User talk:Ponyo/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

I am watching it

117.200.236.134 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor Source

The original link was to a page without any source. I thought linking to a page which actually provides a quote by the actress was more of a valid source, yet you call it a poor source. A direct quote from her own autobiography is now a 'poor source'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscWarrior (talk • contribs) 02:08, February 5, 2013‎

You didn't mention which article you are speaking of, however given your only article contributions have been to the Abi Titmuss page I figure it's safe to assume that's who you're discussing. The source is poor because it is a celebrity compendia-type website that doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria for biography articles. The book itself could be used as a primary source (with name, publication year, page number etc.), but even then it would still be trivia and does not belong in the article. As you can see by reading the instructions for the use of infoboxes, height is only included if particularly notable or relevant for the individual (such as athletes) and infobox content should only reflect sourced article content. Please remember to sign your posts with four ~ when leaving messages for easier communication, and if you have any additional questions the Teahouse is a great place for new users to leave comments and ask questions. Good luck. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

About JDF Edit

Ah, I had been to a convention recently where some of the actors confirmed they were asked to leave the show, not that they quit, so I thought I'd edit it but I understand needing a reliable source for changes like that. Sorry about that >_< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.115.170 (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. If you intend on editing Wikipedia often you may want to sign up for an account - it's certainly not a requirement but there are a few added perks such as the ability to use scripts and customize your preferences to ease some editing functions (such as the use of references) and you can maintain a watchlist of articles you are interested in. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed unblock request

Hello Ponyo. Please note that I've fixed this unblock request.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I added a note there. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there again, Ponyo. I've marked 77.70.28.120 (talk · contribs) as a possible sockpuppet of the blocked user. How to proceed with this? Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It certainly appears to be them. I have blocked the IP and reset the block on the registered account.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ponyo, hope you're doin' fine. Can you please take a look at the same IP's recent history? The main account seemingly stopped editing after I gave the user a final warning regarding the addition of unsourced content, but their unsourced additions as an IP have recently continued. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, the IP is now blocked for a month as this is their fifth block for the same disruptive behaviour. I have an inkling they may flip back to their registered account to edit from there. If you see this happen please let me know. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
As expected, the user is back with their registered account.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, I can't say that I'm surprised. I've left a lengthy block note on their talk page, hopefully they will listen to the advice I provided. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Ponyo, just letting you know that I reverted IP edits from your Possible articles pages from your userspace. You can check it yourself, if you think that revert was wrong, feel free to revert it back. Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Np, the IP has been adding negative comments on other users. Maybe some admin help is necessary there? Torreslfchero (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty juvenile (e.g. "you're mean!") and it seems to have stopped now. If they start up with the disruption again I'll re-block them. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wisconsin Gazette

In all fairness, I must clarify that the Wisconsin Gazette is a LGBT newspaper with pretty sound journalistic standads, not a blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, which is why I noted "may be a blog of sorts" simply judging by the website design. It seemed improbable that Streisand would grant an interview with a venue not known for fact-checking. Thanks for clarifying, and someone needs to turn this blue: Wisconsin Gazette. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Recent Edit I made.

To tell you the truth, I don't know how to put a reliable source on the recent edit I made. So I need help --Erick Rosales (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Erick Rosales

I see Tide rolls has kindly stepped in and provided you with some additional information on your talk page. If you still need some help let me know. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad Ponyo!

(In a Nelson the bully voice) Ha, ha, Ponyo has a block log! The Interior (Talk) 04:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even feel a thing. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Didn't even tingle a bit? I've heard they can leave a rash. The Interior (Talk) 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anons 64.183.48.206 and 69.231.39.82

You may be interested in a discussion I started about these two anons whom you have recently blocked: WP:ANI#Anon 64.183.48.206's refusal to discuss adding excess to film plot summary. Thanks Cresix (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a note there.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Fraud

Hi Ponyo. Not that the article Mr. Fraud, which you recently speedy deleted, had much to it, but it was not a recreation of a previously deleted article, as I clearly added to the PROD's rationale and you may check if compare them. So I ask you to restore it, naturally only the recent edits, from 2013. I could do it, but I guess it is better to ask you. Thank you - Nabla (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right of course. The article came to my attention when I blocked the editor who recreated it and was reviewing some of their edits, not via the regular deletion process and I didn't check the history as thoroughly as I normally would or should have. It's restored now. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

VD

VD
Happy Valentine's, Ponyo! The Interior (Talk) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And you as well! I'm nursing a pink cupcake hangover today - good thing Valentine's Day only comes once a year!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arion Golmakani

Greetings,

I have written an article about Arion Golmakani, the American author. However someone else must have, unsuccessfully, tried doing the same thing back in 2011. You are listed as someone who saw a problem with the first creation of Arion Golmakani page. Can you please help me get rid of this "deleted" page so when folks are searching for Arion they don't land on it? Here are the two links: The deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arion_Golmakani&action=edit&redlink=1

The new working page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arion_golmakani

Best regards, Farrah — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarahJoon (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been moved to the correct title. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello,
In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes.

  • We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
  • There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
  • The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
  • We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.

The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.

If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.

Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement

Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Kate Ma redirect

Hi, I am the creater of wiki page "Kate Ma" . I think all I wrote about Kate Ma is truth , and I alreay attached every reference , so please don't delete this page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciouhan (talk • contribs) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The content of the article is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. The subject does not meet the notobility criteria for inclusion and the effusive puffery is not written in a tone that is required by policy. The redirect is in place so that readers can be directed to a relevant page to find more information on Kate Ma if needed; if you continue to remove the redirect the article will likely be deleted altogether. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do tried to ask you NICELY , but you don't reply my message but delete my page "Kate Ma " . So , I have to say : F U C K YOU !! Besides, if Kate ma doesn't deserve to have a page , then why STEPHANIE RETUTA can ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciouhan (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I understand that you are blocked, but I like to be able to explain the actions I take when asked, if only so that you can avoid the same issues when your block expires. What I (and others) have tried to explain to you is that the Kate Ma article was inappropriate for inclusion. There article did not demonstrate how she met Wikipedia's notability criteria and was written in a completely promotional fashion rife with your own opinions and commentary. This led editors who are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to create a redirect. As we already have a relevant article that contains pertinent information regarding Ma, the Kate Ma article was redirected to Asia's Next Top Model, Cycle 1 in order to avoid deletion. Ma may be notable enough for inclusion one day, but not now, and certainly not using the current POV article. When a neutral article that demonstrates notability can be written the protection can be lifted and the redirect undone.
  • You say that I didn't reply to your message, but I did, both here and by posting a note on your talk page advising that I had replied. You continued to undo the redirect and repeatedly created the article under the alternative spelling "kate ma" (it was this incorrectly capitalised duplicated version that I deleted). Your response to my protection of a valid redirect to avoid outright deletion was to leave uncivil messages on my talk page and vandalize the articles I have written for Wikipedia. No matter how frustrated you may be such a response will only lead to additional blocks.
  • Finally, with regard to your question as to why we have an article on Stephanie Retuya, the answer is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thank you for bringing it to my attention however as it contained a blatant copyright violation which I have now removed.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Archetypex07

This means he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I decided to extended the block indefinitely. I hope you don't mind. Secret account 06:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind at all - the 24 hours was just my way to try to put a quick end to the immediate disruption. The indef will certainly prevent the inevitable future edit warring and personal attacks from this account which are well beyond what can be considered acceptable. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision Deletion

--- I got someone else to help with this. Cheers ---

Facebook links under External Links

Now that it is apparent that Facebook is, essentially, here to stay, and has become something of a necessity for anyone in the public eye, how do you feel about finding a Facebook link under External Links in existing articles? JimScott (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines in place with regard to external links are a result of community consensus. If you believe that one of the guidelines is outdated or should be revised then I would suggest broaching the topic at Wikipedia talk:External links through the Requests for comment process. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nowthenchildren

Hi. I see that you had reason, in February, to point out the commentary and opinion edits of Nowthenchildren here. I usually sort these things out myself, but it seems that this behaviour [1], not nasty but scurrilous, is starting to become prevalent now - perhaps an admin should perhaps provide a stronger warning ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk)

Thank you for letting me know - I've left Nowthenchildren a final warning that any further POV edits will result in a block. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Help!

I need help, I've gave this user fair warnings and he refuses to listen, both on his talk page and on the contributions page explaining that an English Wiki doesn't go with forein names of a Dubbed show. Heres the link to his page because I gave him fair chances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.49.121.149. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm really not familiar with naming guidelines for foreign programs. This would appear to be a content dispute, so I would suggest following the steps outlined at dispute resolution to help address the issues you have been having with this IP editor. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I found the pages regarding the contents of Anime Formatting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Article_names_and_disambiguation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Characters --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I really can't tell if you are trying to be helpful or just a complete jobsworth.

You removed some info I had put about an actress as I hadn't sourced it and I see you seem to make a habit of removing genuine information that users add because they don't do it 'properly'. Rather than remove correct information because it isn't sourced wouldn't your life be more complete if you added a source or added a 'citation needed' marker instead. Hardly polite[[2]] - particularly to less seasoned users. MikesPlant (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

When you add personal statistics such as birthdates to biography articles you need to include a reliable source to allow for verification of the material. Reverting another editor's edit with a clear edit summary as to why the material is being removed is not impolite, it's part of the editing cycle of Wikipedia so you shouldn't take offense when it happens. Our policy with regard to living persons is one of the most strict policies here, so please review the policy if you intend to edit additional biography articles and ensure you are stating your sources when adding material. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have again reverted your edit to Natalie Casey as long time consensus is that IMDB does not meet reliable sourcing criteria for personal statistics in biography articles (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb and WP:IMDB/RS). Please do review the reliable sources guidelines prior to adding any additional sources to the article; if after reading the guidelines and policies you are unsure as to whether a particular website meets our criteria you can always ask on the talk page, the reliable sources noticeboard, or the Help desk.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your great work on keeping eyes on Indian actor/actress articles. One of example is Shraddha Kapoor article. I hope you will continue your excellent work in that field. Tolly4bolly 09:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Tolly4bolly. There is a great deal of conflicting online statistical data with regard to Indian celebrities and keeping the articles accurate , neutral, and BLP compliant certainly is a challenge! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. I'm happy that you are one of the few admins who are active in India related articles and also that you take actions (like protecting and other admin actions) immediately when you notice, like you did in Shraddha Kapoor. Tolly4bolly 21:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. If you have similar articles that are being hit with long term disruption from unregistered IPs or new accounts please feel free to drop me a note and I will take a look to see if pending changes or semi-protection may provide some relief. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Catholic cats again

Hi Ponyo, Spacejam2 has been adding unsourced Catholic cats, despite repeated warnings. I think he's eligible for a block. Could you cast your eyes over it? Thanks Span (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears they were given a very clear final warning and are no longer adding the unsourced categories. If it starts up again let me know as a block will definitely be in order. Thanks for keeping your eye on BLPCAT issues; I know it's a time-consuming tangle of socks and block-evading accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Span (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh.

Thanks.  :) You're response to that fellow make me chortle.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm here for!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Pearsall Texas

Hey man, the editing that I have done to the Pearsall, Texas website was a good edit and I meant no harm to the page but I would like it if you would put my edit back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHelper221 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your edit cannot be restored. Please read the message I provided to you on your talk page with regard to the types of sources that need to be included when you add information to articles. In addition, material must be neutrally phrased without the inclusion of your own personal opinions or knowledge. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [3]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the subsequent fallout and the BLPBAN now in place this all appears to be moot.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Return of disruptive category inserter

Hi, Ponyo. Sorry to bother you with this again, but after a period of inactivity the IP-jumping anonymous user is back, resuming their normal pattern of editing on 198.228.201.143 (talk · contribs) and 198.228.201.173 (talk · contribs). Once more, this seems to be quite a small range – 198.228.201.128/26 (talk · contribs), according to the tool. 24.168.54.171 (talk · contribs) has already been re-blocked. SuperMarioMan 01:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No bother at all - your quick detection of these accounts certainly helps limit the damage. I've locked the range down for a bit...until they pop up elsewhere. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
They're now active on a closely-related range: 198.228.200.128/26 (talk · contribs). The specific IPs start at 198.228.200.151 (talk · contribs) and end at 198.228.200.168 (talk · contribs). SuperMarioMan 02:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I locked the range down yesterday but didn't have time to drop you a note until now. It was a busy weekend! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

CSD C1

Ha! Have you any idea how much work I did so you could change my CSD rationale to C1 here :) More seriously, if a populated category is deleted via CSD rather than CFD then does a bot kick in to remove the redlinks? I've seen a bot doing its stuff for cat transfers/renames etc but cannot recall seeing it simply removing things. Maybe I just filter it out of my vision but it would have saved me a rather boring 30 minutes or so of wandering around. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if there is a bot that removes redlinks created as a result of deletion. I generally only CSD empty categories (which are often WP:EGRS related). I also check "what links here" after I delete a category or page to clean up any resulting redlinks myself. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I was just curious. I was more concerned about BLPCAT issues and so went round deleting the thing from articles, and it was simpler just to delete rather than to check whether the person was dead or alive. After all, the cat itself was a recreation of one deleted after discussion at CFD last year (the rationale I used, prior to having cleaned everything out). I never did see how the recent ANI report finished up, where someone had deleted the content of an article and then put it up for CSD - my actions were a bold "do it for BLP reasons", safe in the knowledge that it was a recreation. All is well that ends well, although the re-creator does not think it did. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I completely support your emptying of the inappropriate categories; when added en masse it's certainly better safe than sorry. Note that WP:EGRS is closely related to BLPCAT and covers ethnic/religious categories across all articles, not just BLPs. I generally quote both in my edit summaries (e.g. revert per WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS) to cover my bases when reverting an editor who has added unverified or inappropriate categories across multiple articles. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want a category emptied, you must list it on WP:CFDW to trigger the bot, a mere deletion will not do so. Courcelles 18:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you mean add to to this section? That seems to require a recent discussion at CFD, which would not have applied in this case. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
That page also handles speedy deletions, though normally only for the C-criteria, one would be able to use it for other purposes with good cause, I would think. There should be a G-criteria section, I guess, but it is the only way to tell a bot to empty a category, so on very rare occasions, a hacky solution can be better than none. (Firing up AWB is, of course, always an option, esp. for smaller categories) Courcelles 18:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to remember this. As for AWB, well, dabbling in the black arts of Wikipedia scares the life out of me. I've had AWB installed for ages, occasionally take a look at it and then toddle off to the pub: if I must be befuddled then I'd prefer to be so with beer than that thing! How people get to grips with the intricacies of regular expressions etc is beyond me, although I'm glad that some can. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Regex is hard, but AWB does have a pretty much point and click option to remove, add, or replace categories, which makes this particular chore just a matter of clicking save a bunch of times. Courcelles 18:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
As you can infer from his response above Sitush, Courcelles is well versed in the Black Arts of Wikipedia. Thank goodness for us he chooses to use it for good, not evil. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I could use a force for good at a certain article talk page right now. I feel like I have been battered by knee-jerk stuff for a few days. It is reminding me why it is I prefer to deal with dead people rather than living ones. As WP article subjects, that is - no suggestions of necrophiliac tendencies etc. ;) - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 63.248.232.5

Hi, Ponyo. I noticed that you recently blocked this IP indefinitely, but how come? Doesn't this contradict WP:IPBLENGTH? Just curious. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a misclick in the drop down options, I've adjusted it now. Thanks for the note! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandy Bar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

...and fixed. Thank-you souless bot!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It is the (seemingly) new-fangled BracketBot that is killing me. I actually blocked DPL Bot ages ago because it was simply getting in there too quick - "please give me a chance to fix things etc, bot, because I do have a method in my madness". But BracketBot is just proving that I really, really need to replace my keyboard on this laptop. I'm something like 12-15 keycaps missing, I've got a spare 'board and it is a doddle for me to fit it. But I've also got tens of PDFs and five instances of Firefox running, with around 20 tabs open on each, so turning the thing off is going to empty my sad life! - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's as easy as 3.14

Thanks for declining TheSyndromeOfaDown's unblock request. However, do you think you could also revoke talk page and e-mail, as there is a .01 in a quadrillion chance that he'd ever be unblocked. I think this is appropriate, as I said, he already fessed up (not sure why...although I still think he is a Jonathan Yip sock), and he also continues to add pointless comments. Other than the fess up, he really does not need TP access. Thanks, Ponyo. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 19:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

They have not edited their talk page since the unblock was declined. I'm tempted to let the clerks handle the SPI case and dot any "i"s and cross any "t"s with regard to tagging and access when the case is closed. That being said I do have TheSyndromeOfaDown's talk page watchlisted and if they do come back and use it for disruption I will certainly step in and revoke access. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Freewill vandal

Hey, could you check Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freewill222? Every time I block one, he creates a new one, so I suspect a proxy but I hope it's a blockable range. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this guy is all over the place and proxy checks are not my forte. I've posted a note on the Checkuser amiling list asking for additional input. Hopefully we'll be able to get you the information you need to help put a cork in the disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like he is in the Netherlands using a mobile device. I'm using the edit filter and will keep an eye on this. It appears the original sockmaster was User:Uploademo back in March User:Syamsu in 2012. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Meyerbeer13

Hello. Just so you know (in case you are not following the case with a watchlist or something similar), User:Meyerbeer13 has continued engaging in his WP:OR and unexplained blanking, in spite of the final warning that you left on his talk page. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, toccata finta has been reverting his Lully article, just to preserve it as he wants it, I've tried to edit it to make the article have a good ending about Lully's influence, but he just reverts. What's his problem? A deep feeling of insecurity perhaps.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears a kindly admin has blocked Meyerbeer13. Given the response to the block and the continued IDHT issue with regard to the original research policy, I'm not entirely optimistic that 31 hours will bring about a miraculous change. I'm hoping I will proved wrong. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Can Lucia 'ban' me from making any edits on her talk page? It seems that WP:NOBAN says otherwise, but Lucia seems to be deliberately obfuscating the matter surrounding said block. Because it has been demonstrated to be not isolated, singular or 'rare'. I'm also moderately concerned that this 'request' will be invoked in the future to avoid future warnings and bring me to ANI if I do post on her page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you not post there, at least while block is in place. She's wound very tight right now and I don't see any need to push further - any admin reviewing the unblock request will certainly review the talk page history as well (especially with two declined unblocks already in place) and will see your note. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you and I wasn't planning on aggravating the situation further. What I need to do is find some way to address the underlying content dispute; I asked Drmies, but I might as well as for your input as well. To solve the content disputes I have tried talk pages, 3O, DRN and RFC. Other editors were not attracted to the discussion or didn't want to read 50 pages of back and forth; is there a way to simply get some form of arbitrator or council to take a 'content' dispute? The current issue is whether or not User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox is at the point that the prototype article is acceptable for mainspace; the original article was merged to the Dragon Ball franchise article. While it is not complete or 'final', it is already superior to its merged 2008 predecessor and is best improved with the help of other editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If the crux of the problem is Lucia Black's editing then perhaps a WP:RFC/U will be in order if the disruption continues. If other editors certify the basis for the RfC and Lucia Black receives clear input from other editors regarding the problems with her editing and still continues to edit in a disruptive fashion you will gain much more traction at ANI with regard to sanctions. Or perhaps the RfC will finally bring some understanding on her behalf, although the combative nature of her discussions that I've seen so far unfortunately doesn't give me much hope. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not so much the editing itself as the WP:IDHT as evidenced at the VPP RFC. It is a problem, but like other issues seems to be competency or willful disregard for the community's input, but the personal attacks are likely my concern going forth. It seems that improvements to Wikipedia can be held up indefinitely as long as one editor opposes endlessly to filibuster actions. That's why I was wondering about a content one. I see mediation exists, but I'm not sure if they would take it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet

i just wanted to keep track of all the usernames hes created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_KunoxTxa Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the appeal in keep all of the information in one place, but "suspected" is somewhat of a misnomer considering the nature of the edits. Do whatever you want to do thhough, I'm not bothered much by it.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll just leave it as is, it doesn't bother me either. So from now on should i use the page you used? Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete my account ?

I find embarrassing when I see Himesh84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.42 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Jezebel Ponyo. I am writing to thank you for your helpful remarks on my page the other day. Your advice helped me calm down, acknowledge that my conduct was poor, and move forward as an editor. Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_18&oldid=1190256416"