User talk:Ponyo/Archives/November/2011

Ed Sheeran article - request to delete claim that 'The A Team' video cost only £20 to make.
I made a request yesterday that the factually incorrect claim that 'The a Team' video cost only £20 to make should be deleted. This request was acted on, and the statement has been removed. What I want to know is on what grounds my request,explaining the reason I was making it, has been deleted from the Talk and Edit user logs, since everything I wrote in it is a matter of verifiable fact. SAM539 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I have already responded at Talk:Ed Sheeran. To re-iterate, the information was removed on the basis of WP:BLP which is Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons. You made several contentious claims within your post that are both original research and unsourced. As the purpose of your post was to have the £20 claim removed, and it has been (as there were no sources included for verification), I assume you are satisfied with the outcome? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor 74.64.126.212
Per our discussion on my Talk page. Yet another edit summary ref: Diff  JohnInDC (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've stepped in and laid a crystal clear "only-warning" on the IPs talk outlining the issues and explaining how it will play out if they continue to refuse to include sources in the article and remain uncommunicative. I really hope this kicks in for them, because if it happens again, they will be blocked. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's - well, tiresome I suppose is the word for it.  If they'd do it right they'd on the whole be improving the encyclopedia.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Griffin O'Neal
Trimmed Back? Recent edits to the article completely eliminated the "Legal Troubles" section and omitted nearly all of the subject's extensive criminal past and convictions which were thoroughly referenced in news reports of the day. Heck, O'Neal's arrest for carrying a ballistic knife eventually led to federal legislation making such weapons illegal, just like the switchblade. Now all there is a brief paragraph on the subject's "Accidents". Good grief. I fully admit I'm not experienced in adding material on current bio articles - but in any other type of article this would constitute outright vandalism of referenced work. Dellant (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing contentious information based on WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns is never considered vandalism, especially when there is consensus to do so by multiple editors on noticeboards designed to handle such specific concerns. If you believe specific information should be restored it needs to be argued on a case by case basis and agreed upon prior to restoring. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did, at BLPN. How about responding to the points I've raised? Dellant (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued re-insertion of unsourced content
Anonymous user has recently been re-inserting the unsourced content that was previously removed from Herbert Lom and other acting-related BLPs. In view of the similarities between this IP address and those of and  (probably due to IP-hopping), perhaps a rangeblock would be in order.  Super Mario  Man  22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, don't I know it. Unfortunately I am anything but proficient with calculating and performing rangeblocks, so I've asked another admin to weigh in on the possibility of locking something down. I'll make a note here whatever the outcome. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - rangeblock applied. Hopefully this will help slow things down. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that may not be the end of it - there's recently been a very similar pattern of editing from (e.g. changing the parentage and background of Steven Berkoff and removing sourced text in the process). Almost certainly the same editor, just a different IP.  Super  Mario  Man  18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: entering all six IP addresses listed here and/or at Timotheus' page into the rangeblock calculator produces the range . The block may need to be extended from the range.  Super  Mario  Man  19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * New rangeblock: 166.137.136.0/22 (with full credit going to Timotheus Canens). Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris Martin
Hi, i saw that user Omaraty009 changed the photos of Chris Martin's Wiki page (and other band members too). I saw you closed the editing on that article (vandalism?) I'm the photographer whose photos has been changed, and I think the quality of the new ones isn't enough for the size of the musician. BTW, in Martin's page the caption hasn't been changed, in fact it talks about a guitar is not there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbySpace (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been the subject of a spate of recent vandalism, which is why it was semi-protected. If your account has not yet been confirmed, you can request an update to the article via the talk page; instructions on how to make an edit request are here. Once your account has been autoconfirmed you will be able to edit the page directly. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Image caption
Hi Ponyo, I noticed you removed a detail from the Muhammad Michael Knight article referring to the removal as being related to WP:OTRS:2011110510000805. However, when you click on this link (WP:OTRS:2011110510000805), it does not exist. So could you explain the removal and the background for it as well as why you believe it to be a miscaption? Just so it is clear. Nimom0 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The link contained a typo, it should have read 2011110510000805; only those with OTRS access are able to view the original email. You can read more about the Wikipedia OTRS Ticket system at WP:OTRS. In addition to the OTRS identification number, I also included an explanation for the deletion in that there is a valid claim that the image being used as a source contained an error in the caption - as I could find no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia mirrors to verify the accuracy of the description of Mr. Knight's wife as a film maker, the personal information was removed in following with BLP policy. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Well I have been looking at WP:OTRS but not that much wiser really though I understand it's a volunteer service that deals with various articlerelated issues. It's a small detail nonetheless. Can I ask how you came across this article and this issue? Nimom0 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article came to my attention via a concern emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation via OTRS. Unfortunately I cannot expand further due to privacy concerns. Is there a reason why you believe the information should not have been removed? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 23:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Can you tell me though if this was an external email to wikipedia or internal? You see I yesterday advised an anonymous to contact wikipedia to remove it, as he insisted the source was wrong. He is either MMK himself or an associate (based on his edits and "references"). So just to clarify if the concern was internal or external brought this to OTRS' attention seeing as you said it was via OTRS which is internal? Nimom0 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OTRS handles incoming email from individuals whether they have Wikipedia accounts or not; it is not an internal email system. Anytime anyone emails the Wikimedia Foundation it is handled by the OTRS email system. Does that make sense? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, he probably took my advice then. I thought it was the best way to handle his objection as it poses a conflict of interest whenever people start editing their own articles and I wasn't successful in advising them to stop repeated removals or reading/complying with editing policies. But I knew people can contact wikipedia and ask them to change or remove incorrect information in their articles, hence I referred him to contact WF. Nimom0 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WikiPuppies! (bark) 17:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Revdel requested
The Tom Zakrajsek article has been undergoing considerable recent vandalism, but shouldn't this be RevDeleted?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've revdeleted a couple of the edits summaries and associated offending text (please let me know if you think I've missed anything). I also blocked one of the IPs and semi-protected the article for a month. This type of activity is completely unacceptable for a BLP. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for looking earlier than the first diff and for your other actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: Miami
The MTV bio page indeed mentioned that material, which is why I included it. It no longer mentions it, presumably because Padron complained to them, which is precisely what she should've done from the start. But this does not justify removing the citation from the passage, since other the material in that sentence still needs a cite, and is still supported by that webpage. I reverted the removal of the citation. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, blocks are not punitive, they're preventative, and a one-week block is appropriate for this matter. The editor in question has not "jumped through any hoops", nor would I ever presume to obligate any editor to do so. The editor only ceased removing sourced material from the article when their ability to do so was taken away from them, and has not contacted me (or anyone, to my knowledge) since. I presume they contacted MTV, which is why MTV removed that material from their bio page, but whether the editor did this after the block, and as a result of it, or embarked on this approach concurrently with their content deletion on this site, I don't know, so it's not like anyone can say that they've made any conciliatory gesture regarding their behavior. If they have, then why have they not filled out the block appeal form that's include with the block notice? Or for that matter, why not just sign in for a free username account? I didn't include preventing people from that IP from logging in when I blocked the IP, did I? Or use the other IP from which I believe they originally removed that material? In any event, why is it so important for you to unblock this person, especially when they've made efforts at communication? This isn't punitive; it's just allowing a one-week block to remain because nothing has happened to give cause to reconsider it. But if that editor really wants to edit again, and only from that particular IP, I'll remove the block if they simply ask me to, and offer an explanation of their intent. Would that be a fair compromise? Beyond that, I see no reason for your bending over backward for someone who hasn't asked for it. Nightscream (talk)
 * What does MTV removing the info have to do with that editor "jumping through hoops"? Are we both using the same meaning for that phrase? One more time: That editor has not contacted me or anyone else on this site, or even used the block appeal on the IP talk page, so how have they "jumped through hoops"? Contacting MTV was simply a reasonable course of action, and does not constitute bending over backwards or going above and beyond that, which is what the phrase "jumping through hoops" connotes. As for the "two admins", that other admin attacked me with false accusations and threats, which is hardly something to lend any sort of credibility to an unblock. As for you, I really do appreciate your good faith intervention, but I still don't understand why that IP's unblock is so important to you. Can you please explain to me why not letting the one week block run its course is such an important issue for you? Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The poor editor contacted Arbcom to try to get you to stop adding this BLP nightmare, based on nothing but MTV - and MTV had been spoofed into putting it up in the first place. I have had to apologise for your behaviour as well as unblocking the IP.  Read WP:BLP, and do not attempt to support such contentious information based on such flimsy evidence again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom Williams
Shocked and surprised by this edit - did you even check what you were undoing? You have removed valid information in the infobox regarding his spell with Kettering, as well as a valid category... GiantSnowman 20:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was updated as a result of an OTRS complaint (which is linked in the edit summary). I gave a clear explanation in my edit summary; Williams is no longer listed as a player on the Kettering Town Wikipedia page, nor is he listed on their official website. Are you suggesting that the Kettering Town website is incorrect? (This is not meant to be facetious, I'm asking in seriousness). --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - his squad profile is now also 404 on the BBC website. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the OTRS link but it wouldn't let me log in...while I agree that Williams is no longer with Kettering, that does not mean that he was never with Kettering - in fact reliable sources exist to confirm he did indeed sign for them. Howeber, your edit removed ALL mention of Kettering from the article, including a valid category - that is my issue here. GiantSnowman 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There was never any contention that Williams had not played for Kettering - I removed Kettering Town FC from the "current club" section of the infobox as it is no longer accurate, the sentence "who plays professionally for Kettering Town as it is no longer accurate, and the category "Kettering Town F.C. players" as it is no longer accurate. If it is common practice to include all teams an individual has ever played for in the category section, then please feel free to restore it there. Note that only those with OTRS access can view the particular ticket I linked to, which is why you could not log in. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, your removal of the category was not valid - footballer categories list ALL players, past and present - and your removal of the Kettering section of the infobox (i.e. where playing stats are listed) was also wrong. GiantSnowman 21:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion it was wrong, however it was not his "current club" and the information in the lede was incorrect. You also repeatedly restored the information despite it being incorrect to the point where an OTRS ticket was sent. Perhaps it was not done the way you would have done it, but it certainly was not "wrong" to remove incorrect information from a BLP. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining it properly or you're failing to get it or what, but here goes. I reverted the edits by Tombola3 on two occasions, because no reference or edit summary was provided on any occasion, and I saw it as the unexplained removal of valid content from a BLP - including appropriate paremeters in the infobox and an appropriate category. Yes the 'current club' should have gone, and yes the lede should have been changed - but I've never disputed that, and with the lack of edit summary/reference, I wasn't to know any better. What I have disputed, and will still dispute, is why Tombola3, and then yourself, both chose to remove valid content from a BLP i.e. the Kettering stats in the infobox and the Kettering player category. There was no need for an OTRS to be filed, and I would have thought that, seeing as you & I have collaborated in the past, you would have asked me to explain my rationale before blindinly undoing my edit. GiantSnowman 21:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why you did, however many editors are not aware of how Wikipedia works, or how to review their talk pages. I did not "blindly" revert your edit, I reviewed the OTRS ticket, researched whether the content removal was valid, and only then reverted the re-insertion of the incorrect information. In this particular case we will simply have to agree to disagree. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're asserting that your removal of the Kettering stats in the infobox and the Kettering player category was 100% correct? GiantSnowman 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm asserting that removing incorrect information from the article that had been repeatedly re-inserted without review despite being incorrect was correct. I already mentioned in my very first response to you that the category should be restored if that is the standard practice for footballer articles. You seem to be taking this personally, which it is not - it was simply an edit in response to a ticket for which I cannot go into any more detail than I already have. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  22:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking personally at all; I was simply trying to help you understand that the removal of all of the info wasn't correct, in the same way that you have helped me understand that the removal of some of the info was correct, if you get what I mean. GiantSnowman 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, between the two of us the article is now both accurate and formatted correctly. Perhaps we can chalk this up as a win-win for the article as a whole? <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, definitely! Cheers, GiantSnowman 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Judson Kilpatrick
My editing of Hugh Judson Kilpatrick is good and proper to Wikipedia? I'm just afraid that you will block me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.82.171 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Joanne Froggatt
All local sources state that Scarborough (i.e Scarborough town) is Joanne'es place of birth & that she moved to Littlebeck as a small child which is a tiny village. I don't know her, so cannot ask! but we perhaps need some verification, as it seems a little vague?

Sorry!! sent that previous message to wrong person. You were the person that sent me the advice!
 * No worries - and please don't forget to sign your posts (using four ~ marks). --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No you've convinced me
No,I've problem with you adding it back it - I'm not even sure how or why that article is on my watchlist, I guess I 'inherited' it from AN/I or somewhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob
"He has also specifically requested that others do not post on his talk to discuss it; that should be respected while he works things out for himself."

Do I have to? I so badly want to say something. Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia without him (at least for me).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * His email is still enabled; a quiet personal note never hurts. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but, for various reasons, I never e-mail anyone at Wikpedia because I don't want to reveal my own e-mail address. Oh, well, maybe he'll see this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can write something up here if you'd like and I can send it on your behalf. I'll just remove it from my page after I send it...--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing you can do is start a new email account with Gmail or whathaveyou that doesn't identify you in the address, then change the email associated with your WP account through your preferences. The Interior  (Talk) 16:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup - that's how I have it set up. Though The Interior lives close enough they could hand deliver a note to me if they chose to :) --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ponyo, you're very kind. Interior, I'd actually thought of what you proposed, but thanks for mentioning it (I got hung up speculating about a way it could still be traced to me - paranoia :-) ). Let me think on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)