User talk:Ponyo/Archives/October/2010

Attack pages
Thanks for tagging Joshua anthony gutierrez just now, and you were quite right to blank it; but for attack pages like that, there is a better tag: db-attack (or db-atk or db-g10 which are equivalent). That has the advantage of putting it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and also generates a suitably fierce warning to copy to the attacker's talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note John. I considered tagging it as an attack page, but (if I remember correctly), the information, although incredibly crude and juvenile, was somewhat complimentary towards the subject; that being said I figured it should be blanked nevertheless. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have a point, and I have sometimes hesitated as to whether a page like that is an attack or a boast; but I think the way to look at it is, assuming the subject is not the author, would he be happy to see this on public display? Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know your question was rhetorical, but, given the subject matter of the article, I can't resist answering..."Perhaps"? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"How have so many people edited this article without removing the blatant BLP violation"
Because we've been trying to get it deleted. There's no sources given and we can't find any. The tags keep getting removed and no admin is looking at it. The thing's rubbish - a hoax. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. At last... Peridon (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, however if there is a possibility that a real individual is named in an article, regardless of the validity of the information in the article, it should have been removed. This is why G10 speedies are blanked until an admin can zap it. I was surprised that so many editors had been on the page and still the personal info section was not removed. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic origin category vandal
Admin:Redvers was dealing with this but he seems to have gone. There are two discussions  on ANI by him. The vandal needs a "range block" apparently when they reappear. Admin:Rjd0060 knows how to do this. They've been "range blocked" six or seven times but that doesn't show in the individual block list for each IP. The current block time is six months. Thanks. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've requested a reinstatement of the range block at WP:AIV. Thanks for gathering the ANI difs and posting them here. I had also gone to User:Redvers talk page last night to request a reblock and had noticed that he hadn't edited in months. Hopefully the crew at AIV will be able to handle the request in his absense, if not I will take it back to ANI. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful,
This edit broke part of the page, by leaving a tag unclosed. Secondly, it's frowned upon to change sign dates. Instead I would recommend signing with a new post.—  Dæ dαlus   Contribs 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened there was completely inadvertant - I had no intention of changing my sig, I only meant to modify the header. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoing deletion
Hey Ponyo,

I was wondering why you undid the deletion of some of my talk on talk:Jaguar. I've heard that it is basicly okay to delete your own stuff.


 * "It is generally accepted that everyone has the right to delete stuff from their talk pages, but not from article or other peoples talk pages. Deleting it is seen as an acknowledgement that it has been read and understood. Of course it is all retrievable anyway, so a bit pointless if the aim of deleting it is to try and make the user look good. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)"

Thanks! - Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please reread the quote you provided above: "It is generally accepted that everyone has the right to delete stuff from their talk pages, but not from article or other peoples talk pages." Removing your comments from a conversation on an article talk page is disruptive in that it disturbs the flow of the conversation and makes it difficult for other editors to follow the various arguments. In addition, when deleting your comments you also removed another editor's post, which should not be done. WP:TALK has more information. --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking since I had started that section I could also delete it since my question was answered. I take it that this is not true? Don't the talk pages for articles get overstuffed if you don't delete finished conversation? Thanks, - Snowleopard100 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should not be deleting any article talk page content, or messages on other user's talk pages (without their consent). If a particular article talk page becomes too large it can be archived so that the messages are still retrievable. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Snowleopard100 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
i have a question. why leave the people of cameroonian descent category but exclude black african descent,if loko is of cameroonian descent   wouldnt that make him also of black african descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastemperor8899 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I missed the additional unsourced descent category and have now removed it as well. Note that there is no problem adding descent categories to articles, they just need to adhere to the guidelines at WP:EGRS. If you plan on doing a large amount of work within this area, I strongly suggest you read WP:BLP and WP:RS in order to ensure your edits are within policy. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rick Giordani
Hello Ponyo. I've removed the db-bio tag. This is a user page and I can't find anything inappropriate in the information included. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is essentially posting a ton of personal info in both userspace and article space (which you've since deleted). It contains family names, including the names of minors (his children) and is a textbook case of WP:UPNOT, specifically the "Personal information" section which says that "personal information of other persons without their consent" and "inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia" is inappropriate use of a talk page. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if you think the information is really that harmful, feel free to renominate the article. Personally, I too don't like this kind of user pages (I assume the users are unaware of how quickly the information spreads from Wikipedia and how damaging it potentially could be). But I've seen a lot of personal stuff (similar to this example) on the user pages of our established editors. I'm not sure. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that he has his full name, birthdate, birthplace, full family names, children's names, and their state of residence posted on the page. The page is also written in the third person, as opposed to more established contributors who include some "about me" type info. This really does seem over-the-top to me. Usually I have no opinion regarding what individual's post on their talk page unless it's an attack page or blatant spam, however the amount of personal info included in this case, and the fact that it was simultaneously posted to article space, is concerning. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

C.I.D. (TV series)
Regarding this revert you made. The IP was removing duplicate information. If you look at the difference, you can see that the same information is repeated twice. I've removed all of the duplicate information. To be honest, half of that article should be deleted per WP:PLOT. It's an absolute nightmare. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't think the edit was intentially harmful, which is why I explicitly outlined why I was not accepting the edit in my summary. Sometimes I think that edit summaries should be mandatory, it certainly would help eliminate the need for second guessing an editors intent. PS With regard to nightmare plots, check this out! Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my word! That article you linked to is unbelievable... — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I agree that edit summaries should be mandatory too. Although, God only knows what summaries some editors would leave. It's not worth thinking about. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin Cole
Hi, I just want to let you know that I sourced and removed the BLPprod from Justin Cole. If you still think that he does not meet the notability requirements feel free nominate the article for a traditional prod or AfD. Cheers - J04n(talk page) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Violations!!! LOL, so serious...
Sigh. I thought we were past this - you are stalking me in every step of the way, it's very frustrating for people, you can even find a few cinema edits in the middle of dozens of others!... Well, this is the thing: the dates appear on IMDb, true (and you should know it before saying they're unsourced), but on dates IMDb is reliable enough, as it is for Filmography. It's not current that there is any false date, specially on famous people, specially the marriage and divorce ones, about which no one will lie about... LoveActresses (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ImDB is NEVER a reliable source for personal info. Period. You have been told this so many times and in some many different ways that it almost seems unreal that you could honestly use that as an argument. The majority of your arguments boil down to "no one would lie about it" and therefore reliable sources don't need to be included is contradictory to the very core policies that Wikipedia is based upon. You may also be interested in WP:HAR. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, whatever. But you told "that" about the trivia, not about the rest. Another editor or administrator once said IMDb was reliable for Filmography, minimally reliable for main data but not for the trivia. Finding other editors challenging it ends up being frustrating. LoveActresses (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never said that it was only trivia where IMDB should not be used in any of the discussions we've had about the use IMDB. It cannot be stated clearer than here. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to follow me all the time now? What do you know about genealogy? Stick to cinema, will you? How can you challenge these edits? I know where I took them from. I've been adding other things without anyone saying anything, and not even other people who complainted said anything about it. LoveActresses (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits have proven to be problematic, especially with regard to WP:BLP and WP:RS compliance, so yes I will to monitor your edits to make sure you do not continue to violate our core policies. In fact, this is one of the reasons editors are allowed to view each others contributions:


 * "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." (bolding mine, from WP:HOUND).


 * Do you intent to continue to add unsourced information to biography articles? Because the simplest way to ensure that you can continue editing without disruption is to edit within policy. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Burkely Hermann
The wikipedia page I had for Donald Leifert I changed back. You little idiot, deleted everything. You are disrespectful because he died on Sunday. You should apologize. User:historyhermann  —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Although I am sorry for your loss, your grief does not preclude having to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, most specifically WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There are plenty of social networking websites available to share your grief over the loss of your teacher, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Note that we have very strict policies regarding civility, and your message above violates WP:NPA. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)