User talk:Ponyo/Archive 48

2a02:c7f:1244:2500:a071:8aeb:cff:5f01
Could you please block user:2a02:c7f:1244:2500:a071:8aeb:cff:5f01 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2A00:23C5:ECA2:B400:954B:A0BC:AF0C:1605
Could you please block user:2A00:23C5:ECA2:B400:954B:A0BC:AF0C:1605 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, but why wouldn't you report them to AIV? It would be quicker...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, CLCStudent does a very good job of fighting vandalism but often (I haven't kept track) reports the problem to individual administrators or to WP:ANI. Unless it's something out of the ordinary, I wish they would stop doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've done some year-end cleaning of your Talk page. Happy New Year!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cleared it to allow for lovely missives from wonderful people :) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

XXI Submarine
Hey Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're past WP:3RR on the article. If you try to restore your edit again you will be blocked. At this point, I'm certain you're just trolling.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I just want to add my little own “spice” to the article Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, don’t be a Female Dog. Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding User:Truthsayer1224
Hi Ponyo, thank you for so quickly handling the oversight and block! However I noticed that you blocked the user indefinitely but the notice on their talk page says it is temporary. Ordinarily I would try to fix a mistake like that myself, but I don't know what your true intention was, or if there is policy against a non-sysop from modifying a block notice. Thanks! – Erakura (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't pick on Ponyo. It's not her fault she's block-challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it doesn’t really matter as I got rid of TPA and the system message displays the message from the template that explains how to appeal. Plus they’re never going to be unblocked... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't mean to be bothersome to anyone. – Erakura (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You weren't bothering anyone. I was making fun of Ponyo. It's one of the few entertaining things I get to do on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I’m not bothered at all. I just tend to talk rather straightforwardly, which doesn’t always convey via text :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Give me a break,, when it comes to talking "straightforwardly", you're in the minor leagues compared to yours truly. Sing it out, Ponyo!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Block evading tunnel IP
Hi Ponyo, thanks for your quick action blocking. However, I suspect (but can't say for sure) that there may be more suspicious IP user or accounts operated by this person.

For example, just today at the Lincoln Tunnel article, I see three other users changing images, with the same MO as the blocked IP user: 1, 2, and 3. Another IP user who edited on the page is uninvolved. I'd appreciate if you could take a look - though these may be two or more completely different people, they seem to have the same disruptive intent. epicgenius (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've semi-protected Lincoln Tunnel.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Heads up
I don't think you know that there's a "standard offer" unblock appeal of a block you made in May 2019. Here: Administrators' noticeboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd, I wonder why I didn't get a ping? Regardless, I'm cool with whatever the community decides. It's Friday after all! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice that you'd been pinged by Ritchie. Don't know why it didn't work. Good thing I don't pay attention, I guess. -Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:122.110.67.11
An anon you blocked for soapboxing at Talk:White pride is soapboxing on their talk page. Your block summary seems to say you were blocking their talk page access. Can we mute them? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like ST47 took care of it while I enjoyed a relaxing weekend!, with regard to your edit summary here, I didn't shorten the block. Doug Weller blocked the IP for 1 month on Jan 17. I was just trying to revoked talk page access (leaving the unblock date as the original Feb 17). What I didn't realize was that Doug had only set a partial block, so my ticking of the talk page removal box apparently had no effect on the IPs talk page. Thanks for cleaning up! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial blocks = crud.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of partial blocks in a specific set of circumstances, I just haven't come across a situation where they're a better option to a full block as of yet.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BREAKING! Came across an instance today where a partial block may work! Stay tuned...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ponyo. Glad you enjoyed some time off from the mop. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be such a traumatic experience.

UTRS
Hey!

When you get a sec, would you be able to look at UTRS please? There's a couple of CU requests, one of them has been waiting for 2 weeks.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ :) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
I would like to point out there are discussion ongoing on the talking age and I am simply going back to the consensus as it stands. The discussion and consensus as it stands are for the inclusion of this information. If you would like to take part in the discussion please feel free. I would also hope you have the same kind of eye on User:JDDJS who is imposing their preferred revision of the article, without currently engaging in the ongoing discussion. It is typical not to make changes against consensus until a new consensus is formed and to have the article in the most stable version pre-discussions occurring. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are not going back to "consensus as it stands", you are edit warring to restore your preferred version of the article. I have no idea how you can assert that User:JDDJS is not engaging in the ongoing discussion regarding the infobox given that he started it. As I noted on the article talk page, the content you continue to restore is disputed and the onus is on you to get consensus to restore it. You do not have that consensus at this time and further edit warring will very likely lead to a block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the evidence provided on the talk page of the article in the discussion in question which clearly shows inclusion of the parameter has been a stable part of the infobox since 2018. User:JDDJS is the one trying to change consensus on the article here. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if the content has been in the infobox since 2018, it is disputed now. So, again, you need to gain consensus for its inclusion prior to restoring it if the content is removed again. Policy is clear on this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are going about it backwards User:JDDJS wants to remove information which is reliably sourced and has been part of the article in a stable form since 2018. User:JDDJS, therefore, wants to change the current consensus, the onus is on the person wanting to change the consensus. This is also the whole reason for having discussions. Unilateral actions should be taken by no one and the stable revision of the current consensus should remain until the discussions have actually concluded. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, which has no basis in policy. I get that you clearly want the material to stay, but it is disputed, you don't have consensus for its inclusion, and the other two editors who have commented on the talk page disagree with you. You obviously have no interest in taking this administrator's attempt to explain policy to you onboard, so I'll leave you to your own devices. Note, however, that your misunderstanding of WP:ONUS will very likely lead to a block if you continue to edit war while disregarding it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Aren't socks fun?
Are you having fun dealing with the aftermath of my blocks? And your responses are so cynical. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The couple I dealt with yesterday were making such ludicrous claims I couldn't help but give flippant replies. At least they were entertaining.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because sock-hunting is serious business? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dideye Dito
Its not meant as advertising. I thought that was quite clear looking at it. I just thought it would be neat to actually have My creation to have a Wikipeda article on it so people could get some context. I hope for it to become popular someday and then people will have somewhere to look and get some info on it, aka here. But if you just want to find evry loophole you can to not allow my article to let through, then that is just dumb. Ifif wanted to advertise, which i have, I wouldn't and havent used wikipedia. I use much simpler to understand sites for that. Here, I wrote a page describing the characters and plot/ setting. Just because it isnt something popular doesnt make it advertising. I spent way to long making my article, and i felt proud of it, but then you people have to find every insult to hurl at me for why it sucks. Just read it with your eyes. You wanted a primary source i gave you guys one. Thats not advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Editors are not finding "loopholes" to decline your article, they are following long-established guidelines and policies. I challenge you to provide me with any link that demonstrate any editor finding "every insult to hurl at me for why it sucks". Everyone has been polite and respectful, you just don't like the outcome. Good luck with your comic, and if one day it meets the notability criteria for inclusion here, I'm sure an editor who does not have a conflict of interest will create an article covering Dideye Dito. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Conflict of Interest--Mr Fink (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just tell me whta is wrong with it. I was told at first that i need some sources. So i gave you guys a few. Media, links, and names. And then i am told that it is advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I included two links in my reply to you above. Did you click on them and read the information provided on those pages? Did you read the explanation for the draft decline provided by on your talk page? --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My article is NOT about the website https://dideyedito.wordpress.com/. It is about the comic series, most of which consists of over 300 hand drawn PAPER comics. The Website is just a source that i added after my first decline that said i needed sources. Such as media and/ or WEBSITES — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The link is to a self-published wordpress web page. It doesn't meet any of the sourcing requirements or demonstrate that your comic meets any of the required notability criteria for inclusion. It is evident that you don't understand how Wikipedia works when you write "I hope for it to become popular someday and then people will have somewhere to look and get some info on it, aka here" above. First the comic needs to be covered substantially in independent reliable sources, then an article can be created. But not by you.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ahuja spammer
they have returned. Mind blocking the ip and protecting the page now that they're evading? Praxidicae (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've protected the two target articles for a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Homero Gómez González
Will you restore the cited content one last time? The IP has been blocked from editing the article for one week for edit warring and I've used my three reverts. Enwebb (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP blocked IP has now flipped to to make the same edits.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I went through RPP and the article is semi-protected now. Enwebb (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Clampi page edits 2020-02-04
Hello, could you reinstate the changes Dawnseeker2000 removed as of 21:16, 4 February 2020, as the changes were helpful, non disruptive and supported by an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.171.109 (talk)
 * You mean the copyright-violating material that broke broke three reverts to restore despite being warned on their talk page? No. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No I think there is a misunderstanding, I am simply talking about this line, which was added before the copyright infrangement was done : This is also often used by tech support scammers to pressure individuals into sending them money for the removal of a fake virus.
 * There is something very odd happening at that article today, and another editor has reverted back to the status quo prior to the disruption. If you think something useful has been removed in the process, please use the requested edit template on the article talk page as described here and a helpful volunteer will come back to review your request.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A very popular scambaiter named Kitboga had a scammer take him to the article. He mentioned (in good faith) that the article should mention that scammers take people to the article. He was streaming to 12,000 people at the time on Twitch. He later was very dismayed to learn that there was edit warring on the article. I could post links if you are interested. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting AdamF in MO! It was clear that something had occurred to draw the interest of various new editors, I just didn't know what it was. Mystery solved!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, will do, sorry for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.171.109 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Why do you keep deleting the subscriber amount on Samantha J? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.69.14 (talk • contribs)
 * It's irrelevant because it doesn't impart any useful information (subscribers to what exactly?), and it is also unsourced. The rest of your edits are just a mix of outright vandalism and opinionated talk page commentary. Stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating Clampi
Hey, just trying to add relevant information to the clampi page. I had added some generally critical information to the page yet it has been removed. The information is relevant, is not a violation in any way to the page due to the lack of content on the page, and was looking to make a first useful post. Do you mind helping me understand why the information was reverted, would love to know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeusChops (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the section above titled " Clampi page edits 2020-02-04" for details. Multiple new editors have been brought to the article based on a recent Twitch stream, all attempting to add similar unsourced material. Please read through the discussion at Talk:Clampi regarding proposed changes to the article and join in there if you would like to add your voice.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The main issues are source misrepresentation and close paraphrasing. There is also an issue with WP:TONE, which says that we don't address the reader by saying "you" or "your". There's also the idea of using a neutral source. The Kaspersky article is not. Dawnseeker2000  23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Would there be a proper site to use instead of Kaspersky that you might know of regarding the topic, aside from personal background I cannot really attest to any "neutral" source existing as far as legitimate malware/virus information that's publicly posted. Unless a scholarly article is enough to reference and then avoid close phrasing of the reference to the article unless sourced properly, then I can work with that. ZeusChops (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020


 * Hello again. Your first sentence describes why the article is as short as it is (few to no appropriate sources available). Your second mentions academic sources. If you are able to find something please do. Dawnseeker2000  03:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Creation protection -> Semi protection
Just recently, Yeet was approved as a redirect to Yeet (disambiguation), but this action could not be completed due to the article being indefinitely create-protected. I would suggest that this protection be replaced with semiprotection on the redirect, as it's still a likely target for vandals. 04:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopes (talk • contribs)
 * I came here with the same request. Adding that there's the recently deleted Talk:Yeet, which may or may not need to be restored. – Uanfala (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've down-graded the protection to semi; do with it as you wish! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Fan4Life
JSYK.. I saw the warning you left on their page, and they not only removed it, but went immediately back into their pattern of behaviour. Clearly, they have not learned from their previous block and they're going to continue with this behaviour.  livelikemusic    talk!  14:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone noticed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I had help from livelikemusic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting my Draft.
So, you decide to find another reason to not let my article go through. But then you DELETED IT. All the work i put into it is gone. I can never see it or work on it again. Thanls a lot jerk. This is why mods suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was deleted well before our last wonderful conversation. Nothing has changed since then.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

IP: 185.130.159.238
Hello Ponyo, just to inform you, I have reported the IP to the admins. This is the same user that has previously been blocked under IP:62.172.166.201 by yourself and Acroterion for making persistent unsourced edits to a number of BBC pages. The "contributions" have been reverted by another editor and myself, they have not responded to the entries on their Talk page - as usual. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for continued evasion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I may be getting ultra-suspicious
 * I may be getting ultra-suspicious, but a completely new user has suddenly appeared editing the List of BBC newsreaders and reporters today.  The edits are very similar to those of the IP, you recently blocked, with no quoted references in the article - although a couple in the notes, which are twitter.com; a unreliable WP:RS.  In spite of several warnings they still have not published any WP:RS and have started edit warring.  As the IP has made several efforts to evade blocks, is there any way you can check this for block evasion?  Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything any IPs or whatever but The Guardian and BBC should be considered reliable sources. Editor who accepted my edits didn't have a problem with twitter, can tell who they're are from twitter bio. You are edit warring, deleting content I added and other editor accepted. You don't own Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewOF (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You do attract a lot of socks to your Talk page lately, Ponyo. To paraphrase the song in the film Sound of Music, you must have done something wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out whether the socks posting here are ballsy or clueless. Regardless, they make it easy, which I like.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PS I've logged in on a weekend! I should learn needlepoint so I can commemorate the event with some fancy cross stitch art piece.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Smelling salts! I need my smelling salts!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I left my smelling salts in the pocket of my silk robe back at the Gatsby estate. Will a jarring, well-placed, open-palmed slap do in lieu?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahhh.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our favorite LUNAtic is back
It's been a bit, but seems after his latest lawsuit was forcibly tossed, he's active. Oh frabjous day!  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Was I involved (as an admin, not ZOMG WP:INVOLVED!) with this issue previously? I seriously have no recollection of it. Regardless, this is clearly the same person, and it's been going on for years, so I semi'ed the article indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh good grief ... it was Prolog who was mostly dealing this guy back when he was more active. Sorry for that, was VERY sure I knew who was helping and 4 hours of sleep did not help.  Sorry for that, and appreciate the help!  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem...I needed a break from being myself.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are you anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am no one.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

UTRS
Hey,

Could you please take a look at UTRS? There's quite a few CheckUser appeals there...................... -- 5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll poke some folks at WT:SPI to remind them that that queue needs monitoring as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a question.
Is [tvguide.com] a reliable source for BLPs? I’ve seen edits get reverted for using it as a source, but other articles have it, and it’s really confusing me. R71B (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He's no longer confused.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe more confused than ever! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Ponyo, just wanted to drop in and say a quick thank you for handling the vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it! --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion
Hello Ponyo, Please note extra paragraph added to IP above. David J Johnson (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Asking for page protection
I took note that you had protected page Takeshi Kitano that User:210.220.165.193 had also vandalized. The same user is active at Akira Ikegami and the page might need protection. I don’t know of the other articles he or she has edited but forcing the category in this particular article is just baseless vandalism. --Pecanclops (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Blink once for yes, twice for no
= Sockpuppet investigations/Gibby1242?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant to post this to your talk page. ZOMG I'm such a n00b!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No prob, I saw it. I figured it was a game. Looking...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty picture, huh?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But he's blinking once and a half! So confusing! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't ask for a blinking answer if you're blind. Run your fingers over the picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh and you're now famous. This Talk page is the only page on any project using this owl! And if further proof is needed about what our lovely owl is doing, this is what it says at Commons: "Have you ever tried to blink with just one eye? Not a squinty blink, but just straight blink? Apparently it is not a big deal for this great horned owl." Two questions: (1) how do you know the owl is male? and (2) how did you figure out the master of the new account?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I know he's male because his name is Bartholomew (or so he tells me, with his half blinky eye code). Who would name a girl owl Bartholomew?! Your second question is a bit more complicated as it requires me to retrace my train of thought from yesterday. No easy feat! I think it happened something like this:
 * checked the CU log for Dival1999 because obvious sock is obvious and saw you had already been there, done that.
 * checked the contribs of the IP attached to the Dival account from the log and saw a specific article pop up
 * checked that article history and lookie lookie who also edited there, Ms.Gibbie herself.
 * checked that the behaviour matched
 * pinged you to do the actual hard work
 * and there you have it!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a very clever lady, even if you do make up stories. Bartholomew indeed! --Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indubitably.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Muktagachhar monda
Hello, can you please reverse back your reversal on Muktagachhar monda? Only reason the IP was edit warring with me was because of the following: “i hate subcontinent” (look at their explanation multiple times). There is no dispute. I explained my reasoning clearly. 2600:1001:B00A:973D:8519:98C3:2E58:8E51 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:WRONGVERSION. This talk page is empty, please make a note regarding why you believe your version is more accurate. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is fair. I will provide my explanation there. Please reverse it if there is no opposition. If that is good with you. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B00A:973D:8519:98C3:2E58:8E51 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is no opposition to your proposed change once the protection expires, you can make the changes yourself. The only purpose of the protection was to stop the constant reverting and to drive discussion to the talk page. If the other editor refuses to engage in the discussion, admins won't view their edits favourably if they start edit warring again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks for that explanation! 2600:1001:B00A:973D:8519:98C3:2E58:8E51 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal
Hello, the IP vandal is now back again at China 3 lychee and Rangpur (fruit), they were warned by they are back to the same vandalism and poor English, you be the judge here. 2600:1001:B00B:8605:504A:B1C6:8217:81A5 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. Now blocked for 48 hours for continuing to edit war despite my warning.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! 2600:1001:B00B:8605:504A:B1C6:8217:81A5 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello the IP vandal is back, changing everything to Bangladesh or putting poor grammar and English everywhere.  also protected some other articles like Mishti doi and I reverted Nabadwip-er lal doi, same vandalism in their history here, or look at this here. 2600:1001:B01A:7AB6:984B:ACC1:7B92:E980 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I reverted them. Cheers! 2600:1001:B01A:7AB6:984B:ACC1:7B92:E980 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now they are back here. Same issues, taking out referenced content with unsourced claims. 2600:1001:B018:8C50:78FA:3A91:5C6D:27B7 (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've rangeblocked 2001:16A2:50FF:1A51:0:0:0:0/64 for two weeks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Violations - Massachusetts Bay Community College
It appears that the multiple edits from the IP user on Massachusetts Bay Community College appear to be lifted directly from the subject matter website. There are too many revisions made to add a  to for this article. If you look in the previous edits, I pointed out a similar CopyVio from the same IP user. Would it be best just to scrub/hide all of those edits? — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that the recent content added is a blatant copyvio as I can't find the content online (outside of wiki mirrors). Can you provide a link to the site you believe the info was lifted from? --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I briefly looked at a few of the paragraphs that were "written" and it appears that parts were lifted word for word from the cited references. I haven't used the tools to cross-reference the sites. I was thinking that it might be safe then sorry just to remove the edits.  If not, I can check later to see if they are direct copyvios. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I could find any evidence of it being a direct copyright I'd rev delete it immediately, but I don't feel comfortable doing so otherwise. Pleas let me know if you unearth something I've missed, which is entirely likely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with a sock, please
Hi, a sock you blocked on several accounts appears to have a new one, User talk:Stevelenz (no user page yet). Editing Gaurav Gaikwad and editing other pages (I've rolled back) to promote him. I know how to start a new SPA but I'm not sure how to add someone when multiple accounts have already been blocked. Can you help, please? :-) JamesG5 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Denidacks too. JamesG5 (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked another sock active there and semi-protected the article. It'll be deleted via AfD in short order.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also blocked the Denidacks account for promotional/paid socking. Not likely the same individual as the rest, but definitely abusing multiple accounts with ill intent and WP:MEAT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see you got Dharmakaran too.  So many socks, so little time.  Back to the neverending NPP battle against promotional/paid edits. JamesG5 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the Saudi origin IP vandal
Thank you so much for blocking the Saudi origin IP vandal here. Look at what I had to reverse, profanity and vandalism here, they changed the origin of a sweet that is from Malda, West Bengal, India to Bangladesh here, to causing a red link for no-reason here, and many, many other issues of vandalism. I tried to combat this individual, but, I just wanted to sincerely thank you for assisting. If I see them again, I will connect with you! Also want to thank and  for combating this Saudi origin IP as well. I see from the history in China 3 lychee, Mishti doi and Sandesh (confectionery). Gotitbro especially has been facing this Saudi origin IP for some time now. 2600:1001:B021:BE43:9D6C:A723:5F72:A905 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not deleting my talk page
Hello! I know that user talk pages are not usually deleted, but I do not understand why. Can you please tell me? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see WP:DELTALK. You can, however, blank the page if you will no longer be editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"restore sourced content" on article for band "Ruby Bones"
Hi Ponyo,

(Sorry if my etiquette is off here, I haven't actively used wikipedia in 10+ years). I'm trying to understand the changes made to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bones. I will admit that I am a member of this band, and another member was trying to clean up the article, both because it does read like paid content (as the notice on top states) and because there has been new music released, new members in the band, etc. Two minutes after those changes were made (all cited properly) you undid the changes with the comment "restore sourced content". We're trying to figure out what went wrong on our side, what we can do about it, etc. How can we properly get this updated to be in compliance?

Thanks, Matt Cohen MattCohen (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is how the article appeared prior to the edit by . This is how it appeared after. Entire paragraphs of sourced content were removed. If an article needs to be updated with new information, that information should be integrated into the current article, but...not by you (or anyone else directly associated with the band). Editors who have a direct conflict of interest with the article they are editing should use the talk page to request edits be made on their behalf by editors who have no such conflict. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page that better describes this process.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother
This is in reference to your comment on 331DOT's talk page. There's nothing to see here. All these IP addresses are from different cities, and none are linked to World Book or any other publication. That is the answer I would have expected. Do you know somebody, that may know somebody, that would have the "tools" to check the IP addresses? Alesander (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm somebody that has the tools to check IP addresses, which is why I wrote "don't bother". There is no way that any checkuser would ever check a bunch of established trusted accounts simply for having the audacity to disagree with you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So, one of them was a publisher.. Alesander (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One of who was a publisher?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I support Wikipedia because, it is an encyclopedia, and not a social platform, or carnival barker. Alesander (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Woof! --Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So then you’ll appreciate when multiple CheckUsers tell you no one in their right mind would check the IP addresses of an established account because they disagree with you as it would be a massive privacy violation of people who are here to build an encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 1,430 pages, on Wikipedia, that reference "law.cornell.edu". There are no pages on law.cornell.edu that reference Wikipedia.  However, ad space is available.  Bark..Bark  Alesander (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Saudi IP vandal is back
the Saudi origin IP vandal is back. They are threatening you here and used foul language against me here. Is there anyway to block this Saudi IP vandal further? 2600:1001:B018:899D:1D64:BFC6:6005:8C3F (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * is there anyway you can help as well? 2600:1001:B018:899D:1D64:BFC6:6005:8C3F (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There haven't been any edits from that range in several days; I don't really see what further actions are necessary.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Leo Green
Could you keep an eye on the Leo Green article and User:Harryklein? You left a CoI message on Harryklein's talk page recently, and I added information on proper sourcing, but the badly sourced and unsourced information has been dumped back into the article without explanation. I think this is likely to happen again, as the user has not engaged at all, and has been aware of sourcing requirements for more than four years. EddieHugh (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You've done the right thing in removing the material and patiently explaining your concerns with the editor in question. I've left a final warning of sorts as it may be necessary to partially block the editor to drive discussion to the talk page. Please let me know if they attempt to restore the content again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kiran169
Hi P, if you have time, could I please trouble you to look into as a possible sock of ? I noticed a flurry of editing here, which has some similarities to these changes by a previous sock. For instance, Kiran169 uses the odd phrasing "step elder brother" and "step elder sister", which the Diva sock also introduced as "Mishti's step elder brother". Their other article of interest, this, has some Diva intersections, although the last time Diva edited that article (as far as I know) was November 2019. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Voila. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you here today? I thought on your new schedule you were only here on alternating weekdays that begin with the letter T. Please e-mail me your new schedule so I can get it crooked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gah! I've been so busy lately!!! I don't suppose you'd be interested in extending your crackerjack Wiki-Assistant skills to my real life would you? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fat chance. Speaking of fat, how about mailing me a real box of crackerjacks?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do, but I'm keeping the prize for myself.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as it's not edidible...you can add it to your collection - if you have any space left in the prize room. For those of you reading this fascinating exchange, Ponyo has a very large house with many different-purposed rooms, one of which is the prize room. Is that in the west wing or east wing? Can't remember. Crackerjack prizes aren't the only prizes she collects. Indeed, she even has framed printouts of her Wikipedia barnstars. She claims she's busy in RL and also likes to take breaks on weekends, some normal and some extended, but the reality is that she spends most of her spare time collecting, organizing, storing, reviewing, caressing, and talking to her prizes. It's impressive. I think I'll stop now before I get shot. Canadian gun control is much stricter than the US's, which is practically non-existent, but, nonetheless, she keeps one gun just for me!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn it B, you promised me that you'd never tell anyone about my offline proclivities as long as you were able to rent out the parlour for your annual murder mystery/canasta event! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to see the wine cave. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a showstopper.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh lookie, it's the weekend! Tag, you're it! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for my crackerjacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent Block
Just wanted to say thanks. I have been attempting to assist that user but they apparently are unable to comprehend the articles I linked in the summaries nor the talk page. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 23:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They've been presented with the (forced) opportunity to review the information you've provided them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Forced"..I like that term. I wish they could have heeded the warnings earlier which would have alleviated this entirely. Thanks again. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 00:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Saudi Vandal IP is back - March 7
sorry to bother you again, the Saudi Vandal IP is back here. Thank you! 2600:1001:B000:858E:47A:35BB:B08C:B056 (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Saudi Origin IP vandal is back - March 11
the Saudi origin IP vandal is back here. 2600:1001:B024:CEF2:ADCB:5985:B09C:A686 (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy Happy Anniversary P. My best hopes for the safety and welfare of you and yours. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)