User talk:Ponyo

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Up for a quickcheck?

Hi Ponyo. You did the last CU check on Blackknight1234567890 around Nov 2022. Would you be willing to take a look at DNAVIRAL? There's a big topic overlap with the prior socks and similar behaviors in the editing. -- ferret (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, @NinjaRobotPirate would either of you be willing to peak as Ponyo is currently busy IRL? -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DNAVIRAL is probably User:TotalTruthTeller24. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ponyo, have fun IRL! Drmies (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I wish I had been having fun, but I pinched a nerve in my back and was out of service for nearly a week. Feeling better now though!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear this. See, in my case old age is always an excuse. DYK I just had surgery for a hernia? Very exciting! I have a new scar! Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! No more skimpy bikinis for you!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday, but no birth year

Hi, seeing as that you're an admin I thought I might ask you this, I was wondering if someone's birthday has a reliable source, but no source anywhere for the year, is it okay to put just the former down? Kcj5062 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is not an admin question. However, my answer is no. Just the month and day someone is born is generally not noteworthy (I suppose there might be some rare exceptions). Occasionally I have seen editors add this to BLPs, and I have reverted the edits. Thus far, I haven't clashed with anyone on the issue, but no doubt I've just been lucky. Not that your opinion matters, of course, but what do you think, Ponyo? BTW, I myself wasn't born in December, and I wasn't born on the 21st day of any month. I think that should be added to my article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcj5062: Just the day and month doesn't impart any notable information to a BLP, so my inclination would be to exclude it from the article. I would, however, likely make note of the day and month with the corresponding sourcing on the article talk page as it would be helpful to have the sources on hand should additional information regarding the birth year be published. Given that Bbb23 agrees with me, he's clearly linking to the wrong article in his post above.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this straight. I don't agree with you; you agree with me, which demonstrates a high degree of intelligence and perspicacity, whatever that means.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perspictastic!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You

You've been an admin since 2011 (comment at RfA)? Only one year before I became an admin? So, how come you're so much better at it than I am? And don't tell me it's because you're perspictastic. New sections require new humor. Seriously, for some reason I assumed you'd been an admin significantly longer than I have. [after self-imposed pause] Just looked at your RfA. Only one oppose. Pretty damned good. Should've been unanimous as the oppose was lame, not to mention a bit xenophobic, which is ironic, considering that Xeno closed your RfA as successful, or was it réussi?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the oppose, I've thought about changing the bon mots bit in my signature a few times over the years and then I remember that I worked hard to keep to keep those two little words. That says a lot about me (mainly that I'm stubborn and can hold a grudge long past its 'sell by' date).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are certainly characteristics I look for in an admin. I'm holding off supporting the latest RFA until I'm more confident they, too, can hold a grudge for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) (p.s. you're both noob admins)[reply]

It comes in extra handy with the CU bit.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was never able to talk you into running for somewhere your memory would be useful, though. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are only so many circles of hell I'm willing to tour.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I guess the old AUSC was the closest circle I could ever convince you to come and visit. You are definitely smarter than I am. Courcelles (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AUSC had a trap door in the floor that led to Circles #3 and #4.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection on spammed article

Hi Ponyo, I wanted to ask if you or another administrator wouldn’t mind protecting the article “Disney Digital 3-D” to allow only extended registered users to edit it? There has been persistent spamming from unregistered users as of late. Any help would be appreciated. (Reposted because I forgot the title). Thanks,

DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)DESERTSCHo0L20[reply]

@DESERTSCHo0L20: The level of disruption doesn't meet the threshold for protection. If this changes, you can make a request at WP:RFPP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceAdvisor UPE

Without disclosing anything you shouldn't, can you advise me concerning ScienceAdvisor who you blocked? The comment states reasons checkuser and UPE. I'd like the information to help me determine if their creations could be G5-eligible based on a prior block. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: As ScienceAdvisor is tagged as the master account, G5 would not apply. The articles has to have been created in violation of a block or ban, and SA wasn't evading a block or ban (that we know of) when they edited. Any articles/pages created by socks would be eligible if they were created after SA's original block on March 2, 2023.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, of course. For some reason I thought your comment meant that there was a *previous* master. Just tired when I posted, I guess. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Followup - proxy

I'm a little lost who's who in this saga, but I noticed you blocked an IP as a proxy who edited this very same thread. I believe this is one of a VPN range and opened a WPOP case. Thought you might want to see. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock accounts

You blocked sock account [1] but looks like the same user is back with possibly two sock accounts and both editing same pages and interest in Afghan-Sikh Wars. These new sock account are [2] and [3].192.189.187.106 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]