User talk:Ponyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

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.

Sultan Rahi - filmography[edit]

The above article is new and I tried to move it to Sultan Rahi filmography to be consistent with other like articles, but you protected the target. I'm not privy to the whole background so please either delete this new article of move it to the proper name. Thanks, --PinkBull 18:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted previous versions of the article as they were created by a sockpuppet account in violation of their block. The protection was actually made by Amatulic, who I've pinged to take a look at your request for unprotection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I've unprotected it, but in my opinion this isn't necessary.
The new article created contains biographical content that should be included in the original Sultan Rahi article.
The Sultan Rahi article is quite short in content, and already includes a filmography section. Expanding that section with the information in this new article won't do it any harm, particularly if the formatting is improved.
I recommend merging instead. I see no need to split them apart. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestions seem eminently sensible to me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Multiple socks are still attempting to recreate the page so I've restored the protection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry[edit]

Hi Ponyo, I have strong evidence that the same individual is using the following array of IP addresses:

  • 103.56.218.190
  • 103.56.218.191
  • 103.56.218.192
  • 103.56.218.193
  • 103.56.218.194
  • 103.56.218.195
  • 103.56.218.196
  • 103.56.218.197
  • 103.56.218.198
  • 103.56.218.199
  • 75.34.85.183
  • 75.34.101.112
  • 170.75.163.164
  • 213.47.114.206
  • 208.54.86.170
  • 194.118.108.193
  • AfricaTanz
  1. Does that constitute a violation of the sock puppetry restrictions on Wikipedia?
  2. This person has been trolling my edits for about three months, erasing, reverting and changing what he finds, without discussing his intentions. For the past 3 months, one of his user IPs was blocked, but the block recently came off of:103.56.218.197

Thank you.

Fsmatovu (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • If the IPs are being used by AfricaTanz to evade their block, it is indeed sockpuppetry. At some point there was an edit filter to help catch the edits, but it was disabled. Perhaps Callanecc, who is more familiar with this sockmaster, can provide some input? It would also probably be a good idea to list the most recently active IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. Go to WP:SPI and click on "how to open an investigation" and enter "AfricaTanz" in the sockmaster box and click submit. A report will pop up where you can enter the IPs and your evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Certainly looks like it Fsmatovu. Could you please submit an SPI (as Ponyo) suggests so we have a record of it? Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Spring Breakers freak deletion[edit]

I was trying to access a page made by Spring Breakers freak (specifically List of Crash Bandicoot video games), but it said the page didn't exist and that it was part of a mass removal of that user's pages done by you. Is there any good reason why that user's pages all got deleted along with their account? It doesn't quite make sense and is really just an inconvenience for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.51.246 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Their account wasn't deleted, it's right here. As the articles were created in violation of a community ban they were deleted under this criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

G5'd draft restarted - new sock?[edit]

You recently deleted Draft:Yet Another Cleaner as a G5 (Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). It has been re-started by a brand new editor, and considering the reason for the last deletion (and that the 'start' of the new draft seemed to be a complete article) I'm not sure if Arthurj8283 (talk · contribs) could be a new sock? Bringing it up here as not sure on the past author/blocked user etc. Face-smile.svg - Happysailor (Talk) 18:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not a new editor given they recreated the article with the exact content of the deleted version. I've blocked the account and redeleted the article. Thanks for letting me know!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
no worries. - Happysailor (Talk) 19:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Stalking[edit]

Thanks for getting the IP in the range of the other one earlier. Please see the message at the top of my talk where yet two more IPs are added to the mix. Admittedly, the one beginning with 7 actually made a good edit, but then comes to my talk and links himself with the vandals. It's enough to make a boy paranoid! Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IPs and semi-protected one article. I imagine it will continue on for a bit, let me know what else pops up.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 05:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the second time in as many weeks this has happened. Both times, the initial IP began with 138. Don't think it's a coincidence that this started after I played a part in getting a particular editor indeff'd. Oh, well. :) Thanks for your help. John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
And they're back, vandalizing my talk. It's 172.56.9.115 this time.John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you want me to semi-protect your talk page for a bit?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Only if the wack a mole game gets too tedious for you. John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let me know if you change your mind.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now 70.56.49.68 is quacking. Pls block and protect. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to NeilN for stepping in here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And yet again,172.56.12.224. Yawn. John from Idegon (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

AIV got it. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally deletion. Claiming copywrite[edit]

You deleted the page for Seven Factor due to copywrite infringement. Citing a page from sinister guitar pics. Seven Factor endorses sinister. The page you listed was about seven factor. Please correct your mistake and re instate the page you accidentally deleted. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.95 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Seven Factor endorses Sinister guitar pics, you cannot copy content from other websites to Wikipedia unless the material is appropriately licensed (see WP:COPYOTHERS). In addition, this article was previously deleted as a result of this discussion. The new article was far inferior to the one that was deleted by consensus and didn't address the issues raised in the discussion, so the article would have been deletable under other speedy criteria as well even if it hadn't been a copyright violation.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


The article said it was deleted due to copywriter issue. It listed Sinister Guitar picks and linked an info page about Seven Factor. Sinister got that content from Seven Factor. Sinister does not own a copywrite to that content. And the i formation in the wiki article was not taken from them Since this was an error can we please in undelete it?

In regards to previous articles that is about a person. This article was about an Alternate Reality Game/Art project. They have the same name but are not the same article. Or about the same thing. Therefore the new article should not be addressing issues regarding the previously deleted. If this article was inferior in regards to information it would seem a better solution might be to expand the article instead of delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.149.104 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether Sinister or Seven Picks owns the copyright is moot. The fact remains that the material in the article was copied from another website without the requisite licensing. You could write an article in your own words, though you would have to include reliable sources and demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia reliability criteria. I suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation to do so.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:SNCB Info[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User talk:SNCB Info, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SNCB Info and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:SNCB Info during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Everymorning talk 01:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Please disregard this message, you didn't add the content that led to this MFD, SNCB Info did. Everymorning talk 01:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI discusion about Sonam K Sonam[edit]

You left Sonam K Sonam two warnings, so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sonam_K_Sonam. I vaguely recall some sockpuppetry similar to this, which may be what you referred to in your last warning [1]. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I gave them a final warning, summoning all the AGF I could that they were possibly unrelated to the previous socks making the same type of edits. They ignored the warning and carried on adding the unsourced, poorly sourced, falsely sourced (mixed bag!) and promotional junk. I've blocked the account indefinitely. There's likely a massive amount of clean up necessary due to the dodgy use of sources, I'll try to chip away at it this week. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I really can't keep track of all the BLP problems going on in the going on in the Pakistani-, Bollywood-, Lollywood-related articles. Did I work with you in the past on some of the socking going on? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Likely, I've been down this particular rabbit hole for at least 2 years. Incessant puffery and unsourced edits. You can tell they're working from some sort of template provided to them. So painful.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Watchlisted your talk page to help me remember. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown[edit]

Ponyo, could you please perform CU for this case? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The results of the CU have been posted at the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Television[edit]

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my input would be requested, I really have nothing to do with these articles save for the occasional checks on the prolific sockmasters that pop up at cartoon articles. Could you please link to the actual discussion? You've only provided a link for the main project page. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You have mail[edit]

Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied, though it may not be the answer you wanted to hear. WP:DR is the best route forward here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My hero[edit]

Thanks for your work here. If I block these characters as sock operators, do you think it will run afoul of WP:INVOLVED? Since I'm a new admin, I'm really trying to get real-world experience so I don't do anything that could be considered by my peers to be biased or dodgy. The only real interactions I've had with these socks have been at Balochistan, Pakistan where I didn't see eye-to-eye with them about certain content they were trying to keep out of the article. Thanks Ponyo! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to leave the block to another admin. In this case SpacemanSpiff did the needy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo[edit]

Hello, Ponyo, i have noticed that you blocked the user User:Sammy.joseph. I wanted to say can you blocked this user for a while, because he interrupt edits mine just because he doesn't like. Specially in an article Dayar-e-Dil, i have developed this article to my best with authentic material, but after every two or three he adds unsourced material, adding cites like imdb, vedio.pk and many others. I tried thrice to have a conversation with him and even explain in a nice way what should be written or not. But he never listens, i don't know about any other article being interrupted by him, but i am tired of him because of his uneven and illogical edits to Dayar-e-Dil help me if you can. Fushan007Talk 11:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

A suggestion[edit]

You might want to cut off TPA for 159.122.133.226. Also, perhaps RevDel the contents of their edits (the socking instructions), if that is possible to do with RevDel? Best, BMK (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get a chance to pop back in last night like I'd planned. Looks like someone else took care of it though.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

New IP for old problem editor[edit]

Hello P. 81.152.242.6 (talk · contribs) popped up today hitting some old articles and some new ones. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No I'm Spartacus!! Blocked now, have a great weekend :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The line and scene are perfect in their own right. Thanks to Monty P the moment I hear or read it I also remember "I'm Jehovah - and so's my wife" :-) I hope you have an enjoyable weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Troubled editor[edit]

Hey Ponyo. Just thought I'd let you know, our troubled friend is back editing again as I knew they would be, straight after their IP's block expired [2]. And what do they, start editing the exact same way again, the way that got them blocked originally on their main account. I've followed this person's talk page comments on all their sock accounts over the past year and I knew they would be back at it as soon as the block ended. Now, I'm not necessarily advocating blocking them straight away again on the IP, but they have gone straight back into what they used to edit like (no difference what so ever) and they are still evading their original block. What do you reckon? You mass reverted all sock edits last time, will it be a similar situation this time? A permanent IP block is the last thing to do really as they have shown over time, they are incapable of recognising what to do in order to appeal their original block. DaHuzyBru (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I also just saw their failed ping message on the IP talk page, which is another fluff ball message similar to the other ones they have left before. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
<Insert enormous sigh here> There are some serious competence issues at play. I've reblocked the IP for now, as it is obvious block evasion, and will figure out how to address the larger issues tomorrow.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Enormous sigh hardly covers it... I've gone through and re-added some of their contributions, as a number of them were genuine, and have left a reply at the talk page. It's a struggle with this person, not sure if we will ever be able to get the message through to them about requesting an unblock. However, I think it's futile at this point. With their constant block evasion over this past year, a successful unblock request is unlikely. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Revdel?[edit]

Hi Ponyo, I wonder if you could revdel this? It looks like something that shouldn't be left in the page history. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 16:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes check.svg Done Saw the thread title on my watchlist and figured I'd stick my nose it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I used a mix of Oversight and Revdelete and set pending changes as there is a history of privacy issues that often pop up in secondary school articles.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if a "pending changes on all school articles" policy would fly? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. only because a "delete all school articles" policy wouldn't... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've dusted off my giant rubber stamp should such a proposal be made. I've given up on ever getting to use it to endorse pending changes/semi-protection of all BLPs.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
only because a "delete all school articles" policy wouldn't... I like the way you think ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We can barely even get "delete any school article" to fly.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sabinbik22[edit]

There's no chance to get my account back? I had a lot of plans to do for wikipedia. I never meant to do something wrong, that was just a rule that I didn't know. I'm really sorry I won't do any account from now on. I need a chance because I didn't know about this, please give me another chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.38.13 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded to here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean I can get back only my first account? 151.34.206.124 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You need to request an unblock from your account talk page using the instructions provided on that account talk page as I have already explained to you. You cannot continue to post here, or anywhere on Wikipedia, other than on that talk page. The irony of pleading your case for an unblock for socking while continuing to evade the block is not lost on me. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The "rape" editor[edit]

The editor that you indefinitely blocked for POV editing regarding rape seems to be back in action as 81.152.242.6 (talk · contribs). This appears to be the same editor as 81.155.98.249 (talk · contribs) and 109.151.65.218 (talk · contribs). Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the heads up.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IP block exemption user rights[edit]

Hi Ponyo, Thank you for reviewing the user rights. That you have suggested “As your use of VPN appears to be a personal preference as opposed to exceptional circumstances”, Could you please elaborate on what do you mean by “personal preference”? I do not use VPN for personal preference, but I do use VPN for enhanced security in my browsing session which I already been affected by Hard IP address range blocks, The IP address appears to be blocked by User:Elockid who has the rights of checkuser (similar to you), Therefore – How am i suppose to bypass these blocks? -- MONARCH Ask me 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I used "personal preference" as you noted in the request that you choose to use VPN when editing in public areas. The granting of IPBE for anonymized editing is only provided to editors who "are either being hindered by restrictive firewalls, or for exceptional reasons must edit via anonymous proxies" (from WP:IPEC - emphasis mine). This is different requirement than the typical IPBE that is provided to trusted user who gets hit by range blocks intended for another user. It doesn't mean that you're not trusted by any means, only that you don't meet the criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo: I understand now, I will explain the full reason why I use VPN, In most of time when I'm out on unsecured networks i do use VPN and on other hand I'm using Wikipedia at work which I'm restricted from editing articles (The network administrator doesn't allow me to access to Wikipedia), But I'm able to access Wikipedia using VPN and i cannot edit articles, As reason of that I had to use it on public network (unrestricted and unsecured) therefore, I don't feel safe to use Wikipedia on unsecured network and my VPN service is already been blocked by User:Elockid, I'm isolated from accessing and editing Wikipedia, that's why I'm asking you to grant me IP block exemption user rights. As you have seen my account records – I did never abuse or vandalise other articles or editors, Thus appealing to you that I need the IP block exemption user right to bypass editing block on VPN which was already hit by Hard IP address range blocks, I'm not suggesting you to unblock the VPN service (probably there are other users who have recently used my VPN to vandalise and abuse Wiki). Please reconsider my request. Thank you! MONARCH Ask me 00:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This request is on hold while I consult with another Checkuser.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Thank you, Please do soon as possible. -- MONARCH Ask me 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo: I would like to know what's the current status of this? Why it's taking so long to assign it? MONARCH Ask me 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It will take as long as it takes to properly review your account. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
IPBE declined. Your sock account has been blocked indefinitely and your master account blocked one week.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ponyo, This is what i'm trying tell you, There are users in my IP service, The IP is actually shared IP proxy (in my proxy service which i use to bypass firewall restriction), The account i used to create was the proxy server where as i cannot use my actual IP Address to create my Alpha Monarch account because of firewall restrictions, Now you're accusing me of creating sock-puppet account AbrahamFernd. That AbrahamFernd doesn't have direct connection with my account but i have seen that account involved in page patrolling also that user did use speedy deletion tags on articles i was monitoring. Now i'm really confused how come that AbrahamFernd is using same IP service as mine. Please see this one: WP:SHARE and you'll understand what actually happen.
If you go back to my original response above that i have clearly stated there are users in my IP address which is not solely for me, I have also been told by my ISP provider that my IP Proxy is not dedicated server, Its actually shared IP and its the same IP proxy that AbrahamFernd (i'm guessing it) probably used. But i'm able to bypass the restrictions using IP Proxy (I used to create my account with Proxy server from my ISP provider), Therefore, as a reason of that i did ask for IP exemption user rights because i cannot edit or access Wikipedia using my actual IP Address (Because of firewall restriction) thus i had to use IP Proxy to bypass it, Now my choice is to switch to VPN server which is a dedicated server that has already was blocked by User:Elockid and only this is the reason i'm here to ask for the rights to bypass the block that was imposed by User:Elockid MONARCH Ask me 06:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Evading your block is a fantastic response to being blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. If you do it again the block will be reset. There is no chance whatsoever you will be granted IPBE, and given your denials of knowledge of the AbrahamFernd account, you obviously are completely unaware of how Checkuser works.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of creation protection of several Cambodian football articles[edit]

Dear Ponyo, I am contacting you as a non-administrator who is interested in restarting several Cambodian football articles, namely Rous Samoeun, Hong Pheng, Sok Sovan, Nen Sothearoth, Ngoy Srin, Ouk Sothy, Va Sokthorn, and Moul Daravorn. These aricles were deleted because they were started by users with bad history and the fact that they were not notable, which was true at the time, but all the subjects of these articles have since gained notability. I have the sources here to show that all of the subjects of these articles pass WP:FOOTYN: source for Rous Samoeun, source for Hong Pheng, source for Va Sokthorn, source for Ouk Sothy, source for Ngoy Srin, source for Moul Daravorn, source for Nen Sothearoth. As you where the administrator who deleted these articles I thought it would be best to contact you over this issue first. Thank you very much. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone, other than block evading accounts, is free to create the articles as long as they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I see a couple of the articles were salted; I'll remove the protection so you can edit the pages.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

problems[edit]

hello dear Ponyo, Im writing in english but if you speak spanish I can send a messagge in spanish. The matter of this message is that I had received an email in June about I had to send my authorization to publish some of my pictures in Wikipedia page, after that, my page was deleted, then I sent an email to Wikipedia asking about the reasons of these facts, from Wikipedia explained to me that some people who made my page had problems like he was blocked,and they sent me your contact, so I need to know the email or other way to comunicate with this person, because this action was a big problem for my career. I ll appreciate your collaboration because my Lawyer wants to contact this person, I want to start legal action against him,

my email is (Redacted)

thanks for your support


Maria Raquel Bonifacino (Redacted) www.mariaraquelbonifacino.com http://www.mariaraquelbonifacinopinturas.wordpress.com www.mariaraquelbonifacino.wordpress.com www.mariaraquelbonifacino.bligoo.com @mariaraquelboni fb: MariaRaquelBonifacino.Autor http://www.mariaraquelbonifacinophotos.com representada por www.diegoriosmodelos.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.136.20 (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted as it was created by an editor who was using multiple accounts contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is important to note that if you or your representatives have paid or have offered to pay an editor to create an article about you, that editor is very likely to be blocked for violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use prohibiting undisclosed paid editing. Assuming that you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, an uninvolved editor will eventually create an article about you. It is a conflict of interest for you to attempt to do this yourself. Finally, please do not make legal threats anywhere on Wikipedia as doing so is grounds for an immediate block per our policy regarding no legal threats.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC). 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.

LFaraone 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Hazal Kaya's page has been vandalised by an IP address from Pakistan # 119.xxx.xxx.xx. May I ask You to keep an eye on it as you do for Cagatay Ulusoy and others. Thanks 03:22, 24 Aug 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:8C71:18C2:CAB8:7BA5 (talk)

I will keep an eye on it, but I edited the article substantially in order to bring it in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The material removed can be restored on a case by case basis as long as it's reliably sourced and relevant.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

LanguageXpert[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you seem to have blocked a number of socks of LanguageXpert, and thus probably are familiar with them. Both Malik.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and SaharZIRIZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seem like obvious socks to me, adding dubious material, including a large number of maps etc, to articles relating to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and other parts of that general area, including SaharZIRIZ adding material uploaded by Malik.223 on Commons as own work, images but that on closer inspection turn out to be copies of existing images, such as File:User-demography.PNG, which I have nominated for speedy deletion there as being a lower quality copy of File:User - demography.svg (the name of the uploader on Commons for that image is "Michael", but a click on the name reveals the real uploader, "Malik.223"). I could file a report at SPI but that would require creating a hundred diffs to satisfy the clerk, so I start by posting here, hoping that you can see the similarities without all those diffs. Thomas.W talk 12:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The technical info doesn't match LanguageXpert, but there was socking going on, so I blocked the accounts. They were also mentioned as possible socks in this SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There are so many sockmasters active in that arena that it's hard to keep track of them. If you have some spare time I also have two others, a named account (PradeepBoston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) and an obviously (per their edits and name/geolocation) related IP (96.252.71.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) that my gut feeling tells me are socks of someone, and that might match some master known to you but not me... Thomas.W talk 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandaliser[edit]

User:Ishq Hawa Mein is a vandaliser. Would you please chech his/her contributions and if necessary delete his/her account. thanks 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:98BD:7149:8C02:2D48 (talk)

In addition to likely being related to a giant promotional sockfarm, they've continued with the adding unsourced and inappropriate content to BLPs despite a previous one week block. I've blocked the account indefinitely, but suspect they'll pop back up under a new name in short order.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Email[edit]

You got one. Writ Keeper  20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Give and ye shall receive.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lifeline Ophelia[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for running the CheckUser!--5 albert square (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

They generate socks and sleepers in batches, so it's always best to run a check.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi,

You really are if not the foremost, then one of the best administrators I ever encountered here in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Very responsive, and decisive.--- Take care! 03:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:1060:A3C5:109D:A6C7 (talk)

Thank you, that's very nice of you to say.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome.---22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Admirenepal[edit]

That jerk is a real machine, isn't he? I notice ppoojjan ccresta or however you spell it created a number of articles he later picked up. Ogress smash! 01:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly determined.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka Suggestion[edit]

You reverted my edit on Waqar Zaka because it's poorly sourced. Just read the sources and search about Waqar Zaka. I haven't added any wrong content. He is a singer, VJ social worker and television host and nicknamed Daredevil. You can verify it from newspapers DAWN and The Express Tribune. Please just do some work before reverting my edits.--Musa Talk  18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read the sources, that's how I verified that some of the sources you use 1) do not verify the content added and 2) are unreliable. It is also why I partially reverted your edits and kept what meets WP:BLP and WP:RS. The burden is on the individual adding information to articles (i.e. you), not those who are ensuring the policies regarding living persons are met. As I noted on your talk page, the occupation field and lead sentence are to note an individual's primary occupation, not every interest or passing hobby. Doing charity work does not make one a social worker. Nearly every celebrity has a charity or social concern with which they are closely affiliated, however that does not make them a social worker. Brad Pitt, for example, started a Foundation and donated millions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. He has also started other notable charitable organizations, yet he is not a "social worker" as denotes a specific profession. My work at this time consists of cleaning up your edits, I don't have time to do your work for you. As I also noted on your talk page, instead of making specific changes to the article you are reverted back to the same misleading version which includes unsourced personal info, misleading content and the less important but still incorrect overlinking of common terms. That's not acceptable.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have a moment[edit]

Take a look here, particularly my comments and Valerius's block log. When I posted my first comments, I didn't realize there was already an existing SPI about the user. Had I known, I would probably have done more than warn them. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation of Shulinjiang[edit]

Although I appreciate your efforts to solving the issue at hand in the SPI, I want a clearer explanation as to why you only blocked one of the IP addresses. I've provided evidence satisfactory enough to enforce an indefinite lock against IP addresses on the pages that Shulinjiang edit wars on. In light of recent events, this IP address is one of the eight I reported and has continued edit warring on the Type 99 tank article. Khazar (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't block just one IP address, I blocked an entire range (199.116.175.0/25) that encompasses all of the 199.116.x IPs you listed in the SPI. 162.74.52.147 was used for a short spurt only and hadn't been used in weeks, so there was no point in blocking it when I reviewed and closed the report on the 28th. As Shulinjiang has obviously returned to the IP, it is now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)