Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Nagendra?

Hi P, any chance you could do your semi-weekly check for Nagendra socks? I see a new user, Starcinema111 popped up at Pooja Gandhi, which is almost exclusively edited by Nagendra NJ socks. Intersection also at Rakshita and Kriti Kharbanda. If possible, thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it's them. I've upped the protection of Pooja Ghandi to extended-confirmed based on the rampant BLP socking. Not sure if it will stick, but it's better than full protection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
PS I can't run regular checks, the are just too many large ranges at play. We just need to nip them in the bud as soon as detected.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Dear Ponyo, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to you for all of your help, kindness and support. Mona778 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

IP:81.145.108.28

Hello Ponyo, Regret to inform you that our NI block evader 81.145.108.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is again trying to get around their multiple bans by asking inane questions - after previously stating they would not "edit" Wikipedia again. They have now used well over thirty IP's in the Northern Ireland area of the UK and seem not to worry about the disruption they cause. Hope you will be able to take action - yet again. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for keeping on top of these.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello P. This person has returned to editing from 81.97.79.145 (talk · contribs). This is one that they have used earlier this year. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks MarnetteD! I've soft-blocked it for a lengthy spell.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you P. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Pooja Gandhi

Hello Ponyo, would you please review the protection you applied to this page? I don't see where this page has ever been moved, did you mean to apply indefinite ECP move protection? — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for catching that Xaosflux. I didn't intend to apply move protection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 20:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Starcinema111

Care to revoke talk page access, I don't think they are going to be posting anything worth while at this point. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Done by BU Rob13. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:I dream of horses#Untitled 2

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:I dream of horses#Untitled 2. You might be interested in this message I got from a potential sockpuppet you've reverted in the past.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've left a note on your talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Is this sock investigation withheld ?. Is there any confusion ?. Inside the Valley (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 was the checksuser who declined the report; you can request additional details from them if you are unsure as to why it was declined.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Ponyo, you have deleted some articles that are afd, they are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus Bayer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emiliano Massa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Karatchenia, you might like to close them?

Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Coolabahapple: I've closed all three. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
JJMC89, thanks:) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mehwish Hayat

Edited Mehwish Hayat to include more references and remove unsourced material. Your opinion is requested. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehwish_Hayat&type=revision&diff=733212375&oldid=732654635 07:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Manoflogan: Thank you for updating the referencing. I made a small change to one of the headers as only the first word is capitalized (outside of proper nouns). Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (four ~). --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria used to delete articles created by Neebras?

I noticed you deleted many articles that were created by Neebras because he was a banned sockpuppet. Some were notable but you deleted them anyway. Now that's fine and dandy with me, but other articles and categories he created were not deleted. I just wondered what criteria you used to decide? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): It was a time management issue; due to the vast number of pages created I concentrated on the main articles and left the categories and templates for now as they require additional clean-up and review. They can be individually tagged as CSD G5 if need be. I reviewed the history of each article and only deleted those that didn't have substantial edits from editors other than the sock account. A large amount of the articles had already been tagged for some sort of deletion, whether it be speedy, PROD or AfD. If there is any specific article(s) out of the bunch you'd like additional information on I'm happy to take a look and expand on my reasoning. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Kalpvriksh The Wishing Tree (2016), Manika Sharma and Raajaysh Chetwal.

  • Speedy Delete :* IMDB and Twitter database entries don't establish notability. Notability is not inherited by being related to notable people or working alongside notable people. I'm not seeing non-trivial reliable source coverage for Article (Old name: Kalpvriksh and now new name: The Wishing Tree (2016), Manika Sharma and Raajaysh Chetwal. The best hope for notability appears to be WP:CREATIVE. What reliable sources have commented on this award-winning filmmaker's work and film? To be noted same articles deleted in the past also.AdolfDsouza (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this was brought to my attention, however I did redirect the Sharma and Chetwal articles to The Wishing Tree (2016) page as they don't currently meet our notability criteria (and there were numerous BLP issues with both articles). You'll just have to wait to see how the AfD plays out.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Support updating a page

Support updating a page
Hi Ponyo - Can I work with you to update Graham Bensinger's page? I can send you the article to proof. I don't believe there's subjective material in the draft I'm proposing.

Feel free to reach me on Wiki or at (Redacted) Thank you! Gaff225 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello ponyo! I wanted to ask if it is possible for the pages Moroccans and Sahrawi people to be protected due to recent edit warring on the pages. Thank you. Alhaqiha (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This users is vandalising pages again link and link. Alhaqiha (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Clear block evasion. I've blocked 41.142.2.38 and 41.143.188.104.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page Sachdeva institute of technology

Dear Sir, 

My page sachdeva isntitute of technology has been deleted by you.

I have the permission of sitmathura.org to uplaod for the content. Please tell the reason behind the page deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohini7505 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mohini7505: The material you used to create the article was directly copied from the organization's website contrary to Wikipedia's copyright policies. Them giving you verbal permission makes no difference; they would need to release the text under an appropriate license for it to be useable. This information is moot however, as even if the appropriate licenses were in place the text contains promotional content contrary to our policies regarding advertising and promotion. Finally, as you appear to have a connection to the subject in question, please read through our conflict of interest guidelines. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:MariusJacksonEllingsen12 you blocked

Two weeks after this block User:MariusEllingsen47 appeared. The name is very similar so this user may be related. --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Denniss, I can reassure you that an old account dosen't need any necessary attention, since that user dosen't excist anymore; and please; I have already had so many difficulties with this community; I don't want it anymore. And I don't know if you're willing to risk my name, because of nothing? --MariusEllingsen47 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Denniss: The account is  Confirmed and now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock to look at

Looks like serial evader User:Jonjon893 is back. Very similar new editor here: Special:Contributions/Emmy Expert --SubSeven (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Any technical evidence will long ago have gone stale. Could you please open an SPI and lay out your evidence so that behaviour can be compared?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

re: John Kassir

Can you ease up on this sort of thing and discuss before you vaporize? That other user is losing their mind over this, I assume you know that this isn't a big deal, and your edit summaries range from unhelpful to incoherent. "...no reliable non-compendia sources meeting WP:RS have been provided." That is, if I'm reading it right, not supported by facts on hand. (And I might not be reading it right, since, to be brutally honest, words like "non-compendia" are particularly unhelpful bits of jargon.) How do we know that the prose at TCM is a compendium? If I sourced it to Hollywood.com, which I'm almost positive is not a compiler and instead is a purveyor of original expertise and research, do I have any sort of guarantee that, per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, you'll discuss this stuff before reverting again? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one editor uses the edit summary "EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE lists him as being born on this day. There's NO dispute. Just like other Wikipedians who are advanced and have a lot of edits, you feel the need to erase stuff like that out of boredom.", while I leave one pointing to the two policy pages explaining the removal, yet it's my edit summary that you deem unhelpful. I have no intention of leaving a disputed poorly-sourced date of birth in a BLP because another editor fails to grasp what constitutes a reliable source or why we require one in cases such as this.
The TCM content is simply a database of machine-imported content, it does not include the editorial oversight ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") required. Hollywood.com is also a tertiary source database and cannot be used to support disputed BLP content. Their own Terms of Use explicitly state "You understand that you will be exposed to user material from a variety of publishers and that Hollywood.com is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such user material. You further understand and acknowledge that you may be exposed to user material that is inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or objectionable..". I have no intention of not enforcing our core policies in this case; if no source meeting our requirements are available, then the date stays out. I've searched extensively for a reliable source myself using LexusNexus and other newspaper access sites and have been unable to verify the date, hence WP:DOB and WP:BLPSOURCES applies. I've already noted this on the article talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo: "I find it interesting that one editor uses the edit summary 'EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE lists him as being born on this day. There's NO dispute. Just like other Wikipedians who are advanced and have a lot of edits, you feel the need to erase stuff like that out of boredom.', while I leave one pointing to the two policy pages explaining the removal, yet it's my edit summary that you deem unhelpful." For what it's worth, I planned on scolding over that junk edit summary, but when I found TCM, I figured I shouldn't bother. And a quick look at that editor's user page should give away dead-to-rights why you're going to be held to a different standard. But maybe I'm not being fair. Am I wrong to assume an admin ought to know why coherent edit summaries are important? Am I wrong to be annoyed that when I raise an objection to something, rather than explain why I'm right or wrong, you essentially said, "but look at that edit summary. It's way worse?"
"I have no intention of leaving a disputed poorly-sourced date of birth in a BLP because another editor fails to grasp what constitutes a reliable source or why we require one in cases such as this." It's disputed? Where? Especially since, per the allowance that says "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" can be used, we can include it? Because we know Kassir is quite alright that people think he was born on October 24th, 1957. You, uh, know that about him, right?
"The TCM content is simply a database of machine-imported content, it does not include the editorial oversight ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") required." I asked how you came to this conclusion ("How do we know that the prose at TCM is a compendium?") and instead, you restated what you originally said. I promise, I read this claim the first time you made it. I was wondering how you know it.
As for using Hollywood.com as a source, see their "About Us" page, specifically the second-to-last sentence: "In addition, we have the most robust entertainment data available. Hollywood.com’s data is powered by Baseline, the leading provider in verified entertainment data used by almost every major studio, broadcast and cable TV network." Since your find at the terms of service page and my find at this page (seem to) directly contradict each other, is there a policy that says which we go with? RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To your first point, I didn't just point to the other editor's edit summary, I also commented on my own, which included two links to the policy-based reasons I was removing the disputed date. You don't like my summary and find it "incoherent". I see no problem with it at all and don't see any need to discuss it further.
  • To your second point, a date of 1962 has also been added to the article example here and here. Neither date is supported by reliable sources so I removed the conflicting dates with an explanation (here). At no point since that time has a reliable source ever been presented to verify either date.
  • Also to your second point, you've misinterpreted "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The point of the clause is that if the information appears in a self-published source or similar directly linked to the subject (e.g. an official website or campaign), then the source can be used. Random online databases are not "linked to the subject" in any way. If you're inferring that because the information appears on websites such as IMDb that the subject therefore "approves", that's not the intent of that sentence.
  • To your third point, I know that the TCM is a compendium in that it is an online database akin to IMDb and NNDb. (Compendium: "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication." "a collection of things, especially one systematically gathered".) I know this because I check references when they are added to ensure they meet WP:RS and noted this was another tertiary source, equally as unreliable as the others.
  • As to your final point, The "About Us" section is a website's marketing page that includes plenty of verbiage regarding why they are so awesome and why you should use their product. The Terms of Use is the legalese that covers their asses when it comes to the content/product they produce. In this case they spell out clearly that they pull data from a number of resources of varying levels of reliability and that they do not vouch for the accuracy of any of their content. That is the opposite of what is required by WP:BLPSOURCES.
  • Bottom line, if a reliable source can be found that verifies a specific date (or year) of birth for Kassir then it can be added to the article. Until then, it stays out as disputed BLP content. If you have a source you think may meet WP:RS but are unsure, float it by WP:RSN. I have absolutely zero to add to this conversation at this point and don't plan to participate further other than to cross-post this to the article talk page where it should have taken place from the get-go. WP:BLPN is also available if you wish to discuss this with other editors knowledgeable about BLP policy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:ErlMIluer

Thank you for blocking User:ErlMIluer. Would you mind semi protecting their user and user talk page as well to prevent further socking ridiculousness. Sro23 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. I also blocked the IP to prevent further shenanigans.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Category removals

I see you've removed hundreds of Pakistan categories from pages by a now blocked user. However, it is obvious that not all the removals are warranted. A lot of pages were correctly subcategorised. Would you have any issues if I go through your removals and restore the categories where I find them to be applicable? Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Mar4d: A number of the additions I checked were not supported by reliably sourced article content, however if there are some viable ones then please do feel free to restore them as long as they meet the sourcing requirements of WP:BLPCAT.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks -- Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy keeps putting wrong info on pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Robotbird

Keeps adding Rovio Entertainment to random webpages as a company involved, which is not the case. Then he put a warning on my talk page today. This guy needs a time out. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: I had planned to point you to WP:DR, but a review of Robotbird's contributions raised some red flags. They're actually a sock of Craigmiller123 and have now been blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Good detective work! Hopefully that person will not come back. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
They've been at it for some time, but there's always hope! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

AN/I and AfD Deletion

Apparently the AfD on that article that I nominated is now "a matter of life and death". I can't shake the feeling that this is the sock of someone, but I just don't know WHO. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The hyperbole and original user name (the wiki authority) remind me of Kingshowman, but I think he usually argued in favor of gun control. clpo13(talk) 20:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I also had dealt with User:Tempus Loquendi in the past who made these arguments in the past (see my talk page). RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of eyes on the situation now, we'll see how it plays out.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
See RickinBaltimore, if you just given them enough leeway to keep yammering on they often out themselves in the end! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh I know that for sure now! RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible to recreate category?

Dear Ponyo, would it be possible if you could recreate Category:Kelabit people? I looked at the deletion log and it said you deleted it because it was empty at the time. That may have been true but now there are three articles linked to it. If it is not possible to recreate the category or you're too busy just let me know and I will do it myself. Thanks! Inter&anthro (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: If it's no longer empty then please feel free to recreate it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking and adding unsourced...

Dear Ponyo, article Adını Feriha Koydum needs to be watched, because there is a user who is constantly overlinking and adding unsourced contents into it. I warned the user already, but it seems he/she is very persistent. Regards, Mona778 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Mona778 I don't really see any major issues that can't be ironed out by discussion. They have one level one template from you on their talk page. Perhaps you can politely expand on your concerns there to see if that helps invoke a response?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll do as you say. Thank you. Mona778 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If you feel things are getting out of hand, remember the steps at WP:DR. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you know? You're the best! Mona778 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For the best admin who always gives me advises and support whenever I need them. You will always be in my heart forever. 
Mona778 (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Mona!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why are you removing the American people of Russian descent category from select pages? The category has not been CFDed ([1]) and, is, in fact, the redirect for another category, that of Russian Americans? Enjoy the strawberries. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean this as an example?. The categories were all added by a blocked LTA sock account who adds ethnic and descent categories en masse regardless of whether the categories meet WP:EGRS and/or WP:BLPCAT (which I noted in my edit summary) and the edits were removed per WP:BANREVERT (which I should have noted in my edit summary). If there are any that were reverted that meet the requirements of EGRS/BLPCAT and WP:CATDEF, then please go ahead and restore them.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

EVADE block

Thank you for blocking 70.212.6.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Because of this user's months-long disruption to the encyclopedia (see my sandbox), would you be so kind as to extend the block to three months in keeping with the others? TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 20:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's likely a dynamic IP, so blocking it for longer won't actually prevent any further disruption. If the IP is sticky and they do return to it after the block expires, I'll definitely extend it at that time.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It may, if not certainly will. This user has in fact resumed editing from an IP when a short block expires. See 70.212.1.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —ATS 🖖 Talk 20:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll be watching, or you can ping me again if it resumes.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Try to contain your shock ... () (Edit: Bbb23 has blocked for one week, and defers to your judgment for anything longer. I would add only that the abuser's intent to resume following the expiration of a block cannot possibly be more clear.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh-barclays

Hi P, do you have any thoughts on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh-barclays that you might contribute? I don't know that a CU would go anywhere, because the last info we have on the suspected master seems pretty stale. (Also, I think the real REAL master is Wanurikahiu, but that seems even more fruitless.) Do you think there's enough similarity to warrant a behavioral block? I think there is, but my brain is keeping me from pulling the trigger, and I don't know why. Maybe I'm just sleepy. ? Thanks, per always, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives

The page has become unblocked, and while they are waiting until the Friday to update, they are not waiting until the episode has aired, per consensus at the Soap Opera Project; it's clear Wingard still has not learned this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs)

Is it not possible that this is an IP editor updating the article in good faith? There's no evidence that this is Wingard. If the edit goes against consensus, perhaps you can revert the edit and point them to the talk page where the discussion occurred? I'm not very enthused to protect an article based on a single edit.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You were pinged but it wont have come thru

Hello P. On the off chance that you don't have Cyphoidbombs talk page on your watchlist I wanted to let you know about this User talk:Cyphoidbomb#Kumioko. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Good deal and thanks for dealing with the IP. Young Frankenstein is on tap for tonight in honor of Gen Wilder. Put za candle back :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking double feature along with Blazing Saddles. Wilder was like the human embodiment of a soul.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So very true. I'm considering The Producers as my second film. Zero Mostel was a larger than life persona but Wilder is right there with him in scene after scene. Enjoy your viewing!! MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you for the talk page watchdogging. Crushed about Gene. :( "Yeah, but I shoot with this hand." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the memory C I just stopped by between films and that line adds to the smiles. MarnetteD|Talk 02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I haven't watched all of this, but I saw the first few minutes a while back. Wilder claims he isn't very funny. Might bring another smile. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting and yes it added another :-) Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For the best admin whom I like and respect most forever. Mona778 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again Mona. It seems unbelievable to me that I could have edged out Drmies in anything, let alone admin tasks. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately my best skillz don't translate on-wiki.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
↑ This could be misinterpreted; said skillz are predominantly culinary in nature.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of your technical skills, with computer and internetz. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure they know how much I like and respect them no matter what. Mona778 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
We both know Mona and appreciate your kindness. The above is just a little friendly banter between two editors who have been here a long time. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain

Looking at this edit, you have reverted several diverse contributions. Perhaps you could explain? --Pete (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a misclick on my watchlist, completely unintended. I've reverted the edit.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Harshvardhan Kapoor

I think it is time to give Harshvardhan Kapoor a profile of his own. He is currently being redirected to Kapoor Family - but he is actually not part of them directly. This week his first movie is getting released, there will be plenty of edits coming on his page.

Chirag (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If he has yet to appear in a single film, how does he meet the notability criteria for actors? Up to this point the press about him has all been in relation to his family connections and an unreleased film. Regardless, there is nothing stopping you from creating the article, it's semi-protected due to persistent socking only. You should be able to edit the page with no issues.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the temp lock down on my talk page, I've been the target of the same IP range for weeks. Thanks again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 22:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ponyo, you might want to block that IP's Talkpage too... Check it out. Yintan  22:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Rolled back and talk page access revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Page 1

Hi Ponyo, can you look into the user Page 1? I keep looking at edits he's made like this one and this one and seeing that you were the last person to revert a similar edit. I first saw him at Radioland Murders which has a lot of problematic editing in its past. I suspect this is someone on your list. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I also saw several dubious edits by this user, mostly already reverted. Most of them on subject matter I know nothing about, so can't be much help, as they are generally not obvious vandalism. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a  Confirmed sock, now blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks P. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Parwaaz Hay Junoon

I had removed content that I thought was promotional in nature. This is my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parwaaz_Hay_Junoon&oldid=738760661

However, another user has added content that I think is promotional. This is his edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parwaaz_Hay_Junoon&type=revision&diff=738845601&oldid=738760661. I have explained my thought process on my talk page User_talk:Manoflogan#Deletion_from_Parwaaz_Hay_Junoon. What do you think? I definitely think that the content added by "Nauriya" violates WP:PROMO, but I don't want to get into edit wars. I believe that the onus is the editor to prove that the content is objective, and not subjective according to WP:BURDEN. What do you think? Manoflogan (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Manoflogan: As there are no immediate BLP violations, nor is their blatant spam involved, you will need to continue discussing your concerns with the editor in question (preferably on the article talk page) until consensus is reached regarding the proposed content. As always, make sure to follow these important steps to help resolve the conflict.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with moving a page

I can't seem to move the page Mount Tate which should really be at Mount Tateyama. The latter being the official name, and what everyone locally (locals and non-Japanese) call the mountain. There is a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves , but to be honest that page is confusing. Is it a list of pages that are under discussion or a place where you can make a request? Many thanks. Macgroover (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Macgroover: Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure it should be moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the most commonly used name for the article title. In this case, it appears "Mount Tate" is used in reliable sources such as The BBC and The Japan Times (though interestingly The Japan Times also used Mount Tateyama). Perhaps you can start a Requested move discussion on the article talk page? The process for starting a discussion can be found at WP:RM#CM.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The official local English name is Mt. Tateyama though, and the BBC (and possibly the Japan times too) is likely using Mt. Tate because it's in Wikipedia! The Japan National Tourist Organization uses Mt. Tateyama. http://www.jnto.go.jp/eng/ttp/ptg/PS/pg-402.pdf Macgroover (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As there is the possibility that the move could be contentious, it's best to start a requested move discussion on the article talk page to gauge consensus. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

New Azul411 sock

Hey @Ponyo: we've got a new Azul411 sock at the Galileo page - 4gsds - thought I'd give you a heads up. -Darouet (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Because they've been quiet for a while, I wonder if there's a way to check for sleepers? -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: It's clearly Azul so I've blocked the account.  No sleepers immediately visible.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nagendra?

Hi P, could I trouble you to take a look for more Nagendra NJ socks, if you get a chance? I see Jack1515 editing at Mungaru Male 2 -- Nagendra was a fan of the main Mungaru Male article. Jack's account was created 4 September 2016, a few hours after I semi-protected Mungaru Male 2 for sock IP edits. Thanks!! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No trouble at all. The account is now blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You're the best! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lawrence v. Texas

Seeing that you're willing to revdel, would you mind handling this? It seems to be purely defamatory. Thanks, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've chucked in the revdelete garbage bin where it belongs.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you; searching through that IP's contributions, this and this might be better off hidden as well. Perhaps a block would be in order, though the disruption seems to be sporadic and rather infrequent. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The IP is definitely being used for long-term disruption. I've blocked anonymous editing from the IP for six months, but left account creation open so that any potential legitimate editors can still create an account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletation of the page "Akhilendu Arjeria"

Hi Ponyo, Could you please explain why that person was not considered important? That person is the former district magistrate of a district, not only district magistrate but even a commissioner of the whole division(which is considered as a very high rank in India). He served Indian army too. He's a famous poet on social media, his poems are read by several thousand people. His fan following on social media is very high. Please look into this matter and resolve this. Warm regards, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdanial (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on Adamdanial's talk page and suggested they create a Draft if they wish to take the risk that it might not be accepted. MPS1992 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you MPS1992, that was very helpful.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious

about the block you performed here. I'm the greenest admin as of my writing this, but I was under the impression that IPs are rarely blocked for extended periods unless they're known to belong to a school, or something: so I was wondering what your reasoning was. What is it I'm not seeing? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde, we block "people". If you look at the editing history it's clear the same person has been using that IP for a lengthy period of time. We can then be confident the IP is fairly static and won't be assigned to another person in the near future. Thus, an extended block can be made. --NeilN talk to me 10:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: I see, that makes sense. Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Precisely what NeilN said (as usual).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Dear Ponyo, I think User:MayGh should be blocked for their disruptive editing (deliberately introducing incorrect information, etc.). I gave them a final warning, but it seems they have no intention to stop. Can you take a look? Thank you. Mona778 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mona778: Instead of always asking Ponyo for users to be blocked,why don't you report them to WP:AIV instead? They can be dealt with much quicker. They don't bite! Class455 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue has been sorted. No block is required. Regards, Mona778 (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page Draft:Emergency Volunteer Respect Act (Queensland, Australia)

Hi Ponyo This page was deleted very quickly after being flagged for containing copyrighted material. The section in question was very brief (forming a very small portion of the overall article) and was my own text lifted from an article on the website for the company I work with. I understand that breaches Wikipedia's copyright rules (though I find it very odd), but thought I would get a day or so to modify the 4 or lines of text before the whole thing got deleted. Will need to start from scratch now, so a little disappointed. What is the usual time-frame for a page being flagged to it being deleted? Tranceport26 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Can the deletion be undone if the wording of the offending section is changed / removed? Tranceport26 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's much more than just 4 lines. There are many parts of the website and draft that are identical, and much of the rest is close paraphrasing. At bottom, the draft is a copy of the website. In other words, the association is using Wikipedia as an advertising platform. I can't speak for Ponyo, but I would never restore the draft. There is no "usual" time frame between tagging and deletion. Copyright infringements are often deleted more quickly, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You can speak for me anytime Bbb23.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

CrazyAces again?

File:Girl with pony.JPG
Bishonen with her little pony, per Softlavender.

New user:ALongSleep can't possibly be new, compare [2]. Is it CrazyAces489 again? Bishonen | talk 08:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Ponyo may not be on-wiki soon, so her poor relation has stepped to the fore. The combination of technical evidence and your knowledge of the master makes this a relatively comfortable block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you little foal. Bishonen | talk 15:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC).
I'm back, though this insane head cold puts me at a disadvantage. It's a much slower, sleepier Ponyo.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Bish, please tell Ponyo to get off wiki and take care of herself. She doesn't listen to me. You can always use one of your alternative accounts and growl at her.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have provided Bishzilla and Darwinbish with numerous sharp-toothed kitty soldiers for their ankle-biting army as well as Toblerones to keep their sugary energy up. I'm covered!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The dashing Darwinbish tölts up on her own pony at breakneck speed.[3] Go to bed with a hot buttered rum, little pony! Feel like a new pony tomorrow! darwinbish BITE ☠ 18:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC).
It is not humanly possible for me to sleep more than I have in the past 48 hours. I need to do something to occupy my time. You can't stop me! <insert princess stomp here>.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't they use tranquilizer darts for wild horses?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
They also take them out behind the barn and shoot them, but I don't think I'm that far gone (yet).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Above Wikipedian has constantly hurl wrong sock accusations again and again and he is still get off scot-free Spartacus! t@lk 05:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Spartacus!: Your comment was unnecessary here, the email was not about you. @Ponyo: Disregard, the matter has been taken care off. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; I see the editor in question was blocked while I was attempting to stay away from my computer and recover from ebola this head cold.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Param Singh

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello. A tag has been placed on Param Singh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I restored the redirect once or twice, maybe the script become confused.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, you'd better use the Article Wizard next time! darwinbish BITE ☠ 21:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
@Darwinbish: I most certainly will, but not before reading the guide to writing your first article first!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

About Maria

Hi there. You confirmed six socks here. Confirmed to each other? Definitely? Like same browser settings and location and all? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak All of the accounts were editing from the same individually allocated IP range using the same set of UAs as previous confirmed MariaJaydHicky socks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What's a UA? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It's the user agent (which contains details of the device used to make the edit). Is there a specific account out of the group that is claiming they are unrelated?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
UA is user agent. Understood. And yes, MariaJaydHicky2 says she's unrelated to the others. Don't worry about reading User talk:MariaJaydHicky2. That is not necessary. So, the chance of MariaJaydHicky2 (who states that she is the master MariaJaydHicky) and NDublet, Daisymaymoo, Babystar1, Allstarz, or Nikeygirl all being the same person is certain? 100%? Sorry to bug you with this. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I cannot imagine a scenario that could possibly account for the technical overlap between the accounts. It's about as conclusive as checkuser evidence gets. If you would like another CU to take a look I have no problem with that at all.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Another CU is not necessary. Thank you kindly. I appreciate you having taken the time. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello there. I would like admin assistance over a minor matter. Please would you be able to delete the redirect Zack Loveday to make way for a page move?Rain the 1 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Done now...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.Rain the 1 23:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Shoes.com

Excuse you can put this source on Wikipedia (Redacted). — Preceding category comment added by Pollum (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Poldum (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poldum (talk • contribs) Poldum (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quack.Meters (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
((www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoes.com|Unlocks "Shoes.com":Unlock ([Edit=confermer of access] (expires 02:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Confirmed of access] (expires 02:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)))
Poldum 02:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Poldum (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)}} Quack.
@Metres: Indeed. Blocked and spam removed from this page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Abhishekbaniya (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV vandal blocks

Hello. I noticed that you blocked the IPV6 addresses that were vandalizing WP:AIV indefinitely. It just does not seem right to block an IP address indefinitely. Just my opinion. CLCStudent (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Only one of the blocks was indefinite, which was a misclick, it was meant to be 31 hours. I've fixed it now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ponyo. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello.

I have left a request for you in the Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you

Artur Andrzej (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Artur, I did see the message and have already responded there. The image has been restored by the deleting admin.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, blocker User:70.124.133.228 is now editing as User:2605:6000:EF52:B200:9483:239D:CB13:D866. I am a past and current victim. Thanks. Fsmatovu (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the new IP.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Samia Shahid

Hi Ponyo. Could you please undelete Murder of Samia Shahid? I understand that ban/block evasion was involved, but there is also an ongoing community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samia Shahid (2nd nomination) involving the article, and that should take priority. In fact, the topic of the now-deleted article seems to be more notable than that of the existing Samia Shahid article. I know that we want to dissuade the editor from further evading the block (it seems that they are still doing so), but given the ongoing community discussion and that there was nothing wrong specifically with the content of the article, I think this one should be kept. It looks like the AfD is headed towards a "merge" result anyway, so we may see substantial contributions beyond than the blocked editor. Mz7 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the note Mz7; the article has been undeleted. Please be aware there is very likely paid editing involved with these articles, so a review of the phrasing and sourcing would be appreciated if it will be kept.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the tip and for undeleting. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

You are a serial sockmaster determined to use Wikipedia for promotion. I understand that you may be distressed that you don't get paid when the articles are deleted, or it causes difficulty for yourself or your employer, but this situation is a result of your own wrong-doing and has nothing to do with me or my actions. As long as you continue to evade your block you will continue to be blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello you recently blocked me from editing. I'm not here to fight with you or proving you that you're wrong. I will not edit Wikipedia at all. But please undelete the articles I created. I don't do paid editing at all. The content in all the articles is based on its references. I did a lot of work to create those articles. Please, I request you to undelete the articles ad you undeleted Murder of Samia Shahid. All of those articles were drafts that got accepted by administrators. It will not wrong to undelete them. I will not edit Wikipedia in future or create new articles. If I did you can delete them immediately. But please undelete those articles for now. Trust me, I did alot of hard work for the articles and I can't see my work wasted like this. Please please please undelete them. I don't want to get unblocked but please don't waste my hard work. I'm don't do vandalism at all my IP changes automatically and some other users have already edited through it. But I don't vandalise Wikipedia. PLEASE undelete the articles I created.--119.160.97.26 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please understand me Ponyo. I know you're very strict but please don't waste the work I did.--119.160.97.26 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Please Please try to understand don't just remove my message. I just want my articles undeleted then I'll not edit. Please I did hard work. You're not even replying me and my messages gets removed. Idk how to make you understand that I have done hardwork for Wikipedia. Please imagine you create articles like this and someone deletes them. I'm really upset. Don't do this to me. I'm not asking for unblock. I'm just saying undelete the article I created and then I'll not edit Wikipedia. Please please please please I request you undelete the articles. Thanks!--119.160.97.26 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Please don't delete my messages. I'm not editing through this or any other IP. Please let him see my message. You're also a human not a bot. Read what I'm saying. Don't just remove my messages. My requirements are not invalid. PLEASE!!! Don't waste my work. Both of you are well experienced users. Try to understand. I don't do paid editing. Please don't waste my work.--119.160.98.212 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Joe Teti

Our friend is back on the talk page. Would you mind doing another revdel? agtx 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done and also blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. I thought my original reply on Truth Sayer's talk page would be the end of it, but this unfortunately appears not to be the case.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New Azul411 sock

User:2ggg0 - just a heads up. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a sleeper used to get auto-confirmed.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_34&oldid=1190255215"