User talk:Ponyo/Archives/January/2012

Miodrag Radulovacki article
Hi Ponyo -

I noticed that information was deleted from my article on Miodrag Radulovacki in the "Personal Information" section. The delted information was factual and verifiable information about Dr. Radulovacki's family. Can you please let me know why this information was deleted. I would like to keep this information in the article. Thanks, GrantradulovackiGrantradulovacki (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The information was removed based on an email request. We typically do not include detailed information on family members who are not independently notable as it constitutes a privacy issue. Due to similar privacy concerns I cannot divulge any details of the email, but the request was legitimate so please do not restore the information. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My name is Grant Radulovacki and I created this article. My father's name is Brad Radulovacki. I have a brother, Reid Radulovacki. All of us would like to have our names included in this article. If you need me to send you an email or anything else to verify this request (my father would be happy to verify this request as well), please let me know. Grantradulovacki (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo - My father just sent an email to Raymond (one of the OTRS Administrators) to verify our interest in being included in the article about Miodrag Radulovacki (my father, me and my brother, Reid). I see that the section where I originally included our information has a protection template. I'd appreciate your feedback as well. Thanks, Grantradulovacki (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that it can be frustrating to have the information you wish to have in the article removed, however there are very pertinent reasons, both for privacy reasons expressed through OTRS, as well as through Wikipedia's BLP policy, that protect the article subject as well as any individuals named within the article. While you can mention the number of children your father has (with a source included for verification), naming their names, occupations, and grandchildren's names is a privacy violation regardless of your desire to have it included. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need Help
Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, can you please block the following IP user, User:86.171.233.197. You have previously left a second note on this user's talk page, but it did not prevent him/her from making disruptive edits. Recently, he has been destorying content on articles related to STAR Plus channel (such as the following page Diya Aur Baati Hum, this user totally changed the content on this page and created an article with a new name of an upcoming series (no promo on-air, or nothing on the channel's official site in regards to this made up new TV series). He/she also totally destoryed the STAR Plus channel's template by adding all made up titles of series' that don't even exist. Please block him/her from making future disruptive edits. I understand, we have to leave note on user's page to stop them from making such edits, but previously I have tried this with several other IP users who have vandalized articles. But, it don't matter to them because the IP address fluctuates every few days later or so... Please block this user this time! Thank you. Your wiki friend, Survir (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Survir - the IP has been blocked for disruptive editing. If they start up again please let me know. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 03:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, first of all, thank you for all your help. But I believe this IP user has not been blocked yet. I recently checked (3 January 2012), this user is still able to make edits. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you blocked him/her on Jan 2, 2012. Can you please double check. Thank you! Survir (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP on Jan 1st for 31 hours. They appear to have made a scattering of edits since the block expired but have not edited since yesterday. If they pick up again let me know and I can extend the block. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, I believe the block was not effective. This user is able to make edits. Now he/she has been creating false articles, such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sapnon Hai Pyaar Kii Kahaani and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chand Toh Aai Hai Roshni. Both of these articles are hoax and the titles of the series' do not make sense. This user has put words together to create titles. Both of these articles are hoax. Please block this particular IP user for atleast a month, so the next time he/she make edits, will atleast think twice before making such edits. I apologise to trouble you, but please help. Thank you! Your Wiki friend, Survir (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason they were able to edit is because the block was only for 31 hours. By the time they resumed editing the block had expired. I have reblocked for an additional two weeks - we normally do not jump from a 31 hour to one month block unless we are certain of the stability of the IP. I have also deleted the AfC candidates as obvious hoaxes - even the links used as references were falsified and all related to another program. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
This is your last warning. Constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia are welcome, but the next time you add wrong dates to Wikipedia, as you did here, here, and here, you may be wished a happy new year to help you to remember. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack! Thanks for the reminder - perhaps I'm simply in denial that another year has come and gone? Turns on The Cure and parties like it's 1984. --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, I did the same thing too a few times. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout
Hi. I have left a comment on the Talk page, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd join me in discussion. THanks. Twafotfs (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I was reverting the re-insertion of the contested material as part of BLP enforcement (specifically - if contested leave contentious material out of the article and seek consensus for restoration on the talk page). I think it would probably be best to leave a note of the discussion on User:Alison's talk page as she was the editor who originally removed the material as WP:UNDUE. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will do, thanks. Twafotfs (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

False claim of vandalism
Hello

You claim that I vandalised an article entitled 'Jack Montgomery (actor)'. In fact I did no such thing, indeed I have never even read that article. It was probably a different user with the same IP number.

User 86.186.50.84


 * The warning was not false - whomever was using the IP address 86.186.50.84 in November 2011 vandalised the Jack Montgomery article. All editors have a contribution history - you can see the November edits from your IP address here as well as in the article history here. If you would like to keep your editing separate from other accounts that may have used your IP address in the past you will need to create an account. Creating an account will also allow you to maintain a watchlist of your favourite articles. Instructions on how to set up an account can be found at Why create an account?. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nina Power
Hi, I've just received a notification that the article I created on Nina Power has is being considered for deletion. I don't edit wikipedia much. So, I'm sure as what I am to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMcCann (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to express your opinion regarding whether the article should be deleted - the discussion can be found here. If you would like to review guidelines on contributing to AfD discussions there is some helpful information available at Articles for deletion. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand. What's a BLP subject? Has Nina Power requested the entry to be removed? Despite what is said in the talk page, I have never met the subject, and I'm not in contact in any way with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMcCann (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'BLP' refers to "biography of living persons" and the policy that protects the subjects of biographies (see WP:BLP). You've done absolutely nothing wrong in creating the article, the subject simply would prefer to have the article deleted for personal reasons. You don't have to participate in the discussion if you do not want to; there is no requirement that the article creator chime in at the discussion. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If she wants it removed, I have no problem with that. There was war over the page at one stage. The talk page has quite a bit of untrue nastiness in it. And it was really more about certain people having a problem with her than the page. Some people really have a problem with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMcCann (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Cpcwatch
Thanks for quickly deleting that user talk page as an attack page. I noticed after nominating it that it was a clear legal threat against an individual - in fact, the page specifically called for legal action to be taken; should the editor be indeffed? Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an odd case in that normally we block until the editor issuing the legal threat withdraws it - as the page was deleted entirely there is nothing for them to retract. I also had my finger on the block button, but it felt a little odd to block them without any warning whatsoever - hence the 4im warning. I'm watching them closely and will block immediately if they try to pull another stunt. If you catch something I may have missed just pop me a note here and I'll take care of it ASAP. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've emailed oversight over that page due to the personal information contained. You beat me to zapping it, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you beat me to the OS request - I have the email half typed in another tab. Teamwork! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already oversighted&mdash;zapped within 60 seconds of me emailing them, so I guess one of them happened to see it too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to e-mail oversight after the article had been deleted, since who could see it at that point? --NellieBly (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators can. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Query
Hi. Out of interest, is it ok for a blocked editor to remove their block notice? Trafford09 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors cannot remove block notices if there is a corresponding unblock request open (declined unblock requests also cannot be removed while the sanctions remain in place). While it may technically be ok for Supermhj8616 to remove the notice, it ultimately achieves nothing - his block is indefinite and the block notice will need to go back up if and when he applies for an unblock. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see - thanks. I'd just wondered whether there was merit in the notice remaining, so others would be aware of it (although of course it's also shown on his user page & block log). Anyway, it's the first ever time we've had proof of his/her interacting with any talk page - maybe we should be grateful - lol. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be for the message to remain, but it's really not worth getting caught up in an edit war over. As you noted there is a bit of irony that of the 100+ messages on their page, this is the first one they've reacted to in any fashion. Perhaps that is a good sign, but I won't bet the house on it. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

With you all the way. I wasn't going to take action if you didn't see fit. The main thing is s/he can't cause further damage on that a/c for now (but I'll be watchful for further aliases). Best, Trafford09 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything suspicious pops up just drop me a note and I will take a closer look. Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with a disruptive user
Hello!

Unfortunately I stumbled over a user who is acting like a wikipedia dictator, deleting valid AND interesting information from articles because of personal taste (over and over again).

He does not start a discussion before deleting, he is not understanding at all and despite warnings that I gave him on his talk page, does not stop.

Could you maybe talk to him about that? That would really help the quality of a lot of articles on wiki.

Thanks a lot. DISRUPTIVE USER: QuasyBoy  -   signed:  AmblinX  19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

add. talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuasyBoy#Disruptive_editing_on_Last_Man_Standing_.28U.S._TV_series.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmblinX (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that this is being run through the gauntlet at ANI; there's nothing further I can or am really willing to do here in what amounts to a content dispute. My best advice is to keep a level head even when frustrated and ensure you follow the guidelines for dispute resolution. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI you might be interested in
Ponyo – seeing your comments at User talk:Slideshot, I thought you might be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Slideshot. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks of the link, I added a brief note of support at the SPI. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quack quack: User:Rtyd. Please block him as a sock. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Blocked and tagged. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Penix/1970s births
Any reason that you put Amanda Penix back in "1970s births" instead of "1978 births"? I think that 1970s births should be reserved for people for whom we don't know the exact birthday. When you reply, please put a talkback icon on my talk page. Thanks, Phoenix!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there has been an editor who has socking in order to add a mixture of acceptable edits with the insertion of factually incorrect material in biography articles. There edits have been reverted and now need to be assessed individually to see if they were valid. In the case of Amanda Penix the edit was indeed valid and I have fixed it to display the more specific category - thank you for bringing it to my attention. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

hello
hello just wondering why you removed the external links i added to the wiki pages for David Ross and Cosalt

Fretdust (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The links were removed as they were advocacy links supporting a specific cause. This contradicts both Wikipedia's guidelines regarding external linking as well as the policy against using Wikipedia to promote a cause. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok that explains removing the savecosalt links, but what is wrong with linking to an impartial discussion forum that discusses what that wiki is meant to be about. Fretdust (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally do not link to forums (this is also explained in the external linking guidelines, specifically WP:ELNO point #10 "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." If you are willing to make an argument as to why this specific link should be included, you can begin a discussion at the external linking noticeboard, but please do not restore it to any article without consensus from that noticeboard that the link is appropriate. Thank you, <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Grand Traverse
Hi Ponyo. I'm trying to create an article for Grand Traverse Resort and Spa and noticed you continue to delete the article. Can you provide a little guidance on language. I feel that the latest version was pretty much fact based and not promoting the property. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonluca (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am not repeatedly deleting your article, it has been deleted under two separate names by two separate admins based on a list of speedy deletion nominations. The list is composed of articles tagged by deletion by the New Page Patrol. In the case of the Grand Traverse, the article did not specify what made it important or significant. Please review WP:ORG which has a set of criteria that a company is expected to meet in order to have a Wikipedia article. With regard to advertising, it is often difficult to maintain neutrality when editing an article with which you are at all affiliated, which is why we discourage such editing. With all the templates and notices being thrown at you on your talk page I understand that it can be overwhelming, but WP:ORG will help you understand what the community is looking for with regard to company inclusion, and WP:COI includes guidelines and editing expectations if you have affiliations with an article subject. These two links should help you moving forward. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SALT required
This guy keeps recreating the article, formerly in article space and now on the dead talk page. Please SALT this.
 * Thanks. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All done. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User:HARMONJR
Good block--I was considering the same thing. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note of support! Heads for the janitor closet for mop and bucket . --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I ran into them a day or two ago; the recent edits made it clear. Well done, and I see you cleaned up all of their other stuff as well. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes well, today has certainly not been a "yellow highlighter" day by any means. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did something fun: SS Sirio. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done; thank you for picking up the slack :) --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Strays
Thanks for your help, what a mess. There's the image he uploaded as an album cover, but as he included no copyright info we have no idea if it's genuine or not, and since it's an orphan it's probably best to delete it. See here. There are also some wacky user subpages he created, such as this and this phoney discography. Thanks. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've already done the lot. Thanks. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

good article
Dear Ponyo! What do you think about the article Diana, Princess of Wales? Can it be a good article or no? Please, answer me soon. Keivan.f Talk 08:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have very much experience with reviewing articles for GA promotion. My best suggestion would be to evaluate the article against the criteria listed here and if you believe it meets the criteria to nominate it for review here. Good luck! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Keivan.f  Talk 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS_noticeboard
Regarding your edit: why redact, when that phone number is in the EXIF data of the image?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone made the error of posting their phone number in another area, I don't see why that privacy issue should be replicated elsewhere. It's not rev-deleted, just courtesy blanked. Many people don't realize the potential for misuse when posting private data such as phone numbers and email addresses online; I was simply trying to help them avoid many crank calls. It can always be restored or viewed in the history if needed. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Thanks for the explanation.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Judi Shekoni
No I just don't want it clogging up my page. And what editors? --Shylock&#39;s Boy (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What editors? Every editor who has commented at the BLP noticeboard discussion, in the Judi Shekoni edit summaries, on the article talk page, on your talk page, and any editor would like to join the discussion at any of these venues. You want to add a birthdate to an article that is both contentious and not supported by Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources. Your attempts to do so have been reverted. You now need to gain consensus on the article talk page that the birth date you wish to add can be used. This consensus will come from discussion by all editors interested in contributing at the article talk page. If there is agreement that the date can be included, then, and only then, should the date be restored. All of this information is basic Wikipedia policy and claiming ignorance of it when it has been explained to you several times by multiple editors does not exempt you from having to abide by it.<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cymphonique Miller

 * I did not alter any information, the article and sources CLEARLY say that she is born on August 1st, not the 6th.LAUGH90 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. The date has been changed so many times by so many editors it was difficult to keep track. I've removed my latest message from the article talk page as well as your talk page as unwarranted. I hope that you will keep the article on your watchlist and help protect it from future vandalism, it's practically a full time job! Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does the Tweet say "happy birthday today"? The person tweeting could have made it up entirely, or could have been talking about an upcoming birthday.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that would be an appropriate topic for the talk page. I have no idea how I even came across the page in the first place, perhaps a request at WP:RFPP?, and I would be deliriously happy if those involved could come up with a definitive solution to the date flip flopping problem. Whether the 1st of the 6th is of no matter to me, as long as it's verifiable. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. I have discussed it on the Talk page, which, I agree, is the place to discuss it.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Joan Shawlee
This is the reflink confirming Shawlee's date of birth, as does IMDb. Yours, Quis separabit?  18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, that's a wee bit of problem as neither IMDB nor most online genealogical sites can be used as reliable sources, and certainly don't override sources such as The New York Times. Would you mind reverting your changes and checking at WP:RSN to ensure that it is ok for use in this particular instance? Every previous thread I have reviewed regarding sites such as ancestry.com, findmypast.com and related shows a consensus that these sites require original research or conjecture and therefore do not meet WP:RS, especially for contentious information. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the colloquy re findmypast.co.uk, whose information comes from the General Registry Office of England and Wales, and it was not discredited as a potential or reliable source, although concerned were raised about the paywall. Quis separabit?  19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first to comments are "Commercial genealogical site != generally accepted as a "reliable source" and "Such sites usually have their information sorted by subscribers, effectively turning it into a user-generated source. Even if they are sorted by professionals, it's kinda WP:OR to say "this record is indeed about the person this article is about". The only person in the argument who asserts it is a reliable source is the new editor User:Moneysuch, who is actually advised not to use it anymore, and then yourself, which was added today. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll contact WP:RSN but there's no need to revert yet, IMO. I am curious if you are saying that ancestry.com, based on census records, etc. is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia or is this your personal opinion. Findmypast.co.uk is based on the records of the General Registry Office of England and Wales. I agree IMDb is not reliable per se, and I shouldn't have even added it to my initial comment above. If you are planning to undo all edits based on these reliable sources, that is more than a "wee" problem. In this case, the Associated Press was merely reporting Shawlee's estimated age as the info was not available, and this was picked up by the NYT. The Social Security Death Index (ssdi) is based on Social Security Administration records, and while not 100% flawless, as nothing in life is, due to human error or the occasional lie by someone trying to make himself or herself younger, it is assuredly a reliable source. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's definitely based on previous discussions and consensus at WP:RSN. You can view all previous discussions on a topic by searching the archives via the shortcut near the top of the page at the noticeboard (see these results for example.) Findmypast is also disputed as a reliable source (see this for example). As the use of such sources generally do not pass muster when reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard then they should not be used - or certainly not used to override sources that have long term consensus as being reliable. I have no intention of starting some sort of crusade against the use of these type of databases on Wikipedia; I simply have this particular article watchlisted and was curious as to how you came to a different date than the one supplied in the article. How do you know that the AP was estimating her age and the NYT picked it up? That would certainly be useful to include on the article talk page. Could you please drop me a note when you start the thread at WP:RSN so I can participate as well? Thank you, <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, request for advice at WP:RSN is done. Quis separabit?  19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Need Help
Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, can you please block the following IP user, User:109.145.228.211, this is the new IP address for the same user we blocked the last time. I have left two warnings (both on different days) on this user's talk page, but I don't think he/she even pays attention. This user continues to create blatant hoaxes. I have already proposed some for deletion which recently got deleted, but now he/she created another one, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naam Ki Looteri Apna. Can you please block him/her. I believe this user does not have enough understanding of the Hindi language because the articles' names do not make sense at all. This user keeps copying info from other TV series' articles and copy/paste under the title he/she plans on creating. Please help! Thank you, your wiki friend, Survir (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked for two weeks; thanks for bringing it to my attention. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, I have proposed the following made up TV series article for deletion several times, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naam Ki Looteri Apna, but few other Wiki User's have removed proposed deletion templates. Can you please help! What I don't understand is that where/how can you find sources for TV series that does not exist/ed as per to the user's who have removed templates requesting. Can you please help delete! Thank you!Survir (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As another admin has declined speedy deletion I don't feel comfortable over-riding their decision. What I have done is left them a note on their talk page and asked them to review the speedy deletion decline. Let's wait and see what they say ok? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

forensic architecture (disambiguation)
Dear Ponyo,

I noticed you deleted the disambiguation page I attempted to create for the term "forensic architecture". I am a newcomer to the world of wikipedia editing, so I could use your advices: Indeed, it is not "obvious" to me why this disambiguation is unnecessary. I am a researcher affiliated with the project Forensic Architecture, and it is after discussing with the Principal Investigator of this project that we decided to create a disambiguation: we want to avoid an unjustified monopoly of the term - which pre-existed our specific project and the expanded meaning we're developing. I just re-created the disambiguation page, since I only noticed the red banner mentioning your deletion at the end of my editing. Please let me know how to make this nuance fit the wikipedia structure and format. Kind regards, (Conferaces (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
 * WP:MOSDAB contains all of the Manual of Style guidelines for disambiguation (DAB) pages. These specialised pages are designed specifically to list the various pages with the same name in order to aid in navigation between articles; they are not meant to be used as dictionary definitions or an exhaustive list of possible uses of a word or term. In this case there is only one actual article titled "Forensic architecture" and the second entry is a definition - this does not meet the requirements for DAB page creation. In order for the creation of a DAB page to be necessary, there needs to be more than two possible article targets, which is not the case here. In addition, each entry must contain one single blue navigable link that is directly relevant to the entry (e.g. the term is explained further on the linked page). This is also not the case with this DAB page. It is an invalid disambiguation page and meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you would like you can leave a message on the DAB Manual of style talk page for additional input and suggestions. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)