm. Wikipedia came as a new paradigm. It has been great and is still great, but newer, better paradigms will emerge. In fact, a sharp and keen eye can perhaps see these new paradigms emerge now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Affan Khan

Hi, can you please consider restoring Affan Khan as nearly all the content was by User:Princessruby who is not blocked, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Atlantic306. The article history was a bit of a mess, with multiple article names and redirects; I've restored Princessruby's version. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

New Lurulu sock

Hey, Ponyo. I discovered what may be the latest sock puppet of Lurulu: Farest.lover. They edited all the 'ole classics, as the archive will show. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A-yup. Blocked now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Back again! The next one up: Plex.Mex. I swear, they're making this too easy. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Juzzbaatt - Sangeen Se Namkeen Tak

@Ponoyo Hi,can you please restore page Juzzbaatt - Sangeen Se Namkeen Tak it was almost done with all necessary details.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim543 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Asim543: I've restored it but moved it to draft space (Draft:Juzzbaatt - Sangeen Se Namkeen Tak) as there is no claim or notability made in the article. Within the article there are numerous differences in the spelling of the program; if possible could you please sort that out?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@ponoyo I had sorted out the issues.Please check it.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim543 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@ponoyo Hi,i had already created a new page regarding this title so you can delete the draft page.It will be really helpful.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim543 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Rebecca Hazelton

Hello,

Mrs. Hazelton was recently involved in a twitter controversy that took the web by storm, and she was caught lying to the internet. The post caused one of the most upvoted reddit posts in the sites history and it should be included in her bio. Her potential students and readers should be made aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webleymkvi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Webleymkvi: Every single point you make in your post above demonstrates why the material is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Have you read any of the policies I've pointed out to you on your talk page, or in the edit summaries of the multiple editors reverting you? Wikipedia relies on material published in secondary reliable sources, not "upvoted reddits" and Twitter posts. If there is significant coverage of the incident in independent reliable sources, then the community can discuss if and how to include the information to ensure it meets our requirements for biographies of living persons policy and is not undo coverage of a single event. My final warning to you was made to ensure you are aware that continuing to violate our BLP and WP:NPOV policies by edit-warring to restore the content (and avoiding a three-revert block by the skin of your teeth in the process), will result in sanctions on your account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Former open proxy that you recently blocked 72 hr

Per this notation from a proxy checker service, I propose lengthening the recent 72 hour block of this IP to two months. Back in August 2017 they were previously blocked as an open proxy. I'll also file at WP:OP to see if others agree, and to see if it should be widened to a /22 per the Whois. What do you think? User:NeilN is OK with this change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: No problem as far as I'm concerned.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Oops! I may have jumped the gun there, upping the block to one year's hard time. Feel free to modify. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Favonian, you're the bomb. Always present, always doing the needy. Cheers,--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked vandal on my talk page

Thanks for blocking them, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Roland_Baines_hoax_returns for lots more! DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see you got them while I was coming here to tell you about them, thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Do you want your talk page semi-ed for a bit?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not at the moment, but thank you for offering. If it gets worse then I may change my mind. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sajal Aly

Is it possible to remove protection from Sajal Aly page which you protected year ago, her talk page is full of extented protected edits requests, one can check here [4], I also want to work on her page, Will you kindly remove protection that would be very nice of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.195.39.74 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The extended protection is the only thing keeping the undisclosed paid editors, who are a blight on this encyclopedia, at bay. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Freddy'sᵀᴹ Coming

Another account User:John 'Uncle London' Doob look like also him, this diff, this diff, the image "Doobpood.png" and the word "Daker". Look like a John Daker sock. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; also blocked a couple of sleepers.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Thank you

That is the name I'm going to give to the anonymous user who keeps asking editors to do tasks for him (each request ending with Thank you!"), while changing IP addresses frequently. Though I thank you for having blocked his most recent IP, are you sure it also prevents him from using other IPs? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kailash29792. There is, unfortunately, nothing to stop this user from hopping to another IP. The IP I blocked was an open proxy, so it's even further removed from this user's actual location and range. It's a common tactic for blocked socks to request article changes from what they believe to be trusted editors when the articles are semi-protected or they lack the permission to upload images or create articles. I would just revert them whenever I see them as part of revert, block, ignore cycle. You can also drop a note here next time you come across Mr. Thank you. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Let me guess, do these IPs geolocate to St Petersburg, Russia? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nagendra NJ

Hi P, long time no hassle. Is there any way you could look for Nagendra NJ socks? I think Bhakthofmodi could be one based on his heavy interest in Pooja Gandhi (a haunting spot for Nagendra). Also this new guy's first 15 or so edits are totally bogus--he'd remove something, add it back, over and over, no doubt to get his autoconfirmed status cleared, then boom, he starts editing Gandhi's article like a champ. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Popping into a meeting. Will check ASAP.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Definitely possible - same ISP and city as the most recent socks. New UA, but that would not be unusual with this LTA UPE meatfarm.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:India126/User:LovelyGirl7

I don't see an WP:SPI for LovelyGirl7 anywhere, but I'm suspicious of India126, which recently created an article about a subject (Jaspal Atwal) that LG17's "bad hand" accounts have expressed interest in; also, for a new user, they jumped right into the current events portal, similar to LG17. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:  Confirmed, along with 2012phenomenon. The current events portal is a dead give-away in both cases. Like a moth to a flame.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ponyo,
I just noticed this on UTRS. Looks as if LovelyGirl7 and User:UCLAgirl623 may be using the same IP if I'm understanding this correctly? Therefore wondering if they're related?--5 albert square (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Could be. I note that they're globally locked, as is LovelyGirl7, so the Stewards may have made the connection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it was more just in case something needing merging or adding to an SPI :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Move Discussion

There is a Page move discussion going on for Rajneesh. Would you be interested in participating? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

IP Range block at DePaul Art Museum

Hi Ponyo, I'm facilitating an editing event at DePaul Art Museum today, and I ran into a block you placed for 75.102.251.0/24. Although we've successfully created other accounts here today, the event coordinator's account User:CourtesyoftheArtist was caught in the block. I have Account Creator status, so I created User:CuratoratLarge for them (as per the recommendations on dealing with IP blocks at colleges), but that account was immediately included in the block as well. I checked the log for disruptive editing, and it was empty, so I wanted to ask you to revisit the block. Regardless, could you release one of the blocked accounts so an interested editor can contribute? Thanks! Looking forward to hearing from you. MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@MidwestCuttlefish: When I blocked the 75.102.251.0/24 range on Friday it had been used exclusively to create accounts for block evasion. There is not a single edit made on that range stretching back 3 months that was not made by the same blocked editor (both via registered accounts and as an IP). My strong preference would be to keep the block in place and to provide 1 month IP block extension as needed. Do either of the accounts still need the block exemption? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Applause

Fast work! Guy (Help!) 21:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The smoking gnu strikes again.... Guy (Help!) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Out of interest, is it confirmed that Oxenattic was a sock of Rtc (as reported here)? Number 57 21:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Ponyo is still reloading.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I replied at the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

LovelyGirl7

Hi. Not sure where to go with this as you were the blocking admin. (And shame to see LG7 go this way as I thought of them as a force for good on current events.) Anyway, they're still evading their block. this/this is instructive and that IP caught my attention by adding this to today's portal. The summary draws attention, the item added is something LG7 wrote about a lot, and it's in the wrong tense (past, not present) which was common with LG7.

TL;DR I'm 100% certain LG7 is evading her block. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking around, there's at least one more IP and an account showing similar stuff (and I didn't look very hard). Would I maybe be better opening a sockpuppet investigation? -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Bbb23 blocked the first IP and I got the newest one (User:128.163.236.69). If I find a bunch of new registered accounts I would consider starting an SPI, but their edits are so obvious and they clearly relish the attention tagging and such provides, so denying recognition is desirable. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable. Where should I report them to? Just onto your talk page(s)? Thanks. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here is a good start. You're welcome to report them to me as a pale substitute for Ponyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Paler than me? You would need to be practically transparent!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both for your help. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
FidelCastro106 blocked as well as India6000.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: thanks, that does help! -- BobTheIP still editing as 95.148.229.157 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked everything and I'm watching today's portal page. They're certainly persistent. Regarding the template, it's helpful but I can just as easily figure it out with just the plain IP address. Thanks for keeping on top of this.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Still saddened to see what appeared to be a very helpful user go this way, but it is what it is. -- Bob 92.10.176.38 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Um. I am not sure this is the correct place for this, but a new account (DPRKactivist) posted something to the Current Events portal page for today with the rather unusual and specific summary "I am not a sock of LovelyGirl7". I thought perhaps someone might want to take a look. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Bsadowski1 has globally locked the account. For someone so persistent they sure don't make much of an effort to make sure their edits stick. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the appeal to them tbh. They like making us block their socks. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.220.124 (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
<boring and typical sock bit removed>--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at IanDBeacon's talk page.
Message added 21:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am so sorry. I was just adopting good measure. IanDBeacon (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And if you understand that sentence, you're a better person than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you

We're back to this, here and here. I've reverted but didn't know whether it was any use leaving another warning or if we've passed that point. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: I've blocked them for 1 week; if they restore it again I'll just block indef.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much, really appreciate all your help with this situation. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request for Running of the Bulls

Hi, I'm requesting deletion of this diff (846698002) for what I hope are readily apparent reasons. Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done and IP blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You are crazy fast. For a second I thought someone else had handled it while I was messaging you. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've commissioned a cape from Drmies, but he keeps having to redo the seams after one too many St. Bernardus Tripel's.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
wut Drmies (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You know, the "SuperPonyo" cape I commissioned from you using all the admin pay I've saved up over the years. Hmmm, or maybe it was Bbb23? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the many things that happen when you have children: you use silly "words" like wut. You tried to commission the cape, but I held out for more money. I'm happy to call you SuperPonyo even without the cape.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
But the cape makes me bona fide!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
She doesn't need a cape.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely right and I have a pretty kick-ass Lasso of Truth at my disposal.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
wut Drmies (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ponyo. Because you've assisted me previously at SPI, I'm hoping you could look into an SPI I filed just a while ago. My fear is that it will end up going stale because it's an IP SPI and I did not mark it for CU. When you see it, you might recognize the reason why I feel there's some urgency on my part - simply because the SPI is for a long-established user not under any current sanctions (that I'm aware of). Because it is an established user, the fact I have to bring such a report is distasteful to me, but -- if it is the individual I suspect doing the IP harassment, it should be dealt with soon (in my opinion - I know my emergency isn't necessarily anyone else's emergency). At any rate, would you please take a look and see if this case has merit? I'd appreciate your attention to this and will owe you a beer or cookies or whatever would work for you. :-) SPI Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Is there an admin familiar with SPI that you could request this from? As a CU I rarely deal with any cases that specifically request linking an account to an IP, even if checkuser isn't requested. It's too easy for others to assume I'm skirting the privacy policy, which can be a death knell for CUs.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Ponyo, I have just added another account, not an IP, that I believe is another sock of the suspected sockmaster. That in mind, would you be able to look at it now? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You need to change the SPI status to request checkuser (i.e. {{SPI case status|CU}}). A Clerk will review the evidence and endorse it for checkuser if needed. If the evidence is strong the Clerks will sometimes block outright without the need for checkuser.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am now away from my computer for a few hours and will likely be unable to do it. I'm not big on editing from my phone because I usually make time-wasting mistakes when doing it. If I get a chance, and it seems like an easy enough thing to do for my phone, I will give it a try. Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I did it for you in order to get the ball rolling.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please do not start edit wars on the current events tab. I clearly stated why I reverted that edit in a civil and accurately sourced manner. All the best, 96.83.146.222 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Says the IP who uses Breitbart as a source for their POV edits. If you want your edit to stick, get consensus for it on the talk page first. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I realize you have a bias against Breitbart like the majority of wiki editors do, but that doesn't mean that they can't be correct. All the best, 96.83.146.222 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. I don't appreciate the rude tone, dude. I am trying to be polite with you, and you're acting mean.

I don't have a bias against Breitbart, I have a bias against the inclusion of sources not meeting reliable sourcing criteria to push a specific POV.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The order undoes his own policy. Law is not policy. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Murica

I don't see any comment from you or much discussion at Talk:Murica. So why did you change back to a totally unintuitive redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.80.130 (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you don't see comment or discussion from me on the talk page is because I'm an uninvolved admin protecting the page to prevent edit warring to restore a redirect that has been discussed repeatedly and does not have consensus. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason holding up an old discusdion which led to no consensus. There is no reason redirecting the page to something it is not rather than something it is. So your "protection" is what's disrupting. You are starting an edit war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyo (talk • contribs)
IP hopping in order to restore a contentious redirect that does not have consensus after three discussions is edit warring. Protecting the article to prevent your disruption is not. There is no baseless accusation that you can make here that changes those facts nor the requirement for you to get consensus for the change if you want to see it implemented.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:LaurenCox600

Apparently there's an unblock request coming. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: via Meta?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No, look at their block log. User:TonyBallioni knows more. My interest was piqued (I have had dealings with SGK) and I saw your name on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I only dealt with that case with my UTRS Admin hat on, so I'll be watching from a safe distance.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
They were globally unlocked on meta after an OTRS request to stewards last month, and they came into #wikipedia-en-unblock connect today making a semi-coherent request that wasn’t abusive (saying a lot compared to what that channel normally gets.) since it’d been several years the block on that account and they appeared to be contrite, I restored TPA so they could make an on-wiki appeal. I don’t have an opinion on the request itself and would likely oppose as my default for standard offer requests from accounts with no track record. If either of you wants to revoke TPA again be my guest. I can also give you the IP they were using in the unblock channel via email if it’s helpful.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh please leave all complicated matters to Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You have two hours to leave all complicated matters in my inbox. After that, I'm opening a chilled bottle of Sauvingnon Blanc and ya'll are on your own.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Just passing, but I saw "Sauvingnon Blanc" and now I'm interested - TNT❤ 22:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought perhaps it was my edit summary that drew you in.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, Sam has no clue what Sauvignon Blanc is. FWIW, I endorse that choice, but only if it’s from New Zealand. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly that. Only a crisp Malborough will do!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I'll have you know I knew it was an alcoholic beverage of some sort before I looked it up! - TNT❤ 22:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It was Sam's emoji edit summary that caught my eye. No NZ Sauv Blanc for me, though. A nice Sancerre, on the other hand... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure y'all are happy to know that though Straight to Ale changed their design, the Monkeynaut is still delicious. Cheers Ponyo, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Stoned

This is all your fault.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ponyo will never admit to it! :D--5 albert square (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Is the world ready for even more laid back and chill Canadians? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you deleting her quotes?

You said my quotes were unsubstantiated for Suzanna Walters, yet the quotes are directly from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelboyle96 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I never once said they were "unsubstantiated". I said they were violation of our policies regarding living persons and completely WP:UNDUE. This removal of the large quote was discussed at WP:BLPN and the article talk page and there is no consensus to include it. If you continue to edit war to restore it you will be blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Note to self

Add the following  Confirmed socks and sleepers to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Escoperloit tomorrow (or when I can get to it): Piranshahr-mahabad, Zana1o, Zanyar1, Kouroshvahdat, Pishdarkhaneh, Abolfazl.lajanizadeh, Vahid.lajanispaid, Zana.daneshian, Zanairani, Medianking9b, Dalavani, Piranshahr10, Kohnelahijany1, Greyhan, Zana.lajanizadeh, Mukrima, Zanamokripour, Divansalarani9, Bahramian9911, Soleiman9, Bozorg86, Mishdar1, Sarvochaman, Irandoosti, Bahmanpur, Zana.laajaani, Zana.lahijzadeh, Tajkhah9, Farzinardalan1, Geobat79, Sabourinia, Kurdistan1985a, Lahij9999, Setarehkiana, Iran2000b, Houmanb9, Rambod9, Zanatehran, Zanapars, Zanairani1, Hurufchi and Mehrdadian80. @Bbb23: - you're familiar with this sockmaster, please let me know if you think I missed anything. I started with a check on Tajkhah9 and compared it to Zana.lahijzadeh. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You wonder where they find the time! You missed only 2 out of 44: Kamran9r and Perspoolisa10. I blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: You're a star as always. I literally fell into that quagmire as I heading out for the day. I didn't really have time to do any cross checks or fill in the paperwork.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
random editor wandering past: Sometimes I wonder if some of those puppetmasters haven't found a secret technique to convert the time they steal from others into additional time for their own use... an "Absorb time" counterpart to the "Absorb health" so prevalent in various games. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere: Sort of like slither.io or hole.io, but amassing time instead of random objects. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much. Or splix.io. Hm, that one fits really well now that I think about it...they're running around other people's efforts, sneakily removing parts when no one's looking or just blatantly running all over it to attract attention; occasionally, they may team up; they are defeated when someone runs into them, but they if they manage to run a circle (or rather, rectangle) around you instead, they take what is yours; and the only way to win is "more blocks". EDIT: Oh, and they respawn at the most inconvenient places all. the. time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ponyo, Just wanted to say thanks for blocking them - Was just in the process of filing an SPI and saw you blocked them so many thanks for that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem; it was pretty blatant socking.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Celebrations!

Hi P. Here is wishing you a glorious - fun - joyful Canada Day. Oh and may it be a safe one for you and yours. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_41&oldid=1190256343"