User talk:Ponyo/Archive 52

suspected socking
Hi Ponyo, I suspect is a sock of Deleonsneedbyrd given User:LINK ENERGY/sandbox is the same non-sense. If you prefer an SPI report, just say the word. Hope you are enjoying the holidays! S0091 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding and, see User:AUSTIN LAKES HOSPITAL/sandbox and User:COVERT BUICK AUSTIN/sandbox respectively. S0091 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been away for a while and will only be available for brief bursts this week, so best to put it all in an SPI. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect?
Hello, Ponyo! I hope you don't mind me asking, but do you think Elizabeth Peratrovich should be at least semi-protected? She featured as today's Google Doodle, and I'm seeing a lot of editing by non-registered users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeesweet (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was away when you posted this. For future requests WP:RFPP is a better venue.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oversight request
Hello Ponyo, Wish many HAM your way in 2021! Could you please revdel the following couple of diffs: 1 2: Thank you! Infinity Knight (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OUTING. There is a reason why CU is a small group of trusted Wikipedia users. I have never publicly disclosed personal info. Still, in diff #1 CU comments publicly on geo location of the account comparing it to the one of the IP. And diff #2 demonstrates this info could be used for harassment. Thank you, Infinity Knight (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * wasn't comparing your account to the IP, he was commenting on your possible relationship with the suspected account . -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, how about diff #2 then? Guess the combative account misunderstood ? It appears your interpretation of the 's statement is not the only one, based on the provided evidence. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Checkusers don't link IPs to accounts in SPIs; if that's what thinks happened there, they're wrong. If you think there has been a privacy violation then this is where you should make the request.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you, Infinity Knight (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tag Ponyo, but I don't have much to input on this. While it is a little suspicious that the user is requesting Oshwah's CU comment that the accounts under SPI were in the same geographic location to be deleted, I guess that's another matter. As for the comment I made in the second diff, it was to an admin that had direct experience with combative behavior by the user in question, basically to query any insight they may have had on the matter. Thanks! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion / sock?
user:InsulinRS popped up on my watchlist recently as a "new" user who seemed to know a lot about Wikipedia policy and procedures and who instantly found his way into multiple edit wars and copyright violation issues. He's already been issued dozens of warnings and been blocked twice since registering as a new user only a month ago, with a steady stream of personal attacks and rudeness in for the bargain. A little research leads me to believe that it's the same person who was blocked at user:2601:447:4100:C120:0:0:0:0/64 and has also edited at user:2601:447:4080:10:38A5:3EE9:89C3:DD76 - the edited articles & article topics overlap quite a bit, and the combative style is the same.

Just an FYI since you were the admin who blocked the IP user back in July... Zeng8r (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The IP address blocked is not mine.InsulinRS (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked InsulinRS as a sock of . -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , might want to look at Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Older still, Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to be done with old dynamic IPs.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, where shall I report the new ones? Elizium23 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I started Sockpuppet investigations/JoeScarce to make it easier for everyone.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
I very recently saw two identities and one IP that I suspect are the same person, writing about himself in part. Could you please take a look? I don't know how to proceed with guidance, considering BITE/AGF - the first username's creation (Draft:Angelist101) could be a spoof. ,, . Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a Doctor in the house? Oh yes, there is. Thank you for taking care of this.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha sure thing! Ponyo it's cooooooold here! Drmies (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it get cold there?! Maybe a nice hot bowl of ramen to warm the insides?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm out of ham. :( Drmies (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

MadhavEsen
Hello Ponyo, I noticed that you CU blocked yesterday. Sorry to bother you, but would you be able to tell me the master of the account since that was one of the accounts mentioned at Sockpuppet investigations/EunikaSylviane? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know who the master is, I just blocked it as another one of the sock accounts targetting User talk:Realjamesh. There are no possible ranges to check as they're using dynamic (and dodgy) ranges on multiple ISPs to create the accounts. These are the cases where WP:RBI and liberal protection are the best tools.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
Hello, could you please do something about this user: read here? It's not the first time he's doing this kind of thing. Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism, but such unsupported ethic categories do violate various policies and guidelines, of which they are well aware. I've left a clear reminder on their talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. They (various users, not just Sanya3, who's a man, btw) keep adding this category to Ivanishin's page, and I can't possibly understand why. Theoretically, he could have Ukrainian roots (millions of Russians do), but so far I found no source backing this. His only connection to Ukraine is that he tried to enter a pilot school in Chernigov back in the 1980s, but that's all. Best regards. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Tranny
Thank you for locking the page. That lengthy history of disruption you noted consists of promotional content copied again and again from. Someone from Manila really wants to hype this movie. I'm happy to ask for rev/deletion at ANI if you suggest. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I already revdeleted a couple of harassment/threat edit summaries. I didn't realize that the content included copyvios, I'll take care of those too.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As far as I can tell it goes back at least to November 11 . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

block question
Would you move Yang Yang (scientist, educator) back to the correct dab? And my technical question is if you block an editor from an article and then it moves, are they still blocked? Hadn't thought about that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you want me to move it? No problem doing it, just want to make sure it goes where you want it to. I'll modify the block as needed once it's moved.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Yang Yang (scientist) is the correct title. Thanks! GRINCHIDICAE🎄  20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * got to it first. He must be a newer model admin with shinier buttons than me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please revision delete revisions 999246990 to 999257530 on Usernames for Administrator Attention?
Hi Ponyo. I would like to let you know that on WP:UAA there is a series of revisions that contain a username that is blatantly racist, antisemitic and Neo-Nazi and openly calls for violence. When I checked, the user has likely been deleted from the user creation log for being extremely violent. Can you please delete the following revisions: to  on WP:UAA. I removed the terrible username from UAA. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:108.88.82.1 not likely to self-correct
I've been watching this IP since December 2020, He is recalcitrant, belligerant and ignorant of how Wikipedia works. He seemed bad back in December, but lately is much worse, attempting to block another user. I cannot imagine the decision process which gave him yet another go at Wikipedia. Not pleasant to contemplate the further volunteer effort to be frittered away on this loser who erases his Talk page daily.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 108.88.82.1 is an complete troll Gpshshdhe (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You must be mistaken, Gpshshdhe. User:108.88.82.1 attempts to improve Wikipedia in subject areas which fascinate him, but has a profound problem with understanding the point of view of entities other than himself. In fact, I would say that his personal deficiencies render him WP:CIR. In need of a diversion, unintentionally wrecking Wikipedia appears to be his latest preoccupation. He creates work for others wherever he goes on Wikipedia, without (usually) intending to do so. He validates himself through changing Wikipedia, and, sadly, is 100% resistant to accepting that others take strong issue with the manner in which he does so.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

dude it was a joke Gpshshdhe (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Pretzel / Chocolate Butterfly
Hi, I saw you looked into "Pretzel butterfly" and "Chocolate butterfly"; there's an odd account going around accusing people of personal attacks and generally WP:POVPUSHing in the same category area that was just created two days ago? Thanks, IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe the accounts are related, please open an SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The accounts are related but fall into WP:VALIDALT. See my explanation in User_talk:Pretzel_butterfly. In essence, I deleted my password because I wanted to leave Wikipedia forever, and changed my mind. As I can't get into Pretzel butterfly, and Chocolate butterfly is now blocked, I am editing from this account. Feel free to let me know if there's anything else I should keep in mind to stay above board with the community. Benevolent human (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread. The account IHateAccounts linked to above is _not_ mine. Pretzel Butterfly, Chocolate Butterfly, and this account are mine. Benevolent human (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sock
Hello - is the IP of a sock you blocked, and they undid a large amount of changes you reverted. – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 12:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw it as my notifications lit up. It's the Southport sock. Someone has a subpage on them showing the extent of the socking, I'll see if I can dig it up.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you – now back in the form of – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 12:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Saw that as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you've seen the new one, but just in case  – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At first I wondered if it was the same individual as I don't recall having seen them edit via IPv6 outside of Southport previously, or having their edits tagged as mobile edits. However, I checked the CU logs of one of their confirmed sock accounts and sure enough they were on the same IPv6 range with mobile edits. They clearly didn't take the advice provided here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we go again  – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 23:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exact same style of edits on the same type of articles. May be harder since it's not an IP. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 10:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ain't it awful?
RE: User:W33KeNdr: Isn’t it awful the way we women are silenced and deprived of any power here, required to get the approval of men before we can do anything? 0;-D BTW thanks for the block. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That comment was particularly irksome.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was, but you had the last laugh. On behalf of all of us. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don't know where I found the strength, without a man to help me along .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible sock?
Could you take a look at this diff? The user says they are circumventing a block, so naturally I was wondering if a CU could confirm.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 23:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No idea who "Owen" is, but they definitely created a few accounts to muck about with. All blocked now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

BBC IP
Hello Ponyo, Regret to inform you that the BBC IP is again at work after the latest block, still adding the usual unsourced info. Short term block seems to have no effect on this person. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * El Cid got there first! Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request
On Talk:Boomerang (TV network) and Talk:Teen Titans Go! - requesting that revisions 1001682797 and 1001676775 be hidden from public view on RD3 grounds. The threats of violence/physical harm really seal the deal for me. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 21:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ and I've blocked the IPV6 /64 range for 3 months.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:AutoJosh1
Hi Ponyo, can you keep an eye on this user edits? It seems the only reason he/she is here is for promoting his/her website by adding links across articles and templates. He/she may get bored, as it isn't a very active account. I'm on the fence about the username, it may considered promotional as it's combined with linkspamming, but maybe not... Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just blatant spam. I've given a stronger worded warning than the templated one you left; let's hope it ends there. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That's Evlekis
Reason for Treason is Evlekis. Please revoke TPA. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured it out pretty quick and yanked talk page access.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ponyo. I don't know where or how they formed that image of me, but it does make identifying them really easy combined with their username. Pahunkat (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible IP for Evelynkwapong539
The user history of this IP address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.166.100 seems very similar in tone to User:Evelynkwapong539, who has sock puppeted twice as User:Kof4490 and User:Memeacus. Just thought I'd bring this to light since they've been a constant editor over at Looney Tunes Cartoons.

Noelephant (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Update, it's definitely them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002199701

Noelephant (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin (or two) have cleaned up the mess.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Respect
Hi Ponyo, I respect that you reverted my edit. I knew it was bound to get reverted at some point... Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are few instances where the use of "famous for" should be used in biography articles as "notable" works and is less WP:PEACOCK-y. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Boosswhy
Can user:Boosswhy please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Twoset Sibelius
Idk how to add sources lmao but is their Youtube an adequate source? Because they did annouce that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doge1941 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is not the same as their website where announcements for upcoming events and such trivia are posted for fans. If they do have a performance, and it is notable, then it can be added to the article after the performance, along with a reliable source. YouTube is often not a reliable source for the reasons provided here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

noted. Thank you! I do my best to not add any considering I'm a hard Twoset Fan! Doge1941 (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You have a fan
This thread references you - just FYI if you want to take a glance before I remove the thread. Cheers. --Charitwo (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing semi-protected pages
Hello. For some reason, my edits to semi-protected pages are no longer automatically accepted. Do you know why this problem is occurring, and is there a way to fix it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Maestro2016 (talk)
 * See this discussion at the Village Pump/Technical.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any idea what the issue is? Maestro2016 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No more than what is in the discussion there.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Question
Who is User:ValentineBot a sock of? You switched the username soft block to a CU hard block and removed talk page access, despite their being no vandalism of the talk page (unless something's been oversighted), but didn't leave a tag or a block log comment as to who the master is. I would assume that the master is known given the preemptive removal of talk page access. 192.196.218.208 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ValentineBot is .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm... given the edit that prompted the removal of talk page access on the "master" (Special:Diff/1002803958), I'd suggest that perhaps that account isn't the master, but rather a sock of . CC who seems to have been recently active in dealing with this master-bordering-on-LTA. 192.196.218.208 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, both accounts are likely tied to Pcgmsrich, and both blocks were modified by checkusers as result. The link wasn't explicitly made per WP:DENY, which has obviously gone by the wayside by shining a light on it here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think that discussing a troll is equivalent to feeding a troll, but if you feel that way, I will respect that and end this conversation here. 192.196.218.208 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

IP block
Just an FYI, that IP you blocked for edit warring has been making threats to an editor and their family off-wiki (see ). As a result, I've extended the block to a year (and for the alt IP, ) to prevent them reappearing anytime soon. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - it's a dynamic IP, they've re-appeared as which I've blocked and which has posted personal information and threatening messages on my talk page and that of MYS77. Reverted and revdel'ed. GiantSnowman 08:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to block the /19, but beat me to it. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a bunch of swinery. Unforgivable. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Coincidence?
We're in the car today, headed to Aldi, and my daughter tells me about this song (a "vocaloid"?) in which a child is abandoned in a coin locker (I have to explain to her and her brother what a coin locker is). We get home, I check my pings, and I get a ping to say that something is linked to Coin-operated-locker babies, which I apparently wrote up ten years ago in honor of --I don't remember why. Coincidence? And then I look at the latest edit--AND ITS THAT SONG. Whoa. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a seriously messed-up series of events. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting global locks for the lazy
Re, in your Special:MyPage/common.js, if you replace User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js with User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js, there is now a new feature that lets you tick a "request global lock" checkmark when blocking socks via SPI using that script. Might be useful if you're looking to save some time. Mz7 (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...interesting. And what happens when one ticks that box, ?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It should automatically edit Steward requests/Global to request a global lock for the relevant user, with a link that points to the SPI. Unfortunately, this is only useful in the narrow context of SPI. I wonder if similar functionality could be added to Twinkle at some point in the future... Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued. I've given my .js page a GeneralNotability makeover.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, check out m:User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal for your global.js. Among its various features (including Twinkle-like rollback on other Wikimedia projects), it adds a "GARV" (Global ARV) button to your drop-down when looking at a user page (I can't be bothered to remember what Twinkle's ARV button stands for), which lets you request global locks or SRCU in a Twinkle-like way. And yeah...global-lock-requesting was one of the first features I added to my version of spihelper, back when it was just going to be a couple of feature patches that I'd ask Tim to merge into his version... GeneralNotability (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * from the thread title I thought this was about globally locking accounts belonging to lazy people. I thought I was done for. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You and me both.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * would say you have nothing to worry about. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for that. Burnout is imminent.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what scotch is for. Ingested responsibly, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally perhaps, I just watched this documentary. It's directed by Andrew Peat. How fitting is that?! Tonight there will less watching, more imbibing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sonofagun. I may have to watch that now. But the drinking part is in order. I'm finishing the second article for publication since the weekend, and am due to return to a half-finished third piece, though with a less imminent deadline. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't burn out, we'll all be fine.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Had a dram, then we watched the movie. Now I want to go to Scotland. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When you drink it in Scotland, you have to call it a "wee dram".-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. Also, I think I understood every third word. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be in for a wee bit of trouble then as the majority of the accents in the film were mild compared to some of the smaller villages we went through. The poor grocery bag boy had to physically walk me to a nearby ATM because I could not understand a single word of the directions he was providing. Not a shining moment for me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth the risk, methinks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

General question
Hey Ponyo, you'll know this. Is it kosher for me to just add a checkuser needed tag to a thread on ANI? I suspect a now-blocked editor is trying a joe job on someone, and I have a vague suspicion who it is. I added that tag, but I'm NOT asking to cut in line and have you look soon; there's no real rush I think. I'm only really doing it because the editor I'm half-heartedly accusing was recently blocked by ArbCom for unexplained reasons, and I didn't know how serious an issue it was. But what I really am asking you here is if this is OK, or if I really have to file an SPI in situations like this. Which, if I have to I probably won't... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen people use the template to flag the attention of CUs many times at AN/ANI, so I don't think there's any issue there.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the template documentation says that's what it's for, but I was unclear on the appropriateness of its use in this instance. I think I've mainly seen them for non-socking issues (like "I think Editor X has been compromised"), but of course not being one I don't notice them very often.  Anyway, thanks, I won't remove it then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:JAliceB
At this point I’m backing off as I feel I’m not helping and I probably should have already stepped away. I’m sorry for any role I had in making the situation worse. However, I’d like to inform you that she has now threatened legal action against me. I just felt I should bring that to your attention. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't believe a word of the hyperbole in their last few posts. Wikimedia Legal gives 0 fu...dgesicles about a tiny content dispute regarding the inclusion of a working title in a film article (I think this is what the dispute is about, I was only trying to explain our edit warring policy and the issues with the use of IMDb to them on an uninvolved level as a way to avoid blocking anyone). There is no way that the statement "I'm just saying I'm in contact with the legal team of Wikimedia Foundation. They searched me. And they are confirming me that you're abusing your power as an editor and breaking several rules of Wikipedia" is true. I checked out of that discussion once I realized JAliceB had no interest in taking in any advice or reviewing the policy and guidelines links provided. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Thanks for your time. It just seemed like another violation policy but I hear you. I'll just leave it alone. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Curious
I know we don't talk anymore, but you're usually smarter (less literal) than I about certain kinds of comments. What do you think the user meant by "sad little virgins"? It sounds nasty, but I can't make any sense out of it. While I'm here:, thank you for the entertaining block notice, and a very belated thanks for protecting my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh of course you would come visit while I was on an extended long weekend. We enjoyed our family time together safely ensconced in our home whilst a winter storm provided a rare dump of snow to our little piece of paradise. Did you get the snow as well? Isn't it amazing that were were able to ride out the unexpected storm with our loved ones given our status as "sad little virgins"? You'll have to give me a heads up next time you come by so I can prepare some nibbles!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, we celebrate Presidents Day (a rather worthless holiday in my view), and some of you folk celebrate Family Day, which sounds far more worthwhile to me. So, I'm guessing from your response that you cannot illuminate the meaning of "sad little virgins"? The snow on the Peninsula varied widely in amounts. We got very little, despite the forecasts. I believe Port Angeles, as a counterexample, got significantly more. Not sure how to give you a "heads up" other than by reading the future and telepathy, neither of which I can do. Still, I'll take the nibbles provided they are not virtual. You probably won't hear from me for a while: I really should stay completely away from Wikipedia but apparently I have a conflict between my will power and my mental health. :-( Regards to you and your family.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were to stick around permanently I wouldn't need a heads up, but based on your reply that doesn't seem to be in the cards, unfortunately.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Kathleen Kennedy (producer)
Thanks for throwing a protection on the page. I had requested protection before you got involved. My request was closed since you protected the page, but it needs to be longer period or it's just gonna start back up in a few days when it expires. If you can extended the protection I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm now watching the article and can extend the protection if/when required.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've been watching it for a couple of years and every time the protection ends the vandalism starts back up. Happy editing! Nemov (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My bar is pretty low when it comes to protection of BLPs, so extending won't be an issue if required.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

R.e. block evasion
The page probably needs further protection, again (ECP expired earlier this month, and well took only about two weeks before the LTA showed himself). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they're an LTA, they'll just pop up on another article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't seem to find anything else in the abuse log right now. However, this (LTA 8F0)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No idea, and I'm not wasting a ton of time connecting the dots. I ran a check and a bunch of their accounts are CU blocked without tags as LTA so that's all I need to know. probably knows, they've got their finger on the pulse when it comes to many LTA cases. Account creation is blocked on the range the accounts are using, so they're burning up a bunch of sleepers to get around the block. That's not necessarily a bad thing as long as there are eyes (like yours) to report them as they pop up.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hamish Ross, fwiw. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You got that right
Hello Ponyo. I hope you are well. I saw this edit and it reminded me of a car that I owned whose clock took so many steps to change the time it displayed that it was easier to leave it and just do the adjustment in my head. Going farther back I realized that I am so old that I can remember that clocks in cars in the 60s never displayed the correct time :-) Best regards and enjoy the rest of your week! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a great little story!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this a pattern
Hello Agin P. A few of these edits popped up on my watchlist and I am wondering if they are related to these. I am not sure what the SPI would be and if I'm wrong no worries. Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The account has been blocked. .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hey there, a quick question: I know that admins can't approve an unblock request of someone who was CUed, but can they decline one? Or is it best to let the CUs handle both? I tricked you, that's TWO questions! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No issues with declining as you're not modifying the block in any way, just upholding it. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

John Catsimatidis repeated non-consensus edit leads by user
Hi Ponyo,

I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia user and so wanted to bring your attention to the Subject John Catsimatidis. A user has been adding the phrase "Greek-" to the lead despite MOS:Ethnicity and without achieving consensus and has not engaged on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so. What is the right protocol? I am exhausted with reverting him and don't want to break three-revert rule (which he very well may do in the near future). What is your perspective and advice?

Thanks, Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've left them a note on their talk page. Hopefully they'll listen.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I noticed the user reverted again and ignored your message on his talk page. At this point, has he broken the three revert rule? What is the next step and should he be reported to an admin board? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Should I post on a notice board? It’s easy enough to overlook this but it’s not right that a user can blatantly ignore etiquette and rules regarding editing on Wikipedia and get away with the bad behavior, and that too for the lead of an article, in a way that clearly violates Wikipedia rules on bio leads. Just wanted your two cents. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted again and added a couple of policy pointers on the article talk page in the discussion you started. The editor can be pointed in that direction if they continue to attempt to restore the disputed content. Creating an account solely to continue edit warring and reverting without discussion is not a good look on their part.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The user reverted again, ignoring our Talk page and also ignoring both your message and mine. I posted on an admin noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ValantisFuturista&action=edit&redlink=1_reported_by_User:Apoorva_Iyer_(Result:_) but as I have never filled one of these out before, I am almost certain I did it wrong. I linked it here because perhaps you are more familiar and can edit anything that has to be fixed. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you had to go to the edit warring noticeboard at all. This editor appears uninterested in learning how dispute resolution (and our core policies) work on Wikipedia and appear determined to continue restoring the disputed content via their account and IPs. I've left a note at the noticeboard as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Block from yesterday


Hey, Ponyo. Thanks for blocking yesterday. But (I'm on your talk page, so you knew there was going to a "but") it looks like this is a long-term problem, and they've been harassing and others for a while now. Would blocking longer than a week, and also blocking the IPv6, be appropriate? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked the /64 for a month (their last block by was for 2 weeks) and extended the block on the IPv4 to match for the block evasion. If this was an account they would have been blocked long ago for their inability to collaborate without the snide commentary (and, let's by honest, there probably is at least one blocked account).--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ponyo. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

2601:246:CC80:1DC0:0:0:0:0/64
Hey Ponyo, I just blocked the above range based on an AIV report. Just letting you know because you CU blocked it twice in the past in case any further action is necessary. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely the same editor; still hasn't found a new hobby (nor have we, ha!). -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

create an article
hello sir, I want to create an article about (Muneer Lyati) but i found that it was deleted (by you) and i want to know if i can create it again and why it was deleted just to avoid those mistakes. thanks in advance--Ismail2212 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't even wait for a reply before recreating the article on this completely unnotable individual. Please make the required disclosures on your user page as required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use prior to creating any further articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

hello sir. the article (Muneer lyati) was deleted by you. please discuss with me the reason. thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismail2212 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

hello i watched the linked page. but i am not paid for creating this article, you misunderstood. but it's okay, please give me advices on creating pages and if there is Arabic wikipedia pages that needs to be translated into the English one tell me .thanks in advance --Ismail2212 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First, you don't need to create a new section every time you post a message on the same topic, you can just reply below the last message. Second, I find it unlikely that you randomly chose this specific non-notable engineer to create an article on given that another brand new account did the same just one month ago. Admins, Articles for Creation volunteers, and New Page Patrollers see this all the time. If you don't want to be mistaken for a paid editor, please don't behave exactly like every other paid editor out there. Translating articles is a much more constructive way to contribute to this project. There are, in fact, a great many articles that already exist on Wikipedia that could use your help! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again
Hey there, I'm not asking you to do anything about this yet, but I stumbled onto what I think is a sock of, who was blocked for promotional editing. Their contribution history, especially those (+62‎) from 4 March 2021 are all AFC submissions in various drafts, and many of them link to Yeu as the creator. I also notice intersections with who is in my estimation engaging in UPE. Anyone who drops 2, 3, 4 articles a day is probs gaming the system. Throwaway name is not helping either. Wefffrrr also created an article on the Zee Marathi Awards, almost certainly so he could justify stuffing awards into actor/show articles. Look how AbhiKashMe expands that draft significantly. Feels coordinated, promotional, paid and undisclosed. I'll look for more stuff later, but I wanted to write this down somewhere so I didn't forget. I'm also happy to open an SPI later. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thinks there's a dif or link missing in your second sentence? Otherwise I have no idea who the sock is supposed to be.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the suspected sock was, it is indeed . Still poking around, there may be more.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link and yesss, that's the one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey P, did you need anything else from me on this? Also was Wefffrrr not related? Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Wefffrrr should probably go through SPI with linked diffs due to the age of the account and how prolific they are. It would help to have a Clerk evaluate the behavioural evidence as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

IP sock
Hello again:

– DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A different IP sock
also needs to be blocked as they are a sock of the blocked. -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you help me?
Hi POnyo,

In January, I had a persistent problem with a new editor on the page called Kleo-Sine. He had made an edit and I, being a grammarian, just wanted to correct a grammar mistake. He took it badly and basically went through my edit history and started focusing on my edits. A lot of it was technical info box stuff that I wasn't sure was right,p. He also never wrote edit histories. Also, anytime someone would write him on his talk page, he would just blank him. I even went to the Teahouse and they noticed it too. It was annoying. Then, a few days later, I saw that you had blocked the page.

Well after close to two months and he's back under a new alias called SlippyLina. I'm sure it is the same person. He's attacking some of my favorite pages and he's taking the fun out of editing. He always seems to want to one up me and he's not using edit histories or answering talk pages. Could you look into this for me and do something.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlippyLina Also Check this one out? Could he be a sock? Any help would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GinoMarioBudlettino Thanks135.0.252.54 (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What was the original account that was causing the issues?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This was the account that was causing me all those problems early in the year. I had first went to the Teahouse to ask for advice and spoke to a user named Timtempleton, who noticed that he was not adding edit histories and not answering messages on his talk page, understanding what I was going through. As I am not a technical guy, I wasn't sure if the technical edits were above board. Timtempleton tried to help me, but nothing really happened. A week later, I saw that you had blocked this account indefinitely and I couldn't figure out why. I didn't know he returned until 2 days ago when he came back into my realm and found the two accounts with similar M.O.s which I linked to above. To think, just because of a simple grammatical edit I made on a page that he was editing, I seem to have made an enemy on Wikipedia.

Anyhow, here is the original account that was causing the issues. Can you let me know what you did with this account? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kleo-Sine 135.0.252.54 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some digging for behavioral overlap and was convinced enough to run a check. The accounts are indeed engaging in block evasion, so well spotted on your end. If you see further accounts pop up in the future, they can be reported at WP:SPI (Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI as you tangled with both accounts I blocked above. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you! I thought something was fishy with SlippyLina based on the reaction I got when I noted they were a new editor, then saw some very advanced edits a few days later. I didn't connect the two, however. Am I reading this right, are they both socks of CLCStudent? He used to be a good editor, once upon a time.  Thanks for being so helpful and on your toes!! -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both blocked accounts are tagged - the relevant master is .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that now; my mistake. Regardless, thank you for the help! -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. Here is another one from the same guy. It has some of the same threads from the previous ones that he edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuffolkCat

It's a bit annoying.135.0.252.54 (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ponyo et al: I've blocked SuffolkCat as clearly disruptive and clearly somebody's sock. It looks like everyone is accusing the other of being CLCStudent, and I have no idea what is going on, but it's obvious SuffolkCat is somebody's sock.  I'll let you sort the socking out, but I needed to limit their disruption SuffolkCat was causing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not wanting to appear idle, I have blocked – clearly a successor to SuffolkCat et al. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New accounts tagged. if you're interested you can check my last contribs at CU wiki.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! I was beginning to wonder what happened to poor old Dopenguins. Incidentally, the 217.78.0.0/20 range that popped up in this case looks rather proxy'ish, and The Penguin has been known to use those. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you once again everyone. I don't want to be a pest. I just wanted to ask what is happeing with this guy. If I do more edits, will he continue to register as someone else and do a mass revert everytime? Am I never safe? Was he conspiring me to make me look like the villain or sockpuppet here? I am not versed in the technical and business aspects of Wikipedia. I do like to edit and contribute to certain of my favorite pages, but if I now have a continual target, Should I even bother with Wikipedia any more? All this because of a simple grammatical edit. I wasn't trying to vandalise anybody. Any help would be appreciated by anyone!135.0.252.54 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The user is creating multiple accounts via proxies; the only thing we can do is block the accounts as they pop up. You may be interested in reading WP:DENY and WP:RBI, which provides some information on how to deal with such accounts. I'm guessing they'll switch to another target or tactic soon as reverting you makes the accounts very easy to spot and block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the detection and corresponding action! Boud (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They seem determined; I imagine they'll be back. Let me know if you see them pop back up with a new account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 14)
Please don't add unneeded information on introduction column. I have undo your edit, from diff1 to diff2. Please avoid to add this unneeded info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazdeswali (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're going to strip articles of sourced content, you need to explain why. "Unneeded" is your opinion, and when your edits are reverted, you're expected to discuss as opposed to reverting again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to add selective info of the selective episode. It was clearly shown in your edit that is was biased towards Sidharth Shukla but you have to be neutral on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazdeswali (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for explaining how Wikipedia works. After 14 years and 130k edits, it's obvious I don't understand our basic policies and guidelines. Did you review the links I provided to you in my original reply? Here's another one.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hugh Grant page
This user, previously warned by you, has vandalized the Hugh Grant page today with this libellous edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Grant&diff=1013582574&oldid=1012587596

Rodericksilly (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; I've blocked the IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

American Rescue Plan
I believe he's back again: see User talk:ARP2021 (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't remember dealing with socks on this article. Can you be more specific as to who you believe the new account is a sock of?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the logs for User:AmericanRescuePlan2021 it states: " 00:23, 25 February 2021 Ponyo talk contribs blocked AmericanRescuePlan2021 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (: Incorrigible Troll) " This account seems to be the same one: Similar username (abbreviated), also heavily edits American Rescue Plan article apparently attempting to get it to GA status. Sorry that I wasn't sufficiently clear. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I've been dealing with so many sock farms lately I couldn't connect the dots right away on this one. The account has been CU-blocked by . I'll try to be more on the ball next time!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy: 70RP3D0-MLWR checkuser templated, but not blocked
I randomly came across this message about ImRichEnoughForAButler Tojodavid and 70RP3D0-MLWR all being blocked as socks. I have blocked usernames set to render as strikethrough, and saw only the first two rendered as blocked. I see you edited the third user page with a CheckUser blocke template, but their blocklog is empty and your log doesn't show an action against them either.

I know nothing of the situation, but I assume you'll want to sort out the inconsistency one way or the other. Alsee (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed crossing that "t", so thank you for pointing it out. I've now blocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Likely revdel candidate
here.--Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IP issue at 2019 World Figure Skating Championships
A Korean IP editor persists in removing sourced content from a short section about a collision between Lim Eunsoo and Mariah Bell. The content discusses the ISU ruling on the issue; she is clearly a fan of the Korean skater and wants the content to read as though Bell is to blame. She refuses to discuss or refrain from removing the content she objects to. Would you be willing to protect the page for a few days so she'll move on? Thank you! -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  02:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Problem solved! -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  13:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)