User talk:Ponyo/Archive 19

Surinam Airways
Hello again, Ponyo. , several 190.98.XXX.XXX IPs and me have been into a content dispute in the article, to the extend that it is now fully protected again, the second time in less than a month. Does the user's behaviour warrant a checkuser investigation? Thanks in advance.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe that an editor is logging out and using IPs to edit disruptively you may want to start an investigation page. Note however that the case would need to be decided by patrolling admins based on behaviour as, per our privacy policy, Checkusers rarely tie IPs to specific accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, Ponyo. I've started an investigation page. Best regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Aanchal page
Hi I noticed the photo was incorrect. It was that of another child actor NOT Aanchal Munjal. That's why I removed the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.52.225 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is taken from Bollywoodhungama.com (link here) where she is clearly identified as Aanchal Munjal. In addition, the similarity to the images available on Google are striking. Do you have any way of proving that the image is incorrect? Which other child actor do you believe this to be an image of?--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I have moved this conversation to the article talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it P. The pic is included in the batch of google images here. I haven't been on your talk page in a while so I just wanna say that I hope you are well and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you MarnetteD! I'm doing very well and certainly looking forward to summer :) --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Waterford
Hello Sir, being from Waterford and many people asking me who aren't from here what are the race relations like, I figured I would go and tell people what they are like, political correctness is not the proper way to go around sir, especially when African American friends of mine want to know the answer, it is true what i ut and I did not mean to offend anyone but are you going to remove the real belief of people in the community based on political correctness? It is true sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysmithens (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with adhering to Wikipedia's policies with regard to neutrality, sourcing, and original research. The material you are adding is written in an inflammatory manner and is not supported by the inclusion of reliable sources. Please do not continue to add your opinions and commentary to articles. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell me have you ever in your life ever once stepped foot in the Detoroit area? I have 0 problems with adhering to your policies and I sincerely apologize for violating that but I need an explanation. Why is it you are telling me I am incorrect for stating what I know to be true and with the Coleman Young article that is in no way negative as that is all based on the basis of Detroit Police Officers and the people in Detroit do not insult me and them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysmithens (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding information based on your own personal knowledge is original research and is not allowed. You are making some very strong statements, none of which are verifiable because they are based on your own opinions and experiences. --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 01:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So I do not appreciate being called a liar for saying was is true in the area I live in and you most likely have never been to, A factual public record of what occurred and if that is not neutral I do not know what is, do you have a supervisor or someone above you because I would like to speak to them. If possible, The Coleman Young article was extremely fair and in no way shape or form was un neutral are you going to argue with the commanders and police officers of the DPD who went through all of this? Is that not enough for you? I want a supervisor iapologize for the Waterford post but I did nothing wrong on the Coleman Young post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysmithens (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the links I have provided you with. If you do it will become clear why your edits were reverted. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 01:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... protection/pending changes/possible bug
Greetings Ponyo. I've just seen that you recently protected the article on David Horvitz (until 18 September 2013) and, a minute later, CyberBot tagged it for "Pending changes". However, just a few hours later, an IP was able to partially blank the page. Is there possibly a bug here? BTW, it didn't appear on my watchlist as a pending change, just as a normal edit. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history you can see a notation in brackets beside the IP edits that states "accepted by Keithbob". I assume that the approval of the edit that removed the sourced content was an accidental oversight and pending changes is indeed working. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Techno, thanks for pinging me. I care about my edits and reviews and would like to improve whenever possible. In this case the IP's edit added reasonable content to an article that is listed as being protected for vandalism. I saw no reason to classify this edit as vandalism and so I accepted it. Reviewers are not instructed to revert edits just because the are made by an IP. Furthermore, WP:RG says: Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the version of the article visible to a casual reader is broadly acceptable......... Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article. Thanks, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for pointing out that notation in brackets - missed it first time round. As for pending changes on my watchlist, maybe I accessed the article from my "contributions", rather than from the "watchlist", in which case it wouldn't show. Sorry to bother you. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC) PS. I'll reply to Keithbob on his talkpage. --Technopat (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Keithbob, the situation is a bit unusual here in that we have an individual (or individuals) on a campaign to disrupt this article. In this case the IP first removed the lead, then reinserted it in their second edit while at the same time removing sourced content. Note the IPs edit summary is "trying to destroy this article". I think they were just trying to be sneaky and it worked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for running cleanup on Nera456's edits. Much less for others to do now. Regards, CMD (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When it becomes impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff with a block evading account the mass rollback script can be your best friend. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Aamir Ali
The latest edits that I made to a biography of a living person, Aamir Ali were true. His year of birth, religion, education and others were correct. We think you made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.52.220 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Death Threat Made By 202.20.5.122. Thank you.  D u s t i *poke* 00:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate Twinkle. I just wanted to poke you towards my question :)  D u s t i *poke* 00:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like Ironholds got to it again. I think he's trying to "one up" you :)  D u s t i *poke* 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't hold much hope of ever beating you to the punch anywhere. You're ubiquitous. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Emily VanCamp
Hey, what exactly is your basis for deleting information about people whom Emily VanCamp has shared her life with? Do you believe these multi-year relationships never occured? Does Emily lie???? Did she photoshop all those pictures of her kissing those guys? Happy Evil Dude (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a gossip site, nor a repository for listing failed relationships. Perhaps you have confused this encyclopedia with whosdatedwho.com? Significant long-term relationships that are reliably sourced (i.e. not fodder for tabloid and gossip publications such as US Weekly and the Daily Mail) can be included if there is consensus that it's inclusion is both notable and not giving WP:UNDUE weight to an area unrelated to the subject's notability. You appear to have a penchant for adding this type of gossipy chatter to biography articles. If that is the case please don't be surprised when your edits are challenged.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is talking of a "repository for listing failed relationships"? There is a section in the article called "Personal Life". The only thing in this section is that VanCamp is currently dating Josh Bowman. Is Bowman the only person she has dated? No. She previously had long term relationships with Chris Pratt, Dave Annable and Joseph Morgan. None of these relationships is a secret, none is rumored gossip. All have multiple sources, pictures of them kissing, VanCamp talking about it. Pratt, Annable and Morgan talking about it. Why is Bowman relevant, and adequately sourced, but not the others? Why are the Mandy Moore and Emily VanCamp articles to be scrubbed free of everything relating their sentimental life while articles of the large majority of other public figures at the very least mention notable relationships, if not go into detail about them? Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Her previous dating history is not relevant to her notability, which is the crux of why she has an article on Wikipedia. Sections concentrating on a BLP subject's relationship history is WP:UNDUE unless the relationship is in itself notable. Ten years from now if you were to read an entry regarding VanCamp, or essentially any other young celebrity, in a high-quality vetted encyclopedia do you believe that there would be a list of people they had dated? There would not because it would not be historically relevant. There are plenty of websites where you can read about all the gossipy details of celebrity love lives. This is not one of them. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Way to answer me without actually answering the points I'm making. Granted, her dating history isn't what makes her notable, but it her dating history is notable in an article about her. And if I were to read a high-quality vetted encyclopedia in ten years time there most likely wouldn't be an entry on Emily VanCamp, or Mandy Moore for that matter. If by any chance there was, it would read "VanCamp, Emily (b.112 May 1986), Canadian actress known for her television work". Based on that, should we just delete the article altogether and countless others? In any case, I've re-added the information about Emily VanCamp with what most right-minded people would deem more than sufficient sourcing. Congratulations, the references about her sentimental life now cover more than half of the article's total references. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And it has been removed again until there is consensus that each of the relationships are historically significant enough to warrant inclusion. You really should read WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES if you believe that using websites such as givememyremote.com, the Daily Mail, and Huffington Post meet the criteria for personal info in a BLP. Throwing a bunch of websites that mention a relationship in passing does nothing to prove the historical significance of the relationship. I've already posted on the article talk page, which is where the discussion should continue. Insinuating that an editor who disagrees with you is not "right minded" is unlikely to work in your favour when it comes to editing collaboratively, and I'm hardly the only editor who has contested your edits to WP:BLPs. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  22:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "The Hindu#Controversy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

3RR report you may wish to comment on
I've mentioned User:Happy Evil Dude's posts to your talk page while replying to a 3RR report he filed regarding me. You may wish to comment there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Happy to help!--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Li (surname)" saga
Would appreciate your comments here (and maybe here) after your recent block of User:Bmotbmot. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The block I made was based solely on the disruption being caused by Bmotbmot and their complete lack of communication when concerns were raised. As a completely uninvolved admin I don't feel comfortable taking sides on the content dispute itself. Please do continue to pursue dispute resolution with regard to the viability of the moves and merges. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Misidentification
Hello,

My second account was blocked in January, apparently for violating the clean start policy. (My original account has not been blocked, but I no longer have the password.) However, a month and a half after my second account was blocked, the editor who persuaded the arbitration committee to block it tagged it as a specific banned user - an identification which does not appear to have ever been supported by the arbitration committee or by anyone else. I almost invoked the right to vanish when privacy concerns forced me to abandon my original account, and when my second account was blocked I initially intended to abandon Wikipedia altogether. But I object to being tagged in this manner, and to the user who did so continuing to bring me up in arbitration discussions months later. 

Although I have little interest in editing anything at this stage, I don't believe that doing so as an IP is block evasion, as my original account has never been blocked and if I still had access to it I presumably still would be allowed to use it. I also assume there must be a way for a user to object to being misidentified in this manner, but you reverted my attempt to remove the tag myself. I would like you to please advise me on the proper course of action in my situation. --213.179.213.21 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are blocked you cannot use IPs to edit. Period. There is no point in blocking your original account if you cannot access it. If you are concerned that one of your accounts may have been mistagged then I suggest you raise the issue via email to ArbCom, but the right to vanish and clean starts are not available for accounts that have a disruptive past, nor can you continue to edit via bouncing around from IP to IP.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
maybe you need to use your source a little bit so you know it's true.. http://www.pinoystop.com/news/celebrity/1285/mo-twister-gets-a-5month-suspension-from-radio-show

http://mb.com.ph/Entertainment/Entertainment_Main/20081/Mo_Twister,_co-host_get_5-month_suspension#.UdW0iTuLCSo

Blackson01 (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Thank you for including the references. Please ensure you do so for all of the material you add to articles, if you do you will find that your edits are less likely to be reverted.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Page Deletion
Pardon, I created a page called "Nathanism" and you deleted it on the grounds that it was a hoax. This is not true, as in fact, I stated several times that it was a "false" and "mock" religion, "created as a joke by a high-schooler playing an improvised game". As it was deleted barely in any time after its creation, I fear that you may not have had the chance to read the entirety of the page before merely dismissing it as a "blatant hoax". I was in no way attempting to tell anyone that Nathanism is a real and existing religion, but that it is entirely a joke, and I hope you reconsider the deletion of the page, as I worked hard to remember the joke creation story I was told in segments over several weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrispaz (talk • contribs)
 * This page likely holds the answers you are looking for.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for that. I was not aware of that content rule, I was merely directed that I should create a wikipedia page to share this info, as one may admit that it is not the sort of thing that might be given a second thought on other websites such as reddit or deviantart due to the informational nature of such a thing. However, if possible, may I please have a copy of what was written, so I may save it in a word document for personal record? Electrispaz (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can email you a copy, but you have to enable your email in your preferences. (Click "preferences" in the upper right hand of your screen, scroll down to the bottom and check "Enable email from other users"). Please drop me a note here when you have enabled it and I will shoot off a copy of the article for you.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time, I've done that, and I apologize for any trouble Electrispaz (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should be in your inbox now. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User: 175.111.103.1
Hello Ponyo,

I greatly appreciate you informing me about the vandal-warnings earlier. As a follow-up, would you mind checking if my warning here is okay. Also, this talk page will also be a good page to watch, as it is on its final warning. --JustBerry (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why you are warning people who have already been warned by the editor who reverted the problematic edit? That's not normally how it works. That being said, are you aware of Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy? There are a number of users there that would likely welcome your questions and your efforts in fighting vandalism. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that. My adoption program will be covering that. For that particular revert (the one I linked above), I reverted the problematic edit here. Also, I don't have any particular questions at the moment about vandalism, but it would be great to receive feedback. --JustBerry (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, see, I was looking at this history of Temuera Morrison, not Tāwhiao. When the vandalism is coming that quickly and it's that blatant it's easy to end up giving the IP/User a mixed bag of warnings, but the likelihood of them being blocked is pretty high so it doesn't much matter. Good luck with your vandal fighting and adoption! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was nice talking with you. --JustBerry (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking
Thanks muchly! Superfly94 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. The easiest way to avoid such issues in the future is...don't get blocked :) --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice on publications unsuitable as references
Hi

You were helpful last year regarding advice on BLP and I would be grateful for further guidance.

I restored referenced parts of a BLP article that had been deleted by another editor and was met by aggressive and unhelpful language. I now understand that the Daily Mail is not regarded as a reliable source, but was unaware of this at the time. I asked the same editor where I could find a list of sources deemed unsuitable and was given a rude response. The Wiki guidance is very vague, mainly saying be wary of tabloids, but it is very USA centric, and in any case such a general definition would preclude some respected newspapers.

Are you able to clarify this? Many thanks.Tomintoul (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many times it is a judgement call based on experience working with BLPs; over time you can develop a pretty good gauge of what sources adhere to more stringent editorial and journalistic standards and which ones throw anything at the wall to see what sells the best. If a publication is regularly sued by the subject of its articles, that's not a good sign. British tabloids that focus on sensationalizing news and pushing gossip (such as the Daily Mail and The Mirror) are generally unreliable as a BLP source, and almost certainly so if the material it is supporting is contentious. If there is a story containing negative/contentious material appearing in one of the more gossip-driven publications, and no traditionally reliable sources such as The Times or the BBC are reporting it, it likely shouldn't be included in a BLP. The reliable sources noticeboard archives are searchable and helpful to determine if a source has been discussed by the community previously. If you have a source wherein you're unsure if it meets WP:RS criteria and you can't find a discussion in the archives, the noticeboard is a great venue to ask for help in determining whether and to what extent the source should be used.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks!Tomintoul (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sonarika Bhadoria
Hi Ponyo, thanks for the PC protection on Sonarika Bhadoria but lately, the PC protection is not working since IPs are adding unsourced contents and also removing the sourced ones. So, I'm asking you to semi-protect the article for some days (2-3 might work). Tolly 4  bolly  20:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The unsourced material being added to the article has been going on for months. The only option other than pending changes is to switch to semi-protection for at least a couple months. Is that ok with you? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine for me. Tolly  4  bolly  20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I gave it three months. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

kauffner
You recently declined an unblock request for User Kauffner for edit warring for 72 hours. Immediately upon his block ending, he again made the same warring edit reverting the redirection of the Han Nom article, which was merged via consensus. As this user refuses to abide by consensus, would you consider protecting the redirect? (in addition to whatever action you think appropriate on the user? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed this as well. I've blocked Kauffner for two weeks for disruptive editing/edit warring after providing him the opportunity to undo the contentious edit and restore the consensus version of the page (which he obviously chose not to do).--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I found a duck!
QUACK QUACK! PantherLeapord (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have missed this post completely! I'm sure you're aware that the IP has since been blocked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks, I appreciate your kindness. JustBerry (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket
Hi Ponyo-- Could you let me know either here or at your post to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse the OTRS ticket for your exchange with the editor you mentioned? Thanks, I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done :) --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hakenkreuz Bearbeiten
While it's a bit of a fishing expedition, the fact that Hakenkreuz Bearbeiten was able to format his very polite response to my question in a way that would trigger a notification for me indicates that he's no stranger to Wikipedia. I've no idea who it might be.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the obvious racist trolling nature of the account I did take a look behind the curtain to ensure there wasn't socking involved, however nothing glaring popped out at me. If you see something similar in the future let me know and I can run some comparisons. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep a lookout.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Priya Anand's page
Hey Ponyo. I deleted the Personal life of Priya anand. The information given under the section can be defined under another Heading. Personal life should contain only the personal activities of a personality. So that i removed the Content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayhbk (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although your edits are in good faith, the personal life section is generally used to hold content related to an individual's activities that are not directly related to their notability/career. Charity work can certainly be included under the umbrella of "personal life". If you believe that the content would be better served in another section of the article, please move it there, or create an appropriate section in lieu of blanking the sourced content altogether. Thank you,--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have updated the Section's name. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayhbk (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yelp.com bad reviews
[attack redacted] Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.6.83 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You cannot use Wikipedia as a platform to launch attacks on companies or individuals, it is against our core policies to do so. Feel free to express your unhappiness with the website elsewhere, but do not continue to include it here. Thank you,--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please
Hi Ponyo, thanks for being so helpful. But I still have a really big problem. Can you please reply me with your email? Thank you very much. You will know who I am after I leave you my adress: [redact]. I need 10 minutes from your time if you really want to help me. To tell you why is this affecting me. And what would you do in my place. Iagreebut (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You will need to tell me 1) where I have helped you and 2) the name of your account (not the one you used to post this message). Without context I cannot respond.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With a request for unblock. I've sent you a duplicate. Can you please reply me on my email? I can't tell you here all the details, they are registered. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iagreebut (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are worried about including private information on my talk page you can send it to my email, which is available in the section titled "toolbox" on the left hand side of this page (i.e "Email this user").--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where Ponyo? I can't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iagreebut (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you likely need to have your email enabled in your preferences in order for it to work. Regardless, if we corresponded via UTRS (the Unblock Ticket Request System), then simply send a new message through to there with "For Ponyo" in the "Why do you believe you should be unblocked?" section, followed by your message.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, I am emailed you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iagreebut (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Block of Jasmine Aladin
Not that I disagree with the block, but it would be helpful to know who the previously blocked editors/ips are that justify the block for evasion. My guess was that the edit-warring is being done by public relations groups. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an enormous PR sock/meat farm. Examples include Zubair Chopra, Gohar Mumtaz, Saba Hameed. The accounts always follow the pattern of creating a first name-last name account (often that of a Pakistani celebrity). They then perform cut and paste recreations of deleted articles (sort of a big deal), or create new articles (not so much of a big deal), that often contain BLP and copyright violations and falsification of references (a very big deal). Due to the wide and readily available range of IPs used rangeblocks are not feasible, so unfortunately it's just a matter of playing whack-a-mole. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful. I've a handful of articles they've been editing on my watchlist, but I've been focusing on ip's at this point. I'll take a more careful look at the editing in light of this from now on. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my nightmare ;) Please do drop me a note if you see any accounts pop up that fit the pattern. They are very prolific, therefore the earlier they are detected the easier the clean-up. Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'll assume that you are actually attempting to communicate with me as opposed to awarding me a barnstar. From your deleted contributions it appears that you are attempting to create an autobiography. Note that not only are autobiographies strongly discouraged, you must also meet Wikipedia's notability criteria to be included. Please review the welcome message on your talk page for help in getting started editing Wikipedia. Good luck, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

helllo can you make me a wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saif Muddassir (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would like help making a user page this page is helpful. If you are trying to have someone create an article wherein you are the subject you can add your name to the appropriate section at WP:Requested articles along with links showing how you meet the notability criteria. For general assistance the Teahouse has many volunteers who can help you get started. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Torri Higginson
Hi Ponyo, I noticed you're the most recent editor of the Torri Higginson article, aside from bots, and minor revisionists. Her article labels her as Scottish Canadian, which contradicts her own statements during her biographical portion of "Stargate Atlantis: A Necessary Evil," when the actress answers questions at the end. Torri self-identifies as Welsh-Canadian, saying her parents' background is Welsh, and she largely grew up there herself despite being born in and returning to Canada. Higginson states that was part of her reasoning for attending college in London.

Would you be able to help remedy that? At the very least, the Scottish-Canadian tag should go if the actress disagrees with Wikipedia about her own ethnicity. Ideally, it might be a nice addition to add an early life section that details her Canadian-birth, and Wales/Canada/London upbringing. IMDB notes that she attended London's Guildhall School of Music and Drama with Ewan McGregor.

Regards!

Wikipædite (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, welcome to Wikipedia! There are strict policies and guidelines in place with regard to religious, ethnic, and descent categories in biography articles. As there was no sourced content within the article that supported the inclusion of the 'Scottish descent' category I have removed it altogether. You can read more about the use of categories at WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. I have posted a welcome message on your user page that will hopefully be helpful in getting you started editing. The Teahouse is a fantastic venue with volunteers that can assist you with any questions you might have as you begin editing. Good luck! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I note that you mention IMDb in your message; however it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for personal information in biography articles and should not be used as a source for such material. There is more information regarding the consensus to not use IMDb here, here, and here. Once again, welcome!--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Vivian Dsena
Hello again, the PC protection is not working on Vivian Dsena due to recent vandalism by new user and IPs. Probably semi-protection for some weeks will cool the things down. Btw, you could block user:Har1985 since he has been adding facebook/spam links to the article. Thanks. Tolly 4  bolly  05:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the article and I have to say I disagree. The PC protection seems to be working fine, and the level of disruption really does not call for semi-protection as there are good faith edits by IPs in there as well. There was a single IP edit on the 17th, a single IP edit on the 24th and 25th, and then one new editor making some newbie errors yesterday. Prior to this minor increase in activity the last edit was over three weeks ago. You could list it at WP:RFPP, but I'm fairly sure a request for semi-protection would be declined as it doesn't meet any of the requirements listed at WP:SPP. With regard to User:Har1985 I don't believe they should be blocked as they appear to be editing in good faith and could likely use a helping hand to assist them in understanding Wikipedia guidelines with regard to external links and sourcing. I'll pop by their page and point them to some resources. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear explanation. Tolly  4  bolly  17:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have my eye on the article, but if things pick up significantly and I miss it feel free to ping me again or pop a note on WP:RFPP. Cheers,--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do so. Thanks again. Tolly  4  bolly  20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Ponyo did you made the wiki of urwa can you make me a wiki please give me the wiki for me p,ease — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishamuddassir (talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop attempting to create an article on yourself, and stop creating new accounts to do so. No one will create the page as you do not meet the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. Repeated attempts will result in you being blocked from editing altogether so please stop now.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion question
Dear Ponyo,

It appears my web page was deleted, I had just started that to give insight to our Internet supporters club, Can you clarify the situ? Many thanks and best wishes

Nugget1bhoyIBFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nugget1bhoyIBFC (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The page was essentially just a blurb about your online club including a bit about how awesome the members are. Wikipedia is not to be used to host promotional material, nor do we include material on groups not meeting the notability criteria. But most importantly the page was being used to attack a specific individual by name. For all of these reasons the page was inappropriate for inclusion on an online encyclopedia.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 01:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

source is a source, whats poorley source?
The person complained mentioned in his official and you see his letter on his letter head with his sign. So what is that poorley sourced date, why do you don't want world to know that some one has objection and it went to court, and IB Ministry of India. Paid media don't show the truth actual happened on ground. is it entering into wikipedia too or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitrada (talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your English makes your message difficult to understand. The link you have included is to a primary document (a letter) hosted on a user-generated website; for these reasons it cannot be used as a reliable source, especially to support negative contentious information in a BLP. In addition, the material violates the NPOV policy as undue - you are presenting one individual's crusade against the subject of a BLP article. Unless reported in the wider context of a larger concern reported in reliable independent sources it cannot be included. Edit-warring to restore material removed citing BLP concerns will lead to a block of your account.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  18:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of BuddyBixby419
Hello Ponyo. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Bjelleklang -  talk 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)  Bjelleklang  -  talk 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the related SPI here. I put it together last night and the clerks haven't had a chance to review and tag the accounts to the master yet. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Bjelleklang -  talk 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Revdel
Hey Ponyo, if you're around, this one might need to go down the memory hole. Best, The Interior  (Talk) 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. I also provided them with a bit stronger of a message on their talk page. You're such a softie!--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (self-consciously) Are you saying I need to work out more? The Interior  (Talk) 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I blame the late night Hertzog marathons with copious amounts of ghee-whiz popcorn ;)--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the popcorn habit is a hard one to kick. Currently I'm doing Peckinpah + mystery hippie p-corn seasoning from the Sunshine Coast.  The Interior  (Talk) 20:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to untold numbers of books, you must now have access to some pretty skookum video collections. You're living the dream my friend! At least the dream of Wikipedia editing, book loving, movie junkie nerds like me--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, can't complain, can't complain. Always come home with something interesting. Central branch gets a bit hectic at times, though.  A challenge.  The automated compact shelving units are defying me.  A music recommendation on the Hertzog tip: Late Night Tales: Röyksopp. "Aguirre I Lacrime di Rei" - menacing. Many other good tracks as well.  The Interior  (Talk) 05:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)