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 41.190.3.64 (talk) at 22:25, 7 February 2014 (→‎Block: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

If you have come here about a page I deleted, you will probably find the explanation here; if that does not answer your question, click the link just above to leave me a message. Please mention the name of the page, and sign your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ so that I know who you are.

If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I am watching it.

If you leave a message here I will usually reply here, so please click the 'watch' tab at the top of your page in order to add my talk page to your watchlist.



TheRaulRomero

Hello Ponyo, I do not know if you remember our friend User: TheRaulRomero, but I have very strong suspicions User: Estela Reynolds that they are a sockpuppet of TRR. Notice the literally sole focus on Miley Cyrus pages, the date of the accounts creation/first edit, just shortly after TRR's block and if it means anything the very Spanish name (which is what originally grabbed my attention). Also notice the frequent use of all caps in edit summaries and invalid reasons for deleting large amounts of content from articles. I may be wrong, but I think they were trying to throw me off with this post. Looks like enough for a Check User to me. STATic message me! 04:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's a sock. I've blocked and tagged the account accordingly; let me know if you see them pop up again. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again User talk:Ahora, ahora, restored an article that TheRaulRomero had previously edit warred trying to restore. The Everyone calls me Lol account also edited the article in the past. STATic message me! 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you got that User: Kww, if you see their talk page looks like we will see them popping back up shortly. STATic message me! 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still hit and miss communication-wise until Tuesday; note however that there is now a rangeblock in place (thanks to a helpful CU) that may help limit the disruption.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User talk:SMS (Bangerz), might be them again. There editing, including adding fake certifications to Bangerz gave it away to me, as TheRaulRomero used to mess with certifications a lot. They have also only been editing related to Miley Cyrus subjects. A check user seems to be appropriate. STATic message me! 22:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's them. Blocked and tagged!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet back.

Sockpuppet is back... again. Quite distressing for this user to keep coming back. Can't something be done? livelikemusic my talk page! 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - beaten to it - vandal user has now an indefinite block. Acabashi (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A previous block expired which allowed them to create the Little75 account. I've renewed the block so you shouldn't see them around for awhile.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hi Ponyo, I'm very sorry but I'm a new user and I guess you are right that Sukriti Kandpal is the second face of Dr. Riddhima Gupta. I think I need your help on the two articles Gaurav S Bajaj and Gaurav Bajaj. There seems to be uttermost confusion in both of them and I've tried my best to make the differences seen to the readers. It's contrite that I was mistaken but I was just trying to help. Please if you could give me some hints on to how put pictures of both the two distinct actors and in future I will always provide a reference for each and every change that I have made. I want the readers to see the difference, get the correct information on both of them and also be able to identify the work done by each of them as one is a film actor and the other is a well known television star. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurav (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maurav - thank you for your attempts to clear up any confusion regarding the two similarly named actors. I understand that including images of the actors on their respective articles would help dispel confusion, however the images used must be copyright compliant. Uploading an image to your computer does not qualify as "own work" - you need to have taken the photo yourself to make such a claim. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for additional information on obtaining images for use on Wikipedia. Note it is not always easy to find policy-compliant images, though bollywoodhungama.com has given us permission to use their images in certain circumstances (see the licensing details here for example). I have added a templated note at the top of each page noting that there is another actor with the same name in order to help distinguish between the two. Thank you for your commitment to using reliable sources when editing articles, and happy editing!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

Yes, please. I'd rather not have those disruptive/offensive edits in my talk page history. Thanks for offering to do so. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reverting my first edit on Dylan Everett. You made one more article better.

CanadianDude1 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made it better by adding a reliable source! Welcome to Wikipedia :) --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re charley webb

But she was fifteen when she joined emmerdale not fourteen her first scenes were in December 2002 and charley webb was born in febuary 1988 therefore making her fifteen when she joined ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.176.181 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If her birthdate is February 1988, then she would have been 14 years and 10 months in December 2002. She would not have turned 15 until February 2003.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Jane Kim

This article is semi-protected and pending changes simultaneously. PC will expire in March, and semi will expire in April. Therefore, can you disable the PC and leave the semi-protection alone? In this case, having two protections doesn't make sense. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I hadn't noticed that pending changes was already enabled, but I've fixed the discrepancy now. Note I've also added the article to my (woefully overloaded) watchlist in order to monitor it for any socks busting through auto-confirmed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía Vergara

There have been more reverts; extend protection time? --George Ho (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to semi-protection due to the frequency of the vandalism and BLP violations.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Admiral Caius

Can you please take a look at his message .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Burna socks

Hey Ponyo, I see you took care of those socks on Slim Burna, but right after you blocked them User:Yazata Anahita popped up, that account is clearly a sock it seems. They fixed the problem the other accounts were warring over, but block evasion is block evasion. STATic message me! 01:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STATicVapor, I've blocked the new account indefinitely and reset the 1 week clock on the Alice Shedrack account. I've also semi-protected the article for the duration of their block in order to (hopefully) remove the temptation to create new accounts to continue to edit there. Unforunately the range is very large and heavily used; a rangeblock just isn't feasible given the limited amount of disruption.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking those sockpuppets. I believe the same user created another sock account on January 18, 2014. Here's the account: User:Tinted iris. This account only has 3 edits and one of them were made to a page that has been tag for deletion (a page created by the user and his/her sock accounts). I don't know if you guys are aware that this user (and his/her sock accounts) is trying to keep this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azubuike Wokocha from being deleted. This article definitely needs to be deleted because all of the accounts that are in opposition are sock accounts. versace1608 (talk)
Unfortunately I'm a little under the weather at the moment and likely only have a few moments of clarity before the next dose of cold meds kick in. I have however asked another CU to take a look at the AfD to help rein in any socking. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STATicVapor and Versace1608, Ponyo asked me to look into this and I have issued several more blocks in relation to the above accounts. As Ponyo said, they're operating on multiple busy ranges, and I may have missed some accounts, so please let one of us know if you find any. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoRD, thanks for blocking more of Slim Burna sock accounts. I watchlisted the M Trill and Slim Burna articles. These are the articles they will most likely work on since they were the ones who created them. They might try creating articles for artists associated with the two artists mentioned. I'll stay on top of things. I personally think the artists mentioned know these socks. I went to Slim Burna twitter page and saw that he posted a photo of his "I'm on Fire" mixtape article with the caption "my mixtape made history". Both Slim Burna and M Trill are not popular across Nigeria. No celebrity in Africa, regardless of how underdeveloped Africa is, will have only 1, 159 followers. I know Wikipedia relies on reliable references and not on how many followers a person have on a social network platform. versace1608 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alice Shedrack ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: or Ponyo; I do not want to seem like I am jumping to conclusions, but how weird is it that, I redirected one of Slim Burna's mixtapes for failing WP:NALBUM yesterday, and now User talk:Wrongevidence09 is created and their very first edit is asking me why I did that. Very very specious considering the article has practically only been edited by the various Slim Burna socks, along with being created by one of them. STATic message me! 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is technically possible, however with only a single edit there's no way to say conclusively. I would just keep an eye on the account and if additional suspicious activity occurs then it may bear further CU scrutiny. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STATicVapor, the account has now been blocked as a sock.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just about to let you know that they edited the page. I had a pretty good feeling it was. STATic message me! 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching it as well, but if you ever think I've missed anything please drop a note here or at the SPI (which I also have watchlisted). As a sidenote, the referencing in that article is horrendous; there are few that actually meet WP:RS and the majority are just being used to give a false appearance of notability (puffery essentially). What a promotional mess.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my fellow Wikipedians, I need you guys to investiage this user, Alwayzwetgal. I am suspecting that this user may be a sock puppet. I may be wrong but I would appreciate someone looking into this. This user caught my attention by editing M Trill's article, an article that was created by socks. versace1608 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A combination of behavioural tells and CU evidence makes this a very likely sock. I've blocked it as well as an apparent sleeper account.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Ponyo, After adjusting this case to the oldest master and seeing additional CU findings, I would be inclined to indef this account as a sock but that would have me overriding a CU block (yours). Do you want to indef the account?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one week block was when it appeared they were the master account and were only involved in one incident of socking. I agree that they should be indeffed now as the socking is quite extensive.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of it. Thank you for the quick reply. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message

Why did you delete my explanation why people can warn about vandalism?Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read on my watchlist why you erased my message. Thanks.Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting such a message will only serve to antagonize the editor in question should they happen to still watch the page. Essentially, you don't poke sleeping bears; there's zero benefit in warning an indefinitely blocked vandal account that their user name is inappropriate, nor is stating "I hope in the future, you can make better contribution" three months after their indef block. Please remember WP:BRD - when in doubt as to why you're edit is reverted, please ask the other editor involved prior to undoing the edit. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Work for Ticketbud

Hey Ponyo,

You have deleted the Ticketbud article. What do I need to do to get it back up? TicketbudHayden (talk)TicketbudHayden — Preceding unsigned comment added by TicketbudHayden (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wait until your company meets the notability criteria for inclusion and a neutral, unrelated editor creates an article that complies with Wikipedia's policies regarding promotion. In addition, the content you posted to your Wikipedia userpage was simply a cut and paste of the copyrighted material from your website. If you would like to use your account to edit articles on boats, or Jim Carrey, or puppies, or [insert your desired topic unrelated to your company here], then please do, we're certainly happy to have you; however promotional editing is not allowed.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Given your response to me here, you may want to read WP:CIVIL, but it's ultimately up to you how you want to portray yourself on Wikipedia whilst using a name related to the company you work for. I would think it would reflect poorly, but your opinion may vary. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment request

Hi. I'm trying to avoid another edit war with a certain editor and would like to properly get content restored to an article. Could you comment on whether it'd be appropriate to do so at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get the content restored is to get consensus for its inclusion via the ongoing talk page discussion. It does appear that the result of the first WP:RfC was for inclusion of the material, but consensus can change over time. I have no desire to wade into a genre dispute, but it appears that you are receiving a lot of feedback and discussion is ongoing. If consensus is now that the genre you wish to restore should not be included then so be it, it's not a battle to be won and there are plenty of other articles that can benefit from your time and hard work. Editing Wikipedia can sometimes be a frustrating experience, especially when you find yourself in the midst of a number of content disputes. If the fun is being sucked out of it for you then taking a break (whether it be a few hours or a few days) can help put things back in perspective. My preferred technique is to simply remove the article from my watchlist and never look back. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement

The Low Countries as seen from space
Hello, Ponyo.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Low Countries

Previous selections: Nordic art • Gopher (animal)

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Julia Voth deleted additions

okay understood TY Symbolic by Nature (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Sorry to have to revert you when you were just trying to add sourced content, but if we accepted all sources as equally reliable the credibility of articles would nosedive in short order.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with transclusions at WP:OPP

Hello, Ponyo. I've answered your query on my talk page. Hope it helps. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and again. (Just in case you aren't watching.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Hello Ponyo, I respect and thank you for keeping those sock accounts out of wikipedia. Your last edit on Slim Burna removed some external links. Hope I won't break any of your rules if i edit the article.41.190.3.61 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links were removed as they didn't meet WP:EL. Feel free to attempt to tone down the promotional content in the article if you would like, I don't own the article after all! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ponyo.41.190.3.61 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oops sorry about LyricWiki, I actually saw it and twitter being used on a bunch of band-related articles here on Wikipedia so I thought it was ok.41.190.3.61 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO may be a helpful read if you are looking to add external links to an article. If in doubt you may want to run a specific website through the external links noticeboard. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I got it. Thanks.41.190.3.61 (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

  • To be honest I noticed your comments at ANI some time ago and only mentioned it yesterday as I believe the information you provided was actually harmful as opposed to just extraneous. I understand that you are trying to be helpful, I even said as much in my post. The problem is that giving incorrect info is damaging. Why would you comment on something that you admittedly don't know or are unsure of? How is that helping 1) the individual who is seeking admin help or 2) the admin who is reviewing the situation? I've seen many editors such as yourself who spend a great deal of time at AN/I commenting and "clerking"; many times they are admin hopefuls who believe (often erroneously) that their time there will reflect positively on a future RfA - this rarely is the case. I'm not saying that that is your intent, only that that is how it may appear. Again, I can see that your intentions are good, however if you don't have the tools to assist the individual posting their concerns, or don't have pertinent information to add, then offering your opinion (in this case containing incorrect information) is not helpful. I see that another admin agreed, so it's not just me that finds the commentary to be unnecessary.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For better or worse, ANI is a kind of training ground. I used to hang out there myself. Either way, the onus is on the participant to get something right, since getting something wrong can have serious consequences, sometimes. Moreover, getting something wrong sometimes seriously increase the temperature of a situation. But yeah, Ponyo, I also get the feeling that Erpert is testing the waters for a future RfA. That's fine, and it doesn't mean that you have to get everything right. It does mean that one should be more sure before commenting, and "I could be wrong" is not a helpful disclaimer. Admins are supposed to think carefully before running their mouths (that I haven't been desysopped yet is probably a miracle), and if RfA is a training ground, that's one of the things to look out for: one sees it sometimes at RfA, "candidate is too eager at ANI".

    As a side note, I've tried to indicate to Erpert that their signature is, in my opinion, not a helpful invitation to their talk page for new editors--Ponyo, do you have any thoughts on that? Erpert, try to take these remarks in the spirit in which they are intended: criticism, maybe, but not meant to cut you down. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WHAT DO YOU WANT??? isn't exactly inviting, but I tend to be somewhat lenient regarding signatures given the contentiousness of mine when I was painfully initiated into the Water Buffalo Lodge (for those not so well-versed in Flintstones yore, it involves paddles and degradation, not unlike RfA). Erpert, I am in no way suggesting that you stop reviewing AN/I posts, just that you only comment if you have something pertinent to add. You can completely ignore this advice of course, but it is meant as constructive criticism. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey go suck on a turd, asshat"--that's a very early occurrence of the word "asshat"! Prophetic. Your RfA is notable also for a later blocked sock being criticized by another later blocked sock. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was sockalicious; perhaps a nod to my (then) future CU role? I wonder if there are more prophetic nuggets to be to be mined from that old RfA. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have no desire to be an admin. And in the future, if someone has a problem with something I say or do, I would appreciate it if it were mentioned it right away instead of letting it drag on (how would I know something bothers someone if s/he doesn't mention it?). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I mentioned every instance wherein I was bothered by someone or something on Wikipedia I'd wear on everyone's patience in pretty short order. Sometimes it's the sum of one's actions that show a concerning pattern as opposed to discrete events and that's essentially the crux of my message above; the concerns I raised weren't related to the fact that you comment at ANI, it's that you appeared to be commenting indiscriminately (albeit entirely in good faith).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source age Aline Lahoud

Hello,

you will find below a link that confirm year of birth. ( link in French)

http://www.ndj.edu.lb/old/anciens/alinelahoud.htm

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.182.135.145 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the link doesn't confirm the date of birth. It only gives an age (23), but it does not state when she was 23. Also it states that she was in the graduating class of 1999, which gives a possible range for an age, but once again doesn't verify a specific date.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source to support the 1981 date and have added it to the article.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Fet

Noor Fettahoğlu is 5 ft. 7 In tall according to her official website, so what have I done wrong here? Secondly 1.7m is 5 ft. 7 In 1.69 m is some what equal to 5ft. 6.5 In. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.33.7 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When adding or change biographical statistics in biography articles you need to include the source as you add it so that readers can verify the data. In this case you changed the height without any mention as to where you obtained the info, which is why I reverted. The height was removed altogether as it is not an infobox field that is generally included in articles unless there is a pertinent reason for doing so. This is covered at Template:Infobox person which states the field should be included "If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant." This is generally used in sports biographies.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.33.7 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on contributing to biography articles then WP:BLP is a must read and Template:Infobox person has a wealth of information as to what type of information should be included in the infoboxes. You can continue to edit via IP, but if you create an account you can add articles to a watchlist and follow the changes made; additional benefits can be found here. Happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Wadia and David Cage

There have been some reverts, although edits infrequent. Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've extended the protection on both articles. I may switch David Cage's to semi if the attacks continue; we'll see how it goes.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khatri121 and Satya301

It is not the case of sock puppetry. I am Satya. khatri is my husband,, we both are scientists at IISc. and also my brother in law uses the same computer and internet proxys. his name is Kirtimaan. IISc proxy is same throughout campus for purpose of library facilities. So you will find many other people working from similar proxys.

So we are not silly nor fool. And as far as wiki barn star is concern, it does not matter to us. My husband is big enough that he may have wiki page on him soon. And my brother in law has published much more real peer reviewed publications than any of you https://www.google.co.in/#q=kirtimaan+syal . 117.202.69.217 (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a group of related individuals are using the same computers to make the same POV edits, to the point where they are technically indistinguishable, they will be considered one individual (from WP:SOCK: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining"). It's interesting that you state Khatri is your husband, while Khatri states " I know Satya as well, he is a Senior Research Scholar in Dept of Chemistry". If it continues you will likely find your account blocked indefinitely, especially if you continue to evade your block as you have done here.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Fan Against Better Judgment Award
Ha. I will feel your pain tonight. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was all very much worth it. Now I'm all hyped-up to watch Canada sweep the Olympics. Apparently when I predict things with the utmost confidence on Wikipedia they come true; it's like my very own version of The Secret.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2014)

The life sciences involve the study of living organisms
Hello, Ponyo.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Life sciences

Previous selections: Low Countries • Nordic art

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Malicious new accounts

I saw your IAR block of User talk:Endy endy and I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out. I often come across similar accounts, but when I try reverting like you do I get dragged to different noticeboards, getting blocked half the time, while the editor makes a new account and makes the same edits again. I was hoping that if I was to post here, no more than once a week, a list of these malicious accounts, ones like [1] or [2] or [3] all of whose first edits were POV pushing reverts that you could block them under NOTHERE or DUCK. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an IAR block by any means. The account was being used disruptively solely as a platform for their POV and was blocked accordingly. If you note accounts that are behaving in the same manner then reporting them at WP:AIV would be the best venue for the swiftest block. In order to make a WP:DUCK block it would need to be obvious to the blocking admin that the same individual editor was using multiple accounts for disruption, such concerns can be raised at WP:SPI. I'm hesitant to become overly-involved in WP:ARBPIA sanction issues. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually breaking 1RR and blocking someone you alone are in a content dispute with is frowned upon, hence IAR. AIV and SPI are pointless, guess I'll keep looking for someone who can help. Sepsis II (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't under 1RR sanctions when I was reverting the soapboxing; it came up through recent changes patrol and my only awareness of "Sodastream" was as some sort of home soda machine. Hardly any vigilante rogue admin actions there. I understand that you are frustrated, but I'm really not the best admin to ask for assistance given the type of blocks you're looking for.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced?

Check her official facebook page about her second marriage or even Turkish Wiki about her biography. It was better for you to search about her in internet.Keivan.fTalk 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User talk:Keivan.f. Please keep the messages there in order to avoid fracturing the discussion, the page is on my watchlist.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Lzdimitar again

Hello Ponyo! Sorry for bothering you again with Lzdimitar (talk · contribs). S(he) persistently ignored all the warnings posted at their talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's unfortunate, but not entirely unsurprising given their history. I've reblocked the account, indefinitely this time. I left a note about editing as an IP, though I expect that will leave little impression as well. Let me know if you see anything suspicious and thanks for your efforts on the airport articles! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi Ponyo, you just blocked my friend Alwayzwetgal while she isn't a sock.41.190.3.64 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&oldid=594432022"