User talk:Ponyo/Archive 54

Barnstar

 * I've never been so popular! Even while away an ever-revolving list of IPs left lovely well wishes and sweet missives on my talk page. Clearly I'm doing something right.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User Kambliyil
Hi Ponyo. I contact you, because you recently blocked @Kambliyil. I found that the user is again editing on the Kerala related pages in a rather disruptive manner under the IP 150.129.101.119. May I request you to check if it is the same user? Thank you. ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Identically, an anonym is doing mass edits by projecting the features of Malappuram on numerous articles. I don't recognize who he was. Please have a look. R.C Outlander07@talk 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My block of Kambliyil was a checkuser block; any IP socking that may be occurring needs to be raised at WP:SPI as I can't link accounts to IPs.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User Alandyept
Hi. Can you check whether the User Enronsap is a sock puppet of User Alandyept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.129.101.67 (talk • contribs)
 * This has been handled by .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Radixsaurus
Hello,Ponyo! I just wanted to inform you that, evidently, a user whom you recently banned indefinitely for disruptive editing (Radixsaurus – their contributions) Additionally, they constantly mention you on their talk page. Anyway, List of presidents of Chile is already semi-protected for a month by, well? — 2409:4052:E94:2CB1:0:0:BA0B:FE0A (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Radixsaurus was blocked for 24 hours, not indefinitely, and they've never mentioned me once on their talk page. I have no idea what you're asking me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Please can you remove the protection from Sanaya Irani page as it was protected in 2015 by you and now it's been more than 6 years. The page is not properly written so please remove the protection so I can edit it. 2405:204:A12D:D031:5543:9AD:6BF8:5467 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been, and continues to be, a perpetual sock target. There is no reason to lift the protection.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide
Hi Ponyo. I stumbled upon the problems at Talk:Suicide, and see another SPA that should be blocked,. I rarely consider partial protection for a talk page, but what do you think? --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that both and  are socks of . -- Renat  18:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously. I've asked for partial protection, and notified Materialscientist that the problem is continuing. Looks like there's a response already to the protection request. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * has blocked 92.40.200.0/25 for a month, so that should provide some relief.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Figment
It's July 7. You're not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But. But...why not?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No ifs, ands, or buts, please. Why not the figment asks? Because.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Query
I am curious about User:Acacacacczc, an account that made two edits almost 15 years ago, returned today to very active editing. Any ideas here based on patterns you've seen? Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like a sleeper that's been revived and has loaded a script to burn through extended confirmed. I have no clue who it could be though.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. But there's nothing to see, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

More Block Evasion
Hi, the vandal you blocked at appears to have returned at. Or, at least, may I request a checkIP thingy to make sure that this isn't the same vandal?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those edits are from yesterday. It does show that they have access to more than one range as I blocked 152.166.0.0/16. The 152.0 range has more activity on it, so I won't block it. WP:RBI (and WP:BANREVERT) will be the order of the day I suppose.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Ponyo - hope you are well. Thank you for your work with page protections, etc, with the anon. LTA. Much appreciated.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm used to dealing with their nonsense; sorry they seem to have now turned the spotlight on you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

LTA CU
You CU-blocked without publicly identifying the master, which is fine. User:Sro23 LTA-blocked without publicly identifying the master, which is also fine. But one of Bk's two edits is the same as one of Happy's edits. Could you confirm if Bk is a sock of whatever drawer Happy is? DMacks (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally when blocking LTAs the master isn't tagged or named because it just provides them with more attention. I can't really check Bkonad because they're already blocked and LTAs typically have multiple dynamic ranges and ISPs (or VPNs etc.) available to them to keep churning out accounts. Checking several days later won't help prevent further abuse. Given the edits at Mercury poisoning, it appears obvious they're the same person.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, check out the history of DS. This has been ongoing for eons.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nabi Mammadov
Hey Ponyo, you protected Nabi Mammadov the other day as a result of Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiazeus. Did you mean to set the protection level to template editor? That doesn't really seem right to me (since it's not a template), but maybe there's something I'm missing here. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whooops, drop-down menu click error. Fixed now!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Ponyo, thanks for dealing with the LTA who moved my userpage when I was away - much appreciated. They had registered that username, which is now blocked. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ian Fleming
I restate I was not the only one editing warring. I followed the rules. Reverted my entire edit which is a violation of the policy of reverting. I would also point out his edits were adding inaccurate information i.e. Ian Fleming failed his Foreign Office exam which I corrected. If he thought I made a mistake. I should haven't have kept reverting and apologize.Cladeal832 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC).
 * If you believe you were following the rules, you are clearly unfamiliar with them. As I noted on your talk page, Talk:Ian Fleming is still available to you. If you believe the block was in error (i.e. you weren't edit warning), you can appeal it on your talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I reverted three times within 24 hours. It was a mistake, I apologize and I won't do it again whether unblock or not. I figured they would just stop when they read the policy of if somebody has an issue, just fix the mistake rather deleting the every edit I made unrelated to his complain including adding inaccurate information. I get their mistake doesn't mean I can make my own. I know there is a discussion about Ian Fleming broken engagement [whether he was forced to end it or forced to decide to end it], but I mentioned the other changes on the Talk Page without objection [nobody responded]. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have written my appeal. Please forgiven any poor spelling or grammar on my part. I read his/her concerns on my edit. I don't agree he/she should I revert completely unrelated edits and still believe if he/she could have just fix the mistake rather than revert instead, but I am not here to concern myself with other people's editing, just my own. I realize this isn't my personal website and only wish to improve the article particularly the inaccurate parts. If unblocked now or before one week, I wouldn't revert, but simply fix the issue he/she raised myself.
 * If nothing else, the Talk Page of Ian Fleming shows I am not opposed to discussion. Obviously I wish to be unblock hence I am writing this, but eve if unblocked, I won't edit the Ian Fleming article again today to cool off. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked again and I think you were in error in saying I edited warred. Explained on my Talk Page. I only reverted twice in 24 hours rather than three. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I maintain I did 2 and didn't do 3 reverts within 24 hours, but you mentioned to me to learn the guidelines better and here is the guideline I was trying to remember which doesn't excuse me totally Reverting. Other contributors reverted non-controversial and discussed things probably because hadn't bothered to read the Talk Page Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" because often don't noticed some of the reverted were already discussed. So this wasn't me just being petty or vindictive. The only disagree was slight wording changes to a single sentence yet the other contributor, who has never participated in any discussion which I get he/she isn't required to do, reverted the entire thing which Wikipedia warns is move which often leads to edit warring. I thought I was in the right even repeatedly reverting, even just twice, wasn't the way to go about it. Again, outside blocked/unblocked only asking what I misinterpreted about this guidelines? Cladeal832 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for edit warring, not violation of the three revert rule. Again, despite being blocked previously for the same policy violations and multiple warnings on your talk page, you don't seem to understand what edit warring is. Your unblock request on your talk page was malformed and showed as closed. I've fixed it for you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll never understand how the exact information so under dispute on Ian Fleming's article is right now on two other articles and nobody cares or how much time people devote to reverting good faith edits while stuff like this goes totally unnoticed, but not what the issue here is. You don't tell me how I edit warred, just that I must not understand it. I think and hope Wikipedia believed in a focus on the content, but no matter what, because I was blocked FOUR YEARS AGO, I must be wrong now because I was wrong before and I will never get a fair hearing or slightest benefit of the doubt or presumption of good faith intention on this specific issue? I'm always hesitant to involve admin since I worry they'll just throw in my face prior bad acts no matter how long ago and dismiss me, but you proving me right wasn't helpful. I'd point these are type of contributors who accused me of edit warring since my last block on my Talk Page. Getting accused of something doesn't make it so and I tried to avoid it since the last time. Also I asked on the notice board about what to do and posted it nobody has responded. I was reverting harmful edits [inaccurate information] and did so only twice. Also feels like 99 times of a 100 admins just tell you to have more discussion hence my love of blah-blahing on Talk Pages. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When you make an edit and it is disputed (i.e. reverted), the expectation is that you go to the article talk page to discuss the changes and get consenus for the change. The moment you restored your edit, you were edit warring. You did this repeatedly. That is edit warring. It's very important that you understand that if multiple editors and administrators are telling you that you're edit warring, then the most likely explanation is that you are edit warring, not that you understand the policies and everyone else is somehow mistaken. The edits were not harmful simply because you believe you're right. There really is nothing more to say here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't understand

 * Why are there so many guidelines on bad faith find consensus reverts like Gaming the system or Status quo_stonewalling and Revert only when necessary and Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and I just don't like it and Consensus if admins seem to believe it never happens or at least admins seem to have an impossibly high standard that effectively means it never happens? Cladeal832 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Any response from me will have to wait until I've finished my delicious Kung Pao Tofu.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The ANI report is apparently written in invisible ink, so you'll need to brush your monitor lightly with water (or kung pao sauce) to see it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked into this situation, as it's played out on a couple of pages on my watchlist, and I have to say that I'm utterly scandalized that you would [checks notes] impose an extremely mild sanction on a user who was edit warring and [turns a page] put an end to an 18+ hour-long conversation that was clearly going nowhere. I have no doubt you'll be desysopped and likely community banned for this. Criminal prosecution may follow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well folks, it was only a matter of time. It's been a good run!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to add insult to injury, but I'm afraid we're going to have to ask for the company car back as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ideally minus the tofu crumbs. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Don't be a dick. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Malvolio here should actually read pages like that before linking to them, lest they come down with a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If your guys' day was even slightly brighten with a laugh at my expense then it has also brighten my day. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't think the jokes were at your expense, particularly; we (or at least I) are just having some fun about the general thanklessness of editing Wikipedia. That said, I'm sorry for causing offense; it was definitely not my intention, and I bet that's probably true of the other editors in this section, too. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was less about humor and more about offering some good advice, but yes; if I ever crack a joke at someone else's expense, the point is very rarely to cause offense, but to extract humor from a situation that could probably use a laugh or two. If I suspect it'll cause offense, I usually won't say it, and if I do cause offense, I try to apologize whenever possible.
 * I think anyone familiar with my block log can recall what happens when I decide to send someone a direct "Screw you and the moustache you rode in on." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, sir, I’m not biting my thumb at you, but I am biting my thumb.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you quarrel, sir?? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ian Fleming
So User:Oshwah recommended trying to discuss it and I don't want to assume you don't care if I ever make another edit ever again. Honest didn't noticed the switch in reverts. Originally it was reverting over minor wording then [as edit wars can do] it escalated to everything. What's point of this idea Restoring part of a reverted edit and wondering in a week if it's alright to fix the non-contentions part i.e. more direct wikilink to and uniformity of the use of. Basically to the last version by this other contributor as the Talk Page nobody cared let alone opposed the other stuff, just the wording around why he broke off his engagement. The recommendation is to fix the non-contentious parts rather just revert, revert which didn't do any good and that's on me. I get this is probably all better discussed on the article's Talk Page for the actual article, but the page for what to do when one is blocked tells me to also discuss with the admin on the block on how best to prevent future ones and wanted to know if these were good ideas or not and seem to get in disputes hence why I check with all those guideline pages to check what to do since my understanding is questionable. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I think part of your confusion is that you keep referring to the page Restoring part of a reverted edit for guidance, but I think that's probably not the best idea. That page is not policy; it's an opinion essay written by a single user almost 17 years ago, and it hasn't really been significantly touched in almost 10 years. That's not to say that it's worthless, but it is of vastly lesser importance and utility than the policies about edit-warring. If your edits are reverted, you should go discuss them on the talk page before continuing to push for them. That's it.
 * And yes, that can absolutely be frustrating, especially when it feels like you're 100% objectively right, and the other people involved aren't giving you the time of day. But that's how it goes on Wikipedia. If you can't form a consensus among the other editors, then you seek dispute resolution. If, when you get reverted, you stop making edits and take it to the talk page, then you won't get in trouble for edit-warring; that's ultimately all there is to it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cladeal832, imagine that my job as an admin is to ensure that no one makes waffles in Jimbo's Pie Factory. You made waffles, were clearly warned not to, yet continued making waffles. As a result, I took your waffle iron away, leaving you all of the ingredients and tools you need to still make pie if you choose to do so. From the moment I took away that waffle iron, your arguments to me have consisted of explanations as to why you felt compelled to make waffles and why you used very specific ingredients in your waffles. The details are not relevant to me or my job. Waffles are not pie. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So if you were a bakery, you just sell waffles and nothing else even pies and probably go out of business pretty soon. That's a terrible analogy. One, I'm not asking asking about the past, but prevent future blocks which is part of the job otherwise why do it. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the buck had been passed to ?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i'm so sorry about your inbox, Ponyo Have you ever heard of the expression "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? We're trying to get you to understand what to do to avoid getting blocked in the future, but if you don't understand why you were blocked, you're not going to understand what to do to not get blocked again. If all you got out of Ponyo's analogy is that "selling waffles at a bakery is a bad business plan", then you didn't even try to understand what she was telling you--I mean, you even got the waffles vs. pie part exactly backwards. We're all doing our best to be helpful, but you don't seem to be listening. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if User:Ponyo reads the posts since User:Oshwah recommended discussing any sincere questions with you again and that's the first I wrote. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC).
 * I am listening. Other admins can be helpful, I'm sorry I expected this one to be also and rather then some waffle analogy to tell me they only cares about blocking, perhaps provide some advice if not help. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been blocked for over four years so yes, I have learned from history. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cladeal832 - Was there anything in my response here that was unclear or confusing to you? I took quite a bit of time to try and explain exactly where you went wrong. I just want to know so that I can help you. Ponyo's analogy (though funny) was spot-on. He's trying to tell you that repeating the same undesired behavior is going to result in you not being able to perform that action at all (temporarily, of course). This is why you were partially-blocked from the article. I feel like both myself and Ponyo have done our best to try and explain the relevant Wikipedia policies to you in a clear and easy-to-understand manner, and with patience and the assumption of good faith in mind. It seems like you're stuck on the fact that the Restoring part of a reverted edit essay page exists, and I feel like your thoughts regarding your actions are centered around it. This page is only an essay; it's not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Please feel free to direct any future questions or concerns to my user talk page here. I'll be more than happy to answer your questions and help you to the best of my ability.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess I also stuck on this one too Gaming_the_system. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Searching for multiple additions of the same text.
Your Ponyoship, I am curious if there is some tool out there that can look for multiple identical changes. Qwirkle (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is, I'm unfortunately unaware of it. I'm a "fifty tabs open to compare diffs" kinda gal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That person you recently blocked who was adding his tribute to Mata Hari to multiple articles could, for all we know, be right back at it under a slightly less eyebrow-raising username, and us none the wiser. Qwirkle (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm intrigued. Can you give me a hint?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This person. Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. You're concerned that this same editor may have been "sexying-up" other articles using the same text as some point (or may in the future). I pulled a snipped of the text and ran and search, which only returned the expected articles (results here), so I assume the coast is clear for now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nahh, nothing so specific. The last bunch I saw before this was someone claiming that a great many prominent folk were, in fact, hedgehogs. Qwirkle (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If only!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAID interpretations
Re Sixarp25, thanks for pointing that out. I am all for proper disclosure but it gets tiring, as you can see from that discussion. Are you saying that the internship qualifies as a paid disclosure by our standards, because they get something from it? I am very curious to hear your thoughts, as our PAID and COI policies leave a lot of room for users to employ loose interpretations. I had someone tell me recently that WP:PAID only applies to company employees if they work in the publicity or communications department. That struck me as patently wrong. It would be great to hear your thoughts. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote it very small on your talk because I know it's an enormous pain (and resource drain) dealing with these cases and my note just made it even more complicated for you. I'm sorry! The policy at WP:PAID does state that "Interns are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose" (emphasis original). I don't see anything in the policy that limits the disclosure requirements to company publicists and the comms department and would be surprised to find that to be the case. is really experienced with dealing with the whole paid editing realm; they may be able to provide additional advice. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am glad you pointed it out to me. Feel free to use any size text you like on my talk page. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lil Durk on wikipedia
Hi. you recently removed edits that were made on the Lil Durk Page as there are no reliable sources, i did forget to add them but i do have some sources, Let me know if i forgot some

Terrance "Lil Moe" Hollins (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bn-xpm-2009-07-16-28502737-story.html) (durk mentions him in his breakout hit L's Anthem)

Devon "DThang 3x" Varner (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/chi-cops-man-escapes-gunman-only-to-be-found-killed-short-time-later-20110914-story.html) (Durk had him tatted before his brother DThang passed away)

Leonard "L'A Capone" Anderson (https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130927/south-shore-below-79th/la-capone-rapper-friend-of-lil-durk-shot-killed-outside-studio/) (They all appear together in the Play for keeps music video by anderson and fellow rapper and another friend of lil durk Rondonumbanine, And the trio have made a song called brothers) Incase this is needed, Tweets of lil durk reacting to the death of Leonard Before passing away (After the shooting) "https://twitter.com/lildurk/status/383394733982113792" After passing away "https://twitter.com/lildurk/status/383441412986896386" Let me know if i forgot someone else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmoooggg (talk • contribs)
 * Please feel free to restore any of the information I removed as long as you include a reliable source to support its inclusion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Something you put on my talk page
Can I ask what the reference is that you made on my page and where this was? Thanks Peterrrroblox (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In this edit you added content to a biography article without a reliable source, which is required.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, for some reason it doesn't let me add a reference and a source to the page so do you mind adding it with this link https://metro.co.uk/2021/07/02/stacey-solomon-and-joe-swash-are-having-a-baby-girl-after-four-boys-14866123/ Peterrrroblox (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies now it works I have added a source. Peterrrroblox (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Egyptian drafts
Looks like the sockpuppetry is happening again with drafts related to Zamalek TV presenters in draftspace. I've tagged what I could for G5 (cannot find master), but there may be more duplicate drafts out there that aren't already the ones you semi-protected. I just don't have the time to find them all. Jalen Folf  (talk)  03:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Why did you block User:MiddleSchool14? Some of their edits appear to be in good faith, while at least one was a correction. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear from my block rationale, the sock tag I added to their user page and the block message I left on their user page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Ponyo,

Two days ago, JalenFolf tagged a lot of pages as being the work of a blocked sockpuppeteer but the page creators and main contributors were a variety of IP editors. The accounts weren't blocked, as sockpuppets or for any other reason, so I untagged the pages. These accounts are still not blocked! You later deleted these pages and, from a non-checkuser admin's point of view, how can I tell if this CSD tagging is justified in the future? I generally untag pages if the page creator, and main contributor, is not blocked as a sockpuppet and warn editors not to tag pages based solely on their own suspicions but this time, you confirmed that they were justified. I have encountered cases where editors prematurely judged accounts to be sockpuppets before they'd been confirmed at a SPI case or independently by a checkuser and it turns out they were wrong. Advice? Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - I anticipated your questions and tried to answer them here but it looks like my ping to you didn't work. There are accounts behind the IPs that are blocked that I can't link directly as a checkuser. I can't block the IP ranges that continue to evade the blocks and litter the draft space with promotional junk because the ranges are simply too varied and dynamic to be effective. To block them simply for process sake (i.e. to be able to easier identify their regurgitated spam as G5 material) would be next-level bureaucracy. But that does put you in a bind in that, if you don't specifically recognize the socks in cases where IPs are evading blocks, it's difficult to know if the G5 is valid. As I noted on JalenFolf's talk page, your declines were procedurally correct based on the information you had available to you.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:184.99.24.100
I'm not sure what is up to, but it looks like they're well on their way in repeating what got them blocked last week. --DB1729 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It all looks semi-legit (though unsourced) until you hit this outright bit of vandalism they keep adding. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of that. Yeah I had forgot about the edit that drew my attention in the first place.
 * Just a note, could you please review the edit history of Lake Superior Zoo? Fwiw, I Google searched each of their future exhibit claims and also checked each zoo's website against their claims and found nothing to support them, except, Lake Superior Zoo. They got the exhibit names correct per the zoo's site, but the list of animals was mostly unsupported. That was the one I really didn't know how to handle at the time and why I let it go. Your revert to that article removed some of the exhibits they mention, but not all. Was that your intention? --DB1729 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely not my intention, and fixed now. It seems to be some form of sneaky vandalism where there's a mix of fact and fantasy. Tough to tell sometimes. Thanks for going the extra mile to try to verify the info!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hi, you recently blocked a problematic IP user at ANEW. In your comments, you noted that they were also the same user as. In an article history, I came across, who along with editing the same articles, posting the same snippy edit summaries, and being located in the same city with the same ISP, seem to be this same user as well. It appears they were blocked last January for 3 months, but at the same time there was a range block until next January (I'm not really familiar with range blocks). The admins comments were: "Persistent disruptive editing, personal attacks, and block-evasion, using this and several other IP ranges". My question~ is, given the latest block, the similar behavior and this info about this other account with the block, should some sort of action be taken? Should there be an SPI? Or some other action? Has this person evaded the range block? (is that a thing?) It's entirely possible this user is currently blocked on another IP account. Should that be looked into? (can it?) Anyway, I figured I would bring this to your attention, if there was something to be done, you would know (certainly better than I). Thanks again & Cheers -  wolf  13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When disruptive IPs are hopping from one IP range to another WP:RBI is sometimes the only effective tool. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to tell you something.
Are you sure Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source? According to the source Megan Taylor Harvey was born in 1992. to be honest i am not sure the information is unreliable source so i think it will be correct info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.155.131 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I'm "14-plus-years of editing Wikipedia with a focus biographies of living persons" sure. I see since my warning you have continued to add personal info to BLPs supported by unreliable sources. This cannot continue.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see who this is now. I'll recognize them when they pop up again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was some article where one of the accounts tried "there's a consensus between my sock puppet and me", which made it more obvious. There are a lot of websites with celebrity stats now, and I have no idea where half of their content comes from.  But, for what it's worth, RhythmOne seems to be one of more popular sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edits reverted back to incorrect information.
As I understand someone misused Wikipedia with a sock but that does not mean all their edits were to be disruptive. They posted the credits of Yashahime as proof. I have looked on IMDB and it corresponds with the their snapshot and not what you reverted back to. Imari Williams on tweet has said he voiced Tokotsu, the same with Arthur Romeo as Jyubei on Instagram. In addition, on behindthevoiceactors.com it corresponds with the snapshot of the credits. The correct information should be more information then just reverting all edits from someone who misused Wikipedia. Imari Williams is the voice actor for Tokotsu. And Arthur Romeo is the voice actor for Jyubei. I would edit it back but it didn’t feel right. So I decided to write you first. FedualJapan (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Imari Williams talking about being Tokotsu: https://twitter.com/ImariSpeaks/status/1419368654391713796?s=20

Arthur Romeo on being Jyubei. https://m.facebook.com/Arthur-Romeo-855636897957767/videos/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0 Go back to 8 months ago. It is like the ninth video down.

As I have mentioned it but I didn’t tell you where they posted. On “the sock” last edit they posted a snapshot of the credits. Those credits are correct. FedualJapan (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the other edit made by “the sock” was another good faith edit on Yashahime. They made a voice actor’s name a link. All changes “the sock” did was in good faith and correct information for yashahime. And please remember under the rule you quoted says. “This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)“ One was fixing a name to be a link following the rest of the page And the other two were giving the correct voice actors. I don’t know what they did on other pages but their edits on this page was correct information and made in good faith. FedualJapan (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "good faith" edit when the editor is violating our Terms of Use and policies regarding multiple accounts. From the moment they log in to a sock account or use an IP to evade a block or avoid scrutiny, any edits they make are bad faith. You are free to restore the edits, but only if you can provide reliable sources. Both social media links you provided are from unverified accounts and cannot be used. Nor can IMDb or snapshots someone has uploaded. See WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

One this was not about “the sock” or defending them. This was about correct information and good edits that was not looked at before reverting it back to something without a source and something that was for a link. I don’t care what they did for a banned. It not about them. I was not defending them. I am sorry you used this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors Which again says this on good faith edits without saying good faith from banned editors : “ “This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)“ One was making something a link: should be allowed to stand. Two were to the right voice actor, should be allowed to stand. These edits were in good faith, regardless of what they did. It is about the edits. Also that page contradicts what you just put. I am sorry yashahime and many others wikipedia pages uses Twitter as sources. Also I provided more. FedualJapan (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you have a reliable source, then use it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I had already fix it. But I wished you understood I had already posted an reliable source to you. As I said “ In addition, on behindthevoiceactors.com it corresponds with the snapshot of the credits.” Which by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources “Behind The Voice Actors - An online database of voice actor credits in anime, cartoons, and video games. This can be used to shortcut verify the roles as long as the credit itself has a green check-mark that leads to an on-screen capture of the closing credit that confirms the role. Screen captures here can also be used to verify "voice cast" lists, however, care must be taken in situations where the screen captures do not list the actor's particular role.” The “sock” did post the on-screen capture of ending credits in the edit. https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/english-voice-over/images/7/79/Yashahime_Princess_Half-Demon_2020_Episode_5_Credits.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/960?cb=20210725053546&path-prefix=sv FedualJapan (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, online databases with user-generated content, screencaps and other wikis are not reliable sources. Please read this page. Then read it again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo, why do all those "Lists of [anime thing]" articles mostly consist of plot summary? Drmies (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just renewed Ponyo Jr.'s Crunchyroll subscribtion. Maybe she'll have some insight.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

New Kingdom
see original https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Kingdom_of_Egypt&oldid=1033781740 I want to restore the original version --Ahmed88z (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I advised when I blocked you, get consensus for your changes on the article talk page (once your new block expires, that is).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:TheDrYou/sandbox/Space Poggers
You have your finger on the pulse of the younger generation--what is this? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , I am kind of part of the younger generation (reluctantly aging out of it despite my best efforts), but all I can do is stare and ask "why". It's a bunch of trendy buzzwords, but as far as I can decipher, you can buy one of those critters (in theory, each is unique) and it is uniquely and publicly yours, thanks to overcomplicated blockchain magic. What does it get you? What are they doing with this money? Your guess is as good as mine. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And if you want to figure out what an NFT is, pretty much covers it. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, well thanks for clearing that up. My son showed me a flag on Roblox (I don't know what that is) that cost 69 million whatever their currency is. That's some serious inflation. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The currency is Robux. I have spent many real bucks on Robux and I don't have a thing to show for it, except the vague feeling of having been bamboozled by my own child.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think they have any connection to mid 90's fad of pogs - Milk caps (game)? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at my boy playing Roblox or something on his laptop--it's lightyears removed from milk caps, by the looks of it... Drmies (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of terrific articles by Kevin Roose at the NY Times that get into the weirdness of NFTs. He's the journalist who managed to sell (to his own shock) a picture of one of his columns for $500,000 in Ethereum crypto. --- Possibly &#9742; 05:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing series 19
Thanks very much for protecting the page, it's getting on my nerves when someone put Calum Best on there. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It may ultimately need EC protection, but we'll see how it goes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

SPI Query
Hello, Ponyo,

I just ran into the most curious behavior, User:IpohLang is a 3 day old account with only 14 edits and yet is tagging pages for speedy deletion as being the work of a blocked sockpuppet and he identifies the sockpuppeteer and the sockpuppet! It's very strange editing to do for a brand new editor so I imagine he must be a blocked editor who had some interaction with this sockpuppeteer (User:Awanama). Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly not new and definitely suspicious, but I don't know who they are a reincarnation of without a master for comparison.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just thought I'd put them on your radar. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Saw these and thought of you
Been to Edinburgh recently? If not, you have an imposter! Girth Summit  (blether) 12:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is Edinburgh in Japan? Sounds fishy to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Edinburgh is in Japan, but I once installed a sonar on a boat in Aberdeen, Hong Kong, so who knows? Girth Summit  (blether)  13:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've walked the streets of Edinburgh, but had no idea someone decided to memorialize the event! Thanks for sharing, ; it's been rather dire and gloomy around here the last few days and the levity hit the spot! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - if you're ever thinking of changing your sig, now you have the perfect colour scheme! Girth Summit  (blether)  15:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would definitely use those colours...if I was 10-years old again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those a great pics . I'm glad they brightened Ponyo's day cause they sure did mine :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's probably it, today's my last day in Auld Reekie. Why can't the summer last forever? Girth Summit  (blether) 11:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sensuous lines? Oh la la!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion
I strongly suspect that this editor is this editor whom you blocked a few weeks back. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

recreation
08:53, 4 August 2021 Ponyo talk contribs deleted page Jowita Przystał (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembit Staan (talk • contribs)
 * That's fine, it doesn't appear to be the same editor.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

RfD G5s
Hi, Ponyo. Thanks for nuking Special:Contribs/Misspelling Wizard. A few of the pages you nuked, though, are currently subject to RfDs where at least one user in good standing had already !voted against deletion. 192.76.8.74 then closed the discussions, but I'm reopening them since they still need to run their course and reach a consensus. Would you be able to restore the following pages? Thanks. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All restored per your request.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I believe User:Mizzpelled! is a sockpuppet of User:Misspelling Wizard. They have similar usernames and editing patterns (including requesting the same redirect at WP:AFCRC). &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked now. Thanks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pendamic
Hi, could you undelete Pendamic? Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 23 got two "keep" votes and the nominator then withdrew it. It probably shouldn't be deleted, unless there's another discussion first. 64.203.186.84 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat by an IP at Meena (actress)
Hello ma'am. There's an IP who is edit warring by re-adding personal life info on a complaint that I removed it. Diff:,. However, the said information is already present in personal life section below which I informed to them at their talk page. While reverting me, the IP is also removing sourced DOB info and adding non-notable people back in the infobox. They reverted my edit again with a legal threat of reporting to cyber police. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've warned the IP, though they've likely moved on by now. I've also made a couple of small changes to the article itself to pull it more in line with WP:BLP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response! -- Ab207 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP editor is back and is causing disruption at Meena (actress). It is suspected IP editing by  2402:3A80:1C40:B45F:D93E:C05B:C306:571 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Question
BuccaBug added the content back, but this time with a source. Advice to continue? Also am I at risk for a 3RR block? NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of fine admins have stepped in to handle the block and appeal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your block of
Hi Ponyo, Take care, and thanks! Synchnarl (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good block to me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Question
Do you think is ?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here I was going to steal Ponyo's thunder, but I typically don't touch anything with the Catholic Church given that's where my (now few and far between) content edits are. Ponyo, I saw you pinged me elsewhere about a week ago. Don't really want to wade in there now since it's been a while. I'm pretty busy IRL, but check the lists still. If you need me, just email me and I'll log on.In non-wiki news, I've recently discovered a corner store near me that has an excellent wine selection (shocking for a corner store...) Drinking a really nice Spanish cabernet now. Bbb, I'll try to find a restaurant with decent lemonade around here and report back for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You always make me smile,, even this early in the morning. I'd watch that Spanish cabernet if I were you; of course it could just be rumor, but I hear there are a few people in Spain who are Catholic. Have you ever read the Gabriel Allon spy series? Some interesting very loosely historical stuff about the Vatican. The author converted from Catholicism to Judaism.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Business first: This isn't Joe Scarce, but Apricotloveforever needs to pick which of these two accounts they want to edit from as they're editing the same (contentious) topic from both accounts. Doesn't appear nefarious, just misguided. Pleasure second: Having a corner store with good wine sounds either delightful or dangerous (delightfully dangerous?). Such temptation! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Business only: thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Booooo. Business only is boring!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for reverting my edit on User talk:204.185.215.252. I was mistaken and I appreciate you correcting me. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and I sometimes have to learn by trial and error, so I appreciate your patience.

All the best,  RFZYN SPY  talk 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a common mistake, especially with newer editors dipping their toe into counter-vandalism and recent changes patrolling.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel Combs
Hello, Ponyo,

I think User:BartSimpsonFan2008 is another Gabriel Combs account, it wrote a draft about him earlier that was deleted. Or, I suppose it could be one of his friends he makes videos with. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They've probably lost access to it as it was never used beyond those two edits, but I blocked it in order to avoid the temptation to regain control of it. It's actually older than the other Gabriel-named accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Euan Banner sock
I think it's a safe bet that User:Euan's Edits ("my real name is Euan John Banner") is User:EuanBannertheEditor. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird fellow.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Muhajideen101
Check out new SPI. I was not sure about the master so I also created SPI after a sock of this person about 3 days ago. I dont know how to merge the two. NavjotSR (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like {{U|Bbb23}] took care of this. Also, I blocked the latest sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

SPI case update
Hello, Ponyo,

I know you are busy with real life but I updated the SPI case for Wikiazeus which you are familiar with, given your talk page comments with his sockpuppets. I don't know when you'll be back but I thought I'd alert you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've updated the SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)