Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31

Sock alert

Hi, I see that you've squashed some socks of User:Jonjon893 in the past. Here's his latest: Special:Contributions/Jonathan_Sydel --SubSeven (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kartiktiwary/Archive

Hi Ponyo. I think its possible that the recently created Divya Thaakur might be a Kartiktiwary sock based upon their style of edits and the article's they've been editing. In particular, the edits made at File:SiyaKeRam.jpg and File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg might be an attempt to add File:Siya and Ram.jpg which you deleted per WP:G5 last month. There's also this edit made by an IP not too long after the infobox image change which seems a little unusual for the first edit of an IP without any connection at all to the other accounts. Anyway, I opened an FFD at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 9#File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg to discuss the two images, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kartiktiwary/Archive has been archived so I'm not sure if it's OK to post my WP:DUCK concerns on the SPI page. What is generally done in a case such as this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In order to open a new investigation when an SPI has been archived, follow the instructions in the drop down section titled "How to open an investigation" (where you pretty much just enter the sockmaster's name i.e. Kartiktiwary, hit "submit" and add your evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Ponyo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wish you well

Dear Ponyo,

I hope you and your family are doing well. And I hope to see you back soon 'cause we really miss you here "the best administrator ever". Take care. (Mona778 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

That's very kind, thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Sock

Hi there Ponyo, I noticed this account - User:Alvi34, similar to User:Alvi50 you blocked previously. Just flagging it's highly likely a sock as they edit similar pages. CDRL102 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@CDRL102: Ponyo's not available. I blocked the account. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thanks for keeping an eye on the place, you're a star. I expect to be "back" (in some form or another) on Monday.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibility of Standard Offer reset?

I noticed that you deleted a thread on AN/I. The user in question has a primary account which has been banned by the community, with the option of a Standard Offer. As the user has evaded their block, should the six-month wait be reset? Kindest regards, Chesnaught (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

They're site banned with the only appeal route being a request via Arbcom, who have made it clear that any request made less than a year from the ban will likely result in a decline. Supdiop is simply further demonstrating why it is unlikely that they will ever be unblocked by continuing to evade their block. You've noted their most recent evasion on their talk page, I don't think there is anything further that requires action.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you for your reply. Chesnaught (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Xtremedood SPI

Can you consider visiting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtremedood? Vanjagenije agreed though that Xtremedood was socking with IP addresses now, although he wanted your opinion and he had pinged you. You might have not checked it that's why I am notifying you now. Not to mention, that Xtremedood has returned to cause same disruption again, he opened this frivolous SPI and it looks like a personal attack. Capitals00 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I missed the ping somehow. Anyways, I've left a message there now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why this editor is doing this

Lindenhurst Liberty is doing those pointless Birth->birth/deleting "mf=yes" edits again (like this edit to Justin Timberlake [1])... So far as I can tell, his edits don't seem to do apparent harm but am concerned that there is more-serious vandalism concealed within his mountain of edits. I would revert all his edits myself but am concerned that might be improper... Anyway, thought maybe you could take a look. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely gave up on trying to communicate with LL long ago. Bagumba has blocked them briefly, we'll see if that awakens any desire to communicate with their fellow editors. I have my doubts. I'm not sure if it's worth your effort to undo the useless template tweaks they did (that made no difference in readability or display for anyone), but that's your call. I haven't looked further into their other edits. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, one of their birthdate edits was on my watchlist. I looked the their recent history and was just going to leave them a note, but then saw all the previous discussions on their talk page and decided to give them an initial block.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Shearonink: I'd discourage reverting. Reverting a null edit doesn't help the article any more than the original edit.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say I was going to revert forthwith. It's just that their editing isn't quite hurting the encyclopedia but the sheer volume of these changes is daunting/bothersome and their edits aren't exactly helping either... Have just come across an editor with a similar editing issue, especially deleting the "mf=yes" etc. Take a look at these edits. Probably not worth it for me to open up an SPI - but when someone does this then we have to sift through their mountain of edits to try and see that there isn't any hidden vandalism. I think I'll give up as well. Shearonink (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Shearonink: I'm pretty sure the IP is the same person. Same gnomish birthdate template edits, removes periods from phrases in image captions, use of "&ndash" instead of just "–", and concentration on actors, musicians, and some sports articles. The registered account has been blocked another week, will seem if activity continues on the IP, which is from a library.—Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Human3015

FYI - a new user is accusing you of being a sock. --Cahk (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yumm, irony for breakfast. I see my undisclosed alternate account, Bbb23, has taken care of it. Thanks you for the note.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, Ponyo, I noticed oyu blocked this IP for Block Evasion [2], but I think he/she turned his modem on/off for almost the same edit was made with fairly similar IP number [3]. I rolled it back, but I cannot block that SP of the first IP. Maybe you can judge if that is required? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

Blocked, thank you. I'm sure their will be more.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the reply - and the help.

🍺 Antiqueight chat 18:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My 17-year old kitty cat passed away last year and last night I dreamed that he returned as a "ghost cat" to chill out with me until I could find a suitable replacement. Now I have one! Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion without a trace

Hi. I saw that the talk page for an article, Raihan Ali, that I'd submitted for speedy deletion is now deleted, but the article itself now shows no sign that it had ever been created, let alone deleted. How did you do that? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-magic! I suppressed it due to some of the content.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits at Rishabh Sinha

Sorry about that, but that is *not* what the diff was showing me - all I saw was this diff and I reverted that. I have no idea how that turned into the edit made - I've seen Twinkle do odd things on occasions when there are edits by multiple users. Rwessel (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Humbug to Twinkle! ;) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

jo wheatley

hi Ponyo,

Previous deletion of this page was due to 'winner of the great british bake off' was not sufficient to warrant inclusion.

Now two other winners have pages (nadiya hussain and john whaite) and I believe a Jo Wheatley page should be allowed

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knights365 (talk • contribs)

Hi

Excuse you?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? How am I adding nonsense stuff? Roseness 12 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Roseness 12: I never said you were adding nonsense. I noted that the material you are adding to articles requires reliable sources. In this edit you completely ignored the note specifically requesting that no unsourced dates be added. Did you click the links that were provided on your talk page explaining why your edits are being reverted?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But when I add things I know what am adding! There's someone who keep adding everything to anything he wants and nobody tells him anything it's like he's the leader ok Wiki or something cuz he keeps adding anything he wants in anything on Wiki! Roseness 12 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant : of Wiki* Roseness 12 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what you know, it matters that readers can verify the substance of the content you are adding. The best way to do this is to ensure you include reliable sources. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is an SPI really needed?

Hi Ponyo. Is an SPI really needed if the duck is obvious? Johnharold689 (talk · contribs). If not, could you please indef this guy? Thank you. Dr. K. 04:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Who do you believe it to be a sock of?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Good question. I left it out on purpose to see if it was an obvious sock of our old friend Ryanjay1996. I guess I was wrong. Sorry Ponyo. Dr. K. 23:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries. From a technical standpoint it doesn't appear to be Ryanjay.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ponyo. Weird. He is performing similar edits to Ryanjay. But now that you mentioned they are not related technically, I can see that this account's edits are not as bold as Ryanjay's. Something to think about for the next iteration. :) Take care. Dr. K. 00:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it Red X Unrelated, just  Unlikely (unless Ryanjay has changed tactics technically, which is always possible).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the precise analysis Ponyo. It's very helpful. Much appreciated. :) Dr. K. 00:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have sent you an email.

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

Ches (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I responded to you a few days back - wasn't sure if you were aware of this and were thinking about your reply. If not, my apologies for not letting you know sooner. --Ches (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I've replied now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup. --Ches (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You're Back in the Room

This edit by an IP undid your revert on You're Back in the Room. At a glance, I can't see anything unconstructive about the edit, but you must have had a reason to revert them originally so I thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you didn't already notice it. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a IP-hopping long-term abuse sock easily noticed due to their use of nonsense edit summaries. Many of the edits are gnomish in nature, however they also introduce unsourced dates and information as a matter of course (which is why they were blocked in the first place). It's easier to revert them than to pick through this sockmaster's edits one by one to separate the wheat from the chaff.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
PS If there are helpful edits that you see that you would like to restore, please feel free to do so. Per WP:BANREVERT, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for the content then it's fine.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I thought it could have been something like that. Thanks for replying. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like the same person (e.g. Special:Diff/703613961), in case you want to mass rollback/block them. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block

My little Ponyo, I see you blocked 153.107.193.209, that was reported to AIV (blocked them while I was looking, in fact). Per the Stolen Generations history, several closely related IPs seem to be involved. I've blocked the range 153.107.192.0/23 for one week. I didn't even look up the range contribs... the range is so small, and labs works like one day in ten for me. (Why is it so sucky?) Do you think that's OK? Bishonen | talk 23:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

Wow, there's A TON of garbage emanating from that range. It's quite busy, mostly with the aforementioned garbage, but a soft block is fine.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hazal Kaya

Hi,

What do you mean by "source does not meet"!? (Mona778 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC))

The link you used is a tertiary source that appears to include user-generated content. When personal information, especially disputed content, is added to biography articles it is imperative that the sources be of the utmost quality from a reputable source known for its accuracy and fact-checking. The relevant policy is WP:DOB which states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." (emphasis mine). Please let me know if you have any further questions.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
By the way, welcome back! (Mona778 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC))

Alejandro Cuello

Looks like the IP that kept on removing the tag for Alejandro Cuello was the creator logged off (I figured as much) and now the creator is removing the tags also. Wgolf (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If only they would blank it completely we could just zap the article altogether and save the hassle of a full AfD. Oh well. I've blocked the account, who is clearly the same as the IP. I'll watchlist the article in case they pop up again. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
also possible sock puppet-article was previously created by someone else-see the talk page for Lorenamendedoza Wgolf (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That does look pretty obvious. I'll extend the block to indef and do some digging.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

On another note-a new user keeps on putting the DB-no content tag on articles that are rather new as well as ones that have stuff but not a lot-see this page for example Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough by-election, 2016-sent him a note about it, but wanted to point this out! Wgolf (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left them a gentle note.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wgolf: For future reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka/Archive.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hazal Kaya

Dear Ponyo,

I have added picture (from Commons) into infobox. Can You check the picture, and see if it's okay?---Thanks (Mona778 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

@Mona778: The problem with the image is that, although its claimed as "own work" on Commons, there is no evidence that the uploader actually holds the copyright. Complicating matters is that the image is readily available on multiple websites where they appeared prior to being loaded to Commons. Unfortunately it appears that the image is a copyright violation and will need to be removed from the article unless/until the copyright status can be confirmed.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine. But Why do you thing was allowed to be uploaded in to Commmons without been flagged? (Mona778 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC))
Any image can be uploaded to Commons, as far as I know there is no automated check for copyright issues. Possible copyright violations are found when the images are reviewed by editors at Commons. Courcelles is this accurate?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, though there is some automation (but only in tagging files post-upload), and vast majority of the copyright problems are found by editors. Anything can be uploaded, absolutely nothing will stop it. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Courcelles: "Anything can be uploaded, absolutely nothing will stop it." Sorta like Trump's comments then? (JUST KIDDING)!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted pic. But I think the page should be protected, 'cause the one who uploaded the pic at Commons keeps reverting my edits. (Mona778 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

The image has now been deleted, so I don't think protection is needed.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

thanks for helping me, you are very kind :)--Giudark (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Waldemar15

Hi! Maybe Transparentio's account is a sockpuppet of Waldemar15. In es.wikipedia Transparentio's account was locked because it's a sockpuppet of Waldemar15 (Covervisit/Oglesruins/etc etc etc). Regards! --Sofree (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)--

User:DeltaQuad nipped it in the bud.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sadia Khan

Hello!
Thank you for your edits on Sadia Khan. I added some of the content again with refs that you removed from the article. Please take a look at it.
Thanks--Musa Talk  20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you adding references, but the entire emphasis is on the fact that she photographed Mark Ruffalo. It's WP:UNDUE to the extreme and only detracts from any notability because so much attention is being put on it. I absolutely adore Mr. Ruffalo, but including "the first Pakistani to photograph a Hollywood actor" in the lead just sounds like a silly, barely notable claim. The tone is promotional, but there's so much puffery and promotion in related articles that it's hard to find the energy to clean up any but the most blatant BLP violations. I don't mean to sound discouraging, but reading what you have added to the article is discouraging. This is not the article of a notable photographer, it reads like a promotional piece centered around a single event.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Ponyo. I hope that you are well. Thanks for this I remember seeing an edit by this person and thinking "Hmmm that seems familiar" but then I got distracted by other editing. I hope that you and yours have a delightful Valentine's Day weekend. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD! They don't seem very happy about the block, though I'm not sure why I'm to blame; it's not like I created the sock account for them <shrugs>.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep that is their new favorite rant. This happened last time so you may want to keep an eye out for further nonsense in the next day or so. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Parents (and schools) need to more aware of what their children are doing on the internet; it would cut my CU duties in half.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Another range block request

Well, since that went so easily, I've got another proposition for you: a range block on 2607:FCC8:D406:4500:0:0:0/64. This character is a really annoying one, and the vandalism coming from this range has been a pain in the ass to clean up. Basically, it changes the distributors in {{infobox film}} to incorrect values, usually TriStar. It repeatedly targets the Scream franchise. Here are a few examples:

There's more, but I think that's demonstrative. Sorry for the bother, but this stuff has been getting to me for a while now. I'm tired of having to clean up the same vandalism from the same IP ranges every few days. As far as I know, none of the IPs on this range have ever been blocked, but they cycle rather quickly. It's difficult to give them more than one or two warnings before they disappear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for blocking the sock. You might want to sign at the SPI, by the way... sorry to bother you. GABHello! 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Signed now, thanks for the note (and the cupcake).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Varun Kapoor

Reverts have continued. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 04:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You must unblock the article 'H' on Wikipedia. I want you to let me create the page H. Please unblock the article H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VAQUTSI (talk • contribs) 04:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

H is not edit protected. Please link to the article you are wanting unprotected.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 04:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Newbie getting into trouble altering a redirect page - has been addressed/reverted by another editor [4].--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tylerkermit

Hi. You blocked Tylerkermit (talk · contribs) for persistent addition of unsourced content, and he's continuing to edit war on Tarzan (1999 film) to change a sourced release date (Box Office Mojo) to an unsourced value. I have asked him to provide a source for this, but he has yet to do so. I'm not sure what else to really do except ask for another block, but if you can convince him to cite his source, that's good enough for me. He seems to be ignoring my requests on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone else already took the issue to ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Oasis Academy School

Hi,

You deleted Oasis Academy School as WP:G5 "Created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". I'm happy with the deletion – I nominated the article at AfD myself – but I'm surprised at it being speedy-deleted under G5; the user has been blocked, but they weren't blocked at the time they created the article, so I didn't think it counted as "in violation of block or ban".

Would you be willing to elaborate on why you think G5 applies? As I say, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just interested in how and why people apply the various rules.

—me_and 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Me and: If memory serves I was reviewing the edits and article creations by RaazaUpreti132. I came across Oasis Academy School and notice it had been created by another editor Sarojupreti132 who was tagged as a confirmed sock of the master Sarojupreti, so I included it in my CSD G5 deletions. Upon review it's clear that Sarojupreti and Sarojupreti132 were blocked for socking at the same time as opposed to sequentially, so you're correct that the G5 does not technically apply in this case. I've restored the article, reverted the AfD close, and left an note of explanation there. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT SUMMARY

Greetings!
Please warn Chris8924 for using THIS edit summary.
Thanks.--Musa Talk  00:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not cool, but they made the comment on Feb 15th. I'm not sure a warning now would do much good.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
He was warned before as well for not assuming good faith. See THIS. I can warn him but I want an admin to react to this behaviour.--Musa Talk  06:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Sabinbik

This user is asking for a Standard Offer unblock, and you had spoken with them in December 2015. It's now six months since their last known sock, and at their SPI they seem like a genuine editor who was just getting things wrong, so can you see any objection to an unblock now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking @Boing! said Zebedee:, I've responded at the corresponding user talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts, thanks. I'm now entirely undecided what to do next, and will probably sleep on it - maybe taking it to the community at AN might be best. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
You're a good egg Boing, I trust your judgment. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, only just saw this. You're very kind - and you were right about Sabinbik as there was clearly block evasion going on. I do like unblocking people, but it can't always happen. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

089baby SPI

I'm curious. Is there a reason you didn't block Learng Dara (talk · contribs) after flagging them as a sockpuppet, or was that just oversight? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If I'm running short on time or I'm running multiple checks, I may just post the CU results and the Clerks usually do the blocking and tagging. It looks like no one is actively clerking the CU Completed SPI checks now as there's quite a backlog (hint to any talk page stalkers with the admin bits - many of the cases in the "CU Completed" category just need a block or two and/or a tag. The rest of the work is done). I've now closed the SPI. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello P. One of the most rib tickling(ly) titled threads at AN/I was closed by this IP. I am not concerned about the close. But I do wonder if there is any chance that it was an admin editing while logged out? If so it reveals info that they wouldn't want out there. If it does need oversight then my post here might as well. I suspect that I am worrying needlessly but I thought "better safe then sorry" is the way to go on this. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but we have no idea who and there are no open requests for oversight at OTRS. Also, there were no other admin edits to AN/I within the same time period, so if it was an inadvertent logged-out admin they'll have to email the OS Team to identify themselves. I'm about to head out to enjoy a beautiful Spring-like day. Enjoy your weekend :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I just saw that the thread has been reopened so the address only exists in the edit history now. Enjoy the fresh spring air!!!! MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

I do know for a fact that Georghiou has four children, as I know one of them. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Winslow (talk • contribs)

What you know personally is unverfiable and original research. The information can be included in the article if it is supported by reliable sources.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues

Hi there. Regarding Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs), I think it's a different sock and reported it six days ago. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#New suspected sock of User:Dragonrap2. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues account is technically indistinguishable from the recent socks of Baseballman93.100 and definitely  Confirmed to the socks in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseballman93.100 archive. The only remaining questions is to whether the Baseballman93.100 account is related to Dragonrap2. I'll take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've left a note at the AN/I thread.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize your link was to an archived thread. What I wrote was "As I noted here the Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues account is  Confirmed as Baseballman93.100. I can't determine whether there is a technical connection between Baseballman93.100 and Dragonrap2 as the Dragonrap socks listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive are stale."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Very Rapid Response

Within 2 minutes of User:Tenebrae being accused as a sockpuppet of User:Bbb23, you deleted the accusation. How are you so sure? 2607:FB90:766:FC0D:1739:540F:A1D9:87DE (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

it's been 6 minutes.. should i re-add the sockpuppet accusation? 2607:FB90:766:FC0D:1739:540F:A1D9:87DE (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No and stop trolling.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyone with an ounce of sense would know that Tenebrae is the master, not me. A bas les trolls!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
There's also the fact that your Wikipedia aura leaves the scent of vanilla and lavender, while Tenebrae's smells of orange and cardamom. Both absolutely lovely, but certainly distinct.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Megalyn Echikunwoke

Go screw yourself. Megalyn Echikunwoke is an American of German, Scots-Irish and Nigerian descent. Don't believe me, read it and go. [5] Lg16spears (talk)

  • Well you're certainly pleasant. You were informed as far back as 2013 that IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source in biography articles, so I have no idea what your link is meant to prove. In case the reasons as to why it cannot be used have become hazy over the years, you can read more about it here, here and here. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

Much appreciate your vigilance, Ponyo. Also your choice of flavors!   : )   Thanks for help with the harassing IP. Some people, huh? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's likely to get worse before they tire of the game, so be prepared for that. Please let me know if I miss them popping up elsewhere.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You're jUst beiNg nice to him because hE's rEally bBb23!!!!!!!. (Hey, you should thank me; otherwise you'd have to wait for the other shoe to drop.) Anmccaff (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

New version of an old problem

Hello P. This IP 5.81.235.210 (talk · contribs) is the return of the Northern Ireland editor that is being tracked here User talk:109.151.65.218. They hadn't edited for almost a month so but returned to the sketchy stuff today. MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I saw it too. Blocked for 2 weeks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
As ever thanks! MarnetteD|Talk 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Request

Please unblacklist the page A. I do not want the article A to be protected. you must unblock the article A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czech Cherokee (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The correct place to request unprotection is WP:RFPP, though you will need to provide an explanation as to why you believe the article should be unprotected. Alternatively, you can make an edit request on the article talk page by using {{edit semi-protected}}.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Typo

I took the liberty of fixing your typo. Wouldn't normally, but I thought it best in this case. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That was quite possible the most absurd sentence I've ever written in my 8-year, 10-month and 27-day tenure on Wikipedia. I also didn't mean to capitalize "THE", but I can't be bothered to fix it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Curro2

I see you are doing a cleanup after him. In particular, you deleted some oh his categories, like this one. As I understand, there are bots which depopulate categories. Otherwise their deletion makes no sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If Curro2 is a sock of Baramop and Baramop is a sock of Zeke1999, shouldn't Curro2 be marked as a sock of Zeke1999? Also, there is no template on User:Zeke1999's page. Just curious. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
In December, with respect to the connection between Baramop and Zeke1999, Ponyo wrote, "the technical connection is extremely tenuous". It seems that it was decided that it was more likely to be meatpuppetry rather than socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Liz: While Baramop was tagged as a suspected sock of Zeke1999, Curro2 is without doubt Baramop et al. socking. Since that is the connection that is checkuser confirmed that is why I tagged them this way. @Staszek Lem:, if there are specific pages that need to be restored, please let me know and I can do so.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

re:if there are specific pages that need to be restored - Sorry, you misunderstood me. You deleted some categories. I have nothing against this: they are redundant. However there are articles still categorized with them. A proper way to delete a category is to delete category tags from all corresponding articles. Since sometimes this involves much work, I believe people who handle deletion of categories have bots to do so: both to simply decategorize or to upmerge. Otherwise a large number of articles with redlinked categories is left. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see! I'll go through the list of categories that I deleted yesterday and remove the cats from the corresponding articles where needed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean for you to do it manually; I could have done this myself. I thought that as an admin you know this 'decategorizer' bot and have permissions to run it. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:EricCable_WP:NOTHERE

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:EricCable_WP:NOTHERE it seems to me that some people can't take a friggin joke. Like I said, the shit list page was up for two years and nobody seemed to care and it contained..."not to be taken seriously" etc. Problem is it seems that Lugnut thinks he owns Wikipedia. Honestly, incidents like this make me wonder why I even bother. I try to make good content, make good edits, etc. and people like Lugnut make me just want to take my ball and go home. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) EricCable, I've just seen the AN/I thread concerning you - I've seen an editor blocked before for numerous reasons, one being that he created a "hit list" of sorts (besides his incivility and socking). Furthermore, calling people Wikinazis will get you nowhere here. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable and a violation of WP:NPA. Just my two cents. --Ches (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm done arguing. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
EricCable, thanks for amending your posts. --Ches (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

May I ask you to check a user's recent edits?

Hi there,

Would you check this user Cavadxangence1992 recent edits? He might be a vandalizer. Thanks (Mona778 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

The first three edits were the addition of hoax material to an article, however they appear to be making more acceptable edits since being warned (though I haven't checked the accuracy of the edits). They should be including sources though, so I've let them know that. We'll see where it goes from here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Many thanks as always! (Mona778 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

New sock

We have another sock of Saleemsinghbhaikhan on Chhota Bheem -- listed on the SPI: Georgekumarali (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Thanks, GABHello! 18:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I also restored the article semi-protection which had expired on February 15th.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

Hi, there appears to be an editor, User:A2bstrategies, who is editing the page Brandon Jones (racing driver) with a conflict of interest. A2b is a company that has a client relationship with the driver, based on a quick google search. I was just curious how to handle/address the situation, as you did with the Bomani Jones page some time ago. Thanks. Tdorante10 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left them our standard COI template on their user page. If concerning edits continue, then posting a note at WP:COIN to get additional opinions may be helpful.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian

Could you please block 176.221.34.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of User:Alexiulian25. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Already done. I also semi-protected your user page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Vroom Vroom

Any possibility the edits on Assetto Corsa are linked to Theaghan, who also loved to remove content and reviews? "completely biased" "one-sided". Thanks, GABHello! 00:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Inconclusive as they've used webhosts in the past. You could start an SPI for a behavioural check.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you believe it is worth it? I've learned not to start too many frivolous ones, as the clutter is tedious. GABHello! 01:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, now that they're on the verge of WP:3RR and have been warned for edit-warring in general, they'll probably just abandon the account (if they are indeed connected to the sock master).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

You're a popular lady. I semi'ed this page for 3 days because of your many fans. Shorten it, lengthen it, eliminate it, whatever you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I knew it was coming, should have done it myself before logging off. Thanks for picking up my slack (again) :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli fan?

I saw your username and wondering, was the name dervied from the Studio Ghibli movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs)

Though it is indeed a lovely film, the name is just a coincidence.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to fix a mistake

Hello, I am Hithcher vs. Candyman. On April 14, 2015, you blocked an editor that I welcomed twelve days prior. Recently I discovered that I made a minor, unnoticeable mistake on my welcome at this editor's talk page. Is it all right if I fix this mistake? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not, though if the block was indefinite due to abuse of multiple accounts the change would be useless since they're not really "Welcome" per se.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I will fix the mistake now. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

Can you verify the licenses of these files [6], [7], [8], [9] uploaded to Commons, and see if they're ok? Many thanks (Mona778 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC))

Two of the images include the metadata, which is often a good sign, however they are also readily available on multiple websites when a reverse Google image search is run, which is often a red flag. In addition, because the websites are in Turkish I cannot tell if the image has been credited to a specific agency or individual (even when I run Google translate). So the answer would be "perhaps they are free", but I don't know for sure.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
So they don't require OTRS verified tickets, is that right!? (Mona778 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC))
I'm not certain, you will receive a more thorough answer here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Just a quick heads up. When you're mass deleting articles, like you did with User:Ryanaphon's creations earlier, it's not deleting the associated talk pages for some reason. I thought you aught to know. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The mass delete script does not allow for it unless the sock account also created the corresponding talk page. This makes sense since if they did not create the talk page it is not deleteable under the overarching CSD G5 criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Waldemar15

Hi! Maybe Applime's account is a sockpuppet of Waldemar15. In es.wikipedia Applime's account was locked because it's a sockpuppet of Waldemar15 (Covervisit/Oglesruins/etc etc etc). Regards! --Sofree (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I've blocked the account along with a number of sleepers.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi ¿Other? Thanks for helping. --Sofree (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked. Thank you for the note.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cartman810

Hi Ponyo, I filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cartman810 about a new sock, Sponge58. I know that a CU won't accomplish much since most of the user's activities as Cartman810 were from a long time ago, but I thought I'd mention him in case you thought it reasonable to poke around a little. While researching article edit histories I found a lot of SCD Fan socks at The Dumping Ground S1. Anyhow, no pressure. I know that CU ain't a fishing trip. Just thought I'd mention it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's credible evidence of abuse of multiple accounts then running a check is not "fishing", so no worries there. Although the SPI is stale, I can still confirm that Sponge88 is editing from the same mix of ISPs in the same city. Would you mind opening a new Cartman810 SPI noting your duck block of Sponge88? I can then enter my CU notes and we will be able to pick up the thread if/when they sock again.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this all worked out just fine. I'll never speak of the archive edit. Shoot! I just messed up! :) Thanks for digging, per always. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Why Mr. Bomb, I simply have no idea what you're talking about...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete All My Accounts

Hello, long time no see. You may remember me as WikiEditor905, I am requesting to delete all my accounts and start over. I can't do anything because all my accounts are blocked and I cannot do anything. (And I forgot the password to most of them.) Also, I still do not understand privacy about adding full names and birth dates. I edit on a Wiki and they say ages are on the respected page. So I still do not understand anything about it. Even with reading what was in the guidelines. (99.228.180.78 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

(talk page watcher) @WikiEditor905: User accounts are never deleted. You can just quit using them. However, starting over is possible, (for clean accounts). Mlpearc (open channel) 03:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mlpearc. To be clear to the IP, a clean start is not possible here given they are a serial socker who admits they still don't understand our BLP policy despite other editors explaining it to them repeatedly. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comments - whether or not I fully agree with what's being said I do appreciate your insight into the matter. Garchy (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:62.231.136.1

Hey, could you double-check my thinking at this Talk page? This IP belongs to ClaraNET, which is a company that caters to businesses, including webhosting, cloud services, etc. I don't see any evidence that it belongs to a school. I just removed the school header. From the history of the Talk page, the school header was added in two steps quite some time ago, both changes by socks of the same master. Am I missing something here? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's no evidence it's a school, and the template itself was added by a sock, then I would have removed it too.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The amusing part is that most administrators, when they blocked the IP, which was fairly frequent, labeled it a schoolblock. The reason I was in some doubt was because much of the vandalism is similar to school kid vandalism, but if there's a connection between ClareNET and the school, I can't see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User: 81.148.219.96

Hello Ponyo, Just to inform you that our block evading Northern Ireland IP has surfaced yet again in the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment with the usual controversial scenes nonsense. I have deleted "entry", but am concerned how we stop these "edits". Can I please leave with you for action? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And has re-surfaced again. Have deleted entries for block evasion. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Got it...reblocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle

Hi Ponyo. I saw your revert at Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle. I wondered what your rationale was? With the start of the fourth series, there have now been more than 18 episodes. Is it that not all 24 have seen aired yet? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think that the airdates that the IP introduced are correct. See, for example, this, which confirms that the first episode of the third series was first shown on 1 March 2014. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Cordless Larry: the edit was made by a very persistent LTA block evader who has been adding unsourced material to articles for eons. The dead give away is the nonsensical edit summaries, which they apparently think are very clever. If you are able to confirm any of the material they've added please feel free to restore it, as long as your willing to take responsibility for its accuracy. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've checked all of the material and they were accurately correcting the dates in this case, so I have restored the IP's revision. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please give warnings

Could you please give warnings before blocking someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.56.122 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not if they're evading a block.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Lo siento la bañera del escucho.166.170.56.122 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi P. I couldn't get a clear translation of the sentence but I think it relates to this :-) Cheers to ya. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Image licensing question

I see many images which are copied from Internet with following license. My question is that "Can I use this license to post an image which is not my own work but only describes the subject on the article?" Reference conversation is at User talk:SheriffIsInTown#Image copyright. The license text I am referring to is following :

"This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that was a different question and this is different, this is about fair use of human subject images. Can we take an image from the internet but apply Fair Use license since it's not a free image and restrict it to the page of the subject which that image identifies? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty much the same question you asked in the talk page section you linked to, where I have already noted that " Images of living persons found on various websites almost never meet the criteria required and such images cannot be claimed under fair use" and "Screen captures cannot be used to depict living persons. The image has to either be in the public domain, or the appropriate permissions provided by the copyright holder." So to be clear, images of living persons cannot be claimed under fair use policy as they nearly always fail non-free content criteria number 1, specifically "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." As long as it is possible that there could be a free image of the subject available for use, or there could be one available in the future, then fair use cannot be claimed for the copyrighted images of living persons.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Isaiah Richardson Jr. AfD

I am writing to all those who participated in this discussion at the BLP Noticeboard that I have now nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Richardson Jr. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

Just wanted to ask you that are images posted by famous personalities on their verified Facebook allowed on wikipedia belonging to Public Domain categories? found a image on top of the article Farhan Saeed thought to share and asks you if It is a proper tagged one? please do reply me. Sammy.joseph (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Facebook images are copyrighted and that image has now been deleted. Posting images on a public Facebook page is not the same as an image being in the "public domain" .--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jezebel's Ponyo what if the person releases the appropriate license information in the page itself? should we be using the image then? Sammy.joseph (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Facebook will allow their users to add Wikipedia compatible licensing to their pages. Also, just because a subject uses an image on their Facebook or other social networking pages, it does not mean they own the copyright. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
So do you think File:Grey DeLisle's Official Wikipedia Pic..JPG should exist? and what If a verified fb page really announces the licence of their image which is no where on the internet? Sammy.joseph (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The license in this specific case was reviewed at Commons and found to be compatible. It would seem obvious, at least to me, that if she's holding a sign that explicitly states that the image is being taken for use on Wikipedia and the image included the appropriate licensing, then the photographer/copyright holder was allowing for the image's use here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:115.69.47.212

An unidentified IP, User talk:115.69.47.212, blocked by you in October 2013 appears to be disrupting again. I have warned the User, today, about vandalising an article in a similar manner to that which they disrupted in January 2012.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if it continues past your final warning.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bold and the Beautiful

Looks like Wingard is IP-hopping and continuing to make their attempt at editing daily episode count updates. Any way we can re-protect the page again?? livelikemusic talk! 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
You're amazing, as always! livelikemusic talk! 21:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User: Agent C20

Hello Ponyo, It has been brought to my attention that the activities of Agent C20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the very least appear to be our block evading "NI Rape Addict". Their "contributions" appear to be on the same rape theme and also silly questions. Is there any way, as an admin, that you could check the source of these edits and take the necessary action? Thank you and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi P. My suspicions were raised with this question about the Gilmore Girls. That series was also the subject of one of the most recent IPs as can be seen here. This brings up another question. Can a SPI be started if an IP is the sock master? Thanks or your time and Sláinte. MarnetteD|Talk 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed this but I would think the second part of this post and the title of the thread turns this into a WP:DUCK situation. MarnetteD|Talk 13:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That's most certainly them and I've blocked the account per WP:DUCK. As to whether an SPI can be opened with an IP as the master, the answer is yes. On a lighter note, I was married in Newtown Castle, so I do enjoy some good craic on St. Paddy's day :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks P. What a glorious place for your nuptials! MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Helo Ponyo, NI block evader re-surfaced as 31.49.29.96 (talk · contribs). Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This 86.176.58.197 (talk · contribs) is the latest IP. They may well move to another IP by the time you get back so but I thought I'd let you know anyway. I hope that you are having a nice time! MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC). Further "edits" reversed on 28 and 29 March 2016. Usual themes. David J Johnson (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked one week.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help and trust you had a good break. David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I need a holiday to recover from my holiday!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks P and welcome back. Whoo wee I know what you mean. It got to the point (back in the day) that I made sure that I had a day at home to decompress before going back to work. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Two more suspected IP sockpuppets of Optim.usprime

Hello Ponyo,

The SPA Optim.usprime was indefinitely blocked for fraudulently using multiple IPs to influence an AfD discussion and to harass another editor; on Optim's talk page, you commented on Feb. 24 that the sockpuppetry went far beyond one IP address. Five days ago, two more single-purpose IPs (108.58.65.92 and 209.140.44.209) popped up to complain about the removal of content which had been included in Antonin Scalia at the insistence of Optim. These IPs belong to the same ISP as 74.88.32.47, the original IP sock for Optim. All three trace back to New York City and share Optim's narrow interest in promoting the individual who found the body of a judge who died of apparent natural causes. I strongly suspect that these are the two latest IP socks for Optim. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You could very well be right, however the IPs were only used on March 13th and are dynamic, so blocking them now wouldn't prevent further socking.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing ring flareup?

Hi Ponyo, not sure what to do here, so I thought I'd ask you. I'm looking at the edit history of Gautam Rode, which is jam-packed of sock operators, like IamRDOfficial, who was a sock of Rishika.dhanawade in the most recent history. I also note a ton of 103.* IPs springing up in January who are familiar with reFill. Curious. Following some of them around, I notice a number of intersections with these IPs. I also notice this guy, Luciferthechampion, has come out of nowhere to create articles and use reFill. Can you keep any eye on any of these characters? Virtually everywhere that Luciferthechampion has gone, he's been preceded by these 103.* IPs, although Lucifer may be an account created by the user behind the IPs. Regardless, I'm getting an Rishika.dhanawade vibe from this situation though it's a touch early for me to go to SPI. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've filed a proper SPI report and CU request. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm getting caught up after being away for a few days. If the SPI is still open when I get my feet under me I'll take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Luciferthechampion is a confirmed sock. I've updated the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi Ponyo. You may wish to redact this edit to Tvx1's userpage as well (from what I can see, it was a good faith reversion of MarnetteD's removal of the offending item, which the editor then immediately reverted themselves). DH85868993 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I should have caught that myself. All done now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ginger Rose

Your deletion of my article is highly unacceptable. The prior suggested deletion tag was written with disclaimer that I could remove it myself, if marketing was not the intent as it was not. Based on the articles you have written, the article I wrote was well in the bounds of approval. I worked many hours on that contribution to honor a notable person and I find the deletion unfounded. I found numerous reliable sources. So, with all due respect please advise with an explanation of how to reinstate the very thorough article which I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.N. Ryan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tag cannot be removed by the creator of the article and states in bold text "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" on the template.
Your article was not anywhere close to "within the bounds of approval", and the majority of the sources you used were completely self-serving primary sources including the subject's personal website and linkedin profile. You will not be able to reinstate the article as it is completely inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. You blanked the conflict of interest notice I included on your userpage, however sentences such as "is well-known for her numerous talents and exceptional intellect", "demonstrated advanced learning abilities at infancy", and "The casting directors were so impressed by her singing, that she was cast for her first commercial the next day, which lead to professional commercial roles, and opened doors for her rising singing career" demonstrates that you clearly have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly.
If you are receiving monetary compensation for the creation of the article you need to disclose it as undisclosed paid editing is contrary to our Terms of Use.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your removal and how you suggest it be changed to your specific liking, since following all the rules of submission are not adequate enough for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.N. Ryan (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read my reply to you here, as well as on your talk page, including the related links? You are using Wikipedia as a promotional platform for a subject with which you have a clear conflict of interest. If you believe your text is not promotional, then you should not be the person creating the article as you cannot see beyond your own bias. If you are being paid for your services you need to stop creating the article completely.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The insinuation that I am being paid is not only insulting but highly inappropriate. Please refrain from making false statements regarding my disapproval of your unwarranted deletion. I wrote you a very detailed message regarding my contribution...it appears it did not go through...might you have received my request for specific aid in adding the contribution as this author is highly influential and I was extremely excited about publishing my first contribution on an author and scholar, who through my research turns out to also be a well known artist, musician, and performer. I would like to resubmit my article, and rather than tagging and deleting immediately, I would appreciate your specific guidance to ensure it is not mistakenly tagged as promotional...as that is not at all the case. She has made public mention on several shows that she would consider running for president, given her diverse career and accomplishments, I find her extremely notable and again, was thrilled to share my article. If the person's actual words are not considered reliable, than I am unsure what is...as many of the secondary links from the original article were not to your liking. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.N. Ryan (talk • contribs) 00:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't insinuate that you were being paid, I noted the if you were being paid you need to be aware with the Wikimedia Foundation's policies regarding such edits. This has nothing to do with my personal preference, and I was not the reviewer that originally tagged the article as contrary to Wikipedia's policies regarding promotion. One of my roles as an administrator is to review the concerns raised by knowledgeable volunteers in patrolling new articles and determine whether the articles meet Wikipedia's criterias for inclusion. Your article did not for all the reasons already mentioned here and on your user talk page. If you believe there was an error in the deletion process itself you can request a review at WP:DRN, however it will be unlikely to succeed as the article contained blatantly promotional content and was deleted in accordance with our policies. I don't believe you are unbiased, I can't imagine someone making some of the claims that you included in the article if they were completely neutral on the topic. If you want to attempt to write a completely neutral, policy-compliant version of the article then I suppose Wikipedia:Articles for creation is your best bet. If you go this route I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:BLP, WP:RS WP:NPOV prior to getting started.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources in biography articles of Sanjay Kapoor

please refer [Family]

I've responded on your talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Another suspected sock of Europefan

Hi there, I think this is likely another Europefan sockpuppet: [10] Cheers, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Edgar181 is all over it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Shulinjiang

Good to see you got back from holidays. It seems that no one is going to take this request, [11], can you consider protecting these few articles because you are familiar with Shulinjiang.[12] Capitals00 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Your first link just directs to the general RFPP page. Which articles are in question?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
[13] that means I ask protection for:-
The disruption is all coming from User:174.97.109.201, who is returning after a two-month block of this IP. At this point it can be handled without semi-protection as there appears to be only one user involved. I've warned them that if they reappear under any IP or account they will be blocked without additional warnings, and have watchlisted the articles so I can monitor the activity in case protection is needed in the future.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

SammuleRobberts (talk · contribs) was blocked. Then we get 200.79.231.99 (talk · contribs) and 184.75.218.41 (talk · contribs) and of course 162.213.159.232 (talk · contribs). Plus I've been dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive socks.[14] (or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnglishPassport but I think they are the same as AP). Doug Weller talk 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooof

I feel oddly about this guy's block. As soon as Swarm applied rollback permissions, I was tempted to email him to toss out a "yo, you'd better keep an eye on this guy" warning, since the user had been engaging in some poor judgment a while earlier. Buuut, sharp tack that you are, you caught some pernicious behavior! Kudos, as always, and thanks for your eagle eye. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

They shot themselves in the foot by posting the autoblock unblock request, otherwise I wouldn't have spotted the good hand/bad hand behaviour.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_31&oldid=1190256261"