User talk:Ponyo/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

Talk page watchers

Is there anyone who may happen to be watching this page that could fix my archive nav box to display in multiple columns instead of one very long column? It's getting a little unwieldy. Free kitten or beer (but not both!) to whoever is able to do it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't quite what you asked for P but it is what I use on my talk page. If you don't like it feel free to resotre the old version. If you like it a kitten please. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
That's much better. The length was getting obnoxious.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I can actually do it, but it would have to be monthly or yearly archives. See . Mohammad (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo, maybe you should have a look at User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.'s recent edits, including the deleted ones. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


Checkuser diff request

Please would you provide a diff to the investigation that established the sock relationship that prompted you to make this edit ?

[I edit Horn of Africa articles quite a bit and I suspect that there is quite a bit of hanky-panky going on...] BushelCandle (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: As a checkuser, the privacy policy prevents me from making explicit connections between accounts and IPs. Note that any editor is free to restore (in whole or modified) any edit I revert based on abuse of multiple accounts as long as they are willing to take on the responsibility of the edit (e.g. its accuracy, copyright status etc.). If you see instances where that's the case with these target articles, please feel free to restore the edit. And yes, there is a lot of hanky panky going on, which is why I've also semi-protected a handful of the target articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your fulsome explanation.
Is there a place where I can see the latest non-ip (ie user accounts) that have been blocked for socking? Perhaps in alphabetical or chronological order? BushelCandle (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
There are a number of sock groups editing this contentious area; the article history is a good place to start. If you go to your preferences, under the gadgets tab, scroll down to "appearance" and check the box "Strike out usernames that have been blocked", it makes reviewing page histories for disruption much easier at a glance.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that helpful advice.
Apart from correcting their introduced errors, is there any action you would recommend for fallacious edit summaries like these ones from editors that have been identified as abusing multiple accounts ? BushelCandle (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

UPI...again

I've since closed this discussion on my talk page as I am tired of going back and forth and don't feel well but you'll probably be interested in the inevitable restorations and impending discussion at RSN. TAXIDICAE💰 20:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. It's opening a gateway for misinformation to be added to BLPs resulting in an endless loop of circular referencing. I remember years ago reading discussions that noted concerns regarding the lack of editorial oversight on such filler lists in news publications, but I don't have the time or inclination to try to delve through 10 years of Wikipedia history to try to pinpoint their location. It flies in the face of "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" right out of the lead of WP:BLP, but some are more concerned with the fullness of an article rather than its accuracy.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Good block

My attempt to block Alyx abortion didn't work, and then I saw that you had just blocked them. Good job! - Donald Albury 22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a pretty obvious one.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Promotional username

Hi Ponyo, I wanted to tell you that I found a promotional username on a user called "Logan Paul Official Youtube". I reported it to the noticeboard for username violations. Perhaps you'd like to take a look? HelenDegenerate (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Update: it was just blocked. Sorry to disturb you.

living waters christian school

please do not revert edits, because considering I went to this school I know first hand what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@The crazy edit: Well you've made it clear you haven't read the notice I left on your talk page that explains such edits are not allowed.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not original research, earlier this year they they changed they're grades. The entry of the dress code is correct. the only thing I will remove is the corporal punishment, because that seems a bit harsh even if it is true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs)

Original research means you are adding material based on your personal knowledge of a subject. Any changes to an article need to include reliable sources for verification. The school website clearly notes that classes include junior and high school and there is no indication at all that the curriculum extends to grade 5 only. Continuing to add unsupported material to articles once our policies and guidelines have been explained to you is disruptive, hence my warning. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no indication that they are still enrolling past 5th grade on their website, if you wish to know personally contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot see the Junior and High school enrollment pages linked prominently from from the school's home page, you may lack the competence required to edit here. Our readers expect verifiable sourced content, not your "truth". My warning stands: if you continue to add unsourced content to articles you will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have seen the website page, they are currently not enrolling students at this time of year unless you contact them personally. I will contact them to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You are free to contact them, but you cannot add any information to the article based on a phone call. For the final time, material added to articles must be supported by reliable sources within the article. You cannot add unsourced material to articles based on what you have heard or what you know.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it a block violation by Flamingoboomer9000?

Am I correct in thinking that the 48-hour block you put on that user does not allow edits on their user talk page? The user just edited the talk page to remove the block notice. Thanks, NightHeron (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Blocked users can remove the block message, juts not any declined appeals while still blocked (see WP:BLANKING).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

73.60.59.91/Hartley Sawyer shenanigans

IP you blocked for shenanigans on Hartley Sawyer is back at the same IP saying they'll return every few weeks with the same behavior and calling other users racist. [1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It should hold for a month; maybe they'll get bored by the time the block and protection expires? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think there's enough eyes on it where it'll be caught if it starts up after protection expires. Thanks again! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


upe sock

FYI on this one, I can send you off-wiki evidence should it be needed. I didn't want to expand too much in fear of them also changing behaviors. TAXIDICAE💰 20:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That was just a softball question to see how deep I had to go with a check before declining. The technical data is messy and I'm lazy (ha!). I'll expand the CU net a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm also guessing this may be, let's just say outsourced from the freelancer account but the freelancer account is also titled similarly to the acronym in their username. TAXIDICAE💰 20:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
They logged in to the Nct0081 account on April 9th, then logged in to Kaleem6061 7 minutes later from the same IP. Ooops.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I for one am shocked. TAXIDICAE💰 20:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't have a HEARTATAXIDICAE - we need you on the front lines!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete

Hi Ponyo! I'm not real intimately familiar with Wikipedia other than when i read it for information. I just found a notification where you created a user page and discussion for me back in 2016 where my user info was used to edit Cintas' Wikipedia page. I replied on my discussion that i wasn't aware of any such edits and then found the edit and confirmed i was not the editor all while mentioning changing my security credentials. Can anyone see this discussion? Can you just delete my "account"? I'm honestly not real interested in editing Wikipedia, but the name pizzaman10383 is mine all over the internet, and its a bit embarrassing and unnerving to think that my name is associated with a biased opinionated revision of a page i have no interest in. Thanks again for everything you do for the wiki community. Pizzaman10383 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pizzaman10383: If you believe your account may have been compromised, I can block it for you. I would think it more likely that you've just forgotten ever having made the edit given that five years have passed. You could just blank your talk page and put up a retired banner if you'd like.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to do either of those things😅 Pizzaman10383 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my talk, then block...I have absolutely no idea what they were saying there outside they want me institutionalized, which of course, beyond the pale. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That was either outright trolling or outright incompatibility with the 5 pillars. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser tag and request

Hey there, you recently tagged User:Answermeplease11 as a checkuser confirmed sock of User:Iceage 101. Could you also look into [2] which has suspiciously started asking similar ref desk questions as Answermeplease11. Thanks. --Jayron32 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't link IPs to accounts. In this case though, that's not an issue as I think it's unlikely the same person based on geolocation.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again. Consider the matter closed; if they are unlikely to be related, then it's just a coincidence. Thanks for looking into it. --Jayron32 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Given the ranges available to them, they most likely will be back, so feel free to drop me a note if you see anything else suspicious. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Ponyo. Thanks for dealing with this sock yesterday. Bsjjwhsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared a few hours ago, working on the same set of articles as yesterday's sock, including removing AfD notices from their page creations. A clear WP:DUCK in my view. Is this enough for you to block this account, or do you want me to add it to the SPI case? Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist. I'd G5 the articles but you're well into a delete outcome at the AfDs. If we allow the deletion discussions to play out you would have additional speedy options if/when recreated (i.e. CSD G4 or G5). Would you like me to zap them or wait until the AfDs close?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pastebin

I have reported the threatening Pastebin for abuse. We'll see if it gets taken down. aeschyIus (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what's there, I have no intention of clicking the link. I've rev deleted it thorugh, just in case someone is tempted to click it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise

Hi Ponyo, what do you think about putting this article on semi or pending changes protection for maybe a year given most of the edits since 2019 have been from socks? On another note, I really should have looked at the history. S0091 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm considering it. I've added the article to my watch list and will definitely add the protection if there are any further shenanigans.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha! I had assumed it was already on your watch list otherwise in my mind how would you even know about the shenanigans. Whatever you means, glad you did notice (i.e. no response requested). Simply, thank you. S0091 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why remove my edit?

Why does my edit of Mike Wozniaks site contiune to be reverted? It is spoiling a show that hasn't even finished airing, and it is without a source. I can't even find confirmation anywhere that he has won, and even if that is the case how do you think it's a good idea to have a spoiler feature so prominently when the episodes haven't even aired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverEye91 (talk • contribs)

@SilverEye91: Wikipedia is not censored, and spoilers are often included in articles (see WP:SPOILER). That being said, if you look at my subsequent edit, I actually removed the material as unsourced.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Yes, I understand that. However, spoilers when a show hasn't even aired and when there hasn't even been any leaks to find isn't information, it's vandalism. That's why I was annoyed that it kept being reverted. That you removed it is good, but please, talk in the future. It is incredibly frustrating doing an edit and having it removed without explanation or a discussion. As has been shown my edit was correct, yet it was treated like an incorrect one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverEye91 (talk • contribs)
There was a spate of vandalism and disruption on the page, and it looks like your edit likely got caught up in reverting that unrelated disruption. I semi-protected the page for a few days to try to keep this from happening again. I see that another editor has left you a welcome message on your talk page with some links to various helpful pages. One last bit, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sock or not?

I see you indeffed ThatOneRandomGuyYouMeet (talk · contribs). No surprise there. Given his clear preëxisting familiarity with the project, is his bizarre essay Wikipedia:Nobody cares about your crush on Kumatora G5able (or for that matter G3able)? Or should I send it to MFD? Thanks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed this edit, which arguably makes it a G7, depending how you define "requested in good faith". -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 01:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It's now a redlink...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Simon and Martina‎

Thanks for all you do! Do you want to handle the IP hopper on Simon and Martina‎ again? I don't want to hit a 3RR myself. Evaders99 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Evaders99: I wish there was an effective rangeblock possible here; in this case I've renewed the semi-protection.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Evaders99 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Cartoons Characters

Hi there, I just wanted to bring attention to a user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoobMiester96 who might nor realizing they are edit warring over at Looney Tunes Cartoons, specifically the characters section. They continually revert it by removing voice actors who do additional voices on the show believing that only "main characters" can be on the character list, but I thought it was not a big deal to include characters exclusive to the show. I tried to explain my reasoning in my edit summaries, but I don't know they are ever going to listen. It reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evelynkwapong539 , who keeps using sock puppets to keep trying to own this specific page and pages related to it. I never thought Looney Tunes Cartoons would be such a hassle to handle, but I just wanted to inform you of NoobMeister because I want them to realize that other opinions of editors matter as much as their own. I hope they can understand why the cast list needs additional voices to credit the actors that are a part of this show.

Examples of NoobMeister disagreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020248351

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1019719121 (Specifically hidden text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1015815216

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1015815216 (Tried to report me for restoring the additional voices)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1002560998

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1002501444

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1002299710

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1002297739

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=1002617036 (They seemed to disagree with me hear yet left the page alone for a while before removing the voice actors, not sure why)

My Reasons for keeping additional roles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1019912753

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1016253859

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1007028815

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1002563265 (This edit had Noob try to report me).

I know that was a lot, and I appreciate you taking care of Evelyn so many times. I have no ill will against NoobMesister, and I do wish them well in keeping Wikipedia at its best, I just hope they know it is ok for other users to contribute to this page.

Thanks,


Noelephant (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

For some reason these articles attract a wide variety of sockmasters. In this case your best recourse is to follow WP:DR to help determine the community consensus for the inclusion of the roles. You may want to drop a note at the related projects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation) to get more eyes on the dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for replying and just saw this. This past day other users seem to be in agreement over keeping additional voices, yet NoobMeister is now revertinng edits without explaining themselves. I am doing my best to be civil with them but since they are not explaining their reverts, it seems they are edit warring to keep the page the way oly they want it to be.

Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020537731

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020423858

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020423858 (Only reasoning is redundant)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020352962 (I don't understand this reasoning, since they are removing characters from the cast list that first appear in this show without a solid reason (CHAMP, Leprechaun, Norm Macabre, Goon). These characters are distinct but are being removed by Noob.

Examples of other users agreeing with keeping the additional roles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020382262

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=1020426351

There seems to be a clearer consensus now, but Noob seems to be edit warring to prevent this list from happening.

Thanks for reading this again, I'm trying my best to protect the page from another user who is behaving like this such as Evelynkwapong and their sockpuppets.

Have a nice day!

Noelephant (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking out the trash. It takes kind of a lot to get me rankled, and that edit summary managed to cross the line. Thanks for handling it. Kncny11 (shoot) 23:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
My tolerance for those edits as a whole is about -0-. All rev-deleted now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Charles X

Hi, thanks for your help on Charles X. However I noticed that the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection which expired only a short time ago. The page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. Would you please take a look at the page's protection history and consider making it longer? And you might also consider making Queen Latifah's protection longer also. Parrian (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected Queen Latifah for 3 months, after which the infinite pending changes will kick back in. When I checked the protection history of Charles X, it only showed a move protection from 2020; the log didn't account for all of the protections prior to the move. I've extended that one.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
That was yet another WP:HAND of LTA User:CalebHughes. Favonian (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
They caught me as I had one foot out the door, otherwise I would have noticed they were quacking. Thanks for picking up my slack...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

99 times out of a hundred...

...I'm just wasting my time. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's important that we have admins placed throughout the WP:ROPE spectrum; you're the zen yin to my bitchy yang. They seem absolutely determined to power on with counter-vandalism stuff and are now using red/warn, which is like crack for new over-eager button smashers. Maybe the short block will result in some realignment of priorities?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
lol on my zen yin. And at this point I'm not optimistic. :D —valereee (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I recommend ditching the zen yin and reaching for the zen gin.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Or the gin zeng. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe both?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Fucture Wikipedian

Hi Ponyo. Thanks for making the block on the above user for socking. I've just noticed this edit is the same style (new user, overlinking to a country) pop up on my watchlist. Considering they're a new user themselves, they seem to know alot about how things work from their brief edit history, including how to log an SPI case! Might not be the same user, but the sock alarm bells are certainly going off. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a sock, but of a different colour.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you get a notification?

I was going through WP:RFPP and as per usual I leave a template, <nowiki> User(s) blocked: 73.158.114.70 (talk · contribs) blocked by Ponyo.</nowik>, when an IP has been blocked and the page doesn't need protecting. It serves a dual purpose in that the bot knows to clear the report and the reporting editor knows that admins are awake or something. When I do it though I get a notification that "Your mention of 73.158.114.70 was not sent because the user is anonymous." So my question is do you get a notification as well? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I didn't receive the notification.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh good. I was worried that every named editor was getting a ping when I used the template. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
If you're happy, I'm happy :) -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:NinaGreen

You may want to protect that one again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Blscholljim sock

Looks like User:Promit prem is another of their socks. I opened a report, although it was my first time so I'm not sure I did it all correctly. I saw that you were involved in one of the last investigations, so I figured I'd give you a little heads up, since I knew you were around because I saw you block someone for their username a moment after I reported them. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

aww...

I was kinda looking forward to what circles they were gonna run themselves in. YODADICAE👽 21:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I was curious too, but the block was satisfying. There are a billion of ranges at play here, so they'll be back.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I have no doubts about that. He's accepted a lot of jobs on his Freelancer account, which is how I tied them together...I fully expect to see some more pop up in the next 4 days. YODADICAE👽 21:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Detained International NGO was created after Zainalee's block on April 28th. G5 or honey pot? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. And Truck it in? If the AfD plays out to delete you'd have G4 and G5 available. Your call...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, we edit conflicted when you removed the G5 request on the NGO draft. 'Tis gone.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm more of a fan of letting a G4 run. I reverted my previous comment regarding the draft, but I'm pretty indifferent either way. He's really obvious. YODADICAE👽 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
OK. I'll just leave everything else as is.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest

Brand new User, very much lost but trying to follow rules and regulations for editing a page. I tried to use the Conflict of Interest template but when I got to the "cite" section, I wasn't certain how to add the citation properly. My only goal is to update my friend, David Macklin's, page to include his current occupation. He runs a non-profit organization for kids who live in high risk urban areas of the country. I was only describing what his organization does, I did not request anything or provide any contact information. Hopefully I'm submitting this post correctly! I will wait to hear back from you before I attempt to do any more editing. Thank you for reaching out to me and for helping with this issue. Truenorth99 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Truenorth99: Template:Request edit explains how to make an edit request on the corresponding article talk page. It won't be accepted as currently written, however, as it is promotional in tone (unsurprising as you note the subject is your friend so it's natural you would want to paint them in the best light - hence the COI). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ponyo, I'm very tempted to block this user right now for pure promotion. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought I was supposed to be bad cop this week?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Ponyo and Drmies thank you for your replies. I'm just trying to figure this whole process out. Ponyo I appreciate your response and I will not post, nor attempt to post, anything similar to what I was going to. Drmies - I believe the rules state these talk pages need to be "civil" and "not personal". I feel like your response was neither. If you read my original message to Ponyo I explicitly stated that my intention was not to promote anyone or anything and that I would wait for their response before moving forward. So, I don't know why you feel the need to block me for asking questions and trying to follow the guidelines here. Good way to keep well intentioned people from joining the Wikipedia community. Please feel free to block me, it's not like I can't just create a new Username, geez. Truenorth99 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Truenorth99, I believe some good faith was lost when you restored the promotional content after having our conflict of interest guidelines explained on your talk page (twice). Regarding the (theoretical) creation of a new account to circumvent a (theoretical) block, that would be a Really Bad Idea™. Regardless, it appears you are on board to use the talk page moving forward, so we're all good.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

doing the stuff that needs doing

The Admin's Barnstar
I was contemplating exactly what you just did. These are never fun, but they need doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It's so frustrating! They've been provided ample opportunities and just pissed them away. The loading of a bunch of shiny new scripts and the throw away account tipped the scales. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

newb

hi Ponyo, sorry i have been trying to create a user bio page... but i think i might be violating the rules. how do i know which copyright rules i am violating? is it ok for me to post this on my user page? sorry for the cluelessness. Dknopper (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dknopper: please read through the information and links I provided on your talk page, most importantly this one regarding creating autobiographies and this one regarding our copyright policies. Wikipedia would love to have you as an editor here, but not if your intention is to write about yourself.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Baidya

Yes, possibly. Only I had absolutely no way to immediately determine which revision was better. I am saying that in this situation, I should not have made any edits. Clearly if the change was nonconstructive then no doubt someone would have corrected it in due course, particularly as new accounts tend to be scrutinised intensely by some of the busy-bodies of the project. I punched the rollback key with alarming alacrity and that in itself is not the way to treat the feature!!! Next time I might find it has been taken away from me for misuse!! :)) --Coldtrack (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And just to say about this edit, "Punjabi language/Hindi" is a bit of a joke I'm afraid. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

My edit in this case was reverting a sock edit, so no issues with restoring the edit as long as you've verified it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

SCP-053

What prompted this?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Checked their user page based on this oddness. Noticed they'd been caught in an autoblock previously so I checked the CU log and the log bits aligned down to the exact IP used by Southern Lights, reviewed behaviour and a bunch of bells went off. Oh, and hi.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear explanation. Hi right back.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Can I be Dean Martin?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You can be whoever you like as long as I get my 15%.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
One day my debt will be paid off and I'll be freeeeeee!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Ponyo, contacting as you are listed as a revdel admin. Suspect this edit may fall under revdel and/or oversight? I'm unclear if it counts upon reading the policies, but it feels like it should. Closer reading also suggests my reversion edit summary was probably also ill-advised. Thanks, CMD (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of false reports and banning user responsible for them

Thanks for removing the false AIV reports! I looked at them myself and I was like, "This seems a bit odd, these users have made only good edits and all of the sudden they're on the AIV." I assumed the reporting user (who I was already suspicious of as their account is today years old) simply wasn't assuming good faith so I let them know about it. Turns out they were a sock! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

hi ponyo i've created wiki page for elnaz golrokh with reliable sources let me know why you deleted this page? Zaeebeel.majdi (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)zaeebeel.majdi

  • Community consensus has twice (here and here) determined that Golrokh does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. The article you created made the same claims, with some of the text inexplicably similar to the deleted article and verbatem to the deleted Draft:Elnaz Golrokh created by User:Melody.nabavi). So either you are directly related to previous accounts promoting Golrokh contrary to WP:SOCK, or your an undisclosed paid editor using the same copy provided to you by whoever hired you contrary to WP:PAID. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

142.245.58.40

142.245.58.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Their recent edits include wrecking the 2020 Olympics page and this edit. We had a brief chat concerning this page. Not sure if it's the same individual. They both geolocate to Canada, but by a large distance. --DB1729 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They're bouncing around a number of IPs to disrupt 2020 Summer Olympics. It hardly seems worth the effort as they're always reverted.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The crazy exit is banned by you so I will make the correct version

The crazy edit was "blocked indefinitely" for adding unsourced content!? He or she knows a lot about agriculture as stated in the userpage!

Please unblock The crazy edit. That block was made via the editor's research, and tell the user to make a sandbox with notes, and but the edits back with a reference to the user's sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.243.75 (talk • contribs)

Note: I've edited this post to remove a transclusion of the nonexistent template {{Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The crazy edit}}. jp×g 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

aflibwk

Re: your note here. Yes, I cleaned up several hundred references in their contest last year; there were several other AN/ANI discussions on the overall quality of the effort, usually noting a few specific editors that went off the rails. I'll see if I can find those old discussions. The project page is here and the ongoing tracking is here. Last year the training was not very good and the participation was incentivized in a contest that drove high-frequency bad editing. I have not had a chance to review everything yet, but I'm assuming that the advice given on the approach was not utilized. I really like efforts like this to bring in new groups of editors, especially in under-represented domains, but I'm not sure of the approach. Kuru (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Great intentions but the lack of oversight has caused (and continues to cause) disruption incommensurate with the potential benefits. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 14:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Misperception‎

Hello. Thank you for blocking Misperception‎. However, this is a cross-wiki abuser, uploading troll images to Commons and vandalising the Spanish Wikipedia, too (I'm trying to revert their vandalism there, too, but my options are rather limited). I am not completely familiar with the procedures for reporting cross-wiki abuse and for cross-wiki blocks/bans and I don't have rights to edit m:Steward requests/Global, so if there is anything that you or anyone else could do to make them blocked globally or at least on Commons, that would really help. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ack! I'm just heading out for an extended (and much needed) long weekend. Perhaps a friendly talk page stalker could flag down a Steward to lock the account?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't want to ruin your weekend. :-) Anyway, the user is now blocked on Commons, too, and their images are deleted, so hopefully this will put an end to their efforts.—J. M. (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Made request on Meta. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you missing a sock?

UTRS appeal #43620 😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Does this sound familiar? Sigh...always the scapegoat, never the GOAT.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 14:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

100.12.28.237

I see that you have blocked 100.12.28.237 from editing one particular article due to edit warring. You might want to also take a look at that IP's recent behaviour for Vasa (ship). — BarrelProof (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Every edit since the partial block has been questionable and their history of productive editing is poor. I've extended the block.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Undelete Request

Hello.Could you please undelete Josephs Quartzy(musician) that you deleted due to G5? We would love to develop and see it live.--MbuziMeex 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@MbuziMee: given that the article was repeatedly recreated at Josephs Quartzy and Josephs Quartzy (musician), and that a number of people with an apparent conflict of interest have had to be blocked for both promotional editing and block evasion, and the fact that you are already drafting still more articles that seem to be about this person, I think it's unlikely there's much interest in doing that. At the very least, I think it would be best if you disclose what relationship you may have with the article subject and/or the various blocked accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know if the page with the name Josephs Quartzy ever existed I would request for it's recreation all I saw was Josephs Quartzy(musician) and the relationship I have with Josephs Quartzy(musician) is, a fellow former country man and a fan. I've been collecting film works he's featured in and start them. and I requested the admin to review them if not yet he had to move them back to draft article and that's what was done.--MbuziMeex 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this Quartzy guy's got a lot of fans!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

I think these ranges are probably being used by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter for block evasion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=213.162.73.168%2F16&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=46.125.250.32%2F16&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions

They are from the same country (Austria) and edit the same articles. Moreover, the 213.162 ips were reported last year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive#27_March_2020

This accounts is probably him:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HunanZH

The IPs add maps which were uploaded by the account. 176.55.238.189 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please open a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Some old socks were found behind the dresser

Hey, Ponyo. I hope you are doing well! I wanted to inform you that I discovered some socks of Zhoban's, apparently starting back around 2009, when he was known as JohnRamirez and had already been banned for identical behavior. According to the SPI archive, he was editing from a similar I.P. range in Jersey City, with all his classic trademark behaviors exhibited. Would you be able to merge all those page associated with JohnRamirez with Zhoban, for documentation purposes? DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

A bit more, now that I look! Likewise, there's another SPI for the same editor that would be good to be merged. It's kind of insane how extreme this guy's case is. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
SPI Clerks are more seasoned at merging reports. A request at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations would be preferable to me breaking everything by trying to do it myself.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for protection of an article

Hey Ponyo, I hope you're doing well. I want you to protect the page List of programs broadcast by Geo TV as it is being continuously targeted by sock accounts and unregistered IP's. Kindly consider my request. Thank you. Lillyput4455 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sucker for All

Ponyo, if you have a moment, could you please look at the above report and tell me whether you agree with my request for a merge? You're familiar with the other case based on your CU blocks. It doesn't matter to me if you disagree; I just want to dispose of the report in some logical fashion, and putting aside my antipathy for a username like Sucker for All, I don't think they have anything to do with the the other case. Of course, I could be wrong about that too. :-) Anyway, it's been waiting for a clerk for several days, and I'd like to get it off my plate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no recollection of the Serolss SPI, but these edits definitely appear to be made by the same person, so a merge makes sense.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Is it okay if I point to this discussion at SPI? People, including clerks, pay more attention to you than to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone pays me much attention at all (this is not necessarily a bad thing). Point away, my friend!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
That's right. I never pay any attention to what goes on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Your fancy modified signature classes this joint up.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
That's me. Class out the ass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
We wouldn't have you any other way...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you appear to have been right about no one paying much attention to you. I added your "endorsement", and it still sits there. Apparently admin clerks are, uh, unmoved by your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate being right.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a block request

Block USANATV13 as a sock of User:SPWTulsaOK1213 please. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 01:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?

Hi Ponyo,

I noticed that you blocked Jess2710 for multiple accounts and suspicion of UPE. One of the pages that user edited is Russian School of Mathematics. There are a large number of other newish editors passing through that page; some of them seem to be likely socks (e.g., Ck.johnson1000 and Lenchik73 both edited that page and Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, which strikes me as a really implausible pairing). Other vaguely suspicious editors at the RSM page are RosetteNetwork, Doodboi, Anumoy99, FullStackGhana, Anonymousperson123456, ZaheerOswaldFan9002, and Cometlearning. (I'm bringing this to you just because I saw the Jess2710 block; let me know if you'd prefer I bring it to SPI.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

JBL, an SPI would be helpful with respect to laying at the various accounts and connections. It will also come in handy in tracking future socks down the road if there is extensive socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I've created it. --JBL (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Francopelaez27

I appreciate your help with Francopelaez27. That was frustrating. Here's the first barnstar I've ever given out (largely because I don't fully understand them and have never gotten or given one!).

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your help with a recalcitrant edit warrior. Anwegmann (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many Thanks. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I do not understand how one source is considered verifiable while another is not

1) How does this paragraph fall under verifiable sources:

"but also received criticism for scientific inaccuracies and a perceived unbalanced support for plant-based nutrition,[5][6] with several experts accusing it of misinformation[7][8] and pseudoscience.[8]"

For example 6th reference links to this website: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/

It links to the website of the person that did the critique (Layne Norton).

but this one does not?

"However, there have also been rebuts to those criticisms.[9]"

9th reference links to this website: http://proteinaholic.com/response-to-layne-nortons-review-of-the-game-changers/

It links to the website of the person that critiqued the critique which is this case is Dr. Garth Davis.

So what makes the 6th reference verifiable, but the 9th reference not verifiable?

2) What makes this reference unverifiable?

https://plantbasednews.org/culture/joe-rogan-game-changers-producer-fantastic-job/

Everything in the article was based on the podcast debate, and for example Joe Rogans instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/B5s60CdFL2a/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

And would this source be considered verifiable? https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/arnold-schwarzenegger-gives-kudos-to-joe-rogan-after-vegan-documentary-debate.html/

Thanks, RBut (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing one reference recently added to an article as unreliable is not de facto approval that all references cited in an article meet reliable sourcing criteria. As of my writing this, there are 6,314,740 articles on Wikipedia. New additions and changes are under more scrutiny than those that were made months, years, or even a decade ago. If content you add or change is removed citing reliability concerns (or for any reason), the expectation is that you will bring your concerns to the corresponding article talk page (your post here could be used to start a discussion over content on said talk page). This noticeboard will also help determine the reliability of a specific source. If you even find yourself in a content dispute you will likely find this page helpful. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you removed it and classified it as an unverifiable source, can you tell me what made you classify it as such? RBut (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

<tps>Generally, advocacy websites such as Plant Based News would be regarded with considerable skepticism. Please look for references that have a more detached point of view. While advocacy sources can be used, they must be clearly attributed as such. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, even though it was a report on Joe Rogans podcast and tweet with references (which is easily verifiable), what makes Dr. Garth's article unverifiable? RBut (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're getting into medical claims, then an even more stringent set of sourcing requirements come into play (WP:MEDRS). As I mentioned earlier, if you would like to discuss the reliability of certain sources, this is the place. The people at The Teahouse are also very helpful in explaining policies and guidelines to new editors. It probably seems like a bunch of hoops to jump thorough, and policy pages to wade through, but these mechanisms are in place to help ensure our articles remain accurate.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work on a scientific documentary wiki page. For example there are references to articles that critique the documentary falling under primary and secondary sources, while I also referenced a rebuttal to one of the article that can also be classified as such. You will not find governmental bodies reviewing the documentary via a sort of guideline, nor scientific reviews published in medical journals. So basically I do not see how my reference to Dr. Graths critique of one of the critiques is distinguished from the other critiques that gets it removed. Nobody has given me a reason yet apart from citing guidelines and telling me to figure it out myself. Following the same logic the other critique articles should also be removed because they are breaking those same guidelines. Right?

Also the documentary has been endorsed by many governmental bodies, can I post this reference to expand on the 2nd paragraph which only mentions two agencies, or is it considered unverifiable? https://www.nutritionalphysicaltherapy.com/blog/gamechangers

"The movie has been currently endorsed by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Special Operations Medical Association (SOMA), the Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Green Sports Alliance" RBut (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

These are all arguments that should be made on the article talk page, which I noted in my very first reply to you. Absolutely no action will be taken and CONSENSUS|consensus cannot be determined by continuing to post on my user talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Revoking Talk Page Access for User:JeezMan9000

Hi Ponyo, After you blocked User:JeezMan9000, this user placed an unblock request. However, Yamla declined it. Now, I saw that JeezMan9000 is attacking you and Yamla. Please revoke his talk page access. This will teach him a lesson not to attack other editors. Hayleez (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned. Yamla and I are made of flippin' tough stuff. If it continues on in the same vein or the abuse extends to other editors I'll reassess. Someone else may decide a line's been crossed and pull access, but I'm not there yet. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I do wonder if it's Skiyomi, known for leaving racist comments and sexually harassing admins. Not enough there to justify checkuser tools, though. Some of the filtered edits were pretty inappropriate, but if that's all they can get past the filters, we can flipping well deal with it. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

216.14.157.170

Comparing [3] and [4] it looks like this is a nearly static IP, and the user currently behind it is (still) evading the block of 2600:1700:7822:6190:0:0:0:0/64. Maybe extend the block to match? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Suffusion of Yellow. I've extended the block substantially.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hank Foldberg reduction in protection

User:Burtil is a now-blocked SOCK of banned MASTER User:CalebHughes; There are 100+ such SOCKs.

Burtil requested a reduction in protection level of Hank Foldberg,[5] behavior seen in multiple prior SOCKs with PP of other articles.

It appears that you have reduced/removed PP level of that article.[6]

I have no strong opinion on whether this change is a net-good or net-bad, but it has appearance of reopening a former target of a prolific DE editor. Offered context under the banner of WP:DENY.

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

When a new account pops up at WP:RFPP and requests unprotection of a long-term sock target it automatically raises my suspicions, so I was keeping an eye on the account and was not surprised to find it blocked this morning. That being said, the semi-protection of Hank Foldberg was a result of a different sockmaster adding egregious BLP-violating material to the article, unrelated to CalebHughes. The article still has pending changes enabled, and I am watching it, so I don't think bumping the protection back to semi will make a difference at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Page removal

How dare you remove my page. It was a perfectly good page you freak Lee cole FBHI (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Big improvement on the capitalization in this message compared to your deleted talk page! Alas, your punctuation still needs work. Chin up, you'll get there one day!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Missed one or two

See [7]. Also edit summary is visible in another diff. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Missed this message until now, sorry! I've revdeleted a few more and someone else zapped the edit summary. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:104.166.155.145

Do you fancy revoking talk page access at User talk:104.166.155.145? Best to you, Laplorfill (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I figured out you were offline, and Bongwarrior kindly took the necessary action. Laplorfill (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Based on User_talk:104.166.155.133, it might be the whole /22 range, though, so removing talk page access from the range might still be a good idea. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Writ Keeper, that's what I've done.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by 84.13.151.122

Hi Ponyo, you recently blocked 84.13.151.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1 week. They are now evading that block using 78.147.184.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See [8]. Any chance you could block the new IP? Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I was going to request the very same thing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Done by Black Kite.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

MMAmonster10

I was pretty sure that's who it was, but I wasn't certain because of some cues I'd rather not specify. Technical corroboration helps. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anytime.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Sucker for All's "I didn't hear that" attitude. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can This Article Banned

Hi Ponyo Sir i ask to question

Can Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal Article is Banned on Wikipedia please answer Beryndey (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The article has been deleted twice due to notability issues. If you believe it meets WP:TVSERIES you can began a draft article using the Articles for Creation process.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OK Sir Thanks. Beryndey (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

sir can i create this article directly without draft ? Beryndey (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As a new editor it is best to use the WP:AFC process in order to ensure the draft is properly sourced before a reviewer moves it to article space. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok sir thanks for information Beryndey (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_53&oldid=1190256970"