User talk:Ponyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Reply to your accusations[edit]

It's not a disagreement and most of all it's not an unfounded accusations as Vaselineee in the past has removed accurate content pertaining to Northern Italy topics. He is removing content from the Emilian language page which poses no disturbance to the wiki page. Let me add that these videos are made by accurate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talkcontribs) 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate; already replied on your talk.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Aspersions. That's your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talkcontribs) 23:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's my evaluation. And if my evaluation leads to the conclusion that your edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block, then that's what I will do.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke[edit]

I remember we went through on the talk page about relationship information and you removed it, I removed it twice now and UditaCh has restored it again. I am not sure, can't see in the history section but I thought I told this person to read the talk page log. Maybe you can sort it out? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see anywhere where I have been spoken to. Except it being written in the second revert that "I thought we talked about this". Please correct me if I am wrong but should a confession directly from the person concerned be counted as Gossip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UditaCh (talkcontribs) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy and UditaCh: My overriding concern when I removed the information the first time is that it included information, including a timeline of the relationship, that was linked solely to anonymous sources on a gossip website. The inclusion of the relationship with Seth MacFarlane in general can be included in the article, I suppose, according to editorial consensus. My personal inclination would be not to include it, as it is clear Clarke has been reticent to discuss the private relationship and it was essentially a short lived fling that happened several years ago. It really doesn't add anything to a BLP article to note the subject had a low-key relationship for a handful of months years ago. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Alos, here's the previous discussion, buried in an archive. The page wasn't overly long and the topics crop up repeatedly, so I'm not sure why the page needed to be archived. I can see if a year had gone by, but it had only been a month. <shrugs>.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
{{|Ponyo|}} Aye. I did not include the time as the mere confession in Clarke's interview was that MacFarlane and her were together. We don't know for how long but they were in one. Same goes for hers and MacDowell's relationship which she published in her own social media. I found sources saying they parted ways this February but since none from reliable ones and not their own confession, I didn't include it. I mean it's still a personal information and which is why we have sections on them don't we? I didn't elaborate on either keeping with the ethics on writing information on Wikipedia.-- User:UditaCh
@UditaCh: I really don't think we need to write on a wikipedia page, who dated who, that's what OK Magazine is for, it's suppose to be a biography with the important key points about her life, I hardly think dating Seth is that important. That's what the original conversation on her talk page was suppose to be about. Govvy (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved this conversation to the the article talk page. Having the conversation here is essentially the same as having it in a vacuum; by moving it everyone has a chance to participate.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Wait. So even when the person confesses to having had a relationship someone it's not an important event in their life and is to be omitted from a biography? Going by the implication of OK magazine are we not assuming that she merely dated when all she said was they were together (which is all I mentioned since it came from the horse's mouth itself)? Both events we're certainly important enough for Clarke to have mentioned or put up in her own social media. Might I add it came from her.Neither MacFarlane or McDowell.From the very person whom we are writing on.-- User: UditaCh —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
We are not whosdatedwho.com, nor a repository for every bit of trivia that can be confirmed. As I noted above, My personal inclination would be not to include it, as it is clear Clarke has been reticent to discuss the private relationship and it was essentially a short lived fling that happened several years ago. It really doesn't add anything to a BLP article to note the subject had a low-key relationship for a handful of months years ago. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing[edit]

Hi Ponyo, the disruptive IP editor that you recently blocked (31.49.57.131), seems to have now surfaced as 86.134.7.12 and is making the same disruptive edits, removing content, shrinking cladograms, and even has posted the same giant dinosaur template to the IP talk page. Could you confirm and zap as appropriate? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Loopy30:. Noted and blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello again Ponyo, the disruptive IP editor has returned again, this time as (31.49.59.109). Edits include the unexplained wholesale deletion of sourced content and changing cladograms, animal templates and classification systems without providing a new source. Loopy30 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
IP user now blocked by WP:AIV. Loopy30 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP user using 31.49.59.109 is back and is edit-warring like it was never blocked in the first place again. Nevermind, and carry on.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Hi Ponyo, Hope all is well on your end? I am writing to ask if you could look into restoring User:Victor Okpala's account. He was blocked by Materialscientist for disruptive editing on 27 March 2019. He also made an unblock request which was declined, and currently has one pending. He created another account and resumed editing, oblivious to our policy on socking and block evasion. I don't know of many new users who are familiar with our policies about the abuse of multiple accounts. I believe this user should be unblock because of his track record outside the community. He writers album reviews for Nigeria Entertainment Today, and has a vlog on YouTube dedicated to the Nigerian music industry. He is an excellent writer and I believe he can contribute constructively to this encyclopedia if given another chance. A template similar to this can be placed on the alternative account.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 03:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Versace1608: The editor was blocked on March 29th, and when their first unblock was declined (and while the second appeal was pending) created a sock account in order to continue the same disruptive over-the-top promotional edits that led to their initial block. There is no way that I'm going to unilaterally overrule three admins and unblock the account regardless of who the editor is outside of Wikipedia. You are free to provide them advice on how to edit constructively and how to make an additional WP:GAB-compliant unblock request that can be reviewed by admins, but I won't unblock at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I am confident that had he known he would get blocked indefinitely for evading his block, he wouldn't have done it. He emailed me and I advised him not to create another account. I also told him he needs to go back to using User:Victor Okpala. From his email, it appears that he really wants to contribute productively to this encyclopedia. He doesn't know the policies and procedures governing Wikipedia and would like guidance. I'd like to mentor him. I am confident he can right his wrongs here and become a productive editor. I am pleading with you and other administrators to allow me to offer him mentorship. I can draft up an agreement and have him signed it. If he deviates from that agreement, I will report him. Please Ponyo, I would appreciate a response from you. Thanks.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Versace1608: Victor Okpala wasn't blocked indefinitely for evading their block. They were blocked indefinitely and then created a new account to evade that block when their appeal was declined. You're free to offer them mentorship, and it's kind of you to do so, but they still need to successfully appeal their block on their talk page for that to happen. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Stank...[edit]

Hi P, some weird behavior has started up recently at Surbhi Chandna and Asian Viewers Television Awards and I think it might be Dimpletisha related. Some guy named Noormohammed satya recently created the Asian Viewers Television Awards (AVTA) article, which had previously been created by Dimpletisha socks. I believe this is an effort to legitimize the award. Noormohammed satya has been a low-level irritant at various articles for his lack of general editing knowledge. I don't think that he's Dimpletisha, but his sudden interest in the AVTA is weird, especially since his edits were immediately followed by an IPV6 editor who has significant intersections with one of the semi-recent Dimpletisha socks, MiaSays. It just has the aroma of collusion.

Jumping forward to Surbhi Chandna, two SPAs, Himanshigoyal1711 and MridhulaSuresh look very similar to me and they both seem to be involved in adding AVTA to Chandna's article.[1][2] They both are mobile users, they both seem to be suddenly focused on Chandna and they both utilise the minor edit button.

Now where this gets slightly more weird, is at Talk:Ishqbaaaz:

I find it bizarre that there are four people requesting the same thing. And frankly I think Himanshigoyal1711 and MridhulaSuresh are probably the same person. Can ye look into any of this, please? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh; this is the type of incessant promotional UPE scenario that led me to delete my watchlist. A few things that may be helpful to untangling the mess:
  • MridhulaSuresh and Mritikha are  Confirmed to each other. There's some password reset stuff happening, so it may be inadvertant socking, but they should not be participating in the same discussion.
  • while it's  Possible that MridhulaSuresh and Himanshigoyal1711 are the same person, from a strictly technical standpoint it looks like WP:MEAT.
  • I also don't think these accounts are directly linked to Dimpletisha outside of having the same interest in promoting Asian Viewers Television Awards.
Not sure if this was much help, Cyphoidbomb. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The talk page that you deleted[edit]

The talk page you deleted had warnings on it, can the warnings be restored? VanZa39 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would you want to restore the warnings? It only serves to give more attention to a trolling vandal account.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

All done now Yamaguchi先生. I tend to drop off the wiki map for days at a time, so if I don't respond right away an email to the oversight team guarantees a quicker response. Cheers,-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Zaxxon0 at Simple and Meta[edit]

Hi. User:Zaxxon0 has rocked up at both Simple and Meta. If this user is problematic, then it would be worthwhile knowing. If it needs to be closely-held knowledge it may be best for you to let the respective checkusers at those wikis know. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

KaranSharma0445[edit]

Hi P, do you know if we have any active CU-usable data on KaranSharma0445? I see this person MandanaKarimi345 recreating a lot of redirects that the KaranSharma socks were attracted to. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: confirmed NoraFatehi231 as a KaranSharma sock just over a week ago, so there should be a CU trail available.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Sometimes I need to be nudged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
All I had to do was head out for a lovely tuna poke bowl and the work was complete when I returned! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

You recently said you don't spend as much time at SPI as you used to. Maybe I should do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Always. Oh, and lucky for ANI enthusiasts everywhere, Ritchie has bestowed the community with his take on the subject. No conversation is truly complete without it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie's comments are of course not surprising, although I wasn't aware of that "essay" in his userspace. I'm very disappointed <understatement> in some of the others' comments and very much regret sending PMC a thank you e-mail for helping out in the unblocking after I went to bed. That was, of course, before I saw the let's-kill-Bbb23 thread at ANI. Sigh. One more piece of irony: I did consider the idea of a class/wikithon/edit-a-thon. I've had enough (bad) experience with this sort of thing for red flags to be raised. However, the technical characteristics revealed in the check made me think otherwise; hence, the blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Just in case you're not already aware. AGF has a limit. ‑ Iridescent 21:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I did see that. My intent was to put a cork in the immediate disruption (hopefully saving your sanity in the process) and then seeing where things go.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)