Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:280:4f81:4490:d9e8:37cf:d62:bc68 (talk) at 05:38, 19 March 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


UTRS 67644

Hey Ponyo, I hope all is well and you're enjoying your vacation. Could I bother you to have a look at UTRS:67644 when you're back? See my comment there – I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks, --Blablubbs (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: I don't think the IP should be unblocked or the block modified. I also strongly suspect that the account making the request (Stuart at St Mungo's High) is related to the batch of socks and evading blocks (see the appeal at User talk:Haksataylor) for example.-- Ponyobons mots 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I figured as much, but wanted to double check. Stuart at St Mungo's High School and Stuart at St Mungo's High blocked accordingly. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

But then I start my vacation after you end yours. Boo. At least Bbb23 is around. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, it's almost like you planned it this way! You're like the Polkaroo (a reference for the Canadians in the room. Maybe Yamla gets it?).-- Ponyobons mots 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Ponyo! I grew up in the UK so didn't watch Polka Dot Door myself, but it was certainly on t.v. here for my younger siblings to watch. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gem, along with Mr. Dressup and The Friendly Giant (yes, I'm aging myself here).-- Ponyobons mots 21:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sock without a master

See User talk:Bbb23#Sock (but I don't know the master). I blocked the last one, but the latest one is a little different. I'm almost confident enough to block behaviorally, but a check would be nice. Might be some sleepers as a bonus. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual spammer

Hi, could you look at Special:Contributions/Maxgaucho? All their contributions appear to be spam. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat, noted and blocked.-- Ponyobons mots 21:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! BilCat (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock the Shining Time Station episode list

Hello, Ponyo. If I need to delete some stuff on the Shining Time Station episode list (like Thomas stories that were never seen on some Season 3 episodes), should you unblock the page first? I still see some Thomas stories added in the Season 3 episodes that were never seen in any of the Season 3 episodes on YouTube. 209.169.194.23 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can make you argument for removal along with an edit request on the associated talk page.-- Ponyobons mots 21:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with the other person the page didn't need to be blocked but there's false information in the Season 3 section 7 of the episodes have Thomas stories that never appeared in that season alone so please unprotect the page and we can remove the false information it's really annoying Skullzfox (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ongoing content dispute where both sides think they're right. You are equally annoying to each other. -- Ponyobons mots 21:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well i actually have proof that all 7 episodes did not have those stories the links are in the post i made not too long ago so if you please look at them and remove the false information that would be great otherwise i won't shut up about the page please? Skullzfox (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators taking admin action (such as protection) on an article do not get involved with content. As I noted to the IP, you can make a request on the article talk page.-- Ponyobons mots 22:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i already did and no one has answered i need you to unlock or at least remove the false information as stated on the talk page Skullzfox (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first request was removed because you were insulting other editors. Your second request doesn't follow the edit request instructions, specifically "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". -- Ponyobons mots 23:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you just unlock it so i can fix it myself then? i don't want to sit here talking about a problem that can easily be fixed by just doing that i'm not waiting till July to remove false information Skullzfox (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skullzfox, can you, uh, first follow the instructions above and fix your edit request so we can understand what your request clarifies? Tails Wx 00:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no need i fixed it it's better now but please if anyone else tries to add those unwanted stories in just listen to the person who thinks it's wrong like me because it was too annoying seeing the wrong stories every day Skullzfox (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film Notability Question

You missed the point to my question, unless you actually read the guideline on future films to state that. Please read it again if necessary. It states that films that have not completed filming are not notable. It says that films that have completed filming may be notable if production itself has satisfied general notability, although it says it very badly. My question was addressed to the blocked editor, who was being very aggressive in stating that any unreleased film should have an article.

If you actually read that guideline as stating that every unreleased film that has completed filming should be the subject of an article, then that is all the more reason why maybe I should try again to get the film notability guideline revised to clarify what it does and does not say.

Maybe I should have specifically addressed my question to the blocked editor, but I thought that followed because I was on their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I did miss the point of your question. While reviewing their recent appeal and 331dot's decline, I noticed your question and responded with a link to the guideline, thinking it would be helpful. Obviously I was wrong.-- Ponyobons mots 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're not doing anything...

Dammit, I was just writing the below when you blocked.

Is Openshack, a rather suspicious new editor all by themself, the same person as Carbomarx (interesting username, eh?)? See, e.g., Solna and...stopped here.

Continuing...are they just confirmed to each other, or is there an earlier master?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to each other. This wasn't Openshack creating Carbomax to get an upper hand in an edit war. They created both accounts back-to-back on one ISP, then hopped on to one of Evlekis' favourite ranges. I'm not saying they are Evlekis, but they definitely had the intent to sock right from the get go and winding up at on the naughty step within two days of account creation is not a good look. -- Ponyobons mots 19:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I tag them?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem-o.-- Ponyobons mots 20:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

:) ~Tallulah (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Well...that was quick. Tails Wx 23:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Mig-29

I would like to ask someone to do justice. I find it outrageous that I, who have supported my claim, have been blocked, while the other party, who has been slowly and continuously withdrawing my edits on emotional grounds , and without argument, has not been given any warning or review.

I was first rejected with the address "own reasearch" not allowed.

With that in mind, I sought a source to support my claim that the section to be deleted was "judging" on a relative finding, and thus an incorrect objective claim.

In response, the user BilCat refuses to interpret or accept the arguments and documents that support my claim. And I have not received any counter argument, he simply disagrees. and in return, I have again been "called" to be blocked.... where is the truth or objectivity here?

When discussing facts, disagreement is completely subjective!!!

I might add, the user named BilCat keeps asking for specifications which I provide and then dismissing my claim in the name of again "anonymous" or generalizing specifications which I ask him what he meant? but I get no answer to any question, he simply says no and that's it...where is the debate? where is the argument? where is the objectivity? it is simply outrageous! Szolnok95 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a consensus to remove the disputed content, so please stop arguing incessantly about it. I suggest you either read WP:Dispute Resolution, and follow the steps there, or drop the stick. BilCat (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant.
"Oh, well, I have to admit, I pretty missread the citation.
It's talking about the F-16/F-18/Mig-29 short range, not only about the Mig-29.
it's my fault. Excuse me. Szolnok95 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)" from Mig-29 talk page. Szolnok95 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Block

Can I get the unblock? The 48 hours are up and I have admitted that I was wrong. Szolnok95 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are no longer blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:98.235.155.81

Please revoke TPA from User talk:98.235.155.81; it's more edit warring with themselves. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- Ponyobons mots 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

96.84.0.209

Are they a sock? Tails Wx 23:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's block evasion, yes.-- Ponyobons mots 23:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this include this IP as well? Tails Wx 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure looks like it. I've blocked the /64.-- Ponyobons mots 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. They're back again, and this time, protect CycloneYoris' talk page from socks! Tails Wx 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 2601:589:4100:0:0:0:0:0/48. There's plenty of socking/disruptin/harassment across that range.-- Ponyobons mots 21:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for the 3-month block! Tails Wx 21:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're back again here. The block evasion–I wonder when they'll stop. Tails Wx 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, thanks for deleting their edits! Tails Wx 00:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
aaand here's another IP. Tails Wx 23:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiabirras/Archive

Did you recognize them? I checked because DUH it's obvious, but there was so much on the range that I couldn't see the forest for the trees--which I think is quite common with these Indian sock farms. Anyway, thanks--I'm glad you noticed and blocked. And sheesh if I were that actor I'd ask for a refund. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait--it's just that one actor? That's even more sad. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one you were chatting with, who kept reiterating they were a new user, was not only on the same range but the same rather unique device as recent socks. I just compared them with Jacoobu directly as opposed to slogging through that ginormous range. Their partner in crime UPE, Shahrukhzum was on the same range, different device, so I just tagged them as suspected. They're certainly determined to get that paycheck.-- Ponyobons mots 18:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, "chatting"--OK I listened to that song but I can't get into it. Hey thank you for cleaning up. Many users have no idea how helpful you are doing all this unseen and unsung labor. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lyrics are "Just got paid...Friday night". It's Friday, but I guess our friends aren't getting paid now because the draft has been deleted. And thank you.-- Ponyobons mots 21:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um... did you see my talk page too?

I've already had legal threats and now I had that happening on my talk page. Just thought you should know... WMrapids (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've blocked the IP range and will keep an eye on the article.-- Ponyobons mots 23:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2601:589:4100:0:0:0:0:0/48

You blocked them [Special:Contributions/2601:589:4100:0:0:0:0:0/48]. I guess you know that was Defeedme? Doug Weller talk 08:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocking them for the past couple of weeks; there's a private filter set up tracking (some) of the socking.-- Ponyobons mots 16:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you're here, Doug, I've seen the updates regarding your health on your talk page and I want to let you know how much I appreciate everything you've done here for this project and especially how much I appreciate you, as the kind wonderful person that you are. We've both been bouncing around this vast website for ages and it's always pleasant when our paths cross. You're a star my friend. -- Ponyobons mots 21:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate that that as I’ve always thought you were a great editor. Support like yours means a lot. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Kennedy (producer)

Would you mind revdeling another edit on this page by the same user? Guessing they just reposted what you deleted before. Thanks Cannolis (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it and indeffed the user, but it needs suppression. Not sure if Ponyo is still around, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not super familiar with this stuff, is suppression of this edit something that should be handled immediately by someone else? Or can it wait a bit for Ponyo to come back on? Cannolis (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've e-mailed the OS team requesting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bbbb23. @Cannolis:, if you ever see instances of an editor posting what looks to be personal information (addresses, phone numbers) into an article, please email a note to the Oversight team. They will evaluate the edit(s) and action suppression, rev-deletion, or nothing depending on the situation.-- Ponyobons mots 16:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks! Cannolis (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably misinterpreting but just in case

You recently temp banned an IP editor who was refactoring my warnings on a different IP editor's talk page. I saw, in your block notice, that you linked to WP:BANREVERT but I think the IP you blocked was not trying to edit on behalf of the vandal IP. They seemed to be patrolling recent changes at the same time that I was as they reverted several instances of vandalism, including one from same IP where the warning templates were being changed. I think they were genuinely trying to be helpful and thought I'd picked the wrong template (I may have but the vandal IP seems to have stopped since so moot point).

Like I said, I'm probably off base but I wanted to throw it out there just in case. Didn't want to see a helper in need of coaching get caught up because of a vandal. Millahnna (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Millahnna: The IP editor I blocked is evading a block (a community ban to be specific) and cannot be editing Wikipedia at all while the block on their main account remains in place.-- Ponyobons mots 20:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for the info. Such a shame since they were helpful with the vandal reverts, even if the talk page stuff was weird (it was really, really weird). Cheers! Millahnna (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their original block included WP:CIR as a rationale, so that continues to be an issue. Not everyone who wants to edit here has the skills to do so, unfortunately.-- Ponyobons mots 20:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I so feel you on that. There's a reason I never edit tables; I know I'll break something. I mostly stick to fixing awkward sentences for a reason.
ANd I'm sorry if me communicating with the IP made the situation worse. Really thought I found a helpful person who just needed a nudge in the right direction. Millahnna (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one should ever apologize for assuming good faith. Oh, and tables are the worst.-- Ponyobons mots 20:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're back

Hi, See Special:Contributions/NaplesFoxtrot for our Aussie IP. I've been watching their contributions since early January, and they've finally shown enough to prove it. I don't know if it's enough to check for sleepers, and I don't know of a master. It's been all IPs that I know of before this. BilCat (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now indef blocked by User:Parsecboy. Is an SPI worth pursuing? BilCat (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say probably yeah, given the long-term nature of the activity - there may be sleepers out there a CU would catch. And probably good to have things documented so you can point another admin there if Ponyo or I aren't around. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that CatBil (blocked by Bbb23) and NaplesFoxtrot are  Confirmed to each other, but the privacy policy prevents me from commenting on IPs if it means connecting them to registred accounts.-- Ponyobons mots 23:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And back on an IP at Special:Contributions/203.206.81.214. BilCat (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, and re-protected German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin.-- Ponyobons mots 18:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! BilCat (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And back at North American Aviation as Special:Contributions/49.179.86.243. BilCat (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected that one too.-- Ponyobons mots 18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, again! BilCat (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again at North American F-86 Sabre, on 2 separate IPs. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion got that one. They're back at Leonard Cheshire as well.-- Ponyobons mots 16:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back at Heinkel He 178 on Special:Contributions/49.180.153.137 and Special:Contributions/49.181.74.64. BilCat (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it.-- Ponyobons mots 16:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BKFIP?

As you can see, the IP is blocked until February 8 with TPA revoked, but when I blocked them, I thought behaviorally they were WP:BKFIP. They are combative, legalistic, picky, the usual. Geolocation is a bit confusing: one service says Wales, and the other England, not even particularly close to Wales, and I never know how to resolve technically those kinds of conflicts. I don't remember BKFIP ever editing from Wales, but it's been a while since I've been able to track him. Anyway, what do you think? If it's BKFIP, I would increase the block, or at least reblock if they resume editing after expiration of the block. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not BKFIP, they're doing a spot-on impression. Maybe he's nipped over to Wales for some rarebit and a Wrexham Lager?-- Ponyobons mots 23:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if that IP really does geolocate to Wales. Anyway, I will leave the block be for the moment, but if they return, I will block as BKFIP...and for longer. Do you like rarebit? I just looked at the article, and one of rarebit's aliases is "blushing bunny". Poor little rabbit. Me, I don't eat rabbit and I don't drink alcohol, but otherwise it's perfect.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's cheese on toast and it's delicious!-- Ponyobons mots 00:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"just brown it with a hot shovel" doesn't sound enticing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A regular iron can work in a pinch (assuming you never want to use the iron for its intended purpose ever again).-- Ponyobons mots 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on... You don't eat rabbit?! It's the only meat approved by the American Heart Association! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the socks he blocks, Bbb has no heart :( -- Ponyobons mots 00:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They never even mention rabbit (or shovels) in this article. In any event, I may not eat rabbit, but I eat like a rabbit: carrots, lettuce, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I normally eat rabbit once or twice a week. If you eat meat you should try it. It's absolutely delicious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I eat only fish and fowl, and rabbit is neither. I vaguely remember eating rabbit before I changed my diet. IIRC, the preparation was more interesting than the meat, but it's been a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as well - ever heard of rabbit starvation? Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My rabbits are fat enough where that's not a problem. Also, it's an excellent excuse to add a bunch of butter and bacon to whatever you're cooking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we got back on-topic, please? If you want to opine on whether BKFIP eats rabbit, that would be useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSD for non registered user sub page

Hi Ponyo, I came across these two pages here-1 and here-2 which are redirect to user JohnDVandevert where the there is no user Gongfong2021 in Wikipedia - see here-3. I tried to CSD the two pages, but no successful. Kindly help (note: I come to you as you have previous communication with this user JohnDVandevert many times before in their talk page.) Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: Both have now been deleted.-- Ponyobons mots 00:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ponyo. Cassiopeia talk 00:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my

Take a look at this, if you have the stomach for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it will be closed as premature forthwith. -- Ponyobons mots 18:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of "forthwith" (unknown) and mine (immediately) must not be the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
forthwith = right away, no?. Perhaps forthwith isn't completely correct and "in short order" would be more accurate. (vague comment → → →) But I'm guessing you picked that specific diff because you know my opinions about what's in the diff, and your assumptions are likely on point. -- Ponyobons mots 18:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumptions about my assumptions are correct. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<insert secret handshake here>-- Ponyobons mots 18:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock troll(s)

What is up with this stream of accounts that is trolling users who've requested unblocks? It's disgusting to see them WP:GASLIGHTING these people with fake declines, telling them to create new accounts that end up getting tagged as socks, and even posting false info on their own userpages after they've been caught (see "GeneralNotahility"). Are these all the work of one person or a coordinated effort from multiple parties? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a specific LTA's new shtick. Sad isn't it?-- Ponyobons mots 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sad is right. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For reverting the trolling nonsense by the above-mentioned LTA just as I was about to go and do it. Cheers! JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- Ponyobons mots 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hao Li

Hi Ponyo,

In 2019 you helped us protect the Hao Li page from further edits by a disgruntled former employee. It looks like the same former employee is now trying to further defame Mr. Li. They are currently embroiled in a lawsuit. Is there any way you can protect the page from edits again?

Thank you! Dandandan94 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandandan94: I've reprotected the article and blocked the account that was posting the policy-violating material sourced to a Wordpress blog.-- Ponyobons mots 20:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Dandandan94 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Thank you for blocking User:2604:3D09:6A85:6000:286A:DAF:1886:8CCA. He deserved the block. GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you reverting whatever that was, (rude message I'm guessing [1] while I was away! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 23:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome.-- Ponyobons mots 23:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hey Ponyo. There's this person, named Antiserb that keeps removing content on the Sarajevo page. As his username says, he keeps deleting the image of the Ortodox church in Sarajevo, as well as removing long-time, reliable references among other things. Here are some of his edits on the Sarajevo page. He also removed some well known facts on the Mušan Topalović page. Granted, they are not referenced, but it is common knowledge almost in Bosnia, and especially here in Sarajevo when it comes to Topalović. So I'm asking you if you could maybe do something about this? I warned him on his talk page, but he doesn't care. Thanks in advance! Bakir123 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a username violation, and combined with their edits and edit summaries, I've blocked the account.-- Ponyobons mots 19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're the man. Bakir123 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? You kept that quiet.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take compliments wherever I can get them.-- Ponyobons mots 18:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Didn't think about that. :P Bakir123 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar at all?

I stumbled across new editor NumaWwomo and found their editing pattern unusual. From what I can see, they edit only new articles. I assume they are using Special:NewPagesFeed, which I had to hunt down because I've never looked at it before, but it would be odd for a brand new editor to find it, don't ya think? AFAICT, their edits are constructive/gnomish. Remind you of anyone?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. There are a handful of UPE accounts that make these type of gaming/gnoming edits so they can create their articles directly in article space, but in those cases the grammar is nearly always poor or outright wrong. The edits from this account don't fit the pattern I usually see.-- Ponyobons mots 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking yesterday...

I hadn't seen them in a while, and then I didn't even block em. I had a bit of a feeling, but wasn't sure. I'm a failure, time to turn in the mop. :( ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a tell, I would say it's being irritating AF; like a mosquito in your ear when you're trying to sleep. I refuse to trade you in for this buzzing little nuisance. -- Ponyobons mots 18:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Me again

Hey, me again. So now, there is this person that has multiple ip adresses and have been constantly removing refernced content on the Armin Hodžić page these past few days. Here is the edit history. Also, I guess kind of wishing me to die on my talk page? Here's the edit. The literall Bosnian translation. (Redacted) Interesting to say the least. I don't know if they have been banned before. Not sure. Bakir123 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP range for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. I've also removed the attack from your message above.-- Ponyobons mots 22:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, there's this address as well. 92.36.134.82. And believe me, after those two weeks they will still do the same. They have been doing these kind of edits for months now, maybe even a year... Bakir123 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 92.36 Ip hasn't edited in several days, it's unlikely they will return to that same IP.-- Ponyobons mots 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. They are evading a block. It's HankMoodyTZ. The KakirJeGlup account is a sockpuppet of the first one. And all those addresses are from KakirJeGlup. What's funny is I'm certain that's the person because "Kakir" is a derogatory nickname for my name, Bakir. And "je glup" in Bosnian means "is stupid". I mean look at their edits. Half of them are related to mine ones lol. Pretty childish honestly. Bakir123 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're correct, you can report further socking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HankMoodyTZ.-- Ponyobons mots 23:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do tomorrow. Bakir123 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is blocked and protected for now. You only have to make a new SPI report if they pop up again.-- Ponyobons mots 23:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Robinson

Serenity now

If you look further up my page, you can see someone helping me with the terms of the free-use/non-free use etc for the article and they had no problem with it. Either you're being picky, or a majority of two to one are wrong. --DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DowntonAbbeyFan: The reliability of an image upload is not related to its licensing. You cannot upload a screenshot and use it as a source for information in a BLP as images are not reliable sources as they can be manipulated. I also explained on your talk page that if the information was notable enough for inclusion, sources that do meet WP:RS will have reported on it. At this point you have 1) disputed content of 2) undetermined notability that is 3) not supported by reliable sources, none of which have anything to do with the licensing issues with the image. Ensuring the editors abide by one of our most fundamental and important policies is not "being picky". -- Ponyobons mots 20:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I's also like to be very clear, if you continue to edit war to restore poorly sourced contested content to a BLP as you are doing now, you will be blocked from editing. You have the opportunity to learn more about our sourcing and verifiability policies, please do so.-- Ponyobons mots 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: (There was an edit conflict as I posted, so I hope I did not cut any of your words off!) Given that it has never come up in interviews, as he's never done an interview, it's not going to be mentioned in another source, is it? As for disputed content? No. Hardly. It was posted on his instagram stories - as stated in the actual source of the image. Sadly, it cannot be replicated due to how Instagram works with stories. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm discussing the matter with someone else right now.--DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand, if it's not mentioned in any other source, we don't mention it here. Wikipedia includes material based on what has been published in reliable sources.-- Ponyobons mots 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take some time away from this conversation before I say something I'll regret.
I'll merely leave you with this: There is no reliable source for it since it has not been mentioned in interviews, although I would have considered the verified instagram account of the person who posted the original story to be a "reliable" source. It would be like you using your instagram story to post "I like cheese" and then me going - "Oh, but it hasn't been said in an interview - REMOVE it from the Wikipedia article!"
You know it's true, since you posted the story itself with the information in it, but because there's no "reliable" source (i.e an interview), you cannot prove it to verify that information on Wikipedia, can you? No. (Now, yes, I know we would not post about cheese in an article, but I am using it as an example, not a literal statement of fact.)
It's a vicious cycle - it needs to be provided by a reliable source, but a reliable source - apparently - cannot be provided, so we end up in a vicious cycle: I know it's a reliable source, since I found the image and uploaded it and follow him on Instagram, which is where I saw the post in the first place, but you either do not follow him or did not see it that night, so we end up back at square one, just going in circles and unable to resolve the situation. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not using the verified instragram account of the individual, you are attempting to use a screenshot of a post that no longer exists. You cannot do that. It's not a vicious cycle at all - it's fundemental Wikipedia policy - if you can't find reliable sources to support the content, it doesn't go in the article. It's non-notable, trivial content that runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I don't know how many times it needs to be explained to you by multiple editors. Move on to something else.-- Ponyobons mots 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using a screenshot from the verified Instagram, actually. But, fine, since you seem determined not to waver on this situation, I'll leave it.DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm considered a fairly patient admin on this website...try to be fair and explain our policies to editors acting in good faith, but you have actually completely exhausted my patience. Screenshots cannot be used as reliable sources. It's literally the first two things I ever said to you. This conversation is done.-- Ponyobons mots 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:contributions/86.8.101.221

Hello Ponyo and trust you are well? I'm afraid the BBC vandal has struck yet again with multiple warnings on their Talk page. I really think they now need a much longer block; although they will probably try another IP after a break? Trust you can help again, regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for another two years. -- Ponyobons mots 17:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are again arguing about their block. See the latest on their Talk page. Unfortunately, they do not seem to understand the need for references on all texts they try to insert and have totally ignored the sockpuppet issue. Also they appear to want to negotiate their block time?? I think a Talk page ban should also be considered. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a clarifying note on their talk page. They're whistling into the wind at this point.-- Ponyobons mots 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda, the lovely acknowledgement is always appreciated.-- Ponyobons mots 21:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salmasalma2

You may already be aware of the SPI, and, if so, I don't like to pester you - okay, I do like to pester you - but if you could grace the report with you CU presence, it'd be nice to sort things out. Your favorite (one of your favorites?) pest.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can pester me anytime. CU results noted per your request.-- Ponyobons mots 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm fine with leaving the "master" indeffed, but I'm not sure what to do now about the tagging. I guess that's not your problem. :p Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a stickler for tagging. Also, lazy.-- Ponyobons mots 00:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPI/JuliaDrydon

Hi, Ponyo. You appear to have dealt with the above user being a SP of Dopenguins. I suspect Special:Contributions/141.95.1.155 is the same user - edited articles match that of JuliaDrydon (Balloon Dog, Nicola Bulley, Missing White Woman Syndrome, Hyacinth Bucket/Keeping Up Appearances). Anything I need to do or can I hand this over in your direction? Thanks, MIDI (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for a year as an open proxy.-- Ponyobons mots 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split, Croatia

Hello, I am writing to you because I see that you protected the article Split, Croatia. I would like to inform you that the IP in question also targeted, with the same type of vandalism, the articles Šibenik, Rijeka, Zadar, Trogir and Pula. Thanks, --LukeWiller (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Widr has blocked the IP. I imagine they'll hop onto another IP; if that happens, let me know and I'll semi-protect the rest of the target articles or carve out some partial blocks on the range.-- Ponyobons mots 16:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reis Thomas smith

A quick thanks for the block User talk:Reis Thomas smith. I am curious about one thing: I had issued a final warning on his talk page but I had not yet requested admin intervention. How did you know to block him? Does using Twinkle to issue a warning ping an admin?—JlACEer (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no warning ping. I just checked the article history based on one of the recent changes filters and noticed the disruption.-- Ponyobons mots 21:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I shoulda just blocked em.

Just another little piece broken off from my AGF foundation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on to that AGF as long as you can, you don't want to be as jaded as I am.-- Ponyobons mots 21:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put you both to shame - I block 'em before they start editing. I mean, really, why wait?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP is back again

Might want to take a look at this IP! The IP does have a point, though...I'll leave it up to you to decide! Tails Wx 13:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for one week (hasn't used this IP hardly at all) and reverted their edit. If you're referring to the IP's edit summary "even WP:BANREVERT says do not restore violations of WP:V. Behaving like this is grounds for a ban", reverting isn't "grounds for a ban", but the information added back (this time by me) is unsourced. That doesn't mean it's not verifiable, though. I don't know when that material was added or by whom - and I'm not going to look - but if it bothers you, you do have some options: (1) remove it (I don't mind being reverted :-)), (2) find sources for it, or (3) put citation needed tags on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've partially reverted it, as there were no sources for the Dallas and Houston lows. I did source the Babbitt, Minnesota low, though! And thanks! Tails Wx 14:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll keep an eye out if they come back! Tails Wx 15:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care what a sock who hops from IP to IP trying to get as many edits and jibes in as possible before being reblocked has to say. Banned means banned and they can whistle in the wind.-- Ponyobons mots 16:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Could you please check 85.250.232.42? He started editing after 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C was blocked and they have similar interests and writing patterns--Trade (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP hasn't edited since March 4th.-- Ponyobons mots 21:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reverts

Why are you reverting all edits by that IP, even those who are not harmful? Like on the articles Otto Preminger and Ernst Lubitsch. Synotia (moan) 15:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this AN/I thread.-- Ponyobons mots 21:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it incorrect to categorize Ernst Lubitsch as a Jewish director? A simple Google search with the terms ernst lubitsch jewishness show articles, papers linking Lubitsch's work to his Jewish identity. Synotia (moan) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to do "a simple Google search" and add a category to a biography that is supported by sourced content within the article, meets the requirements of WP:CATDEF, WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT (if the person is living or recently deceased), that's fine as long as the person adding the content is not a block evading sock. -- Ponyobons mots 19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that ban evasion is annoying, but isn't reverting edits solely because of them being made by a banned user technically disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, in this case to underline something about banned users? Synotia (moan) 19:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's policy, even if the edits were completely valid, which in this case (per the AN/I thread I linked), they were not.-- Ponyobons mots 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I find that rule stupid, but thank you for linking it to me, I was not aware. Synotia (moan) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But still, how is that rule applied on Wikipedia? If a banned user added, say, a large chunk of relevant sourced text? That keeps sounding counter-productive to me. Synotia (moan) 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are personally under no obligation to revert such edits.-- Ponyobons mots 19:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

82.23.242.26

FYI, since you CU blocked them back in November: Special:Contribs/82.23.242.26. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy. Thanks for the notice, Harry. Always nice to have you pop by, even if it's bearing bad tidings. -- Ponyobons mots 21:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always nice to be welcomed! I'll try to bring better tidings next time, though the nature of admin work doesn't lend itself to such... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't bring better tidings, bring beer! -- Ponyobons mots 22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Fortaleza Airport talkpage

Dear Ponyo, months ago you protected Fortaleza Airport article and unfortunatelly this was the only thing we could do to avoid constant disruption on the article. The same person is now attacking its Talk page. I kindly request to protect the Talk Page as well. Thanks. (Brunoptsem (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I've reblocked the range as the last block expired. This targets the specific individual causing the disruption and leaves the talk page open for other users.-- Ponyobons mots 15:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for helping deal with that spammer, as well as the tens of thousands of edits that have helped this encyclopedia! Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Ponyobons mots 23:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, I knew something felt odd about that account given their first edit was "don't block me" on their talk page followed by various incompetent/pointless edits that weren't clear vandalism by themselves (other than their sandbox which was clear G10), but was starting to add up to a pattern of CIR issues. Appreciate the action. I went to dinner before I had time to file a query or report their account outright (hadn't decided which at that point). Zinnober9 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct was a CIR sock until I saw the deleted page. That would have been an indef block from me no matter who created it.-- Ponyobons mots 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&oldid=1145445583"