User talk:Ponyo/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

PJ Brennan, Dean Butterworth, etc.

Hi, is it possible that all the sources I've added to these and other articles are not regular? --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing

None of the sources you added which I removed met reliable sourcing criteria, especially for biography articles. I have to ask, have you ever actually read the reliable sources policy that has been pointed out to you so many times both on your talk page and in edit summaries? If not, please ensure you do ASAP if you intend to continue editing biography articles. If you're not certain of the reliability of a source, ask at WP:RSN, but do not add or change the content until the source has been cleared. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking Lottery111. I've never seen a user before send fake vandalism warnings for reverting his vandalism and for sending him actual warnings. Great Job! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Electriccatfish2. If you stick around here long enough and become old and jaded like me, nothing you see here causes much surprise. I may even design my own barnstar called the "You've shown me something I haven't seen before" award just to liven things up! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison

Hi, can't you e-mail me through "E-mail this user"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't copy and paste the article contents into an email, I need to email them to you via LexisNexis so that all the copyright info remains intact. I can also email them to myself and then forward them to you, but I would still need an email address to reach you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

On their way to you now. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's done. Sorry it took me so long, but I had to wait for the weekend because it was a major project, which I had to do in my sandbox. I spent substantial chunks of my time over the last few days to do so. But there are no more dead links. Everything is properly sourced and source-compliant, although I had to use offline sources to support some of the material. I didn't focus too much on weight issues, although someone probably should do so as there is so much negative material in the article, but I did eliminate some of thinner material or material that, in my view, violates WP:BLPCRIME. The HIV story is fascinating but ultimately unsatisfying in terms of "facts". Although more linear and coherent than it was, it's still unclear as to what "really happened". However, that's pretty much the way the sources tell it. I think different "experts" have different views, and the NYT did the best job of articulating that, but, at the end of the day, who knows? I have my own views, now having read so many sources, but my views don't count. :-) Anyway, I'm exhausted and will now move on to other things. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've "replied" on your talk :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

UTRS #1868

Hi there, Ponyo. The user gave the wrong username – it's Changli1200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), not Changli (talk · contribs). I tried to leave a comment on the appeal but you must have missed it. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Do you want me to take a look again or would you prefer to handle it? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you have the reservation, feel free to look again. You probably also have more experience in this area than I do. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've re-closed it as a decline. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Usage of multiple IPs

Hi. They've most recently been editing as 166.137.88.153 (talk · contribs). The range for this latest batch of IPs running 166.137.88.1xx is 166.137.88.128/26 (talk · contribs) (confirmed using Toolserver) - a range block could be justified in these circumstances (according to the tool it's a small range and the chance of collateral damage low). I'll leave it to your judgement whether to block singly or not. SuperMarioMan 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've placed a rangeblock for a month - that should help limit future disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Now more of the same from 65.126.157.59 (talk · contribs) - cleverly staggering their edits by a day or more to avoid detection. SuperMarioMan 03:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This one appears static and they've been blocked on it recently, so I've re-blocked it for a month. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The block on their range has only just expired, yet a swarm of 166.137.88.128/26 (talk · contribs) IP addresses (including 166.137.88.153 (talk · contribs)) have already picked up straight where they left off. Another, longer range block seems to be required. SuperMarioMan 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've reinstated the range block for a year. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ip193.225.200.93

i notice you have banned ip193.225.200.93. Please can you erase a distasteful bit of vandalism made by that user on User:Penbat from my history. Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

'tis gone. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Guyovski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Guyovski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

As ever many thanks

Just a note of thanks for blocking the 2.222 IP. Another persistent pest its nice to know that we have a couple weeks off from dealing with its disruptive edits. Have a nice week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This person is back and is editing from this IP 90.199.99.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MarnetteD | Talk 15:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've locked it down for a week. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whew you are on a roll today. Thanks for the block and the Matthew Fox info. If you have the time please take a look at my edit adding the info to his article and clean it up and/or improve it as needed. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 16:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Another one of these 90.199.99.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back. MarnetteD | Talk 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry MarnetteD, I think I missed this message altogether. Looks like another admin took care of it though. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is there a place in the WP community where I can ask a general question not strictly involving Wikipedia rules and procedures or article content? My specific question is whether, in casual conversation, I can refer to what I do on Wikipedia as "volunteer work." I don't mean on a resume but just in casual conversation. My best guess is that people would laugh in my face if I said that, but I'd like to have an opportunity to ask an assembled group of other editors what they think. So where can I ask that? Guyovski (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I think perhaps the best venue for that would be miscellaneous section of the Village Pump. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Asking for an easy to do but very important favour

Please review Erica Kennedy and Talk:Erica Kennedy and join the discussion there. It would mean a lot to me. Guyovski (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor who proposed deletion has since removed the deletion tag and is now actively working on updating the article. Note that anyone can remove a Proposed deletion tag if they disagree with it (this is not true for speedy deletion and articles for deletion tags. You can read more about the various deletion processes here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm SOOOO scared.

You know what, Ponyo? I will delete my account before I let someone as self-righteous as you dictate to me what content is acceptable. If you're so gung-ho over having verifiable content, then why don't you and the rest of the Wikipedia Nazis make this accessible to government officials. You have no power. You are probably a kid posing as some big-important moderator. Do not threaten me again. ``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaddux23 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanations and warnings as to how your edits violate Wikipedia policy are not threats and your over the top response is not acceptable. The good news: All you have to do is source the info you add to BLPs and you never have to hear from me again! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Gardere's deleted Wikipedia page

Hello,

I have come to you to ask your reversal on the decision to delete the wiki page on Jeff Gardere. I see you deleted the page sometime in 2011, however, I have no connection or relation to the first article that was deleted (for good reason, too). I am simply interested in writing a unbiased, original page on this national figure.

Is there anyway you can make the page editable again? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.81.110 (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot restore the article as it was a copyright violation of this page. You are welcome to begin a new article on the subject via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Alternatively you can create an account and start your article using the helpful WP:Article wizard. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hofschroer page

Hi Ponyo,

I have reverted the edits you made to the previous version, for the following reasons.

1/ [redacted until the BLPN can determine whether the sources meet WP:RS and fully support the claims made.

2/ [redacted - I have concerns regarding the use of this webpage with regard to its use to support contentious information

3/ [redacted - I have concerns regarding the use of this webpage with regard to its use to support contentious information

4/ [redacted - PDF copies of court documents are not reliable sources]

Omitting the above from a Wikipedia article about Peter Hofschroer makes the article basically worthless, IMO. The page can't really refer to him as a "controversial" historian, but then say nothing about what makes him controversial. It's highly relevant to his credibility that he makes similar accusations against lots of different people, living and dead, in his private and public life as well as in his writings. If we want readers to come away with an accurate impression of the value of his work, it seems to me that this must at least be mentioned. Otherwise it would be like having a page on Holocaust historian David Irving that doesn't mention he was judged in court to be a Holocaust denier.

What say you? Tirailleur (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, first I have redacted the contentious claims from my talk page; they have been removed on BLP grounds from the article and I certainly don't want to host the same allegations here as BLP applies to all of Wikipedia, not just article space. I have again removed the allegations from the article as well. Per WP:BLP contentious information that is poorly sourced in biographical articles should not be restored without consensus after a review of the sources and material is made (I've made a note on the talk page as well). I have to go out for a few hours but will begin the discussion at WP:BLPN when I'm back - you are of course free to start the discussion there in the meantime. It could be that the information you wish to add will ultimately be used in the article, however a careful review of the sources and the specific statements being attributed to them must be made prior to any of the material being restored. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Update - Unfortunately it's taking me longer than anticipated to bring this issue to the BLP noticeboard. There are some exacerbating WP:OTRS issues with regard to the article that I need to incorporate in to my message at the noticeboard. Your patience is much appreciated while I sort out how best to present all of the relevant information regarding the contested material in the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

IP bio editor returns

After several weeks (months?) it looks like our IP hopping Chicago editor has returned 99.35.43.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again no sources are provided and, while the bulk of the edits aren't malicious things like this [1] aren't helpful. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a few problematic edits in the handful that I reviewed, but there are no current blocks on his range (that I can see) and the disruption has not risen to a level where I would block. I have however left some pretty clear instructions on the IP talk page explaining why there are concerns regarding the edits and requested that they be both careful to ensure their edits are within policy and guidelines and that they are willing to discuss concerns that are raised. We'll see how that goes! Feel free to drop me another note if things get out of hand. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I had to do s little searching cause they've been gone so long but this User talk:Ponyo/Archive 10#Do disruptive editors ever fade away.3F is the person that I was referring to. If they can be turned into a productive editor so much the better. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a long list of this editor's IPs and behavioural tics - should they turn over a new leaf and are able to edit constructively it will certainly save many editors a great deal of time. One can always dream! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This editor Timmyo101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to make the same edits and uses the same summaries as the IPs and other named users. Even if they are not a sock I thought I'd mention it so you could add it to your list. If they are the same I sure wish they would pick one IP to edit as. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

<insert giant sigh here>. Well, so much for turning over a new leaf. I've indef blocked the account as it's being used for the same disruption that has been ongoing for ages. Any subsequent use of the 99.x IPs will result in immediate locks of those addresses for evasion. If this editor ever decides to edit collaboratively they can request unblock through the Timmy101 account, (or possibly one of the "Disney"-named accounts I'm sure they are affiliated with). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I could hear your sigh all the way down here :) I always appreciate your following up on these. I'll tell ya between this person from Chicago and the person from Burton-on-Trent that you've dealt with in the thread above it can feel like herding cats trying to keep up with their disruption to articles. One last thing I think that you meant hopping in the block message you left Timmyo101. The drawback to today's computers internal spellcheck is that if a word is spelled correctly but is the wrong word it won't put a squiggly red line under it ;) Best regards. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the spell-check as the lack of coffee in the morning. All fixed now!Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that feeling. I usually like a pot of Peruvian in the a.m. Many years ago a store in my neighborhood carried this coffee from Indial for a few months and it was one of the most delicious that I have ever tasted. Here's hoping that no IP hopping comes along to interfere with our July!!

• Can you please update the link? I'm always interested in good coffees. Drmies (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Burton on Trent back at it

Our problem editor has moved on to this IP 90.200.85.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Their edting patter never changes which is helpful in tracking them down but is a pain in what they do to the articles. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Plonked for a week. I know it's tiring to try to stay on top of disruptive IP-hopping yahoos: Huge kudos for your hard work! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

IP 217.124.240.100

In spite of your warning this IP user continues to add material which either isn't referenced or is improperly referenced to Supermarine Spitfire operational history. Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously the same editor at work and a very stable IP - I've reblocked for a year. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I really appreciated the comments you left. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm sure you'll make a great admin...now get to work! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

Thanks for mopping up the bon mots from the IP on my talk page. Townlake (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy to help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Q

Hey Ponyo, can you explain your answer here a bit? If I had been around after the final warning and that last edit to the talk page, I would have blocked for disruptive editing, something this user seems to feel the need to do periodically. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The specific complaint raised at WP:AIV was that Vaarlam was vandalising; based on the report I reviewed the last contributions and they were not vandalism. AIV is pretty rubbish for reporting concerns outside of persistent vandalism/spam as it lacks nuance. Looking back on it I could have left a better explanation instead of a template. If you have more insight into a history of Varlaam adding disputed content to articles or editing disruptively, please do go ahead and act as you see fit. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi P. The most recent outside mention of V's behavior took place here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Varlaam and the Hedd Wyn article. I can tell you from my own experience that V is very set in his opinions on things including nationality and gender issues. He is willing to be rude to the point of violating WP:CIVIL and can push 3rr at times and the behavior has gone on for years. As I remember it the block back in 2010 came about when he snapped and started entering gibberish about religion, nationality etc into a variety of articles. IMO the reason he does not have more blocks is that other editors just give up in dealing with him. As I say this is just my opinion and will have been colored by past experience. I just wanted to give you some background. Best regards. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ponyo, and Marnette, thanks for the additional context. I was alerted to the editor's behavior because of the Hedd Wyn mess and left a final warning which was geared specifically to that article, that disruption. From looking at his edits and his complete lack of communicative skill, I do see a significant problem but have no immediate solution, besides maybe a temporary block if he again is thusly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that explains why I was unaware of the history - if I go to AN/I and see Drmies' name in a section I know it's in good hands so I rarely investigate further ;) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, knock if off, heartbreaker. You're such a tease. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my learned helplessness could be interpreted as coy flirtation. Tucks that knowledge away for future reference --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My problem was that I (wrongly) assumed that the ANI thread had been closed with no action taken. Rather than posting at AIV, I should have posted at ANI, indicating that the problem with Varlaam involves more than one article, and that it is a general issue of disruption and incivility, rather than an editorial issue regarding specific facts in one article about an obscure film. Varlaam's problem goes much deeper than one article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jacobite, let's try and handle this at ANI next time, unless of course they pull another prank in the meantime. I'm sorry that sometimes such obvious abuse gets dealt with only with difficulty. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know the drill, and I am not worried. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I'm not going to bother you with another Talkback, but please come by my talk page. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Tatyana Ali

She does identify as such. You guys need to be more thorough when writing these biographies. 67.85.176.228 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, please do add a source meeting this criteria that verifies both the ethnicity and the self-identification. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as though you police things on this site, that should be your job. Another thing, if my additions (which are correct) were removed because I didn't have sources, why is her name and picture listed on the "Trinidadian and Tobagonian Americans" page without any sources to justify her inclusion in the list? --67.85.176.228 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Her entry on that list is equally unsourced and has now been removed as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

you deleted my page

hi i created a page for my band Abandoned Buildings Club and you deleted it. why?

ok i went and read the why you deleted it page......i guess il find other sources although if you pump it into Google we are the only thing that comes up. kinda cool right?? so while i agree that it wasn't quite encyclopedic and that we aren't a signed band we also are the only thing using that name besides a club from the anime "birdie". based on these grounds i would love for you to undelete the page and i will work harder over the next couple of days to make it a more legit posting. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nykypu (talk • contribs) 03:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

-nyky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nykypu (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Message

I have replied to your message on my talk page. Span (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

74.70.38.176 at it again

Despite a block from you back in February and another warning from me in April 74.70.38.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again with blatant WP:BLPCAT violations here, here and here. Those aren't the only ones either, there's been others dating all the way back to after the block. Perhaps another block is in order? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The IP is obviously quite stable and as we're dealing with long term abuse I've blocked it for 3 months. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Up Series

Don't understand the reasons for your edits. When you say it conflicts with BLP are you referring to Apted or Charles? The interview has been widely reported over the years and there are no doubts regarding its authenticity. The original link was only broken as BFI/NFT have recently updated their website. Tomintoul (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

When information regarding a living person (in this case Charles Furneaux) is removed citing BLP concerns, it is not sufficient to simply state "it's been widely reported", you must show reliable sources that verify all of the claims made in the material you are looking to add. You also need to obtain consensus that the sources and material meet BLP policy. The best way to do so is to begin a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard outlining what you would like included and the reliable sources that can be used to verify the claims. The material you are attempting to restore includes a very contentious statement regarding another living person by Apted presented as a fact and includes additional conjecture based on that one comment - and none of it is reliably sourced.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about the Radio Times as a reliable source? http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-05-14/56-up-michael-apted-on-the-documentary-series-thats-spanned-five-decades Tomintoul (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Or the Daily Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9269805/Seven-Up-A-tale-of-two-Englands-that-shamefully-still-exist.html 11:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Tomintoul (talk)

I have replied at BLPN in order to keep the discussion all in one place. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see suggested rewording on Up series Talk page. Tomintoul (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll pop over later tonight or tomorrow morning to take a look. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Tomintoul (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been busier than usual IRL and have been putting out several wiki-fires when online. I have taken a look and made a note on the talk page. Thanks for your patience! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

forum shopping thread on AN/I

I already collapsed it, but got reverted. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that after I restored it. I have no idea why the section was deemed so horrible that it needed to be blanked from the page altogether. I don't think I've ever seen entire threads at ANI blanked when multiple editors have provided input; even with the most obvious trolling and socking (obviously none of which apply in this situation) hatting and archiving is used. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions requested

Hello Ponyo. I filed this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo more than two days ago. Based on the fact that the editor admitted to being a sock [2] I thought that it would be acted on in short order. Unfortunately, Pé has continued to make unneeded genre changes [3]. My questions are a) Do you have any idea how much longer it might be before the SPI is looked at b) if not should I open a new thread at AN/I. That page gets so much drama and I am trying to stay within the guidelines but I also don't want things to slide to the point that we wind up with something like this Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* again. Thanks for your time and for any ideas that you can impart. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 19:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, did you set the "checkuser=" parameter to "checkuser=yes" when you submitted the SPI? That will speed up the process (assuming a clerk endorses it). I'm limiting my use of CU due to my current AUSC duties. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. Its probably three or four years since I filed an SPI. I'm also used to seeing the message that a checkuser has problems when too much time has gone by since the original editor was blocked. Not that I know anything about how it works. That is what I get for assuming of course. I'll go back in and try that and see what happens. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I look at the instructions again I remember that the "Situation" and "How to Proceed" in the "In these cases, do not request CheckUser" are what lead me to not use it. Now I am kinda thrown as to where to add it in the report since the template that came up when I started the report is gone but I will see what I can do. MarnetteD | Talk 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah I found the instructions for what I need to do. I'm a little leary as it seems to indicate that the report will go back in the queue and I don;t know if it means that it will go to the bottom of the list or not. Sorry to keep making the new message bar come on for ya and thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and if there is no help forthcoming I will bring out my pointy stick and poke a few people. I'm not sure if it will help, but it can't hurt! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

to Tommy's tools

Most of you are well educated, with deep philosophies. Pete Townshend works for me.

Some elevate pinball to a religion, with a structured church. Been there, done that.

Some realize, sooner or later, that pinball is just a game, and is played by some seriously shady characters.

The numbers changed, I got bored. They will again, as will I.

Later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

your post blanked another users

Your post [4] appears to have blanked another users post. I have reverted. Can you re-post your comments? thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My first admin action

Hey, Ponyo, when you have a moment, could you look at my first admin action and see if I did it right and if you agree with my judgment? This is a momentous occasion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This one is borderline, which really means it could have gone either way depending on which admin reviewed it. There hasn't been any IP editing since yesterday and there does appear to be some ok IP edits, but there is a consistent level of disruption. I likely would have declined, but it certainly is in the discretionary range for protection. A big congrats on getting the bit by the way, you certainly deserve it. Not pick up that mop and get back to work ;) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest critique. I used one of the standard reasons (persistent vandalism) from the drop-down, but I would have preferred to use the phrase disruptive editing rather than vandalism. Assuming you would have protected the page, what reason would you have given? In any event, I'll try to do better on the next one, or at least not pick one that is borderline. Shows you how new I am, I didn't think it was borderline, heh. Takes time and practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please don't take what I would have or would not have done too seriously; I'm sure there are plenty of admins who would have protected it citing vandalism or disruption. When I first started at CSD and RFPP I would do the ones I was certain of, and keep an eye on the ones I wasn't to see how others handled them. What I learned pretty quickly is that admins have a very wide range of opinions as to what requires protection/deletion etc. With time you'll find your own unique groove!Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Silenceplace

Howdy. Would you mind taking a glance at the unblock request at User talk:Silenceplace? I'm inclined to unblock, since zh:User:Silenceplace is apparently in good standing at zh.wikipedia, but maybe there's some checkuser magic that I'm missing and J.delanoy appears to be mia. Thanks! Danger! ^{High voltage!} 02:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The account is clear on en-wikipedia as far as the brief 3 month CU window is concerned. I see J.delanoy got back to you as well, so it appears that you've been given the greenlight to unblock. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes

I am User:Maxsonazeas as IP, and User:Discospinster is WRONG to block me for what I had not been doing! I had only been adding what is relevant to the base article and is based on what Kevin actually had in mind:

Bert and Melissa are actually married, based on their intentional absence of white underbellies, floppy and normal ears, bent and straight snouts. George and Nicole are Bert and Melissa's parents, based on their intentional absence of white underbellies, presence of bent snouts and normal ears.

Lisa and Bentley are not George and Nicole's siblings! Lisa is fully-dressed, while Bentley has a white underbelly. Ralph is not George's brother, nor is he related to him! He is naked.

All of the above are all why the franchise is called The Raccoons! 75.9.214.160 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First - you're evading your block. Second - if you want to argue that you were wrongly blocked for some lame edit warring over the genealogy of cartoon animals, post an unblock request on your talk page. Good luck. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clint Dempsey‎

Hello! The PP on Clint Dempsey‎ is up in two days and it doesn't look like there's been any progress on has projected trade. Transfer window#Current schedules and exceptions shows that the preseason trade window ends on August 31st. No sure if that's a good reason to extend the page protection to August 31st, especially if he gets traded earlier than that, but I wanted to try and get some information on a possible end date to the speculation. Just thought I'd give the information to you so you could work with it. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've extended the protection out to the end of the transfer deadline. Assuming it's confirmed in the interim we can pull the protection early. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jibril Rajoub‎ - vandalism

It appears that a user with a serious attitude problem is continually vandalizing the article on Jibril Rajoub‎. (I noticed this because I have recently edited this article myself). It may be necessary to place this article under semi-protection.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for the note. The accounts and IP have been blocked and the page has been semi-protected for 24 hours to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

90.199.99.147

Hello P. I just want to let you know that our Burton-on-Trent IP 90.199.99.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has returned to exactly the same editing pattern for which you blocked them. As you know this person has edited from several IP addresses and they have never responded to messages or changed the way they edit. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note MarnetteD. I've blocked this IP for a month. Let me know if (more like "when") they pop up elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)