User talk:Ponyo/Archive 1

The article wasn't nonsense, according to the criteria for speedy deletion, but I deleted the article anyway because it was an exact copy of another, more detailed article. Since that article asserts notability, you can't put the article up for CSD under A7. If you still think that the article doesn't confer under Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you can list the article on articles for deletion. Sr13 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for my help. My thoughts on this article is that if you take it through and AfD the result will surely be merge, and that is what i recommend you do. But before you do so a proper discussion needs to take place with the community at large to decide if they agree with the decision to merege. To do this simply place {{mergeto|Chiranjeevi}} on the article and start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Remember to be bold! Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking over it again, you may even be able to get away with simply redirecting the page to Chiranjeevi, but ultimately that decision is up to you. Have you considered discussing the idea of a merge or redirect with the author of the article? You and the author may want to take a look at WP:NOTE. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay - it wasn't exactly merited, and it seems to have been doled out randomly by a now blocked contributor, but I feel warm and fuzzy all the same! ponyo (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have complaint and don't quite know where to make it. I contributed to the recent additions to the Simon Bolívar article, only to have them summarily erased by another contributor. That simply was not right, isn't it worth mentioning that entire books have been based on this disputed aspect of Bolivar? ThanksNord1 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Response at Nord1 talk page ponyo (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning: The editor who has asked your assistance has edit warred and made zero edits to the talk page of the article in question. You may wish to suggest that he or she attempt discussion there, since there, NOT the talk page of "the editor" (three have reverted thus far) is the appropriate place to discuss desired edits to an article. Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, by Wikipedia standards I'm still pretty green. The reason I skipped the talk page suggestion is that it had already been requested in the edit summary by a previous reverting editor and had been ignored. As such I provided alternative methods of dispute resolution. I've seen some completely over the top edit wars solved very quickly when one editor approaches another amicably on their talk page, and of course the WP:DR page I pointed him to contains a wealth of solutions as well. ponyo (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nods, that can work well when it really is a dispute between two editors - but in this case at least three have reverted, and if Nord1 was the anon adding the information immediately previously, then more than three - which makes it a case of Nord1 editing against consensus without trying to "make a case" on the talk page. Nord1 was not clear, and was even a little misleading, in his/her edit above - using "contributor" singular was inaccurate. As a suggestion, if you ask if the issue is a content dispute, and if it has been discussed on the talk page; or even cover both bases by stating "content disputes on article talk pages, personal disputes on user talk pages" (rephrasing to be a bit more friendly) then you can't go wrong. You're doing a great job btw - kudos. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean here really? That the execution was fake? I have watched lots of this type of material and it aint Hollywood effects speaking in this case. Now please me alone i have some editing to do.

Yeh, but it's all sorted out now. The thing is he/she was blocked but they were still allowed to edit their own talk page to request a lift of the block - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• o.O tell me about it ;) - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with going much further back is that it would re-introduce some of the gossip and other unsourced content that was in the article. As it is, I've reverted to an edit that's about two months old. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and search further back. I know at some point the term "sexy star" was defined in the article; that could be a bit of context that's missing with the current description. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you finding any reliable sources on her? See the comments from Missalcaholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) further down my talk page. I'm seriously thinking about deleting the article under A7 and removing the mentions of her from Quizon Avenue (since IMDB doesn't validate her as in the cast). —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The thought did cross my mind to leave as vanilla a version as possible up for 48 hours, since other sites are clearly mirroring the article. Hopefully they'd refresh; the risk now is that they stay with the last version they got. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ehm I write for first time message so I don't know if it is correct way to write here but anyway... So about the Paul Robinson, you said it isn't relevant but IMHO it is. I don't know your personal climbing and especually bouldering experiences but, Paul Robinson was long time the world bouldering ranking leader based on the 8a.nu score database untill he deleted his scorecard and won multiple times the nord american bouldering series. He is is still the only one to made the second ascent of Fred Nicoles Terremer and made some 8C FAs... That are kinda crazy achievments and as he appeared in some other wiki pages I though I should add him to the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koprinen (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: aaah well ok. Unfortunately I am not so familiar with the Paul Robinsons bio and only with his ascents, which I have seen on videos and on news and his scorecard so far. So thanks for the information about how things are going on here, and I'll fix the pages, when someone, or me personally adds the Paul Robinson (climber) page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koprinen (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, yes, I noticed that I crossed you on a few pages. I have taken the habit, once a day, to take 10 more or less random articles from the end of the new pages backlog (excluding sports and music album articles -those people seem to regard anything as notable - and stuff I really don't know much about). So I'll guess we'll bump into each other now and then again. I was also contemplating to PROD, but if those TV appearances can be sourced (and I don't really want to spend the time to go looking for them, so I'll leave that for someone else) then the article would probably even survive AfD. Finishing a thesis is tough, for the candidite and for his/her partner, so good luck to both of you :-) --Crusio (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, per WP:EL, all links must be relevant, but at the same time, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is not here to promote a single opinion or provide a means for people to do that. So, to answer you question in short, petitions should not be in an EL section. The WP:MOSTV doesn't really discuss this, because it's really specific and that page is an overall guideline for the most part. That being said, discussion of petitions is good from a prose standpoint, so long as there is coverage on the petition from a reliable, third party source. Meaning, we cannot just go searching for petitions and then use our own words to discuss that a petition exists. We would need someone reliable, and independent of the subject reporting on it. So, if say USA Today decided to run a piece on how fans of Ed petitioned NBC to release the show on DVD (it currently is not on DVD), then we should include that in the article. If all you can find is some fansite discussing the petition, then it, unfortunately, is not reliable enought to warrant inclusion in an article. I hope this answers your question. If not, shoot me a response back and I'll try and clarify on whatever was unclear, or unaddressed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hugh Wilson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Melchiord (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've strucken out the above warning because it does not apply to Ponyo, who is not even close to 3RR. Melchiord has violated 3RR, so I will report him/her to WP:AN3. Cunard (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for helping Boleyn and me maintain consensus by reverting this user's addition. Take care, Cunard (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

--AndrewHowse (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I spoke to someone on the phone on the actual day Blond was buried, this person was about to move to his very funeral. Due to the nature of topic I am not going to give away the name of the spokesman, but he is a good friend of mine. He also volunteered with Blond for the SS. Since you are a bit picky with regards to the date of death I'll leave it all to you, hope you enjoy your "roll-backs" regarding a topic you don't seem to have a clue about.

cheerios —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.75.33 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, The white space does not seem that large to me. I suppose the larger the window you view it on the larger the white space. I think it looks better if the edit links are at the edge of the article which is why I lowered the 'see also' section slightly. As for readers not knowing of extra information at the bottom of the article, perhaps the addition of a contents box would solve this, however I don't know how to add one. Please edit the article as you see fit, if you would like to raise the 'see also' section then by all means go ahead. Thanks for asking first! Originalwana (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The ip is blocked again. Perhaps it needs a rangeblock. If so, you should ask someone at WP:AIV since I am not an expert in those. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please point out to me the controversial material I was supposed to have written to the article about Larry Campbell. Since all of the information I wrote comes directly from the gentleman's official webpage I have to wonder what on earth you are talking about. I notice you said it "appeared" to be unsourced so I have to assume that you did not check first to find out before jumping on me with both feet. Jammies4phun (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jammies4phun, I understand that it must be frustrating to have your edits reverted, however there were many issues with the changes that you made that required the article to be returned to its previous version. The most glaring issue was that you replaced a large amount of content with unsourced material (you did not quote the source you were using). Above you mention that you were using his "official website" for the information. This does not meet the criteria required to add information to biographies of living people articles. From the BLP page I linked to:

• "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

There are a couple of additional policy issues with the changes you made to the page. Comments like "We certainly can't argue with that" do not adhere to a neutral point of view, which needs to be followed on all wikipedia articles. In addition, if you are pulling information off of the 'official website', there may be copyright issues. I'm not able to double check this as you have not provided a link to the website you were using.

Finally, the changes that you made broke several wikilinks and changed the layout of the page. Wikipedia's manual of style has tons of good information and links to follow that outline how to present information into article space.

Once again, I'm sorry that you feel that you were "jumped on" as this was not my intention. I hope that you read the information I provided here, as well as the "Getting Started" links in the welcome message I left on your talk page. Best, --ponyo (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added Mark Kurzem's book, as well as his 2002 documentary, as references for my corrections and embellishments. Whoever wrote the original entry had clearly never read or seen either, and was basing his facts on a simplified 10 minute CBS piece which can be seen on YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenticwave (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work there. Funny, I just happened to have stopped there for coffee + gas and was curious about the town. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you didn't have to wade through any KKK parades in order to get to the coffee shop? Although the contention that it is a "hotbed" of activity may be true, there's no way that the info should be there without an ironclad reliable source. There are a number of eyes on the article now, so the burden of keeping it NPOV won't all be on you. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a little traffic for the big festival. I was wondering what it was, and then came here and it was spammed in the lead for Morganton. Wikipedia has the answer to everything! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Three sources are included in the article (as external links). There are no in-line citations, and that is why the BLP sources tag is appropriate. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I was unaware that the "references" section could contain general references which were not inline citations. In the case of this article, all of the "external links" are actually general references that do back up the content of the article. Based on my experience, external links often if not always contain general references, so it seems like those should be moved to the references section. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You recently posted this user at WP:AIV. Could I ask you to provide diffs on the edits which you feel are vandalism, because I cannot see any. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anthony - Looking through the edits I think a better description would have been "disruptive editing". I only gave the account a first level warning; it was three additional editors who escalated it to a final warning, all of whom described the edits as vandalism. After the final warning, the editor in question created an article that was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. This is when I filed the AIV report. Regardless, the issue appears moot now as user:17717171j has stopped editing. ponyo (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment on the deleted article, and what that was about I know not. But it is true to say that there were no vandalisms at all up to the final warning; I rather suspect that we have done no more here than scare away a perfectly genuine new user, who responded to the undeserved final warning in an over-reactive way. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a piece of the blame on that, there was a lack of AGF demonstrated. It's unfortunate, and to be honest I simply saw the warnings multiply on my watch list and headed to AIV when the article was created and ultimately speedied after Alansohn's final warning. Question though, if the editor hadn't stopped adding commentary into article space, what would have been the outcome? They didn't appear to be interested in the welcome message and sandbox links I provided... ponyo (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the situation, and I agree that it seems very odd. Your best bet would probably be to take this up at the reliable sources noticeboard, with regards to the sourcing being used. I'll put the page on my watchlist, and see what develops. Unitanode 19:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

When I added the "photo needed" parameter to the Verner Panton talk page, I did it because the article is lacking a picture of the person Verner Panton. I think the WPBiography template is designed to be used on biographies, and therefore, if you use the photoneeded parameter, the article will get categorized as a biography needing a picture. People will interpret this as the need of a portrait photo or something like that. I think we should put the parameter back. (btw if you reply please notify me at my talk page :D) --Ysangkok (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted a spammer and noted that you removed one of the spams (thanks!). May I suggest that next time you click "undo" (in the article history) to reverse the spam addition and add "linkspam" (or similar text) to the end of the normal "undid" edit summary. That makes it a tiny bit easier when checking because we can specifically see that you undid the link addition that is being checked. This is in relation to Alvar Aalto. Please report if you see any more linkspam of this nature. You could do that at WT:WikiProject_Spam#deconet.com (although that section will be archived soon), or you might like to add a note to my talk. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops; please ignore above. I just noticed that it was you who added the spam report! Thanks again. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. I assumed the IP would hardly extend the courtesy of letting you know, being so wrapped up in demanding punishment and all...Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the edit. She is 46 years old. The end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.224.176 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then a reliable source to verify your assertions should be easy to find, no? Once you have the verified birthdate/age then you can update the page accordingly. ponyo (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are using the GLORY wrestling page, which is not a really reliable source to begin with. If you really want, I'll supply a copy of her birth certificate or driver's license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.224.176 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally using any website as I didn't add the information to the article. In order to remove established information and replace it with different info you need to be able to supply a reliable source to verify the new information. This standard is much more strict when dealing with biographies of living people. I'm not sure how exactly you would obtain a copy of the individual's birth certificate, but if you are the subject of the article I would suggest that you send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation via the WP:OTRS system so that they can verify the information privately. You can reach them via this page. Please let me know if you have any further questions and I'd be happy to help. ponyo (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what age is on there and the fact that you want to spend your days scrolling Wikipedia for edits, the fact is that the woman is 46 years old. So that leads one to ask, how on earth do you know that the source the creator used is reliable? Not only that, but if she truly was born in 1971, I find it interesting that at one point, her Wikipedia said she born in like '75 or maybe '77. This was the way it was on her GLORY profile as well until everyone kept giving her crap about not being able to pass for being that young, and she finally changed it to this (which I may point out is still wrong but eh). I suppose this is why Wikipedia is not allowable as a resource for term papers, as people believe any junk as true on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.224.176 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've explained the Wikipedia policy on using reliable sources to allow people to verify the information you add to articles. I've pointed you to the correct place to have the information corrected if you do have access to official private documents as you've previously stated. Regarding your comment on using Wikipedia as a source for term papers and such, this makes interesting reading. Your argument also undermines your position as you're asserting that the information in Wikipedia articles can be false ("people belive any junk as true"), while at the same time trying to insert unverifiable information. Do you see the irony? To reiterate, if the birthdate you want to insert is accurate I've pointed you in the right direction to have it corrected. If you choose not to, that's your perogative. --ponyo (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes captain intellectual I understand the irony that my comment also undermines my argument, but the utlimate fact remains that you are reverting false information that you have no real verification for yourself (which more are less means you are the pot as well as the kettle in this situation). To be completely truthful with you, I don't really care if she has her age listed as 46, 36, 26, or 16 (whatever marks that might read her page can believe it or not). My real joy in changing the info is this: lying about her age is a rather sad attempt to cling to her 15 minutes of fame (which was more like 2 minutes 30 seconds). She gets mad at me when I change it because she doesn't want people to know her real age, and I find that funny. Enjoy the universal healthcare and curling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.224.176 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it should be my friend. Because I am really upset. The King Gemini (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you're upset, but the loss of two lives in relation to the loss of a tv show are hardly equatable. Regardless, there are countless forums and blogs that you can post to in order to express your disappointment with like-minded individuals - Wikipedia talk pages are not the appropriate venue. --ponyo (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please specify what part of said article was non-neutral? As a friendly reminder, the person raising a POV dispute is supposed to explain on the talk page why the article is felt to be non-neutral. Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ngchen - I've made some notes on the article talk page per your request. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is your username related to the Ponyo movie? I note that your account is older than the movie, but that "production started" in 2006. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a total coincidence. My username is based on a nickname my husband gave me when we met back in 1998. It's the anglification of what he believed to be a word for "friend". Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the policies regarding blogs and verifiability, but I was at work and didn't have time to check the source. With BLPs, it's always better safe than sorry. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me; I'm pretty strict on enforcing BLP policies too and had a chance to check the source. I hate reverting any non-vandal edits, especially from respectable editors such as yourself, without dropping a note on their talk page out of courtesy. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your consideration is appreciated. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, happy to help! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry if my posts were getting in the way. You were right to point that out Ponyo. Sorry I didn't know how to personally contact you. Dellieboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellieboy (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO you might want to do a Google earch before to flex your "Almighty" Wikipedia muscles and see which author comes up. Please move him back to Michael Talbot. Or please answer -- Why did you move Michael Talbot to Michael Coleman Talbot?? Also, the reason what your wiki article is on top is that a lot of folks are pointing to it because they they think it is the predomination Michael Talbot, author of the Holographic Universe. Try doing a search for "Michael Coleman Talbot" -- nothing comes up. He never used his middle name and Amazon doesn't not use his middle name. No ONE knows him by his middle name and He has a lot for notoriety than this composer. You need to correct this. (H0riz0n (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)).

• I've checked and don't see any question about notability. His book is published by Harper, and has a respectable sales ranking on Amazon. I'm removing the notability template. --Parsifal _Hello 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by H0riz0n (talk • contribs)

Why is this here? You've added this same note to User talk:Galassi and cut/pasted an old note from another user from October 2007...Nobody is challenging the notability of the American Author who's article is currently at Michael Coleman Talbot, I'm simply requesting that you put in a proper request at WP:RM so that all the information is moved over correctly. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

11:24, 21 May 2009 Galassi (talk | contribs) m (5,185 bytes) (moved Michael Talbot to Michael Coleman Talbot: disambiguation) (undo) -- why did he and you move it? Its been Michael Talbot since 2007 and he moved it in 2009? So EVERYONE since 2007 have to change their links because of you? He had no right to make that move to an established page! If you look. He moved it then wrote the new article.(H0riz0n (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)).

Horizon, I am not Glassi and cannot speak as to why the article was moved. My revert of your page move was done on procedural grounds as you deleted the original article and cut and pasted the Michael Coleman Talbot article in its place. This is NOT how you perform a page move; it does not account for talk pages, histories etc. You really need to calm down and take the time to make a proper page move request at the link above. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the CBC article reference. Please also consider contributing to both this page and the Ian Tamblyn page, since William Hawkins is going more slowly than I would prefer--and more slowly than he deserves, in my view.

Dreadarthur (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I Take It Off The "Notable People With WPW" Section Then? KingRaven (>$.$)> (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well they should be. Ya'll should let that happen. The King Gemini (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? I have no clue what your comments are in reference to. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I noted your somewhat broad assertions about the article at Timeshift9's talk page. I agreed with his move to a section given that all of the tags in the article related to that section, so I am a little mystified as to what you see as issues with the article - it's simple and uncontroversial for the most part, and apart from one claim which I removed (it's quite possible it was true, but I couldn't verify it and it added nothing to the narrative) everything could be tied back to sources worthy of WP:RS. The rest of the tags were cleared in a 10 minute web search. If you have other issues with the article, I'd suggest raising them at the talk page. Orderinchaos 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy doesn't require sourcing for just negative/controversial points, it needs sourcing for all major points. I came across the Tanner article during an alphabetical sweep of Category:Living people articles and noticed that someone had tagged a bunch of the sentences with "citation needed", which hinders the ability to read the article. It was obvious that some editor(s) at some point in time felt that the information was contentious and as such I added the "Refimprove" tag to the top of the article, as suggested at WP:TC. The intent was to bring more people to the article to provide the sourcing so that the multiple inline citation requests could be removed, and having added the template in good faith I thought Timeshift 9's edit summary of "moving ghastly ugly pointless tag" was rude. I like to work with other editors, so I told him/her why I thought it rude, and pointed out the relevant links as to why I added the template. There was absolutely no disrespect intended at anytime and will of course apologize if my message was misconstrued. I think ultimately it worked out best for everyone...no more multiple inline "citation needed" tags marring the article, and it now has additional sources. Now that's collaboration! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 04:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for your informed response :) Orderinchaos 07:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your inquiry at Talk:Greg Tanner.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I replied there as well. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, Regarding your deletion of my discussion start. Basically I was looking up info about this person after I heard she just finally one her lawsuit saying she wrote the movies "The Matrix" and "Terminator" which made me feel like there was substance to her claim. After seeing all the issues with her page, but nothing in discussion I wanted to prompt the plausibility of reimplementing that page. Its really a shame that I cant go to Wikipedia to learn about someone who has a direct connection to the history of notable films in pop culture.

Thanks, ArmondT —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmondT (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason that the I removed the information from the AfD talk page is because the deletion discussion had already been closed and archived. No reliable sources whatsoever could be found to substantiate Stewart's claim. If you believe the article was deleted in error, I suggest contacting the administrator who deleted the article (User:Cirt). Note however that no matter how important you believe an individual to be, a biographical article cannot be included on Wikipedia unless the individual meets notability criteria for inclusion and the information contained within the article can be verified by reliable sources. This is of even greater importance when dealing with contentious and possibly libelous information as was contained in the Stewart article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I see that you have made significant edits to this article; I believe the subject to be non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Warwak. Robofish (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments have been noted at the AfD page (delete). --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, nice one, someone has to do it, the issue was mentioned at the BLPN, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now you know all about it, your signature got the better of me, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It'll take some time to work through as I'm not only adding any references I find to the Dropping out article, I'm also adding it to the individual biography articles as well. It may take me a couple days, but it should be nice and tidy once I'm through! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP Barnstar

Thank you xeno, the sentiment is much appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Natasha Wheat, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rees11 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the AfD page, I was going to do it on Monday if no substantial changes to the article were made over the weekend. My argument to delete can be found at the AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I was kind of waiting for someone else to nominate, since I'm essentially lazy. But now I'm glad I did because it's my first AfD and now I know how to do it. Rees11 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one is always a little daunting, and the instructions seemed really confusing to me when I started. Good on you for taking the initiative! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I revised the speedy deletion template to point out item A7, which is for articles about people that do not assert any sort of notability. It seems to be a humorous nonsense article, but about an actual person, perhaps a friend of the page creator? Just wanted to give you a heads up. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the G3 category is more accurate as the article is pure vandalism. "-name removed- is a steak ball love-yo" isn't even a half-hearted attempt to create a valid article of any sort. It's not that the author hasn't asserted any notability in relation to the subject of the article, the author has put a picture of a steak with the subject's name under it. That being said, any category used which results in deletion of this article is find by me! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to be a recreation of this one, which was speedy deleted four times under G1, A7, and A3. This is obviously not User:Leedsunited1993's first kick at the Speedy Deletion can. Hopefully the admin who deletes the article will also block the accunt, so helpful editors (such as me and you!) don't have to keep going through this. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The AFD seems a bit maformed? Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just really slow! It should be good to go now... --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, lets see what happens. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because their is a reference in the infobox. And no the article will not be deleted because it has no references, he is a professional football player and therfore meets WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The link in the infobox is an External link for NFL.com - this is not the same as references from independent third party sources. And yes, any BLP articles that are unsourced can most certainly be deleted, and indeed this has been occuring over the past few days (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding BLP deletions and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people). Notability is a completely seperate issue, and simply meeting the notability requirement of WP:Athlete does not exempt any BLP from requiring proper sourcing for verifiability. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So what a bunch of notable football player articles are getting deleted just because they dont have references.--Yankees10 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any unreferenced BLP articles are being deleted - actors, politicians, scientists - adding and bolstering the references with reliable sources is the best way to ensure the articles are kept. If the individuals are notable, then surely there are references available. Whatever you do, don't actually remove good inline citations from the article! If you have any articles you're particularly worried about being deleted, let me know and I can try to reference them for you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a list or anything of the NFL players that have been deleted?--Yankees10 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. You could take a look through the deletion log and see if you find any names that pop up that you recognize from the 20th and 21st. Also, check the articles that had the PROD tag added since Wednesday located here. It appears that the outright deletion has stopped for now and the Request for Comment page I linked to above seems to be leaning towards PRODDING the article to give individuals time to add references prior to deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you, the text is by permission of the artist Tahis, but please i would need your help for the correct translation of the article, I would be very grateful Tahisfanclub --Tahisfanclub (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not quite sure what you are requesting from me, however I have posted a welcome message to your talk page which contains a number of valuable links and information regarding editing Wikipedia which you may find useful. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you, please tell me I can do to send a confirmation of the artist herself and i send you, maybe some email address? You say and do what you tell me. I try to do the translation correctly. I understand your position perfectly, but this would be a mess --Tahisfanclub (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there specific information that you want to add to the article? Note that writing on behalf of an individual is considered a

conflict of interest and should be avoided. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think the article is appropriate, i said it only because you as a profesional, you could see that this article created by me, is with the consent of the artist Tahis. But the article is fine, thanks A greeting and thanks for your kindness (sorry my english) jiii Maica d Tahisfanclub --83.56.166.14 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The toilet issue is the issue, delete that for blp and it will all be good. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I still stand by my comment on the talk page - I think a single referenced sentence within the article is ok, but the sister's quote and such is extraneous and could be cut. I'm happy to abide by whatever concensus forms...On a related note, when I found a reliable source to restore the info you had cut as uncited, I realized that the entire thing has been lifted directly from an online article. I hope I've rewritten it sufficiently that there is no issue regarding copyright as the material is informative, neutral, and adds to the article. I'm going to keep searching for sources that will allow for the article to be built up. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course that is your privilege. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd thing to say....I'm trying to improve the entire article as a whole and am not focusing on the current BLP squabble. Whichever way it turns out is ok with me, as long as the information does not overshadow the rest of the article and it's well sourced. There's a slippery slope when it comes to allowing individuals to control their own wiki articles, I'm just looking at policy and precedence in forming my opinion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for correcting me. XXX antiuser ^eh? 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, keep fighting the good fight! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil deprodding. Its all sourced now, so I see no harm in keeping, personally.--Milowent (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, any potential issues are resolved. I still think notability is a little weak, but the article is well sourced and so there's no real concern. Thank you kindly for the sources! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You created the article in the mainspace and I moved it to User:Ponyo/Milton Gunzburg. I assume that was where it was intended for. Jhbuk (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - I did indeed mean to create a draft in my userspace, but missed the all important colon when creating the link. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Altenmann#Name_dab_changes. - Altenmann >t 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at 220.101.28.25's talk page.220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC):

Sorry - looks like he jumped from me to you. No worries as he's now blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, and no need to feel sorry for his jump. I love userspace vandals - Easy to identify, Easy to revert and satisfying to see blocked. Besides, vandalizing my pages means he leaves the more important mainspace alone. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for editing and correcting the SoShy page Just to prevent confusion, what can and can't I post from my forum on this page ? Could you guide me please ?

With friendly regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.24.134 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Links to forums should not (except in rare instances) be used on Wikipedia as the information is not vetted. The specific guidelines regarding adding links to articles can be found at WP:EL. As the SoShy article is a biography of a living person, there are additional requirements regarding the addition of information that you should review if you will continue working on the article - specifics can be found at WP:BLP. Let me know if you have any additional questions and I'll be happy to help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 00:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

—Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion as vandalism. The bacon tuxedo is an actual, albeit silly, product. I have brought the article to AfD instead; feel free to provide input! By the way, I love your name, presuming it comes from the master Miyazaki. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I honestly never knew that such a thing existed, if only there was a Wikipedia article to describe such a beast...oh wait! Regarding the username it's actually an old nickname, entirely coincidental in relation to the Miyazaki' great works. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew it was too good to be true --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

no Problem Ponyo, it is at least a bit better than it was, judging my the general comments a fair few editors would support AFD. I am in two minds, weak delete. http://stats.grok.se/en/201001/Cristina_Schult it gets about thirty views a day so someone is interested, it is a bit one event though, it's on my watchlist anyway, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes me slightly nauseous to think of thirty people viewing that article each day in its current state. I think I may pull anything out that isn't explicitely (and reliably) sourced and then see if there's enough info left to maintain notability and avoid BLP1E. I need to pick up my fire-proof suit from the cleaners first though. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx for that clean up n' for not reverting the link I took out. That was the main prob for me. Jrod2 (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries; there was no need for an additional reference anyway since the ASPCA link contained the relevant details for verification. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Jafar Zafarani, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Ray^Talk 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Annabel Walker has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(meets WP:author.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo:

The information you are posting in regards to the above mentioned individual (Artel Great) is false. The image displayed is false. Corrections were made to this page by drgreative that reflect accurate and true information. Revert back to the edit made on May 6, by drgreative or further action will be taken to permanently block you.

Drgreative (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)drgreativeDrgreative (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've sent a note to this editor on WP:AGF. --N419BH (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons‎ from a fellow member! Glad you've joined up officially. Please speak up at the Talk page, wt:URBLP. Probably you've been addressing BLPs longer than i have, but I am glad to be working there with a good group of people, towards meeting the 30,000 target by June 1. I noticed you added "BLP IMDB refimprove" tag to an article, by the way. Do you happen to use wp:AWB, or would you be interested in getting started with it? It's a great tool for addressing many articles relatively quickly. --doncram (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I prefer not to use any automated tools – it may take a little extra time to work through some tasks, but I find that I tend to notice the "little things" more and hopefully that results in an all-around net positive when I work on an article. The IMDB tag is very helpful by the way, and I've added it to my template "hotlist" page. Hopefully I will be able to dig up enough additonal sources for any given article that I won't have to use it too often, but it certainly is a useful tag to have in my back pocket should refs be scarce. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Chzz  ►  17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just dropping a quick note to thank you for the constructive edit summary; perhaps I was being a bit too strict with the policy here. Since both you and another user have removed the prod, I'll leave it as it is but I will try to incorporate some explicit references / inline citations into the article when I get chance, to avoid any future controversy on the article. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I searched for inline citations prior to removing the tag, but there really wasn't much to be found. The External link provided did appear to encapsulate everything that was being asserted in the article, so I removed the PROD. I was also concerned about notability, but I checked the Wikiproject Football page and they list his current club as top tier, so I'm happy with that as well now. You're doing really good work here, so if one or two PRODs are removed I wouldn't be too concerned; it's all part of the collaborative editing process! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Since the external link reinforces the points made in the article, I'll move it from external links to a references section; that way it'll be clearer that the link provides a source for the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Football (soccer) is the agreed term for Australian articles. It has already been agreed that the term is football (soccer), not football or association football. Please open a new discussion on it if you think it should be changed. I'd be happy to give my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The changes you made were done without explanation, edit summary, or link to the discussion which you are referring to. In addition, you changed the link to display without piping, and the link added simply redirected to the article it was originally linked to. This gave the appearance of test editing or vandalism. Could you please provide the link to the discussion showing that the changes you made had concensus? Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link I was referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_football_in_Australia#protected 60.224.3.243 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the BLP Prod on this article which you removed, because imdb is not a reliable source. I42 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IMDB can be used to used to verify basic role information - this has been discussed many times on the WP:RS board. The point is moot though, because I didn't use it as a souce, I included it as an external link. Also, I included a reference from The Whitby Gazette, which certainly is a RS. I also improved the article substantially. Did you really look at it before undoing my changes? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes - my apologies. I suffered complete blindness to the ref in the Whitby Gazette you also added which, of course, did satisfy the requirements for the removal of the BLP Prod. I42 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you [1]. Would you mind pointing me to the discussion(s) where this consensus was reached? I believe putting a note on the talk page about this would help prevent other oafs like myself from doing this :) Jujutacular ^T · C 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly classify you as an oaf for following the referencing guideline for almost all pages except the Deaths in 2xxx page! If you would like to follow the previous discussions, this is a good starting point. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've created a tag: Template:UsebareURLs and implemented it. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks for the effort. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That was completely unintentional. Thanks for fixing that. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

I assume you hadn't gone rogue! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and congratulations! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to explain to me how factual information which is presented in an encyclopedic manner and is properly cited does not meet the requirements for a reliable source or external links, especially with this in mind in addition to this. Not trying to be combative, I'm just curious how it does not apply and how the source is not valid yet it meets the requirement of being self-published. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am having major computer issues today, so apologies in advance if this reply is delayed. Your edit initially read as promotional (new gym/grand opening with only facebook as a reference). However upon undoing your edit I reviewed it again and tried to revert myself - my connection timed out for the billionth time today and you got to it first. So, sorry for the knee jerk reaction and I plan on taking a hiatus until my server issues are solved! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was only curious. Best of luck with your computer issues. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a moot issue because the article Ken Talbot has been edited, but due to the rules of subject-verb agreement, "none" is singular and thus "none has" is correct.

"None” has both singular and plural forms. The singular verb form is used when “none” means “no one” or “not one”. The plural is used when “none” implies more than one thing or person.

 Nutmegger (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramiro_Helmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Helmayer - Hi, I didn't know that was a problem, even if it is prodded for different versions? Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The PROD directions are pretty clear that it can only be PRODed once (e.g. "Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has not previously been proposed for deletion"). The 'oldprodfull' template should have been added to the talk page to prevent further PROD noms, but many times no one actually adds it. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide me a link to that guideline, please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, looking at it and from experience, that is not happening in practice and it is quite common for secondary prods to be left on the articles to deletion, do you object to its deletion? Or have you got any suggestions as to what iyo is the best thing to do with it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The PROD page is here. If pages are being PRODed a second time then the admins aren't checking like they're supposed to. The admin PROD instructions are clear:

"Before deletion, administrators should check the article, its history, and deletion log to confirm that:

• The prod tag has been in place continuously for at least 7 days
• No objections have been raised on the talk page.
• The article is eligible for proposed deletion: never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never discussed at AfD." (bolding mine).

I have no opinion on its deletion, and made a note in my edit summary and on the BLPN page that it needs to be taken to AfD, which quite honestly is a more approrpiate venue for any articles wherein the nomination could be contentious. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To Hogan Stand!!! (And seriously, thank you for all the incredible sourcing work!) --j⚛e decker^talk 00:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I had it that way to begin with, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for fixing it and for the layout link. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Those copypasta violations are a real pesto, don't you think?  ;-) --j⚛e decker^talk 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it good or bad that I intentionally put "copypasta" as slang?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a goodness. A cheesy, tasty goodness.  ;-) --j⚛e decker^talk 21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't look at me, none of this is mafalde! <insert groan here> --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!, Laphroig will work fine--I love those peaty Islay malts! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure you stay away from the shiny new extra buttons whilst celebrating, otherwise it could be the shortest adminship ever. (Which raises an interesting point - I wonder whether there's a record of that dubious distinction anywhere?) <wanders off to search the archives> --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope this is the right way to post a question for help - I'm trying to follow the instructions from your post. I attempted to correct the wiki page for Campbell Bridges and the vast majority of the edits and updates I made were excluded. I did back up the information with outside sources so I'm not sure why it was excluded? The information currently on the wiki page for Campbell Bridges is incorrect and also incomplete. Campbell Bridges was not from Scotland. He never lived anywhere except Africa. Please advise. I would like to update this page so that it is both accurate and more complete. Thanks. P.S. Have a good vacation. Beo2010 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Above editor(Beo2010) has been contacted on their Talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad you proposed the article for deletion as it had been unreferenced for over a year and that prompted me to look at it more closely. Even after updating the article briefly and adding those links, I'm not convinced it would survive and AfD, but I wasn't sure a PROD was the way to go now. At least the article is accurate now, so that's a good thing. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PROD and AfD are always my "last resort" in BLP referencing - I was happy to see you jump in. You do really great work here, so I'm happy to cross your path. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't lie about what happened in the 2009 NFC Championship Game. The source is within the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.110.18.39 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As another editor has pointed out, the paragraph you are trying to add is full of POV phrasing. Using phrases such as "Tahi will go down in Vikings' infamy" is a judgement and has negative connotations. The information is also somewhat trivial in nature, but if you could find a way to write it in a completely neutral fashion and insert it with a source under the career section, then it would be more likely to be kept. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality contributions there, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob! There was plenty of coverage, and I didn't even have to sort through any of the pay-per-view GNews results to find all the info. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Films themselves are the source for it. Google if you don't believe it. By the way, you deleted too many things on Jaclyn A. Smith's page with the excuse of being "puffery" that constitute vandalism. LoveActresses (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to add sources to the material that you add. The onus is on you (see WP:BURDEN). Please also read WP:NOTVAND - removing unsourced promotion, puffery and personal information is expected when working with biographies of living people and is certainly not vandalism. If you would like to continue working on biography articles than you need to read all the relevant policies and guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when are personal information about her name Jax, that appears on her MySpace page, her height, that appears on IMDb, not relevant for biographies? Height appears in many pages about actors. You should be familiarized with them before deleting things. And why is a description of her fame in "quickly shot Jaclyn to sci-fi stardom, making her a fan favorite of Canadian sci-fi fans from coast-to-coast" something to delete? And "As a result of Jaclyn's Earth Hour effort, Vancouver Coastal Health invited her to join their GreenCare initiative. The strategic priority of the GreenCare programs (EnergyWise, WaterWise, TravelWise, and Zero Waste) is to reduce the environmental impact and ecological footprint of Vancouver Coastal Health. Jaclyn has pledged to continue her efforts to raise awareness about the need for less energy consumption in the future.", "This talented young actress is also a talented singer songwriter and skilled visual artist." and "Jaclyn is represented by Lisa King of King Talent in Vancouver and Toronto." are significant parts of her biography, or is her work as a singer songwriter and visual artist not worth mentioning? LoveActresses (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would simply read the policies that I have linked to you would understand why this information should not appear in the article(s). IMDB and Myspace are not reliable sources. Anything added to the article that is strictly promotional in nature is also contradictory to our guidelines. Once you read the links I've provided and return with a cogent argument as to how the information you are adding is actually 1) relevant and 2) reliably sourced I would be happy to continue the discussion with you. Note that I have brought your edits to the attention of the biographies of living persons noticeboard, so you will likely be receiving additional guidance and information from other editors regarding your edits. You can find my message to the noticeboard here --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to argue. Asking the help of Administrators is, however, a good solution, although seeming a little desperate, but I'd do the same thing. LoveActresses (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You do not have to be an admin to understand and apply WP:BLP policy - your continued addition of unsourced material is disruptive - please stop and take the time to educate yourself as to why your edits are being reverted. I've provided all the information required to become a productive editor, its up to you whether you will apply it. Should you choose not to, your enthusiasm for editing biography articles will unfortunately not likely end well for you. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You interpretation of the absract rules has done nothing else than mutilating information needlessly, instead of just accepting what is clearly true or asking for a better basis, as you did on Tatiana von Fürstenberg. But perhaps you're right, this is too uptight for me, I should go door number 2. At least, until there is a door number 3, that is, a future loosening of those guidelines. What if somenone urged a website like IMDb.com with a worldwide importance to become more accurate? LoveActresses (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

These are not my interpretations of abstract rules, these are Wikipedia's policies arrived at by consensus. I have said all I am going to say on this matter, here, at BLPN, and finally on your talk page. Good luck to you with your endeavours elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one. I went back to have a look at it at the end of the run, and you'd already taken care of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I took an interest in prion diseases at one point in time and that's likely how the article ended up on my watch list. As soon as I saw "Kuru" I knew right away what the link should be. I'm glad my random and eclectic interests came of some use :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How can this be? If you don't believe the very person, who are you going to believe, then? Not to mention there's implicit a potentially difamatory accusation of lying. How can a third party be more reliable than the people themselves? I don't even want to imagine how people make friends and connect with people on such grounds... LoveActresses (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have yet to read and understand our WP:RS policy. If you have a question on whether a source is reliable you can pose it at the appropriate noticeboard, but if you keep asking questions there that makes it obvious that you haven't bothered to educate yourself despite multiple editors in multiple places pointing you in the right direction, then you'll certainly exhaust the community's good will and patience. Your continued insinuation that Wikipedia requiring independent sources is somehow defamatory is frankly ridiculous - I suggest you stop throwing that accusation around as it is completely without merit. Period.

How could I even know you had such a preposterous "rule"? Of course, if I knew you had such definitions I'd have read the "book of instructions" a little better. But since no one would ever imagine that the very people supposedly aren't reliable, I would have never checked the "rules" in the expectation that I'd found such things. So, I never bothered. But it seems like it's not like that. Read better, or think better, you rule follower: I didn't say that wikipedia's requiring of independent sources is defamatory, I said that it's defamatory to claim that people don't tell the truth about themselves and only other people know what's the truth about us. Who knows better or life, ourselves or an "independent source"? And, while at it, if people don't tell the truth about themselves, why should we trust someone else, since it's as easy for someone to hate us and lie about us as it is for us to love ourselves and flatter ourselves. LoveActresses (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying you don't trust a source is in no way defamatory. At all. You would know we had such a "rule" if you had heeded the advice multiple editors have given you at numerous boards over several days. I cannot provide you with any more guidance than I already have. You have been given all the information required to be a positive contributor and have made it very clear that you do not agree with our policies on verifiability. If you would like to try to change our policies you can begin by outlining your desired changes at the village pump and see what others have to say; however this conversation is done. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying you don't trust "a" source is in no way defamatory, but saying you don't trust "the" source when it's in direct first person is. If I told someone I can't trust in anything they say about themselves, what would it be, then? I know about "personal websites" and such, but including people's websites about themselves is just excessive and absurd. I know it's done, I just wanted to make my stand clear anyway. LoveActresses (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions, as long as said opinions are not reflected in editing that is contrary to Wikipedia's 5 pillars. I really have no interest in continuing this discussion with you here, so if you want to argue that the policies are "excessive and absurd", please take it elsewhere. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate, when you're marking pages for deletion under CSD G10 make sure you blank them at the same time, just in case it takes a while for the page to be deleted. Thanks for helping ouy with NPP :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blame it on editconflictitis - I tried to blank the page, but when I hit 'save page' you had already obliterated it. Next time I'll tag and blank in one go...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo objectivity questioned –suggest credentials revocation- do not need consensus to conclude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.31.254 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea how things work here. Care to provide any evidence of my lack of objectivity? Oh, and you cannot declare consensus is not required; it's a fundamental part of Wikipedia editing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted your turning this into a redirect; hope you don't mind. Nothing there is duplicated at The Scarlet Ibis page. Please discuss it before you do it again! Thanks, Chris (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I've replied on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your message: The PROD process would be the correct process. The articles are not purely promotion. They don't even have any external links, so one couldn't follow the article to look at the comic. Another editor has started the PROD process on the articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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 <ahem> complimentary towards the subject; that being said I figured it should be blanked nevertheless. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{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'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin:Redvers was dealing with this but he seems to have gone. There are two discussions [2] [3] 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'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit broke part of the page, by leaving a <sup> tag unclosed. Secondly, it's frowned upon to change sign dates. Instead I would recommend signing with a new post.— Dædαlus ^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'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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'sPonyo^{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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{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)

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)

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#NOT. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response regarding the situation with the Nick Bell discussion on the Wiki Deaths page. I must admit I was a bit surprised at much of it, as I have had at least two red links deleted immediately for lack of notability (including a local war correspondent who died in a car crash, who had been nominated for several media awards) so I felt confident that this Nick Bell was less notable. Apparently the rules regarding red links have been relaxed, and frankly, about time. But thank you for your response and class. Appreciate it. OneHappyHusky (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to thank me, it was just a misunderstanding. As I said on the talk page, I agree with you that notability is touch and go with Nick Bell, however it's liberating not having to make that call. There are occasionally well sourced red links that really don't meet notability criteria, but they are generally situations where WP:NOTINHERITED apply. If a link you add is removed in the future, then I would hit the talk page, I find the response there to be pretty quick. Cheers and happy editing!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G deserves some thanks as well.—Kww(talk) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Just so you know, Monkeyajb (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for spamming that article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it certainly seemed inevitable given their absolute determination to have the link included. But seriously, edit warring to include a blog in the Troop Beverly Hills article? WP:LAME indeed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the g7 to a7 on Studio Luaokii, I was trying to find a suitable replacement for the g7, but you beat me too it :) - methecooldude ^Contact 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we edit conflicted when tagging for CSD which is why I noticed it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, add that in and make a note about adding another IP to the list. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done.[4] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger's talk page.

Bigger digger (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen my exchanges with PB on his page - I'm getting a bit fed up with this. (Not known him be like this before - I'm usually much calmer too (had a long day).) Going to bed - will look back at this if the office don't call me in early. Peridon (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm essentially through discussing the topic with him. His calling a group of editors 'disruptive' because they did not handle a situation the way he would have is irrelevant. I note that other than blow hot air at those that attempted to point out the various guidelines, he hasn't actually done anything himself to help the editor in question. He does some fantastic work here, but his bedside manner could use some improvement. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Je vous remercie,
Votre utile, donner les moyens,
Et comment votre cœur généreux
Votre affiche désintéressement.

Je vous remercie pour votre gentillesse,
Je n'oublierai pas de sitôt;
Vous êtes l'un des plus belles personnes
J'ai jamais rencontré.--180.191.54.108 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Awww, I bet you see that to all Wiki editors you encounter, oh wait, you do. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[5]. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I knew. It appears to be someone who travels extensively as many of the IPs they use to disrupt the article and place the bogus tags are from hotels (User:12.185.31.254 is registered to Amerisuites, User:63.80.78.197 is registered to a "Beach House Hotel" , and User:12.182.68.2 is regsitered to "Starwood Hotels" for example). They seem to target technical entrepreneurs who they deem as 'non-notable' and edit war to ensure clearly inappropriate tags remain in the article in order to disparage the subject. Someone either has a grudge, or a ranging case of jealousy. As they edit from hotel computers, a range block is out of the question; I think the only thing that will stop the continuous disruption is to semi-protect their favourite targets such as Gurbaksh Chahal, Morgan Webb, Jason Calacanis, and Dan Huard. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• nods* DMacks (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested s-p for the Gurkash article, but so far no takers (understandable as it's not a clear cut case of vandalism). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the amount of travel this guy does, and the number of hotels he stays in, I'm beginning to think we may be dealing with Ryan Bingham. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

eh what?. His name was already in the November 20th section so when i removed Islandersa's edit, i realized there has been a mistake so i removed my reversion...--Stemoc (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had explained that in your edit summaries; for anyone reviewing the history it appears you are simply deleting the information. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is who you defended.

http://frozennorthexposed.tumblr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.33.242 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I "defended" a Wikipedia editor who was being hounded by sock and meatpuppets with an agenda. And to be clear, I have no intention of clicking the link you provided. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! It's nice to be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to reference this article :). I've now withdrawn the nomination. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. The only reason it even caught my attention was that it populated the November 2007 'Unreferenced BLP' category when you tagged it. Since that category had been previously deleted as empty I was curious what had been added. Curiousity may have killed the cat, but it also saved J. B. Eckl. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Usually if someone's that adamant about keeping an image in, I just leave it. There's enough of them that we can concentrate on others first. There were a couple where i waited a year to retry removing them, so it can be a game of patience. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I appreciate it. I promise to be more careful next time I add something. Have a good evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selma Simpson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. WP:EGRS is an important read if you plan on making additional category changes. WP:BLPCAT is important as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me this, I'll review it when I have more time before I do anything else in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selma Simpson (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. If you are unsure of whether a category should be added, or if you have any questions regarding the category guidelines, I will be happy to help; just drop me a note here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh your very sweet, thanks so much. If I should find myself in that position I will let you know immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selma Simpson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. I've noticed you expressing views on NPP. I was wondering if you are concerned enough, and would have time enough to join a work group or task force to address some of the more pressing problems of it. If you do, leave a note on my tp and I'll let you know as soon as there is a dedicated page somewhere for more discussion. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would love to be able to focus back on NPP patrol, but in the past few months the vast majority of my editing has been dedicated to WP:URBLPR (and the 6500 article watchlist I've developed as a result) . I do pop in to Special:NewPages when I'm burnt out from referencing, but not as often as I would like. I am interested in keeping informed with proposed changes to NPP as I really do believe that the only way to put a cork in the BLP problem is to attack it from all angles - backlog, wikiprojects, and new page patrol. If there are any substantial developments, please do let me know and I will be happy to contribute however I can. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted you because of your work on uBLP - I work there too, but more in the background. The way the Wikipedia has evolved over the last decade means that everything that can be written on most truly encyclopedic subjects has probably now been written, and the bulk of the 1,000 or so new articles that arrive every day now is made up of crap BLP, corporate spam, and garage bands. You are quite right about putting a cork in the uBLP problem, and the most serious leak are the hundreds of unpatrolled articles that are allowed to escape scott free, unreferenced, untagged, unstubbed, and uncategorised, after 30 days. Bots don't even have a handle to grab them by. At this stage, I'm not so much looking for people to slog away for hours on the NPP backlog, but I'm looking for people who can help decide on, and hurry some new policy through that will improve NPP, and attract a greater number of experienced users to it. If you would like to join me on that, please let me know on my talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you tagged this article for CSD, but you forgot to click the link mark this page as patrolled, which is towards the bottom of the article. That means that the article stays in the new page list; meaning many different editors will open it thinking that it hasn't been dealt with (myself being one). I marked it as patrolled. I rcommend you using Twinkle, that will tag the article, mark it as patrolled and leave a note on the article creator's talk page, and all with a single click. Thanks. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come across the article via New Page Patrol, so there is no 'mark this page as patrolled' link. If anyone comes across it in the backlog after it has been deleted they simply need to add '&action=markpatrolled' to the url to mark it as patrolled. Thank you for the suggestion, but I have no interest in using Twinkle. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whichever way you come across a page, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself. You shouldn't expect other people to finish the job for you, or are you suggesting that your editing time is more valuable than anybody else's? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was no 'mark as patrolled' link therefore there was nothing for me to click. I provided you with the '&action=markpatrolled' trick because it has come in handy in the past and not everyone knows about it. And it is not my responsibility to do anything other than follow Wikipedia's policies and adhere to guidelines as appropriate; if I don't edit in a style that is your personal preference <shrug> so be it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: you provided the trick meaning you know exactly how to mark the pages as patrolled; with or without the link. Meaning you are choosing not to, and you're choosing to leave it to the next editor. So you're wilfully leaving mess for others to clean up. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then... This is a community, and for the good of the project you need to pull your own weight and clear up after yourself. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a note of the trick when I used to do new page patrol (before I became overwhelmed with the BLP project). I am not 'choosing' to do anything other than mark a page for deletion - it's not like I do a hundred a day, I marked a single article. Seriously, how many more articles could you have marked as patrolled in the time it has taken you to respond repeatedly on my talk page over a non-issue? That you are telling someone who spends about 8 - 10 hours a day referencing BLPS and writing new articles that they need to "pull their weight" is beyond the pale. As there are no outstanding policy issues here I have no intention of continuing this conversation, it is taking up time better used in creating an encyclopedia. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What delicious irony! Happy editing. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'm on a vacation right now and my mind is clearly elsewhere. Thanks for the catch!  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you! Somewhere warm and tropical, or back in Greenland? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo: "Please do not add any personal info sourced to IMDB"

Hate to break this to you, pal, but IMDB is a heck of alot more authoritative than Wiki! If you have a better, more authoritative source for Fisher's marriage dates (ha, ha), then, by all means, cite it! Worc63 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The status of Wikipedia's reliability is irrelevant, the fact is that IMDB is not to be used as a source for biographical information. It has been discussed ad nauseum at WP:RSN and the result is always the same. If you would like to try to change that consensus, then that noticeboard would be the place to start. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to her bio she was the daughter of Jewish immigrants. Before I came along there was a category that read American Jews and Jewish actors in her slot and it was like that for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selma Simpson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Being the daughter of Jewish immigrants is not sufficient to be included in the category "Jewish x"; in addition, as is stated at WP:EGRS, the category must be reliably sourced (which it is not in this case) and the category must be specifically relevant to the individual (which is not the case). For these reasons the categories should not be added to the article, or any other article where WP:EGRS applies. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I don't want to open that reference URL now, but I seem to remember reading it last night, and the user was correct for removing that content. as stated in one of the edit summaries, the cite given doesn't verify the content. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first time it was reverted as a dead link, but it wasn't dead at all and links to a perfectly valid Scottish Sun article that does mention Abi Titmuss. My mistake was not ensuring the content was supported by the source (honestly when the first part of the edit summary was false ("dead link"), I automatically discounted the rest). The last edit I undid was via a pop-up on my watchlist where all I saw was Shylocksboy's reversion of another editor's good faith restoration of the content as "vandalism". I've removed the offending material now and will follow-up on Shylocksboy's talk page. Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention, and I think the lesson to be learned is not to try to communicate through edit summaries, and talk pages exist for a reason :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello I deleted the contentious Abi Titmuss material (twice) because 1) it is nonsense 2) it is libellous. No magazine that is freely available in shops would ever show pics of a blow-up doll covered in faeces. This is obviously someone's idea of a joke. I deleted it because it is surely a vandalisation of the page. The link was to an interview with porn star Ben Dover not as was stated an interview with Abi Titmuss. Hope this clears up this matter. --Shylocksboy (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello - the original edit introducing the false information was likely vandalism, but the edit summary you used when reverting Edward32 ("vandalism") gave the appearance that you were calling his restoration vandalism, which it was not. At the end of the day you were doing your best to clean-up the old vandalism edit which is certainly appreciated. As I mentioned above I think the confusion came about as everyone was attempting to talk via edit summaries; as soon as we started speaking to each other everything became much clearer. Apologies for jumping to conclusions and I hope my striking the message on your talk page will work as an apology - you can of course delete it altogether if you choose. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. I was just worried that I was about to be blacklisted for trying to make the site accurate and removing material which was tasteless in the extreme. --Shylocksboy (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines that can sometimes be overwhelming to new users. The intent of my message was to highlight the most relevant to your editing that you would likely find useful given your area of interest. At no time was there any mention or even thought regarding requesting a block of your account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phrasia#19_December_2010 - the picture was added again last night, I made this report, if you have any additional details to add, please do, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for taking one for the BLP team in putting together the SPI report. Will pop over there shortly and see if I can help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, it's already sorted. That was the speediest SPI ever! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, good residence to him. Your original input was what clinched it, well done Ponyo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you remove the actress from the title of the article because with it there it is hard to have it appear on Google and Yahoo! searches. If you could that be great! Selma Simpson (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have just created another article without linking to any reliable sources. Where did you obtain the information to write the article? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to address the article issues that exist apart from concerns over a hoax image. Please see "WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#but aside from the hoax picture..." Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Re this edit, is your edit summary a personal observation or preference, or is it WP policy? Where could one find it in writing? Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the delay in responding, I had to pop offline for a bit. If you read the parameters at Template:Infobox person, under the instructions for "image" the directions are "Do not add File:Replace this image male.svg, File:Replace this image female.svg or other placeholder images; a discussion for the use such placeholders resulted in no consensus for the mandatory removal of the images on existing pages, however it is suggested that they not be added to new articles.". There have been a couple centralized discussions, and the most recent consensus was that, although there was no need for a bot or other systematic approach for removing the existing templates, they were not to be newly added to any biographies. Kudos for adding the sources to the Satoru Kobayashi by the way. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that. I won't do it now. Thank you for explaining, & for your kind words re the sources.

Oh, BTW, I wonder if you could show me how to fix Diána Kőszegi?

I wanted to move her pic from == Gallery == up to infobox, but it kept being ginormous & |thumb did nothing!

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it for you, you have to force a resize by noting the desired size after the pipe symbol (|) (generally 220px for bio infoboxes). Many of the templates automatically size the image to 220, but the Go Player one apparently does not. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah - thanks. I see what I was doing wrong. I'd tried putting the |220px (or |thumb) on the line after, instead of inside the [[]]. I'll remember that. Merci encore. Trafford09 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bienvenue et Joyeux Noel :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

:) Trafford09 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit too hasty with Ciaran, but even being current he's a very minor character, and no he doesn't have a major storyline at the moment. Actually I do stand by the choice to redirect, not much has been done to expand the article upon his return in February, it's all in-universe and relying on a single reference. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 10:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that he's a 'very minor character'. As part of the WP:BRD cycle you were "Bold" in redirecting, the redirect was "Reverted", and now comes the "Discussion". The discussion needs to take place on the article talk page and consensus needs to be reached prior to redirecting the article again. You could also make a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street (where I see you are already active) to ask them to join in on the discussion - more people will probably join in than if you simply waited for editors to stumble on to the Ciaran McCarthy talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll agree to disagree. I'll leave it as it is for the moment, and bring it up on the Project talk at a later stage. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! By the way, kudos for taking on the Corrie clean-up as you have, it can't be easy. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When I saw you merged Ciaran I thought it was a bold move, however thinking about it. We did reach consensus to merge the poor articles. It's a shame, there are many refs and notability is ok, like everyone there are articles higher in my list of priorities... I do agree with merging, because it will make the editors who make the little contribs work a little harder to get them the stand alone articles again. ;) We can't keep editing every soap opera article amongst the seven of us highly active editors forever can we? lolRAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)