User talk:Ponyo/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ed Lumley

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a reference, it looked like it was just sitting at the bottom of the article. Since the parliament bio in most articles is listed an external link, I thought that was the intention. I won't put them in external link sections anymore. Cmr08 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand - normally the parliament bio is tacked on as an EL and I was used to seeing it that way as well; but when I was looking at sources for the article I realized that the bio actually substantiated a great deal of information in the article and was actually a reliable source. Truth be told it would be preferable to cite the info inline, but that's really a style issue. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting the word out for 2010 Vancouver meetup

Hey Ponyo! Thanks for the shiny, sparkley thing. Would love your help rounding up bodies for the meetup. I have made an invitation template, please substitute your name for mine and we can tag team Category:Wikipedians in British Columbia. You want to start at the bottom, and I'll start at the A's?

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Thanks again, The Interior(Talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that looks fantastic! I may not be able to make headway on the list until tomorrow morning, but make sure you leave the back half of the list for me and I will send out the invites in the a.m. I'm not 100% sure I can attend myself, but I'm trying to cash in some wiki-karma to make it happen. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Your help is appreciated. I'll try bat cleanup and hit editors who are not in the cats but have edited on Vancouver-related articles. But I think we've probably hit most active Vancouver editors. Whoot Whoot! Really hope you can make it, you have indeed earned much Wiki-Karma with your efforts. The Interior(Talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I spammed the BC and Vancouver wikiprojects with the invite as well, so we should be covered. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Too bad I didn't put the date in the Template! Ouch. Hopefully most will click the links for the full info. The Interior(Talk) 16:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oooops! Benny's Bagels is going to wonder why they've had an uptick of business, coincidentally occurring around 6:30pm daily. Honestly, I think anyone serious about attending will click the link to the meet-up page, so it's not a big deal. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I was starting to feel I'd slipped down Lewis Carroll's rabbit hole. Your observations about the result of my nomination came at a most opportune moment. I lost a lot of sleep over this last night. Your note on my talk page was a tonic. I hereby award you 1000 non-redeemable, non-transferrable points. (Void where prohibited by law. Offer may not be available in all states. Some settling may have occured during shipment.) You Rock! David in DC (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmm....tonic...On a more serious note, you obviously had good intentions with the nom, not sure why the pitchforks came out. And nothing on-Wiki is worth losing sleep over. Ever. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Epass (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For the work on Daniel Cohen (economist), I had not thought of looking at the french version of WP--that's a good idea and I'll remember that for the future. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It always helps if there is an interwiki language link, especially if you're trying to establish notability or find sources. Glad I could help with the tip. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alex Nesic

I'll try to find some sources. I was in doubt if I should include them or if they were somewhat unnecessary, since it's a public person with some notoriety. But if not, then first thing tomorrow I'll make a search. It could be better just to add a citation needed tag for a while with a warning as you gave me instead of deleting but thanks for the warning anyway! Konakonian (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The parentage/descent really does need a citation - especially when it's being used as part of categorization (see WP:EGRS). That being said, if you get stuck finding a reference for any particular piece of info that you really think needs to be included, please do drop me a note here (or on the article talk page) and I'll see if I can't dig something up. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand... what have I done to you to be reported as an alledged sockpuppeteer? Comparing my edits to those of the editor you accuse me of being I can't find anything besides the obvious, that we both edited on some Mediaeval and Tudor articles, and I've even undone and corrected some of his edits. I've even been civil, as I usually am. Are you going to report everyone who happens to make one edit on one not that known actors' article? How do you even have the patience to check every edit from every editor instead of simply doing your work? Also, User:Feuerrabe stood up for me on this. User:Kww seems to have blocked me without any reason. For what I've read about sockpuppetry it seems that either because I'm making edits to the same vast area of knowledge, or not so much, or because I'm using a public computer at my workplace that a blocked editor might have once used, maybe years ago, I'm getting blocked too. If this is the case, I've seen an IP in Bahrein or something being blocked for vandalism and when someone complainted that it would block half of the people of that country's city where they were, the Administrator simply answered that he or she should create an account. I have mine blocked. I don't want to believe that I am the only person in my country to like the Tudor period, among other things. It makes no sense to be mistaken with the person whose edits I've actually sometimes corrected or improved. You and others corrected and completed my edits and you weren't accused of anything. That is, people can't be blocked just because they make edits edits on articles where someone else also did. Also, apparently the absence of User:G.-M. Cupertino from this particular discussion if not anything else at least to stand for me might be dued to the fact that his discussion page where he is allowed to appeal from his blocked was blocked from being edited by him thanks to an overzealous Administrator and probably can't even edit his own user page, otherwise he'd most likely have done it by now. Konakonian Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to appeal your block, please contact the blocking administrator directly, or use the unblock template on your talk page. Note however that you should not be editing articles via an IP address while blocked - it is block evasion and may result in the IP address being restricted as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion!

Resolutely ignoring the snow and the packing I should be doing, I spent quite a bit of time expanding Oleg Grabar and also created a new article for his also-noted-art-historian father André Grabar.

In response to your edit summary at my talk page, there are a lot of museums, alumni associations, etc. who run tours and enlist people to amuse and/or educate the paying guests. The "payment" for lecturers is typically the free trip with all expenses paid, but said expenses typically run to many thousands of dollars. So if you have credentials plus a love of teaching and traveling, that might be something that you could also do yourself. :-) betsythedevine (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, however my feet are firmly rooted at the moment. Glad that you enjoyed expanding the article, and I will keep you in mind should a similar article come across my path in the future. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wish I knew more about the field of history. For example, in the sciences people get to be notable typically via some striking discovery or invention, so in an article about them you can mention somebody's particular maguffin, link to its article, and thus create a lot of information in a short space of verbiage. But for a scholar like either Grabar, it seems the achievement is based on accumulating a lot of knowledge and wisdom and shaping the understanding of other people in a much less localized way. I guess what I'm saying is that I wish some real art historians would take a look at those articles. I don't think I'm doing justice to my subjects, which makes me sad because they are clearly both influential and wise. Any ideas? betsythedevine (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the frustration - Wikipedia is very attuned to pop trivia and current events, but it can be difficult to do justice to less "sexy" articles. You could always drop a note to the talk page of a relevant wikiproject (e.g. WP:Wikiproject Archaeology, WP:Wikiproject history) - you're much more likely to entice interest in a more esoteric subject that way. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Towers

After reading this discussion you participated in, I decided to compile an article on Jack Towers since I had already done sourcing for Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live. I had thought maybe WP:BLP1E precluded a separate article on Towers at the moment but a rummaged up another cite or two that should be enough. Please check the draft at User talk:AjaxSmack/Sandbox/Jack Towers if you're interested or have input. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done! It looks ready for Prime Time to me. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Owen the Kid

Hi. It looks like User:Owen the Kid was warned once before about creating inappropriate articles. I left him a stronger warning.

Owen definitely looks like a problem editor. I'll try to keep an eye on his contributions. If you see something, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GMC

No, you're right. I'll get on it.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

andre talbot

Could you please refrain from updating Andre Talbots personal life to "married" as he is divorced.Harpsichord66 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not updating the article to say he is married, I am restoring sourced content that was repeatedly blanked with no explanation (which I clearly explained in each of my edit summaries). Could you please provide a source to verify your statement that he is divorced? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For your efforts...

Hopefully we can find an excuse for a party before then. How about Wikipedia 10.5 Anniversary? Seriously, though, we should do these meetups a bit more regular. The Interior(Talk) 01:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What was the turn-out like? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It was good. We had all ages, from 13-year olds to olds. probably about 20-25, including walk-in UBC students. Douglas Coupland showed up! No joke. turns out he's a big fan of Wikipedia. Fun was had, though we couldn't get a hold of Jimmy Wales on Skype. We tried. Some discussion was made on the establishment of a chapter of Wikimedia Canada, which I think would be cool. The beer-drinkers didn't wrap up til 11:00. The Interior(Talk)

Douglas Coupland showed up?! <beings weeping silently> I'm reading Player One right now. I was probably reading it while you guys were carousing at Benny's. Ah, my heart is broken! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dry thy tears, there's always next time. I was pretty much shaking the whole time I was talking to him and probably gave him the impression that Wikipedians are stammering subnormals. He was only there for a bit. Have you seen the new Terry Fox memorial that he designed? I didn't know this, but he is a sculptor by training. The Interior(Talk) 18:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the artwork on the memorial, it looks fantastic. He also has Digital Orca down by the convention centre which is really neat. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is so cool. He is giving his writing skills a run for their money. A renaissance man. We're lucky to have such an expressive person help shape our civic identity. The Interior(Talk) 19:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would have loved to shake his hand. Oh well, maybe some other time. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP

I blocked them and mass reverted a load of their edits before I got back to my talk page and you'd removed your request. Have you changed your mind? Should I unblock? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Argh - you're too damn fast! The first edit I checked (which was actually on my watch list) was Josephine Abady, where the IP had added the category "American Jew" despite the fact that there was nothing in the article to support the contention. I checked the IP's history and sure enough they'd been blocked twice recently for the same issue. They are completely aware of the requirements for religious categorization and WP:EGRS, but added the category regardless. Once I began working through through the massive amount of edits the IP had compiled in a short period, it appears that he was working off a holocaust category list of some sort for the majority of the edits. The categories added seemed to be supported in most cases by article content, however many times it was not sourced article content, which is a requirement of EGRS. Long story short, no, they were not abiding by our policies and guidelines regarding religious and ethnic categorization, but they seemed to be making a stab at it. Truthfully I'm suspicious of any IP who's single purpose on Wikipedia is to categorize people by their religion or ethnicity. Perhaps leave them blocked for now and I will attempt to explain to them, again, the strict guidelines regarding such categorization. If they finally communicate and address other editors' concerns, perhaps the block can be lifted and their edits monitored to make sure they truly understand. AGF is fine and all, but I don't see this as a likely outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me know if you get anywhere with them and I'll unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kalimba (singer)‎

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

Hi Ponyo, I see you working hard there, if I was admin I would be starting to consider some protection - personally imo pending protection would help keep any controversial stuff out, if it continues which imo it surely will, I think some protection will be needed. I see User:WhisperToMe has made a couple of edits and is administrator so good they are watching. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep a close eye on it and will definitely drop a note at RFPP if it gets out of hand. I asked Santa for pending changes on all BLPs for Christmas, but apparently I was more naughty than nice in 2010 because I'm still cleaning up BLP drive-by vandalism daily from my 7000 watchlist. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You should be better in 2011, perhaps you were good but I was naughty .. I would like to see a feeling that pending could be applied a little more liberally, HJ Mitchell has been adding it to a few for testing, and I had a couple of requested granted at RFPP, even watching with a large watchlist the vandal addition can get missed on the lesser watched , more obscure BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly trying to be better, but the world holds many temptations ;). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Strongly suspected for some time, but decided not to do anything about it as it becomes Whac-a-mole and keeping at current avatar would have saved effort of identifying new one. Agricolae (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell Week?

Tis blue, remember not to transclude it at the end of an editing session, that way lies a 3am editing session. Save it, sleep on it, then do a quick proof read at the beginning of your next session. ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck! I was happy to see you nominated. Don't answer any questions hastily! J04n(talk page) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the advice Jo4n, it's really appreciated. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's about time somebody got around to nominating you! Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Joe - what you wrote was very kind and humbling. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at All Hail The Muffin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Jezebel's Ponyo

Hey, you realize that I can still register this account and imposter you, right? Redirecting the userpage doesn't prevent registration of the account. User:Jezebel'sPonyo might also need to be registered by you :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh snap! I new it was too easy - and it's obvious now that you've pointed it out. Thanks for the tip! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the oversight with User:Jezebel's Ponyo and will consider adding User:Jezebel'sPonyo as well. Thanks again! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the lack of the space. Only somebody with the 'override-antispoof' user privilege (admins and accountcreators) can create an account where all that differs between its name and the name of the other is one space. I see those a lot of the time at ACC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, I wasn't too keen on creating multiple variations if it could be avoided. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with your current username/signature, and hope you won't change it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be that the majority of people do not have an issue with the username, so I likely will let it remain as status quo unless it actually does pose a problem or confusion when communicating with others (it hasn't in the past). I have no issue with undergoing a CHU if it is necessary, however I certainly would not change it in order to gain a support vote, that would be a rather poor reflection on my character if I did. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I changed my signature during my RFA, but that was because it was in upside-down Unicode, which made me pretty-much impossible to search for on a page. Accessibility was a lot more important than cuteness, after all. I don't see a similar problem here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghibli

Yeah, I noticed you predated the movie by about a year before I posted the question, but figured I'd ask anyway. :-) Do you have a favorite? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ventured much into the world of anime film, my taste runs a little closer to Rainer Werner Fassbinder and old-school Herzog. That's not to say I don't also enjoy the occasional guilty pleasures. And everyone should watch Shaun of the Dead at least once in their lives. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then try Grave of the Fireflies -- it's so depressing they had to work on My Neighbor Totoro at the same time to cheer the animators up. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

ooooh, I like depressing. Depressing and dark. Thank for the tip!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette discussion

Hi there PONYO, VASCO here,

regarding the discussion which was brought up about my antics, i thank you for your notification and your reply therein. Regarding User:ECanalla, i was not so "lucky", look at his last message to me (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VascoAmaral#Notification_-_WQA). I have replied to him, and will obviously respect his wishes.

Kind regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vasco - if I'm reading your correspondence correctly, it looks like the two of you may have worked out an agreement. You asked ECanalla "If i have any questions or doubts regarding football questions, can i write to you?" and they respoded "yes" on your talk page. So perhaps now that you've agreed to tone down the edit summaries the two of you will be able to work together? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefull, i really have to change my ways :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope you don't change all of your ways - your desire to maintain the articles is a valuable asset. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your RfA, which seems to be going very well, and I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Weston article's edition on his ethnic background

All I did was adding the categories of him being Polish-American and Jewish-American. I think this is obvious that he is one, because his paternal grandfather Arthur Rubinstein was a Polish Jew and paternal grandmother Nela Rubinstein, nee Młynarska, was Polish. They identified themselves Polish, so you can read about Arthur Rubinstein's acts of patriotism in the article on him. If he had Polish and Polish-Jewish grandparents, isn't he an American of Polish descent and an American of Jewish descent (not an American Jew, as we don't know about his religious beliefs)?? His father is categorised as a Polish-American and you didn't change this. Why? dd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.14.121 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The categorization of individuals by religion, ethnicity, and descent is more rigorous than most other categories as it must be supported by sourced content and it must be specifically relevant to the individual. If there were reliable sources included to support the fact that Weston was of Polish and Jewish descent and that he identified as such then the inclusion of the category would be supported. In this particular case the categories meet neither of these criteria so it was removed. With regard to your concerns that other articles are categorized without meeting these conditions, well, other stuff exists; the Michael Weston article happened to be on my watchlist so I was aware when the categories were added. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So, if there is no doubt that Arthur Rubinstein was a Polish Jew and his wife Nelly Rubinstein was Polish and considered themselves as Poles (born and raised in Poland, etc., etc.; do you really need any links to that? It's like demanding a source for Mstsislav Rostropovich's Russian ethnicity, for example), their son and grandson may not be of Polish descent? If we have a source that the A person is English and we have a source that the B person is A's son, do we need a source that B is in any way and maybe in some part only, English? dd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.14.121 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is no doubt that Arthur Rubinstein and Nelly Rubinstein were Polish/Jewish and there are sources confirming such, then the categories are applicable for their articles. You cannot simply add the category to all of their descendents in perpetuity as it does not meet the second requirement - that the category is somehow related to the individual's notability and that they personally identify with their Polish (or Greek, Danish, Puerto Rican etc.) ancestry. For example, if Michael Weston had mentioned the importance of his Polish/Jewish ancestry in an interview, or if he acknowledged that his ancestry factored in to the roles he chose, then the categories would be valid. This is not the case here, and where biographies of living people are concerned, it is better to leave possibly contentious categories out when there is doubt as to whether they apply. If you still believe the categories are applicable in this case and should be added, you can leave a message at the biographies of living people noticeboard for additional opinions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand what Weston's personal beliefs about his possible Polish-American or Jewish-Americanship have to with a simple fact that he is of Polish and Jewish descent and nothing can change it. He doesn't need to identify himself as Jewish or Polish American and doesn't care about it at all, but his ancestry is an unquestionable fact. dd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.14.121 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many guidelines and rules, generally hammered-out through consensus over a of time. In this instance the self-identification requirement for ethnic background categories has been determined to be an important component in the use of the category in biography articles. If you would like to try to propose changes to the guidelines, then the village pump is a good place to start. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, sorry to bother you but how can you revert long vandalism? Is there any easy way? Thanks.--NovaSkola (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you mean, perhaps you could provide an example? If you are asking how to deal with long term vandalism, then WP:LTA has some advice as to how to deal with the reporting of such accounts and an area where you can log information that will be helpful in assisting other editors to detect the vandal. You can also keep the notes on a subpage of your userpage, or, as I do, keep a separate file off-wiki in order to track specific long term vandals. I prefer this method as it helps avoid WP:BEANS, that is I keep a list of the long term vandal's typical tell-tale behaviours, but they cannot view it in order to change said behaviours to avoid detection. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

Here's your crappy t-shirt .

From the looks of it, it seems you passed your RFA! Good job, early congrats! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, congrats. That was relatively civilized for an RfA. The Interior (Talk) 17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• You've made it through the gauntlet and arrived safely in the land of never-ending backlogs =). Now go forth, and do good unto the wiki. –xeno^talk 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes everyone! I was unaware it had closed until a bunch of new tabs popped up when I went to edit a page. I think I have a lot of reading ahead of me....--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NAS is a good place to start. {{admin dashboard}} is useful for finding places where you can push buttons ;> –xeno^talk 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

oh, and here's your crappy t-shirt! --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Congrats! J04n(talk page) 18:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More congrats here! Well done! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. Although the result wasn't really ambiguous, I'm sure it was nerve racking! I'm sure you'll do a great job, but you know where I am if you need anything and you might find some useful scripts in my monobook.js. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats to you as well - no more pressure on your bit! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• My congratulations also; and thanks for keeping an eye on my Talk page. If I had known you were running for admin, you could of course have counted upon my support. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rod - and hopefully I won't have to lean on you so much in the future. Your help has always been so appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Enjoy the backlogs that xeno mentioned! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! It was one of my rare early !votes and I wasn't proven wrong. It was also one of my rare comments on another part of the page. We need more editors like you to come forward, and I hope you'll take a continued interest in the process that got you there. All the best, Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm late as ever, but congratulations. You'll do good :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bill Landreth

Done (sorry, read it too quickly)--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to my talk page post

Thanks, it's worth a lot. I've seen Malik Shabazz a lot, and have a lot of respect for him, so I didn't take that decision lightly. My hope is that it will be a "oh, duh, of course" moment, but it is good to have independent corroboration in case there's a disagreement.--SPhilbrickT 15:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree; there was certainly a valid assertion of notability, therefore it needs to go to AfD if it doesn't meet specific WP:N criteria. As a newbie admin I'm surprised at how many articles are tagged as A7 when it doesn't apply.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Blurb on you

• Hi, could you check the blurb? Tony (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine Tony, thank you for checking. Would it be possible to pipe "BLP clean-ups" to WP:URBLPR? A little extra advertisement never hurts! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rudi Bass

Hi Ponyo, thanks for all the help so far re: the Rudi Bass article. Can you tell me how to switch his article over from articles about living persons to the section about non-living persons (deceased)? I already provided the Obit as a reference and I changed the coding in the bottom of the page to "2011 deaths", so what more do I have to do? Julie329 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Julie - there was a parameter in the Biograpahy project template that needed to be updated. I have done this for you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Geneca

Hi Ponyo, had a quick question as to why my corporate site was just deleted. Can you please let me know what I need to change in order to have it meet the necessary criteria? Thanks! Lunchcar513 —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

There were two overriding factors that lead to the deletion. The first was that the article was purely promotional in nature and the fact that you work for the company creates a clear conflict of interest. I understand that it was likely not your intention to create a self-promotional article, however it is very hard to create a completely neutral article when you are clearly involved. If the company is truly notable by Wikipedia standards, the article will be created eventually. The second factor leading to the deletion was that it was a copyright violation of www.geneca.com., and under Wikipedia's stringent copyright policies we cannot host the material. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your guidance. I think the author deleted his page. I will do my best to help keep Wikipedia clean. Johnclean184 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The author's talk page is here; I notified them on your behalf. Thank you for your efforts with regard to reviewing new articles; just ensure that you carefully read through the WP:CSD and WP:PROD requirements and guidelines to ensure you have a firm grasp on the various deletion policies. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shree Betal temple

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Boolyme's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments on User talk:Boolyme

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Boolyme's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Festus

I've prod blped it, but it looks a C&P of a Wikipedia article - possibly previously deleted. Have a look - it's got a contents box in it (without the box...). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a dropoff - that confirms C&P to me... Peridon (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and did a search before declining to see if it had been previously deleted. I tried different variations on the name and checked for deleted histories and I found....nothing. I'll dig a little deeper and let you know if I find anything. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta. I can't find much evidence for the claims made. Strange... Peridon (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it as a blatant hoax - none of the information is verifiable; no matter which variation of the name you use he has 0 G-hits outside of Wikipedia and mirrors; the movies mentioned (despite having "critical acclaim" and being "award-winning") apparently do not exists; and finally I think he cut and pasted another filmbio and blanked the content (save for the index that does not even match his article) in order to give it a credible appearance. Festus is welcome to prove me wrong in which case I can briefly restore the article to his userspace to be worked on, however I don't believe that will likely be necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Sorry about deleting the redirect, I was unsure about why what I had written had been deleted and simply recopied the information back. I believed that that page should probably be a redirect to start with, but was unsure about how to create one! Pizza21 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand, I wasn't certain I was explaining the need for a redirect clearly. If you are keen to start a new article from scratch the WP:Article wizard is a good tool and Wikipedia:Your first article has a great deal of useful information. If you have any questions you can drop a note here, or you can post {{helpme}} along with your question on your talk page and someone will come by to assist you. There is also a group of fellow editors at Wikipedia:Help desk if you're stuck. Happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Munch

The High Fin Sperm Whale has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Raheem Sterling

Trying not to use any disparaging language, but you are a bit of a tool - more specifically a Canadian tool - who should know where the limitations of their knowledge resides. You have deleted a (yes, poorly written) article for the 5th time, not fully realising that the personage (football, or soccer for you, player) is of national interest. Not Canadian national interest, but British. Thus, hundreds, thousands perhaps, are going to the page looking for some information. I - a non-wiki contributor - did what I could to quickly correct the inaccuracies, and horrific writing and to cite the information better. As I'm only a lowly Oxford DPhil student I accept that I know little of the formulaic standards or conventions of your strange wiki world. The article was left in crude, though generally correct, shape - for fanatics like you to then polish to their hearts content into something useful. You, however, re-deleted it in about 20 seconds without thinking there may be something in this wide world outside the scope of your limited knowledge ("Articles are not created in anticipation of notability"). Are all people from BC in a position to decide what constitutes notoriety 5000 miles away, or is it just you??

The way it had been left, at least the millions of Liverpool and England football fans (that's soccer for you) would be able to get some basic bio information on the person who is about to replace Michael Owen in the national consciousness (again, I expect a blank stare from you). Of course this enormous group of non-canadian readers could go to the recently published article by Sky Sports, BBC Sport, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, the LA Times etc. to get information about this apparently "Non Notable Athlete", but I assume part of the function of Wikipedia is that they shouldn't have to. I was particularly impressed on how you deleted the page after, I'm sure, not having read the edits - just assuming it was same old. In fact, now (or until you deleted it) it was short and correct, and would have been added to over the next week. As it stands, others - not you - will have to start from scratch.

Long story short, you should probably confine yourself to your fish bowl in future (I would think that would encompass the Pacific North West, but that might be stretching it). And as I know your response will be blah blah wiki protocol blah blah has to be in the Vancouver Sun or they aren't famous...you can save it. As I mentioned, I'm only a humble academic and not an elevated, pompous wiki "git" like you.

Best,

Mike— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onbeyondzebra (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record I've come to wikipedia to find out more about Raheem Sterling during my lunch break, since the guy was mentioned in the national news this morning, and was surprised to find that the article about him had been deleted. I wouldn't use the language of the contributor above, but deleting the article would appear to fit with examples of transatlantic 'cultural imperialism' that I've come across on wikipedia before. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been several points raised regarding the deletion and it appears there is some confusion as to how and why the article was deleted. Firstly I would like to dispel the view that the deletion was somehow due to regional bias; Wikipedia is designed to counter any regional bias via guidelines and policies that cover all regions equally - for example, the notability criteria applies to all articles; there are no regional exceptions in order to ensure every article is judged by the same measure. Secondly, I did not delete the article due to the fact that Sterling did not meet WP:NFOOTY; this was decided by a group of various editors who commented at this AfD discussion. Note that almost all of the delete votes are from British editors, so once agian this is not a North American bias. The article was subsequently recreated without addressing the WP:NFOOTY/WP:ATHLETE issue that led to the first deletion and it was therefore tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The tag was applied by another editor and subsequently deleted by another admin yesterday; after that deletion the article was simply recreated repeatedly. It contained very little other than conjecture at what could possibly happen. From the looks of it Sterling is well on his way to having a prosperous football career; once he actually plays in a match for Liverpool then he'll meet the notability criteria, overcoming the issues at the first AfD, and the article can be restored and rewritten. You may also take the speedy deletion to deletion review where you can argue why the deletion is inappropriate and see if there is consensus to restore the article. I know this is a lot of info to absorb, so please let me know if anything needs clarification or if you have any additional questions. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

However, notability criteria are a matter of guidelines, not policies. This boy has been the subject of an article in the LA Times, which is unusual for a British footie player. True, the version just deleted does sink to citing the Daily Wail, but this somewhat febrile article in the Guardian refers to the boy as a "prodigious talent", which (translated from alcoholically fueled British journalistic hyperbole) means that he's rather good. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If any admin is interested in removing the protection and undeleting it in order to turn it into somethig other than a puff piece then I have no issues with them doing so. I've also offered to userfy for anyone interested on working on it if that's preferable. All I had to work with was an article recreated several times in one day that did not address the issue for which it was deleted the first time. My only comment regarding notability in the deletion process was in response to the talk page comment "Surely makes sense to at least wait until Thursday before making a decision on deletion" to which my response was "Articles are not created in anticipation of notability". Once again, if you disagree, please feel free to undo my deletion (perhaps with a quick note to User:JamesBWatson as he deleted it as G4 yesterday as well). Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just restored it. He seems to be a media cynosure, which by itself makes him notable by WP's bio standards. I'll put a little time into the article (only a little, because I know next to nothing about football). -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool - as long as someone is watching it; I can imagine it becoming a bit of a magnet for unsourced commentary and possible BLP issues for the foreseeable future. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article claims that something happened (past tense) in May of this year, and that he plays for a football team but that it hasn't yet been decided whether he'll represent that team. Probably just hurried writing to blame here, and the original writer can return and improve. As for me, I've had enough; though yes, I will keep it on my watchlist, at least for a little while. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree; I think if recreation had been put off a little longer than the article would have had a firmer foundation against any future challenges. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But there'd be so many time-wasting complaints from soccer fans. Let them have their article and improve it -- and it already seems to be undergoing improvement. ¶ Well, I arrived here on this talk page to ask you about something entirely unrelated to soccer, but was deflected by this soccer stuff. I think I've already wasted enough of your time for a few hours. Back later. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

References

It's solved, that sourceless edit was still my first edit on the article, I wasn't finished yet, but now I am. Nan Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Page deleted

Hello Ponyo,

Nice meeting you. I saw you deleted "Wormhole web conference" ‎

I can't understand the reason why because there are at least 20 other pages talking about different Web conferences services and products and none of them were deleted.

It is not an advertisement page but a way to show another provider and that is why I published part of the story of the team that might inspire other entrepreneurs.

Thanks a lot for your time

I understand that you are frustrated that your article was deleted, however it was clearly created in order to promote a company or product; even your username is linked to the company. It creates a conflict of interest and makes it nearly impossible to write neutrally regarding the subject. If the company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, then an uninvolved editor will one day create an article on Wormhole web conference. Regarding the appearance of similar companies on Wikipedia, well, other stuff exists. There are a number of articles here that probably should not be, however that does not exempt Wormhole from needing to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...and congratulations on your new mop. It will change your life more than you think! JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nigar Talibova

Hello. Can I ask you, who are you, and why you change the information. You write incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenarka (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a friend Nigar. She asked me to amend the information. I also want to download her latest photos. By the way you opened the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenarka (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

hi. how are you? my name is nigar talibova. i told my friend elllenarka,her full name elnara.i want have correct info about my self. how you know me? also we want show my last pic. thnx:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikachapa (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello to both of you - I believe that you are somewhat mistaken as to how Wikipedia works; any editor is able to edit articles as long as the information they are adding is compliant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case there are a number of issue with regard to how you are editing. First, the information you are adding must be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. Adding information based only on your own personal knowledge is considered original research and is not allowed. Secondly, editing articles about yourself or someone with whom you are affiliated is strongly discouraged as it is a conflict of interest. Finally, Wikipedia should not be used a way of promoting an individual or their products. I know it seems like a lot of information, but neutrality and verifiability are a pillar of Wikipedia editing, so please do read through the links I've provided. If you would like to make any changes to the article, I suggest describing what changes you would like to make (along with a source that we can use to verify the information) on the article talk page and it can be added to the article on your behalf. With regard to adding an image, please see Wikipedia:Uploading images where there are instructions as to how to proceed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lori Lethin

Hi, I added a page for 80/90s actress Lori Lethin as I noticed she doesn't have a wikipedia page. She has many movie and television credits, so this isn't a name I am making up.

What do I need to do to make sure this article doesn't get deleted? I can link it to other wiki pages as her name appears in other pages on wikipedia as well.

Lorilethinfanpage (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Lorilethinfanpage

The reason that the article was deleted was that the article was promotional in nature. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present information on notable subjects in a neutral fashion. The fact that you are trying to create an article on Lori Lethin under the username "Lorilethinfanpage" does not provide me with any confidence that you will be able to write an article in a non-promotional manner. If Lethin meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, then someone will likely create an article on her. If you are sure that you are able to write a completely neutral article without any promotional elements, then I suggest you use the article wizard to guide you through the process; note however that if the article is still mainly promotional in nature and lacks reliable sources, it may be deleted again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article Lazybones Laundry & Storage?

Let me know, please. Thanks. [redact] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.48.224 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a redirect that led nowhere - the text of your article was deleted by another administrator as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Having read through the deleted text, I would have to agree. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a means of promotion, and creating articles on subjects with which you are affiliated is a conflict of interest. Note that I have redacted the email you provided above in order to protect your privacy and to prevent any spam issues on your end. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ron Atanasio

Thanks for helping out with this article. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. I have the article watchlisted now so I should be able to catch any future problems, but if I miss something just drop me a note here and I'll follow up. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Atletico Beograd

Am not convinced that the article was a hoax. I was just about to add a "hang on" tag when you deleted the article and had already added a reference.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to restore it if you have any evidence it's not a hoax. Were you able to find a reference to it somewhere? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not much of a reference granted. But it does have a shield for Atletico Beograd: http://fy.hattrick.org/Club/?TeamID=1105461&BrowseIds=

Could be worth reinstating as a slow delete.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note at the AfD; my computer has blocked the link from opening, which doesn't give me a very good feeling about it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why. I can see the URL fine. Was just thinking that you might give the article the benefit of the doubt and open it up for a slow AfD.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 05:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding, my wireless connection has been down since around 2pm yesterday. I have restored the article and advised the editor who nominated it for AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article AFACT

Hello,

I've just logged in to find the article on AFACT deleted for the reason of "A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"

The organisation "AFACT" is currently embroiled in a landscape changing lawsuit against Australian ISP iiNet, the outcome of which will change the politics, policy and laws concerning fair use, internet access and copyright for decades.

The document "AFACT" is linked from several other wikipedia web pages - indicating that an article describing what an "AFACT" is needs to exist.

The page submitted did state what the significance of this entry is. Terms of:

1. This is a company formed in Australia comprised of American companies

2. This is a company deemed to be acting in bad faith - the name "Australian .... " is misleading - given that the organisations behind this company are Americian.

3. AFACT is currently suing an Australian ISP in an attempt to change Australian copyright law enforcement. This case may soon go to the high court of Australia.

Given this information, as it was provided, I would like to know how the information provided has been deemed to be non-important or insignificant

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDeBlack (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

None of the three points that you have made above assert any degree of importance at this time. It appears that you believe that there are current events that may eventually lead to important case law changes; if that occurs then it would definitely be possible to create an article asserting significance for these events. The article as it was written was very negative and did not adhere to Wikipedia's policy regarding presenting a neutral point of view. I would suggest beginning an article via WP:Articles for creation, where others can view the article prior to posting it to ensure it meets all relevant criteria. You can also create the article in your user space, adding information as the case develops, and then posting it once it meets notability criteria. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I shall look into this as suggested. MattDeBlack (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Drafting an article in your userspace (such as here:User:MattDeBlack/AFACT would give you time to work on the article without the risk of early deletion. You can then move it to main article space when you're satisfied that it's well-sourced and presented neutrally. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank A. McClintock

• I have undeleted Frank A. McClintock. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Inniscarra Sailing and Kayaking Club

Hi, is the following article ok? Groarke (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Inniscarra Sailing and Kayaking Club

The club is situated at "Inishleena Recreation Area" on the northern shore of Inniscarra Lake, just west of Inniscarra Dam in County Cork. Here sailors and kayakers do not have to worry about reading tide tables or dealing with tidal currents. The hills around the lake provide more protection from the more severe winds encountered on the Cork coastline.

The lake provides ideal conditions for racing radio controlled one meter sailboats with smaller waves than those experienced on the coastline. The Irish National IOM Championships were held at the club in 2010 and the 2011 Southern Championships are due to be held at the club in November.

Other water sports held on the lake include rowing at the National Rowing Centre upstream at Farran Woods and water skiing at Cork Powerboat & Waterski Club in Dripsey.

The club holds kayaking and sailing events throughout the year. The most popular events are the Sunday morning sailing sessions at 10:30 am and the midweek kayaking sessions to Griffins Garden Centre for coffee or tea.

The main events of the year are usually held in September with the Commodore's Shield for kayakers and the Commodore's Cup for dinghy sailors

The club is a Category 1 member of the Irish Sailing Association and organises ISA accredited sail training and powerboat courses.

For further information and contact details, visit the club's website www.corksailing.com

(talk page stalker) I can't see the deleted article any more, but there are two issues that spring to mind: (1) not every club or organisation is notable, and this needs to be supported by independent reliable sources; e.g. holding a notable national event, (2) Wikipedia isn't meant to be used for promotion or advertising, and the text of the article seems to me to be very close to that, (3) you can't in general, just use text from your own website here unless that website explicitly releases it free of copyright, which I don't see here. Any other concerns, I'll leave to Ponyo. In the meantime, hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The always helpful Rodhullandemu has given you the same reply that I would have given you. The copyright concerns were the most immediate issues with the article, however it does have a ring of promotion to it and it lacks the independent sourcing that we would be able to use to confirm it meets notability criteria for inclusion. Note also that if you are closely affiliated with the Inniscarra Sailing and Kayaking Club, then it is a conflict of interest to create an article to promote it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris webby

Looking at the deletion log for that page, I think it's time to give it a dose of salt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Already done... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

October's Very Cold (speedy deletion; questions)

Article: October's Very Cold

What: A remix (mashup) album (free) by producer Chi Duly using sampled material from Drake and Coldplay

Similar to: The Grey Album or Mos Dub

Notability: Not sure. It does have 37 full pages of relevant google results. It also has significantly high marks attached to it on The Hype Machine. There are no major newspaper or magazine articles about it. Of the music blogs that wrote about it, only 7 are Hype Machine blogs. Also in comparison to another wiki article about an unauthorized remix album Mos Dub , there are 6 times as many relevant google results for "Octobers Very Cold", which appears to assert this being one of the most talked about projects of it's kind in 2010 (there are probably more of these types of work emerging than most would think).

Copyright issue: precedents set by The Grey Album and others would point to this work as a fair use. The vocals tracks used from artist Drake were released by label affiliated digital record pools with the intention of encouraging remix material. As far as the Coldplay content, their official website has endorsed past uses similar to October's Very Cold.

I am writing in response to the speedy deletion of the article. I'm new to wikipedia. I have no suggestions or requests for you, only questions that I wasn't able to spot clear answers for on the "Whydeleted" page.

I actually didn't intend on publishing the article though. I just wanted to work on it and wasn't able to google or wiki the answer on how to work before submitting to become an entry. I'm fine with working on the article in sandbox but WAIIIT lol - I believe it is something others will be legitimately interested in editing as there are tons of sources to sort through, and leaving it to an amature such as myself may not be as efficient in.

Final questions:

Was it deleted because the producer is not a notable musician with a wiki page? Should the producer's page be created first?

I started this page under a nickname that is not my government name. I may be overly apprehensive about giving out that info. Is this account a waste of time because of that? Should I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrickDudris (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted under G9 criteria - specifically it was an album by an artist that does not have a Wikipedia artice. Assuming that you are unaffiliated with the artist in question, I would suggest reading through the notability criteria for musical artists first. If you believe that the artist meets the criteria, then please do create the article (preferably supplemented by independent sources to solidify notability). You can include any of the artist's releases in his article. If any of the albums meet WP:ALBUMS, then seperate articles can be created for the individual releases as well. I hope this info helps, let me know if you still have questions. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Antenarrative

Dear Ponyo,

You have deleted the 'antenarrative page.' However, I believe that the term antenarrative is in widespread use both at theory and as methodology in the social sciences. The original page had references to published works on the topic of antenarrative, as well as relationships to the structuralist work of Derrida and the critical discourse work of Bakhtin.

I would like the page reconsidered, since I believe that antenarrative has been demonstrated in theory, method and practice in quite a number of scholarly, peer-reviewed publications, not just by me, but by a host of other scholars.

Here is the published work on 'antenarrative' which is beyond the original work I did as the creator of the theory.

Extended content

References Barge, J.K. (2004) `Antenarrative and Managerial Practice' , Communication Studies 55(1): 106-27. Collins, D. & Rainwater, K. 2005. "Managing change at Sears: a sideways look at a tale of corporate transformation". Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18, No. 1: 16-30. Dalcher, D. & Drevin, L. (2003). "Learning from information systems failures by using narrative and antenarrative methods". Proceedings of SAICSIT, pages 137-142. Eriksen, M. & Colleagues, 2006. “Antenarratives about Leadership and Gender in the U.S. Coast Guard.” Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 5(4), 162-173. Eriksen, M., Van Echo, K., Harmel, A., Kane, J., Curran, K., Gustafson, G., & Schults, R. 2005. “Conceptualizing and Engaging in Organizational Change as an Embodied Experience within a Practical Reflexivity Community of Practice: Gender Performance at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.” Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 4 (1), 75-80.. Owens, Louis. 2001. As if an Indian were really an Indian: Unamericans, Euaamericans and postcolonial theory. Paradoxa, Vol. 15: 170-83. Report in I hear the Train: Vickers, M. H. (2005). Illness, work and organisation: Postmodern perspectives, antenarratives and chaos narratives for the reinstatement of voice. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science, 3(2), pp. 1-15.Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking. London: Sage. Yolles, M. (2007). The dynamics of narrative and antenarrative and their relation to story. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 20, No. 1: 74 – 94. Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. Forthcoming. On the narrative construction of multinational corporations: An antenarrative analysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Science. Published online in Articles in Advance, November 30, 2010. http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/orsc.1100.0593v1 This is my own original work, and work with coauthors on the topic of antenarrative. Boje, D.M. (2001a). Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, London: Sage. Boje, D. M. (2001b). Flight of Antenarrative in Phenomenal Complexity Theory, Tamara, Storytelling Organization Theory. September 20th, paper to honor Professor Hugo Letiche and his work on Phenomenal Complexity Theory, for the September 24th and 25th Conference on Complexity and Consciousness at Huize Molenaar (Korte Nieuwstraat 6) in the old center of Utrecht, Netherlands. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ante/flight_of_antenarrative.htm Boje, D. M. (2001c). “Antenarrating, Tamara, and Nike Storytelling.” Paper prepared for presentation at “Storytelling Conference” at the School of Management; Imperial College, 53 Prince’s Gate, Exhibition Road, London, July 9th, 2001. On line at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ethnostorytelling.htm Boje, D. M. (2002). "Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre". Plenary presentation to 5th International Conference on Organizational Discourse: From Micro-Utterances to Macro-Inferences, Wednesday 24th - Friday 26th July (London). Boje. D. M. 2005. Empire Reading of Manet's Execution of Maximilian: Critical Visual Aesthetics and Antenarrative Spectrality. Tamara Journal. Vol 4 (4): 118-134. http://peaceaware.com/388/articles/20052.pdf Boje, D. M. (2007a). Chapter 13 Living Story: From Wilda to Disney, pp.330-354. Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a New Methodology. Edited by Jean Clandinin, London: Sage. Boje, D. M. (2007b). "The Antenarrative Cultural Turn in Narrative Studies" in Mark Zachry & Charlotte Thralls (Eds.) Communicative Practices in Workplaces and the Professions: Cultural Perspectives on the Regulation of Discourse and Organizations. Boje, D. M. 2007c. Globalization Antenarratives. Pp. 505-549, Chapter 17 in Albert Mills, Jeannie C. Helms-Mills & Carolyn Forshaw (Eds). Organizational Behavior in a Global Context. Toronto: Garamond Press. Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations, London: Sage. Boje, D. M. (2010). Towards a postcolonial storytelling theory that interrogates tribal peoples’ Material-Agential-Storytelling ignored in management and organization studies. Under review, and working paper available from [email protected] Boje (forthcoming). Antenarrative in management research. The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research: London (2,500 words). Accepted 2006. Draft available at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/690/papers/Antenarrative in Management%2 0research May 14 05.pdf Boje, D. M. & Baskin, K. (2010). Dancing to the Music of Story. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press. See Chapter 1 on complexity. Boje, D. M. (2011). Shaping the Future of Storytelling in Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook. London: Routledge (release date is March 2011). Boje, D. M. & Grace Ann Rosile (2002). Enron Whodunit? Ephemera. Vol 2(4), pp. 315-327. Boje, D. M. & Grace Ann Rosile (2003). Life Imitates Art: Enron’s Epic and Tragic Narration. Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 17 (1): 85-125. Boje, D. M., Rosile, G.A., Durant, R.A. & Luhman, J.T. 2004 "Enron Spectacles: A Critical Dramaturgical Analysis". Special Issue on Theatre and Organizations edited by Georg Schreyögg and Heather Höpfl, Organization Studies, 25(5):751-774. Boje, D. M.; Rosile, G. A.; & Gardner, C. L. 2007. "Antenarratives, Narratives and Anaemic Stories" Chapter 4, pp. 30-45, Storytelling in Management, Editors: Ms. Nasreen Taher and Ms. Swapna Gopalan, Publisher: The Icfai University Press, India, First Edition: 2007 (Note: was based upon Paper presented in Showcase Symposium, Academy of Management,. Mon Aug 9 2004 in New Orleans). See conference version http://peaceaware.com/McD/papers/2004 boje rosile Gardner Academy presentation Antenarratives Narratives and Anaemic ones.pdf Smith, William L.; Boje, David M.; & Melendrez, Kevin D, (2010) "The financial crisis and mark-to-market accounting: An analysis of cascading media rhetoric and storytelling", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 7 Iss: 3, pp.281 – 303. Here is the recent work on antenarrative in the February 28 2011, Handbook (London: Routledge), The Future of Storytelling and Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook, 432 pages. http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415873918/ Contents Introduction to Agential Antenarratives That Shape the Futureof Organizations 1 DAVID M. BOJE PART I Individual, Gender, and Group Antenarratives Introduction to Part I 23 1 Antenarrational Presuppostitions: A Philosophical Refl ection on Responsible Use of Power and (Ante)narrative 29 FRITS SCHIPPER AND BARBARA FRYZEL 2 Antenarratives of Negotiated Diversity Management 47 JAWAD SYED AND DAVID M. BOJE 3 The Tesseract Antenarrative Model: Mapping Storytelling to Multi-dimensional Factor Lattices in Mathematics 67 DIANE WALKER 4 The Antenarrative of Ethics and the Ethics of Antenarratives 87 GRACE ANN ROSILE 5 The Creative Spirit of the Leader’s Soul: Using Antenarratives to Explain Metanoia Experiences 101 KEVIN GRANT 6 Understanding Legal Antenarratives 117 MAJELLA O’LEARY AND KIM ECONOMIDES PART II Organization and Writing Antenarratives Introduction to Part II 13` 7 Living Story and Antenarrative in Organizational Accidents 137 JO A. TYLER 8 Antenarrative and Narrative: The Experiences of Actors Involved in the Development and Use of Information Systems 148 LYNETTE DREVIN AND DARREN DALCHER 9 Strategy as Antenarrative Complexity 163 YUE CAI-HILLON, DAVID M. BOJE, AND CLARINDA DIR 10 Antenarratives, Strategic Alliances, and Sensemaking: Engagement and Divorce Without Marriage between Two Brazilian Air Carriers Firms 176 SERGIO LUIS SELOTI JR. AND MÁRIO AQUINO ALVES 11 Visual/Picture as Antenarratives: Sketching the Research Process 188 TEPPO SINTONEN AND TOMMI AUVINEN 12 Narratives: A Love Story 201 ANNA LINDA MUSACCHIO ADORISIO PART III Antenarratives and Organization Change Introduction to Part III 215 13 Survival Toolkit for Sociotechnical Project Complexity 221 STEVE KING 14 Narratives, Paradigms, and Change 241 GERHARD FINK AND MAURICE YOLLES 15 Antenarratives of Change in Mexican Innovation Networks 253 ENRIQUE CAMPOS-LÓPEZ, ALENA URDIALES-KALINCHUK, AND HILDA G. HERNÄNDEZ 16 Connecting Antenarrative and Narrative to Solving Organizational Problems 268 NICHOLAS SNOWDEN 17 Antenarrative Writing—Tracing and Representing Living Stories 284 KENNETH MØLBJERG JØRGENSEN 18 Tales of Merger Survivors 298 DANIEL DAUBER AND GERHARD FINK PART IV National and Globalizing Antenarratives Introduction to Part IV 315 19 Storytelling Narrative Marginality—On Becoming a Global Human 317 JEFF LEINAWEAVER 20 The Rhetoric of Toxic Assets: An Antenarrative Analysis 334 WILLIAM L. SMITH AND DAVID M. BOJE 21 Well-Timed Stories: Rhetorical Kairos and Antenarrative Theory 347 RICHARD HERDER 22 The Evolutive and Interactive Actor Polygon in the Theater of Organizations 366 HENRI SAVALL, VÉRONIQUE ZARDET, AND MICHEL PÉRON Postscript—An Antenarrative Theory of Socioeconomic in Intervention Research 383 DAVID M. BOJE Contributors 393 Index 403 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboje (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a recreation of an article that had undergone a deletion discussion wherein the community had determined by consensus that it did not meet criteria for inclusion (from what I've read the main arguments are that it consists of original research). If you believe the AfD closure was in error, you can take it to deletion review, however given your strong conflict of interest as the proposer of the theory, and the near unanimity in both decisions to delete, I don't believe you will have much success in having the deletion overturned. If the theory is truly notable, an uninvolved editor will eventually create an article on it. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Freeman's

Ponyo- I understand that the Freeman's page looked perhaps like advertisement. But the foundation was being laid for a more significant article. Additionally, all the things in that article were legitimate claims (freeman's IS America's oldest auction house).. and the services they provide are ones that people request information about frequently. All "editorial" or "Subjective" claims in the article were sourced from external authors and publications.

Please un-delete the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoehillenmeyer (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the full name of the article? I will need that in order to pull up the deleted copy to review the content. A concern I have without having to read the deleted content is your words "the services they provide are ones that people request information about frequently" - I assume you are affiliated with Freeman's? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Defiled page deleted on 18th Feb 2011

Hi, I was about to create a page for the band The Defiled as surprisingly there wasn't one and they have a large following.

I then saw you had deleted one that seems to be about them.

I wondered if I could use this as a starting point and also what it was about the article that you thought was advertising.

I didn't write it but wanted to make sure why so I don't do the same.

Mindy2k (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was certainly promotional in nature and consisted solely of what appeared to be original research. There was not a single source included in the article that could be used to confirm that the band is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you are unassociated with the band, believe that they meet notability criteria, and are able to create a neutral article, then please feel free to do so. You could work on it in your user space (example: User:Mindy2k/The Defiled) and move it to mainspace when you're satisfied with it. If you do choose to create the article yourself, I'd be happy to review it for you before you move it to article space if you'd like.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Herzog and Burden of Dreams

Hey JP. I remember from your RFA you mentioning that you are a Werner fan. Me too. I just rewatched Burden of Dreams, the doc about the making of Fitzcarraldo. It is truly amazing what the man went through to get the film made. I don't think there is any other filmmaker who pursues his dreams with such dedication. I'd like to expand our stub article for B.o.D., hopefully 5X so it can go up on DYK. I've copied the stub over to my userspace: User:The Interior/Under Construction/Burden of Dreams, and put a few links to some good sources on the talk page. I'm going to tinker away at it for the next week or two, if you'd like to help, please do. (If you haven't seen the film yet, you simply gotta. I think there's a copy at the VPL). Anyways, hope you're well, looks like you're having fun in the CSD trenches! The Interior (Talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Burden of Dreams is fantastic - good on you for having a go at it. I'll bookmark the page and help out if I can. Fitzcarraldo (my dear Fitzie) is so amazing, as is Aguirre. If someone made me choose my favourite between the two of them it would truly be a case of Sophie's Choice. The CSD trenches are never-ending - I cannot believe the amount of copyrighted material that is added to this place on an hourly basis. Instead of a mop, they should have handed me a shovel (dig a ditch...fill it in...dig a ditch...fill it in). Cheers for the note, and good luck with the expansion! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

suma bhattacharya

why suma bhattacharya has been deleted, it is one of actress page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmahesh (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted under A7 deletion criteria as no significance or importance was asserted. It essentially consisted of one non-neutral sentence about her having a "nice smile", and then a filmography consisting of a single role. If you would like to create an article on this actress, please read WP:ENT as it contains the criteria entertainers need to meet in order to have a Wikipedia article. Please ensure you include reliable, independent sources to allow for verification that the information in the article is accurate.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article

I recently wrote an article on the band Random Encounter (Random Encounter (band)) which was deleted due to lacking information as to the importance/significance of the band. I did find a few links which were not directly affiliated with the band, but if that does not sufficiently assert their significance, then I can understand not recreating the article.

• http://joinedatthestitch.com/blog/?p=963
• http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jonklement/2011/02/04/show-53-the-musical-talents-of-random-encounter
• http://www.animecons.com/guests/bio.shtml/2768/Random_Encounter
• http://www.amazon.com/Random-Encounter/dp/B003B4G8P

• http://www.last.fm/music/Random Encounter

—Onomatopoeiaieopotamono (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Onomatopoeiaieopotamono

Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, so it's best not to link to them. What you could do is read through WP:MUSICBIO which lists the notability criteria for musicians and bands. If you believe that Random Encounter meets the criteria, then you could start an article in your userspace, working on solidifying the notability criteria, then move it in to article space when you are satisfied with it. If there is no significant independent coverage on the band yet, it may be that it is simply too soon for an article. "Not now" does not have to mean "not ever", so I hope you are not too discouraged by the speedy deletion of the article.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bird Wings Beat website removed from Mason Jennings article

Ponyo: Can you please let me know why you deleted the link to my Mason Jennings site "Bird Wings Beat" from the Mason Jennings article? As stated in the Discussion for the page, I'm familiar with #11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, but I believe the site is still important to include on the article because it provides resources unavailable elsewhere (specifically, complete lyrics and discography). I don't want to reinstate the link immediately, I'd like to get your input first. I am the creator and maintainer of the site in question, but receive no money from the site (there are no ads or sponsorship) and have no incentive for reinstating the link besides serving people interested in Mason Jennings. Thanks, Reefdog (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert the fansite link - it does not meet the external link criteria and, as the creator of the site it is a distinct conflict of interest to include it. I appreciate you checking first, and you can always request a third opinion if you believe that it really needs to be included. A quick question - do you have the correct permissions in place with regard to displaying the lyrics on your website? If not, we definitely cannot link to your website as Wikipedia has strict restrictions in that regard.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It's not terribly important to me to have the link, I just think it's a useful item for visitors to the page. I'll request a third opinion if I am able to find the time, thanks for sharing that option with me. As for the lyrics, I'm not aware of any legal issues with displaying them. Mason thanked me by name and included the birdwingsbeat.com URL on the liner notes for his latest album, specifically thanking me for hosting lyrics to older songs that he had actually forgotten about, so I'm quite certain we're in the clear. :) Reefdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Underwater Otter

Please delete User:Sir Mr. Mo Gooder/Silly Mongoose too, as it's part of the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Are these pages any relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otter line, or are you Otter-hunting today? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look deleted to me. And no, they're not related to otter line. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How strange - 'tis a red link now though. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Natasha wheat

HELLO Ponyo!

All of the references on this article post-date the speedy deletion debate that led to the last article being removed. There were no reliable references in the previous article that established notability, and now there are many that establish notability, including a numerous Museum exhibitions, interviews in significant news-sites/newspapers (all from within the last year-after the previous deletion). Hamnrye (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Hamnrye

Speedy deletion nomination of Natasha Wheat

Notability has been established, which was the main problem with the previous articles under this name.

--Ottersowls (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Ottersowls

about aashish patidar article has been delete

how m i create the any information about aashish patidar. because i want to tell something about aashish patidar. i know this person is a mango man.

plz give me the feedback..??

Aashishpaatidaar 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)aashish patidar— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashishpaatidaar (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have explained to you on your talk page that you should not be creating autobiographies. If you meet notability criteria for inclusion, an uninvolved editor will eventually create the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GOTChA Chart A3 note

Hey, just a friendly note, but I restored GOTChA Chart as a contested prod. You deleted a later revision as A3, but there were past revisions which had some substantive content (notable or not). Just giving you a heads up. Have a nice day. Protonk (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cheers for the note. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Hochstrasser

Hello, I am Alfred Hochstrasser and I am the owner of the page from which you asserted the wikipedia page for Alfred Hochstrasser was violating copyright. I am trying to grant permission to Wikipedia to use information from my bibliographical page here http://www.musicbeast.com/us/alfred but as the article is already deleted I am not sure where to make this change. Can you help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulcraftnyc (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permission verified. Ponyo, I've restored the article and tagged the talk page as so, however, I haven't really evaluated the notability of the subject, only the release of the text. Courcelles 06:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Courcelles. I've reviewed and wikified the article slightly and tagged for independent sources to help determine notability. I've also left a note with Soulcraftnyc regarding COI guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP Categories

Please do not add religion, ethnic, or descent categories to biography articles as you did at Rasim Tagirbekov without first ensuring that 1) the category is supported by sourced article content and 2) the individual identifies as such. Please see WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT for additional information.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rasim Tagirbekov is of Dagestani descent and lot of people etc Mesut Özil, Xavi Hernandez, Mario Balotelli has theirs ethnic categories. Why i can't add Rasim's ethnic category page in his information? Can you explain me because i didn't understand why you are warning me. --Gökhan Tığ^{User_talk:Gokhantig} 08:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to add ethnic categories to biography articles the category must be supported by relibale sources. There are no such sources in the Tagirbebov article. With regard to the other articles you mention, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A quick look though the examples you provided shows multiple sources supporting the categories in the Özil and Mario Balotelli articles and the Hernandez article does not list any descent categories at all. I provided the relevant links with regard to categorizing biography subjects by ethnicity (WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS) which clearly state that if the ethnic category is not supported by reliable sources, it should not be included. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

simply existing...?

So to exist is not enough. I understand. There are people that are consuming my energy drink everyday all over the world. I just sent an extremely large order into South America. People may want to know the FACTS about my product. They want to know what is in my product that many are consuming. There are 42 energy drinks listed at the bottom of the page of "Dark Dog Energy Drink", but You are giving me grief on trying to create a page of my own?

rexhymen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhymen (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a venue for you to provide your customers with facts and ingredient lists. There are many websites that you can use to promote your products, however Wikipedia is not one of them. Good luck with your company. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about page you rightfully deleted

Ponyo, I appreciate you deleting the personal attacks against me and my wife this week. Many people reached out to me when the page was discovered and clearly you saw it fit to be removed. However, when I goggled it today, the page is still up. Here is the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Munson Clearly if you go to Wikipedia the page shows the deletion. What is the link above? I don’t understand the last part regarding a twitterfeed. Your insight would be very useful. Also, I would like to formally request the email or IP address of the someone called “Petey Parrot” that I have been told posted this slander. My IT want it for our blacklist. This ordeal has affected not just me, but my wife. She has a small child and this has caused significant stress in her life. Lee Munson 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC) lee@[redacted]

Firstly, I've suppressed this post you made to remove your IP and e-mail address (will copy to your e-mail). Unless you want this public you should probably register an account.

Don't worry about the Twitter bits - it's just Twitter's way of informing a site of the source of the traffic, and isn't used by Wikipedia, nor does it affect the content you get back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Munson returns the same).

On the IP address of the user account that edited your article, I'm afraid that the privacy policy and policy about the tool precludes me from releasing that. The user has been warned not to make such edits ever again by Ponyo (and hasn't edited since).

The Google cache should clear soon for you - it has already cleared from my end of Google's servers.

Hope this helps.

James F. (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you have serious issue with content a user has added about you and you want details about the user the best place to ask for details about the user is the Wikipedia Foundation - contact us. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bert Oliva

After a request on the Help Desk, I went ahead and moved Bert oliva to Bert Oliva. Any suggestions on the page other than having someone other than having some other than User:Ltothej write it? Also, any clue how many times he's tried to start it?Naraht (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, it still reads as a terribly promotional article. From what I can piece together of the history the article has been deleted 6 times previously (between 2007 and now). Ltothej has only created it twice. The best way forward for the article to be kept would be for a willing editor to move it to their user subpage where they could work on building a neutral article as notability criteria appears to be met. It could then be moved to main article space. If it was moved back with reliable sources and neutral wording it could avoid any further deletions. It looks like you're willing to clean it up - good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, we'll see if he comes back with anything. It looks *rather* thin to me right now. I'm going off of Tony Robbins as a guide for categories. But given the fact that he's got edits that are nothing but adding mentions of Mr. Oliva in various places, I'm not feeling it that much.Naraht (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This Providence Journal article may help if you're looking for a reliable independent source to add. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

creating Wikipedia page for Masaokis, YouTube content creator

Hi, I created a Wikipedia page for Masaokis (youtube content creator) and noticed it was immediately deleted. I wanted to check in on this since i felt Masaokis is a YouTube content creator of interest and has profiles up on Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=masaokis) among other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnBLea (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to have an a Wikipedia article, individuals need to meet general notability (or this set of criteria for entertainers). Being a youtube content creator does not automatically confer notability (there are millions of youtube content creator and contributors). What you need to do if you create an article is to show how Masaokis meets the notability criteria I've linked to above through the use of reliable independent sources. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

About David Duchovny's grandparents being Ukrainian... The references

http://ukrainianguide.com/3-discoveries-of-ukrainian-roots/ http://yqyq.net/53230-ZHizn_i_tvorchestvo_Devida_Duhovny.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybaliuk (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake?

Shouldn't have been. I nominated it for deletion. Rusted AutoParts (talk)15:51 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bravo

--charmedandblessed 21:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Let us spreading peace--charmedandblessed 21:51, 15 March 2011

Can I help you with something?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

You had the right to delete my page {{DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE}} but I kindly ask you email me a copy of the original page, as it appeared to [redacted].

For what purpose? There is no salvageable content as the page was incorrectly used as part of your experiment. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because (a) it was a social experiment, done for an organization that needs to verify the content (b) I would like it for my personal portfolio (c) I can use it to help train people on the internet, part of my job (d) you should have saved a copy, as you deleted it, and therefore I would be greatful if you emailed it to me. There should be no problem with that RDN1F (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please enable email for your account and I can send a copy through. Please do not use Wikipedia for any future "experiments". --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Job Done. Send it. Please. Now.

You need to update your preferences to allow emails. Click on your 'My Preferences' link and under the section 'email options' check "Enable e-mail from other users". Once this is done I can send you the information. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

done and done — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDN1F (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The email has been sent per your request. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

La Florida (park)

Hi,

I am taking a second look at this db-nocontext I raised - here - on what at the time was an article of two words "Florida park" and wondering about the claim that this was too bitey. You later validly declined the speedy on the basis of the improvements that were made and I wondered if you had any thoughts about tagging an article so early after creation even if it does fit the criteria? The reason I'm asking is that I notice similar articles frequently in IGLOO, which by their nature have only been just created, and perhaps I might be better off just consistently skipping them or tagging with weaker improvement notices rather than jumping to speedy. Cheers Fæ (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I notice that My76Strat has just pursued the matter at RFA from their discussion and has made it a case for a formal question after I made the above note. I'll understand if you prefer not to reply to my original question. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

At WP:CSD#A3 it suggests "though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice"; that being said it is only mentioned in a footnote and not immediately obvious. Perhaps you could just skip these types in IGLOO altogether and let them be picked up by later patrols? I think its a relatively minor issue, your good work far supercedes an honest mistake. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

editing an article so that I have a working document

Hello,

I have been trying to work on editing an article on Rudi Bass. I put in my working article and it is edited in some form not giving me a chance to finish what I have started. If I do this in my area (MrsHayward) area as a working document will people have access to it? It was an unfortunate by working title to call it "Personal Life", perhaps "Creative Life"?

I am struggling a bit with getting the references to link, and to cite external links (if relevant). I know there are help pages, but I find they are less than easy to find and sometimes a bit difficult to follow. I really need a working area to get my head around this. An example of one of my problems is the reference to the work Rudi contributed to the American Church in Paris which is shown on their web page - is this a legitmate refernce and how do I make it?

I see from looking around Wikipedia others are having the same problem.

Any advice, support is appreciated.

Thank you so much, Mrs Hayward MrsHayward (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to make a "working space" for the information you have, you can create a subpage of your userpage (you can click this line and hit 'save page': User:MrsHayward/Rudi Bass). With regard to referencing, Wikipedia:Citation templates lists the majority of possible templates. As the page can be overwhelming you could just bookmark the ones most useful to you. I find I use Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web, and Template:Cite news most often. Note that you do not need to enter all of the fields in order for the template to work, just use the ones you have information for. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bryan Park (Miami)

Please look at Talk:Neighborhoods of Miami : I don't understand this list. Companys, including florida.hometownlocator.com and city-data.com, created a bunch of articles on wikipedia to sell real estate - such as the article Bryan Park (Miami). There is no such neighborhood. It's just a few blocks being given a label. If you look at My Contributions you can see I am a serious editor and am not fooling around here. We need this article deleted. Please go back and delete the article. GroveGuy (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I never doubted that you made the nominations in good faith, they simply don't meet G11 criteria. I was also able to find online sources using the names of the areas. The editor who created the article Beverly Terrace, User:Averette, is a veteran editor who has over 15,000 edits to Wikipedia - I am sure he is not here simply to spam the encyclopedia. If you believe notability is a concern you can send the articles to WP:AfD, however they are not speedy deletable. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I left Averette a message on his talk page two days ago. He must be taking a break. I'll see if I can get some administrator to help me and I'll look at WP:AfD.GroveGuy (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What would you like another administrator to help you with? Setting up AfDs for the articles? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I talked to an administrator who told me my G11's would be rejected. And he said WP:AfD would take a long time - for each article. He's now trying "Proposed Deletion" in Bryan Park. For the others, we're just deleting them from the template. This will let this junk just hang out there unseen, clogging up Wikipedia. See: Talk:Neighborhoods of Miami. Thanks anyway. GroveGuy (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Datari Turner

Thanks for the Barnstar. It was a pretty crappy article, and personally I am very sick of the subject after all of that research. However, I wasn't able to find an AfD, and I figured it had probably gone through the CSD process a couple of times. The subject is (barely) notable, and I managed to get over my bias of his PR rep to put something workable up. I will watch to prevent future abuses.

Good working with you, look forward to more in the future. Ng.j (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You certainly deserve the barnstar. I was kicking around the idea of editing the article myself, but wanted to ensure there had not been a previous AfD first, so kudos to you for jumping in, rolling up your sleeves, and just getting it done. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PhostrEx

There is an anonymous db-spam tag on an article I created in 2007. Would you mind taking a look at it? I have added some refs and I think it is fine now, but a third-party opinion is probably best. Ng.j (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I read through the article and it certainly does not meet the G11 criteria for speedy deletion. I've removed the tag and directed the editor to take the article to AfD if they have additional concerns. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the declined speedy of Geng Yan. However, I didn't add the speedy tag to the article. I was merely restoring a speedy template removed by the article creator :O — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was using an automated program that notified you in error - I've removed the notice from your page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, mate! Out of curiosity, what program are you using? I haven't heard of one that automatically notifies users of declined speedies. Anyways, happy editing! :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have this script loaded in my monobook.js. I generally don't use it unless it's a pretty basic decline or switch to PROD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, cool! Thanks for telling me :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me template

Thanks for helping. Yea...I thought it might show up somewhere and the best way to find out where was to be bold and let it go!. Im one of the Wikipedia:Wiki Guides and I am working and molding and formulating some new initial contact processes. Normally I have only been reaching out to IP's when the edit articles on my watchlist and show some potential to open an account What I wanted to do was just to show the new editor where the "help me" window was. Any ideas? Thanks againBuster Seven Talk 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have access to the template code? You just need to add 'tl' to the wikilink in order for it to display correctly as Gfoley4 did here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alyssa Shouse

In response to your performance of the deletion of the article entitled "Alyssa Shouse", what exactly do you refer to when you state "Does not point out the significance of the subject?" what do you mean by significane? I stated clearly that she has become widely famous across America & the rest of the world and that she is a pop star working with Jason Derulo, a widely recognized american musical artist? I am not debating your actions but I am just in wonder of what I did wrong and would like to know how I can make articles in a correct fashion that will not result in their deletion.

thank you

yours sincerely, Dean Mullen.

In order to have a Wikipedia article individuals must meet specific notability criteria (the criteria for musicians is outlined at WP:MUSICBIO). Although you may be a fan of Alyssa Shouse, having a youtube following is a claim that can be made from myriad people on the internet and none of them would be notable for an article either. Being associated with Jason Derulo certainly does not confer notability either, as notability is not inherited - in nutshell: simply being associated with someone notable does not make oneself notable. Please read through the WP:MUSICBIO link and if you believe you could update the article to meet any of the criteria I will be happy to move the article to your userspace where you can work on it before moving it back to article space. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You deleted a page I wrote: Butterflies

Dear Ponyo,

I noticed that you deleted a page I wrote about Alana Lee's song "Butterflies". I have read your reasons for deletion and I have not found any reason why the page should have been removed. You might have seen that I did not quote any sources - you would be wrong in assuming that this was because there were not any! I used the ARK Music Factory website and starcasm.net, as well as my own observations on the number of views on YouTube videos; I think you will agree that there is nothing unreliable about these sources. I write Wikipedia articles because I am committed to adding to the sum of human knowledge. With Rebecca Black's song Friday being so topical in the digital world this very moment, it is a true fact that Alana Lee's Butterflies has become far more popular than it initially was and is notable by any definition of the word. I ask you to restore the article so that my hard work in research and my time do not go to waste, and so that the world can always turn to Wikipedia as a source for knowledge. Thank you for reading this message, and I hope you can reply soon.

MikeyMikey667 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that you are excited about contributing to Wikipedia, however there are notability criteria that must be met in order to have an article. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and any information added to it must demonstrate its importance for inclusion. Regarding the sources you listed as having used, the ARK Music Factory website is affiliated with the subject, starcasm.net does not meet any reliability criteria, and your own observations are considered original research and cannot be used. What you would need to include in the article in order to satisfy notability criteria would be reliable, independent sources that have covered Alana Lee's song in a way that show it meets WP:SONG. If you would like I can move the article to your userspace and you can work on adding sources there, or I can email you a copy of the deleted article so you can work on it independently. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift reply. I would very much appreciate the article being moved to my userspace.

MikeyMikey667 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all...

...who have helped revert a recent spate of vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of site Anexas

Dear Sir, We had a site called Anexas, and our organization is well known in India and has served more than 20,000 inidividuals and 100 organizations. You had removed that site citing certain reasons, which are not true. We request you to upload this site. Regards Amitabh [redacted] Amitabh th (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as being overly-promotional, which I confirmed upon review. The article consisted of marketing jargon without actually explaining why it is notable. This is understandable as the fact that you are affiliated with the company creates a conflict of interest wherein it becomes difficult to edit an article in a neutral fashion. Example promotional phrases included:

• "bringing together bright and young enthusiastic entrepreneurial minds"
• "a group of enthusiasts who went on to become first time entrepreneurs after working with major multinational corporations worldwide"

Please read WP:ORG as it lists the notability criteria required for an organization to have an article on Wikipedia. If you believe that Anexas meets the criteria I would suggest adding it to Wikipedia:Requested articles where an interested and neutral editor can eventually create an article on the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tdt3d

Can you please explain me why you delete my page ? I don't make copyright mistakes...I have all the rights about this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rango3d (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation can be found in reading the information provided on your talk page; I understand it's a lot of information, but it is all pertinent and important for you to read through it. The article was originally tagged for deletion under the A7 criteria for deletion - specifically the article did not explain why the company is unique or notable. WP:ORG lists the notability criteria a company is required to meet before it can have an article. In addition (and even more importantly), the article contained a copyright violation in that it copied text verbatim from this website. We cannot host any copyrighted material on Wikipedia without ensuring it has the appropriate permissions. Instructions on how to provide the necessary permissions are available in the message on your talk page (see also: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). Note that even if you do provide the permissions, you must still meet the notability criteria in order to have an article. Please also be aware that there are guidelines regarding editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest - so please read the information in that link as well to ensure you understand the importance of neutrality when editing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But I do not use any copyright violation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rango3d (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The tdt3d.be website is protected by copyright; scroll down to the bottom of the webpage - it clearly displays a copyright notice and states "All rights reserved". You cannot cut and paste information from that website without providing Wikipedia with the necessary permissions. As there are legal implications involved we must have explicit permission in order to use the material. Again - please read WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COPYPASTE, and WP:Donating copyrighted materials. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Culture_of_Scotland/Comments

Hi Ponyo. What exactly is a Comments page on a Talk page? You don't see too many of those. The one good edit was made in 2006, and it probably belonged on the Talk page itself, rather than on the Talk/Comments page. And 5 years later, the main article has 21 references. So what is the purpose of keeping this Talk/Comments page? There has been a problem with Talk/Comments pages on British topics attracting sockpuppets. That is my reason for tidying up here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso/Archive

Thanks.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The decline was procedural only - you had marked it as a G2 test page, but as it contained a comment it did indeed have a purpose at some point in time or another. Maybe stick a PROD template on it? I can't find any CSD category that would cover the deletion of the page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo

I know you deleted the tarvin page but why its not a advertisement i have nothing to do with it whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by the im sorry that i deleted it but i will keep on doing it if you dont let have 1 page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwidechris (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A local children's football club does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion, which is why it was deleted. If by "keep on doing it" you are stating that you will continue to recreate the page despite the fact it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, well that would be disruptive editing and could ultimately lead to a block on your account, so please do reconsider that tactic. There are plenty of things you can do on Wikipedia that would be helpful - see Wikipedia:Community portal for a break-down of different tasks and ways to help out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

UBRz

Hey Ponyo, I'd like to ask why my friends Article about his own company (United Broken Recordz, Corp.) was deleted, it talked about multiple things that he owned, I am part of the company too, isnt a company that exists allowed its own article? Also, I do not think it is advertising, he wanted to talk about the company that he owns and let people know what they are doing and what they do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christhecoolboy (talk • contribs) 10:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to have an article about a company on Wikipedia, it needs to meet the notability criteria as outlined at WP:ORG. Also, it is a conflict of interest for your friend to write about his own company; it is very nearly impossible to write about the company in a truly neutral fashion when you are so close to the subject. I know that he doesn't believe the article was promotional, but "wanted to talk about the company he owns" and "letting people know what they are doing and what they do" is promotion. If the company is truly notable (in the Wikipedia sense) an uninvolved and neutral editor will eventually create an article on them. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi, is it possible that the recent block regarding Govind Kumar Singh is being evaded? I've had a weird edit war warning from a user & that user seems only to have contributed to the same pages as the blocked user did ... plus, I wasn't warring. The diff is here and the user contribs are here. The user appears to have tried to start an SPI on me and everything, just like last time. Appreciate your thoughts etc as I am clueless in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice that the user has filed an SPI, requested page protection & removed a CSD tag from an image file - all similar behaviour to the blocked user. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Issue resolved - it was a sock. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed they would resort to socking, which is why I bothered to file an SPI report as opposed to just blocking them per WP:DUCK. It makes it easier now to identify and lock down any additional sock accounts that pop up. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hillary Scott (singer) birth year

It's becoming confusing as several different sources cited at different times in the article over the past couple of months, including this, have offered conflicting information... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the source to include an interview where she states her age as 24 in 2010. Is there anything reliable outside of the LIFE picture caption for a 1984 date? It may be that the information needs to be removed and discussion started on the talk page as to how to word the apparent discrepancy in the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing else reliable that I'm aware of. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I've just found a Canadian Press article (not available online) that says she will turn 25 on April 1, 2011. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It's beginning to look like the LIFE clip may have been a mistake. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Accident!

From this dif it looks like you reported the right person. Even if you had reported me by accident, no worries. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok!My bad!First message removed!--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

wrong month on vandalism warning headers

I don't know your doing intentionally, if so ignore this, but it seems your vandalism warnings are still using March 2011 section headers, should probably be April ones at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 21:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I could pretend it's a lame April Fools joke, but truth is it was just a mistake. It is of course April now, but apparently my fingers still yearn to type March. Thanks for the reminder. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave Hensman

Hi, a couple of months ago you put in place a PP for Dave Hensman, a consequence of some undue weight, POV-pushing additions that may also have involved socks and COI. The PP has expired and the campaign has restarted. At least one of the users - which is an SPA - has had a full set of warnings and also advice from myself and another editor regarding how to deal with the situation in a manner that might be acceptable to WP, but has today continued regardless. The warnings are spread over a period since February & so probably won't result in a block. Can it be protected again? What else could we do? I have thought of adding the info myself in a more acceptable way but, tbh, a $2,500 fine is nothing in the context where it applies & this is why I suspect POV/COI etc don't feel confident about having it there at all, true though it may be. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've re-protected the article for a month in order to allow for discussion of whether the info should be included at all, and if so to what extent. As their appears to be a degree of socking and/or meat-puppeting, you may want to make a note at the BLP noticeboard where others can take a look at the situation and help come up with consensus as to how to proceed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the noticeboard as you suggest start something on the talk page. This is one of those articles where I know absolutely nothing about the subject (and have no interest in it) so anything I do is pure policy-based. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him either, despite the fact that it appears he lives only about 30 minutes from me. The good people at BLPN will certainly be able to help you out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done - raised at BLPN, note linking to it on article talk page & the last contributor's talk page. I've never fully understood meatpupetting as a concept but think it is effectively when people act as a concert party. I'll read up on it.

That's a rough area of the world you live in! Major white-collar crime within 30 minutes of you <g> Me, I've only got gangs, drugs and guns to worry about ... and the so-and-so who stole my scaffolding last week (it was erected at the time!) - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody stole the bench from my front porch the other night. Oh well, there's no escaping it regardless of where you live I suppose.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ryo Nagamatsu

That article was actually deleted a while back, and since it is worse than it was before, it should qualify for speedy delete.--ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

jake t austin article edit

hey there! there are some things which are to be updated in the article of Jake T. Austin...that is: He is currently filming New Year's Eve (film) with Sophia Vergara,Abigail Breslin,Zac Efron and many others in New York.

Only information confirmed through reliable sources should be added to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article question

i was personnaly in this gang and asked a member to create a page about us. Please re display the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.172.172 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about "Bega streets", which contained a bunch of unsourced claims about gang activities. The article contained misinformation and was a mishmash of other gang articles. The article cannot be restored in its present state. If you are serious about creating a factual article then I would suggest using the article wizard, but read notability criteria for organizations and Wikipedia's reliable sources policy first please. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Change of birth date for Leeanna Walsman

Just out of interest. Looking through the edit history shows that the date of birth was changed a number of times to the correct date and you reverted it back to the incorrect date, citing the lack of references. However, there was no reference cited for the original, wrong date of birth either. Is there some page on wikipedia that talks about how this kind of thing is worked out? Eg, in this case, the information on the first revision is taken as the truth until proven otherwise. Seems odd. Nevster (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You would be surprised at the number of birth dates that are changed on articles on my watchlist (which numbers 8500 ) on a daily basis - it is a very common form of sneaky vandalism. If it becomes apparent that a date is flip-flopping (as was the case here), then it is best to remove the date/contentious info altogether until a reliable source is provided. The most important lesson to take away from this is: if you are going to add or change any existing info in a biography, ensure you include a reliable source for verification. If you're ever in doubt, leaving a note on the article talk page (as you did in this circumstance) is a great way to discuss the changes you would like to make to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Nevster (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I left you a welcome message on your talk page that has a lot (perhaps too much!) information with regard to editing. Hopefully you will find some of it useful, and please feel free to ask me any questions here anytime. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of my user page

Hello Ponyo

I regret to inform that you appear to have deleted my user page. Hopefully this was a mistake but it looks like it may not have been as I think you refer to the page as being a copy. It is in fact my original page with veryfiable personal information I have provided about myself.

As you can see there have been quite a lot of comments put in my user talk and as a new user I have been amazed and disappointed to find a large number of statements about me which are either rude or untrue. This really has changed my view about Wikipedia which until now I thought had high standards and was a good source of accurate information.

I have tried to reply to some of the users who often use names such as yourself to conceal their identities but although 'Vquakr?' and others sound friendly I have not received any answers to questions I have raised and I very much hope you can address this in the near future.

I hope you can re-instate my user page or help set up a Wikipedia entry for me if you still have the information - I very much appreciate positive activity rather than any destructive actions which take time to correct and are necessarily a drain on all our resources.

Thank you for your assistance

Simon Corry

Musician and Photographer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.104.95.209 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that Wikipedia is not meant to be used as means of self-promotion. Period. There is nothing that I can add that has not already been detailed at User talk:VQuakr. If you are truly as notable as you believe yourself to be, then someone uninvolved will eventually create an article on you. You can always make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of user page

Hi Ponyo

Will you please restore my user page.

Please note all Wikipedians are invited to enter information about themselves on their user page (unlike the requirements for an article) and you have deleted personal information which was provided in good faith.

Wikipedia was invented to collate factual and verifiable information. This requires diligence and not aggression, malice or biased opinion.

If you are genuinely interested in pursuing actions which violate the purpose of Wikipedia you may care to investigate some of the previous contributors to my user page such as the comments that I have worked with Andrew Lloyd Webber which are untrue.

Please restore the accurate information if you can and this will be much appreciated.

Thank you

Simon Corry

Musician and Photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are invited to add information about themselves related to their Wikipedia activities, but promotional text is not allowed (see WP:UP#DELETE. You have attempted to create an article on yourself twice, and it has even gone through a deletion discussion where the community decided by unanimous consensus that the article should be deleted. Your response to that was to add the promotional information to your userpage. I can email you a copy of the deleted text if you would like, but you need to desist in your repeated attempts to promote yourself via Wikipedia. Bringing your request to multiple administrators in hopes of getting a different answer is consider forum shopping, so please don't continue to do so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Haha, no problems - no harm done. GiantSnowman 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

David Alexander (author)

Hi, I restored this article because I could only find one deletion discussion for it, from 2008. Given that said discussion is three years old and the page is substantially different, I think a new AfD would be required to re-delete it. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Out of curiosity, did you read the article? And look at what sources are being used? I only ask as a second opinion as something strikes me as "not quite right" with the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it can definitely be improved, but I've been in correspondence with the author and trying to work with him. Hopefully it'll improve; I started off about NPOV ... meh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all...wrong, especially the tenuously 'sourced' quotes from others on his work. Could he not have continued to work on it in his user space until the refs were up to par? I don't think it will survive an AfD its current state. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure that out, it's confusing to me, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Alexander (author) (second nomination). andy (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rudi Bass

I had known Bass for many years professionally and then in his late life came to know him personally to a limited extent, although extremely remotely as we had not lived in the same country or continent since 1984. MrsHayward (talk)MrsHayward 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Carat Security Group page deletion

You are the user who deleted the above page. I have no affiliation with that page or that company. First, are you an Administrator at Wikipedia? Second, how may I view the deleted content to see what you objected to so that it is not repeated in a new article? I do not see any ready links at the page one is redirected to. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as being unambiguously promotional, which upon review it certainly was. It was full of marketing jargon and non-neutral assertions. A much more serious concern that has come to light now that I've looked at the deleted article; it was a copyright violation of http://www.caratsecurity.com/heritage.php. The text was a verbatim copy of that webpage. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be so; at present I have no way of knowing. To date I've made something like 7,000 edits at Wikipedia and never run into a post-deletion situation such as this. I have no dog in the fight. I just want to know first, how to see the deleted content to understand what the problem was and use as a guide if I decide to create a new article; second, how to access the deletion discussion you refer to. At this point I can't seem to get past this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carat_security_group&action=edit&redlink=1), which does not even link to any content indicating there ever was a page to begin with. Last, are you an Administrator at Wikipedia? Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You would not be able to use the deleted article as a guide as it is a blatant copyright violation. It is an exact copy and paste of http://www.caratsecurity.com/heritage.php. If you would like to know what was in the deleted article, simply visit the website I linked to as the information is verbatim. I cannot post it anywhere on Wikipedia or repeat it in this email without introducing a copyright violation myself. As long as you are writing an article in your own words, then there should be no issue with you creating an article to replace the deleted version. And yes I am an administrator; you need to be an admin in order to delete articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but zowie it's a bizarro world I've stumbled into. Pure Alice in Wonderland. One can't see what's been deleted because if it's deleted they're not allowed to see it. Some tautology. Then tautology meets the Star Chamber, as you can't see it but others have and judged that it should not be seeable. Oppositely, of course if it were seeable, then - depending entirely on what it was and why it should not be seeable - it would be seeable, and it shouldn't be seen. Jeeze. A copyright violation I can see, but taken to extreme it's a mighty letter of the law defense. Such things, however, don't matter as all violations are violations and red kings and black queens should all take one step back. So, if I understand it I can't see the article as deleted, or access the deletion discussion, copyright violations, mind, or Wikipedia no-can-do's. But I can start from scratch. Right, then. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no deletion discussion. The article was created in a single cut and paste move, someone from New Page Patrol reviewed the article and tagged it for speedy deletion as overly promotional, I reviewed the article and agreed with the editor who tagged it for deletion, and it was deleted as such. There is no problem at all with you starting a new article on the same subject, good luck and happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, lest there be any confusion there is nothing Wikipedia needs more than a dedicated 24/7 deletionist. So be aware your efforts are richly appreciated. I'm just dumbfounded at the rabbit hole I've stumbled into. Wikiuser100 (talk)

I'm hardly a 24/7 deletionist. I remove CSD tags from articles that can be saved and have created articles myself (there is a list on my user page). Once again, good luck with the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. 24/7 would be OK with me. New Carat Security Group page created. Please let me know what you think...and by all means advise me before (if) there will be a recurrance of Mr. Speedy Deleter. I cannot see that there should be. Regards. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool Interview

You should listen to this if you have time, Werner yukking it up with Cormac McCarthy and physicist Lawrence Krauss: [1] The Interior (Talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; now I can't wait to see Cave of Forgotten Dreams!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Requested

I asking for your help as I see you have dealt with the user Rusted AutoParts before. Earlier this week, I discovered many factual errors in the deaths section on the page 1994 in film. Most of the names in the deaths table were of people who actually died in 2010, not 1994. I cleaned up the table, deleted all the names that didn't belong and started adding names of actual people who died in 1994. User Rusted AutoParts keeps reverting my changes claiming he is in charge of editing the page and this is the way he does it. This seems crazy to me, as purposely posting false information on a page goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. The false data he is placing there isn't just there for a few moments but for days at a time while he edits the page. This is also going on for other "year in film" pages. I want to correct this and get all the false info removed, but it is just resulting in an edit war. I put a not on his user page, which he deleted, and one on the talk page for "1994 in film", which will also probably get deleted. What should the next step be? I appreciate any help or advice you can provide. Thanks. BurienBomber (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits certainly don't appear to be entirely helpful, and they do have a history of edit-warring. It appears another editor has given them a 3RR warning, so perhaps it will die down now. I won't be online much today, so if Rusted AutoParts does persist in returning the page to their own preferred and incorrect version despite your beginning dialogue on the article talk page, I would suggest putting together a 3rr report. Even if he hasn't technically violated 3rr, some admins there will block him on the basis of edit-warring without the three reverts in 24 hours present. Drop me a note if you do file a report and I will take another look for you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Watch out about 3RR!

Hi, Ponyo! I tried to help out a bit with that Sylvester Stallone revert business and was about to submit a 3RR Noticeboard request against the IP to have him edit-blocked for a while when I noticed you had done four reverts today, so I decided to stop rather than call attention to the situation. Be careful not to let an anonymous account push you over the 3RR limit so you get slapped with an edit block.

This following pretty much describes it:

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get all dirty AND THE PIG LIKES IT!

Take care! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a target for drive-by vandalism, which this appeared to be. Per WP:VANDTYPES, blanking of sourced content without explanation and when the reason is not readily apparent can be considered vandalism. Once the IP began a discourse on their talk page I left their edits in place and tried to engage them further on both their talk and at BLPN, unfortunately they no longer seem willing to discuss the matter. The article is protected now in order to allow for discussion, so we'll see how it all turns out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I hope you don't think I was complaining or "warning" you--I was only trying to help out a bit. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for following up on the BLPN report. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

IP as well?

Hi there, I see that you blocked Riansmith2011 (talk · contribs) as a sock and deleted the articles they created. Would it be worthwhile blocking the current IP of the user, which is pretty obviously 90.218.208.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I honestly don't know if it would do any good, but thought you may like to know. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention Jenks24. I've included the info in a CU request and will see what develops. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for passing it on to the relevant place. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

What have you done to my talk page please? Seesawmajorydoor (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your threat to report anyone who used your talk page to the police and the fake block notice you posted. Please read WP:UPNOT for information as to what is not an acceptable use of a user talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes question on Tim Westwood

In reply to User_talk:Xionbox#Pending_changes_question

Dear Ponyo,

To be honest, I hesitated before accepting these changes, mainly because of the removal of cn tag. Finally, I accepted to change because specific detail was added and the tag was several month old (sept. 2010). I though a source added since may have referenced this passage. Mistakenly though, I did not check nor the history neither the references for the exactitude of the added information.

Thank you for correcting my mishap.

Xionbox^₪ 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the main purposes of pending changes on BLPs, aside from screening out pure vandalism, is to ensure that information added to the article is accurate. If there is an attempt to add information without including a source for verification, or removal of templates that identify valid problems with the article, the change should be rejected. If you are ever uncertain about the validity of a pending change, then it's best to simply skip it and allow another editor to review. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Simon Corry user page

Hello Ponyo

Thank you again for your interest in my autobiographical entry. As you can see although not a skilled Wikipedia user I am a perfectionist and like to follow up all comments in detail responding to as many users as possible who open a debate. You are right in that I would have hoped for a better outcome but my main concern is to maintain the integrity of information that is placed in a public arena on a respected internet site.

I disagree on the issue of self promotion as without that concern much of Wikipedia would probably not have been created. Many friends and people with vested interests in subjects have created fine articles. I think Wikipedia and it's users would be better to admit that. It would become transparent and more valuable as a result.

However I am always interested in working within existing frameworks and respecting traditions and I am sorry if my edits have given an impression that was not the case. The reason I moved deleted content back to my user page was because I wanted to save valuable information that had taken time to prepare and Vquakr kindly suggested this on my talk page. I believe there are various ways of compiling information on a user page to allow an autobiography.

Yours sincerely

Simon Corry

Musician and PhotographerSimon Corry (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have every right to disagree wit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however as they were put in place via community consensus, then community consensus would need to shift in order to change them. There are ways of compiling information on a userpage that allows other editors to know more about you, but this is meant to be correlated to your activities on Wikipedia. Your sole purpose on Wikipedia has been to promote yourself, the sole purpose of having autobiographical information on your userpage would be self-promotional as well. I'm concerned by how rigorously you are pursuing this attempt at creating a page on yourself, whether in article or userspace, despite it being explained to you repeatedly why such content is being deleted. Content deleted via deletion discussion and repeatedly deleted as promotional should not be hosted in userspace, so please desist in trying to do so. I know this has been explained to you many times, but if you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone without a conflict of interest will eventually create an article on you. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of simon corry user page

Hello Ponyo

Than you for your reply and also thank you for offering to email me the lost copy.

Regards

Simon Corry

Musician and PhotographerSimon Corry (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Simon - in order to email you a copy of the deleted article, could you please enable your Wikipedia email? It's simple to do; click on the 'my preferences' tab, and under 'Email options' click 'enable email from other users'. Just drop me a note when you are done and I will forward you a copy of the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Simon Corry page

Hello Ponyo

Thanks for the offer but no need as there are numerous copies of the information I can access.

Regards

Simon Corry

Musician and PhotographerSimon Corry (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Villa Giulia

"Are you saying that despite all of this information you were unable to to "identify the subject of the article"? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)"

I think you are confusing "subject" with "topic". The subject of an article is the specific thing the article is about, not the general topic such as "buildings" or "parks".

To begin with, it is impossible to tell from the article whether Villa Giulia is a house, a hotel, an ancient monument or some other kind of "building". It is also impossible to tell whether the "park" is part of the same complex or something completely unrelated to the building. I take it you would have had no objection if I had deleted this article as not offering any evidence or claim of notability.

Cross-references to another wikipedia are of no use in clarifying the subject of an article unless one happens to be a speaker of the language of that wikipedia, and are therefore irrelevant in this respect. Deb (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note - moved to User talk:Deb in order not to fragment the discussion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Villa Giulia

I originally had a huge ssection here, but found you're not the author of the piece! I've redirected my comments to the author. CycloneGU (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note CycloneGU; indeed I am not the author, nor was I even the first editor to request the article be restored as an invalid A1 deletion. I'm about as uninvolved as it gets when it comes to this DRV. If there were notability or sourcing concerns regarding the article it should have been prodded or sent to AfD in order to allow the author and other interested editors the opportunity to address concerns. Instead it was speedily deleted under an invaled criteria. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and even now I am finding no response from the user who wrote the 10 word snippet. I've taken matters into my own hands and started doing a little bit of work on it from the Italian article (what I can glean from it from an imperfect Google translation, but it's a start), and another user has volunteered a German translation as well. So I've decreed once we have the translations in and noted on the talk page, we can start looking at sources and, if needed, translate those to figure out what is sourcing each bit of information, perhaps removing the need for the Other Wiki tags on the talk page. I also found a picture of the sundial in Commons; unfortunately, the picture in the Italian source is unusable (it's cut off on one side in any case). Also, Deb took note of my participation in the debate, saying she may be more likely to userfy items like this in the future if they can end up having such a positive result. =D CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Newcom Group

Hi Please do not delete Newcom Group article. This will be our Company article in Wiki. BR, Ganerdene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geganbat (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not be writing an article in order to promote your company; please read Wikipedia's guidelines with regards to conflicts of interest and promotion. In addition, the page you created consisted solely of an infobox and did not explain how Newcom Group meets notability requirements as outlined at WP:ORG. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

descent categories

I am sorry about the descent categories i will be more careful.

Thank you. I've left some advice on your talk page, and if you have any questions with regard to any specific article categorization, please let me know and I will help you review it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

your edit on John Prendergast

what would you like me to do for you to remove tags placed on bio? i asked same of previous editor who placed them there and have had no response. Nell 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have concerns that you have a conflict of interest with regard to this article. They have asked some questions on the article talk page with regard to the extent of the conflict and what effect it is having on the neutrality of the article. Once their concerns are addressed the tags can be removed; please do not remove the tags yourself as you are the editor who appears to be editing on behalf of Prendergast. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate dealing with this one talk page, as i have been running around to various sites to look for who wrote what where.

does anyone think anything should be changed in the article? i don't know what what want me to do. how can i satisfy the concerns? Nell 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All discussion should be taking place on the article talk page. The editors who have concerns may not be online at the moment; talk discussions may take several days or weeks to come to a conclusion, so please be patient. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo: This is Alugh's comment: I request User:Jespah to disclose the nature of his relationship to John Prendergast. Jespah has added a great deal of promotional content to this article, and I think that this article would benefit if the edits made by Jespah are closely inspected to ensure that the neutrality of this article is not further jeopardised. Alugh (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

His comment appears to suggest that the tag can be kept their indefinitely and was posted after I told him I would have appreciated his discussing a photo image size reduction with me, or show me the "wiki rule" stating limits of photo size... He never responded to that comment. Instead, he posted what you see above. Nell 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Alugh and The Interior are concerned regarding an apparent Conflict of Interest you have with the article. They have tagged the article as such and begun a discussion on the talk page requesting disclosure as to how deep your involvement with Prendergast and his activities are. Please stop removing the COI tag from the article until the issue is resolved. You need to give editors time to respond to your reply regarding the specifics of their complaint. Once it has been addressed and agreed upon that COI is no longer an issue, only then should the tag be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

____________________________

I take issue with Alugh talking to me as thought I am on trial.

The point is - if he feels that there is any non-neutrality in the article, he should cite specific references. Nell 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And they likely will cite specific instances, but you need to give them the opportunity to reply. Please be patient. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up on User talk:XxXDylanWillard

Hi Ponyo. Just FYI about this user, as you previously blocked him: he continued right back to the same behaviour, ignoring both your and my advice, so I've blocked him again. I decided on two weeks, but perhaps it should have been indef...? He has shown no indication of being willing to discuss other editors' concerns and just continued blindly ahead... Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The two weeks could be considered a final shot over the bows before an indef. It's not too heard to wait out a day or two, a couple of weeks may bring him to the table to discuss why he's making the changes. My instinct is this is either a WP:COMPETENCE issue, or they just have no interest in editing collaboratively, both of which will likely lead to an indef if the problematic editing resumes. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good, we are thinking similarly about the situation. Thanks for your reply. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Christoph Sanders article

Hello. I'm wondering why you removed the family information from the Christoph Sanders article. I included it because when I was working on the article I looked at other biographies and many of them included this type of information. Why, after this long, was it removed? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Arcania63 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arcania63. The information was removed under BLP policy and guidelines regarding the inclusion of family names in articles (the specific link is WP:BLPNAME, which I also included in my edit summary when I removed the info). In general, names of living individuals who are not independently notable should not be included in an article unless the names are sourced and relevant to the notability of the subject. For example, it is preferable to include a sourced sentence in the family section that states "John Doe has two bothers" rather than "Joe Doe has two brothers, Mark and Todd". This affords greater privacy to the brothers who are not notable outside of their family relationship with their brother. From WP:BLPNAME: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Walker (footballer born 1992)

Hello. You deleted this page on 12 April. He made his professional debut today for his club [2] as a substitute - can you please let me have a copy of this into my userspace so I can amend it/ add references etc (Assuming what was deleted is in anyway decent). Thanks in advance Zanoni (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your request I've moved the article to a subpage where you can work on it. It can be found here. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - now worked on and recreated/ Zanoni (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the userspace draft deleted now that the article is in mainspace? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Royal Kerckhaert

Goodafternoon,

Can you tell me what is wrong with the Kerckhaert wiki-page?

Kind Regards,

Kai Merckx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merckx24 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion and therefore should not be recreated unless a substantially different version is created that addresses the original community concerns that resulted in its deletion. It also contained copyright violations of the Royal Kerckhaert webpage; Wikipedia cannot host any material that has been copied from another website without the proper permissions in place. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ring of Fire

My primary concern is that the article, as written, contained just one single sentence of complete prose, namely Ring of Fire is a neoclassical/progressive/power metal band from Chula Vista, California formed in 2000., while the entire rest of the article consisted solely of bulleted lists. Even if the band has notable members, the article has to actually explain that — it's not good enough to just list their names without giving any actual context to explain that they're notable. And it didn't have any sources, either, so strictly from looking at the article itself I have no way of knowing whether it actually had notable members or just obscure wannabes who happened to have the same name as some more notable people. (I do realize that it most likely was the real people — but as verifiability goes, it's the job of the Ring of Fire article to make that explicit up front, not the job of the reader to go clicking on the musicians' individual articles to see whether they mention a band called Ring of Fire or not.)

And it's also important to remember that speedy or prod deletion doesn't mean that the band can never have an article; if someone comes along and writes a better one which makes notability more apparent, that'll be perfectly fine. It just means the band can't have that particular article as written. And you certainly also have the choice of restoring it if you choose, but it needs a hell of a lot of work before it'll actually be keepable. When you get right down to it, the criterion isn't "topic does not have any notability", it's "article doesn't explain the notability of the topic" — and there is a difference. Even our article on Stephen Harper could be deleted if it somehow failed to actually say that he's the Prime Minister of Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that "it needs a hell of a lot of work before it'll actually be keepable". As you noted that you have no issues with my restoring the article, I will do so. If notability is a concern then it can be taken to AfD for further discussion - confirmed notability is not covered by the A7 deletion criteria and should not be used to justify speedy deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has to actually state some notability before you can say that it "confirms" any — and it does need a hell of a lot of work before it'll be genuinely keepable, because as written it wasn't even close to being an actual article. Though I see you've made some improvements, so thanks for that — but it certainly wasn't "keepable" and didn't have any "confirmed" notability in its original form. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of references and incorporated some of the listed information into prose. If notability is a concern, it can always be discussed at AfD. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not concerned about notability anymore, given your improvements. I was concerned about notability for the original version of the article only, because a functional notability claim and valid references weren't present in that version of the article as written. So now that you've improved it, there's no longer an issue. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I do still disagree that it met the A7 deletion criteria, but it is a very repectful disagreement. I'm glad that, regardless of how it came about, the article is now improved and we both appear satisfied with the outcome. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Seen it, thanks for the note. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning "Don Sahli" page.

The page I wrote was deleted in March: Don Sahli. The listed reason is copyright infringement. The reference of the infringement, Folger Gallery, is writing that I wrote for them. The copyrighted material is my material. Please let me know if I can do anything to remedy this or how I can get Don Sahli back on Wiki. I collect Don Sahli's work and have been long time follower, along with many, many collectors/artist around the globe. He is a notable, famous artist with work in galleries around the United States and 30 years of documented art career in notable magazines and newspapers. Don Sahli's name was also added to the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Bongart. Sahli was the last apprentice to Sergei Bongart and many of us that follow them both would like to see the connection and mention on Wiki.

Thank you for your work for Wiki and if you have any questions, please contact me - so we can work to add Don Sahli back to Wiki.

Thank You

Kathryn Foreman [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.2.143 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kathryn - in order for us to host copyrighted materials on Wikipedia, we need to ensure the correct permissions and licenses are in place. In order to donate copyrighted materials, please review Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions on how to proceed. The article can be undeleted once the licenses have been verified, however it will still need to adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing policies in order to avoid possible future deletion. Good luck with the article! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

I am unsure what you need from me. I have not copyrighted every article or bio I have written. When I visited the Folger Gallery website, the only copyright mention was pertaining to the images. Here is whats on their website "LEGAL NOTICE: All digital images on this website are the property of FolgerGallery.com. Any copying, distribution or use of the artwork without the express written permission of FolgerGallery.com constitutes copyright infringement and is punishable by law." Please let me know what you need. In the meantime I will review the links you provided above.

Thank You - Kathryn Foreman — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSahli (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In order for Wikipedia to include material (images or verbatim text) that has been previously published on other websites, we need to ensure that we have the permission of the author and/or the copyright holder to host the material. Please do review the links I have provided above for information as to how to go about donating material, this link is particularly helpful in describing the process. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I did review the links, thank you, and I will contact the owner of that website and see if they can update it with Creative Commons. My concern is the website owner, you can see that they have not updated any of the content since March 23, 2003. Is there another alternative to achieve the page? Can I just resubmit with different content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSahli (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting the article from scratch is of course an option. I would suggest using the article wizard as it will help guide you through the process. As long as you ensure that the material you include is verifiable through the use of reliable sources, and the content is not promotional in nature it should be fine. You may also want to review the notability criteria for artists to ensure Mr. Sahli meets the criteria for inclusion. Good luck with your article! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss Behave

Wondering why you deleted the beginning of the Miss Behave TV Series page? I am the creator/producer of the show, and my co-producer was creating the page. We are needing to make a show page, and trying to figure out how it's done. Leonianpictures (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Miss Behave (TV Series) article consisted solely of a plot summary which was a copyright infringement of the material used at IMDB. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material without ensuring all of the proper permissions and licenses are in place. Information explaining this was included on your co-producer's talk page. Note also that creating an article in order to promote your program is a conflict of interest. If your television program is successful, an uninvolved and neutral editor will in all likelihood create a page on the subject. You may also request article creation here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Hello. As for Shraddha Kapoor, I'd like to say that she really is born in 1987. I know someone who has studied with her in Boston University, but if you need more proof, go to http://www.pipl.com. Type Shraddha Kapoor. You can see her old myspace profile which really says she is 24 years of age...which means she is born in 1987. Keep clicking "search" if you can't see the profile. She uploaded her picture on Feb 27, 2007-4 years ago, before she decided to become an actress. There are many fake profiles of hers on the internet, but these are post 2010...so obviously that what makes the profile fake. This particular profile was made before 2010.

Plus, it's very common for actresses to lie about their ages. She's taking 2 years off her age. She probably realizes that she is a star and she must take a few years off her age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgrl (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like possible WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. The only way Wikipedia can include the birthdate is through the inclusion of sources that meet our sourcing policy with regard to verifiability. As there seem to be different dates floating around, with varying levels of sources to back them up, I will take the date out altogether (this is standard for contentious information in a biography article). Once consensus is reached on the talk page, then the information can be restored in the agreed upon format. Please lay out your argument on the article talk page and then, in order to draw in additional editors opinions, you could start a request for comment. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

- That sounds reasonable. I strongly believe she is born in 1987, but to be fair we'll wait for more credible sources to release. Thank you for understanding.

Note that I started a discussion on the talk page if you would like to add any information there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Ponyo, thanks for reverting whatever-it-was on my talk-page. I'm sure I'd have found it dispiriting - the stuff left on Cynwolfe's talk page was quite enough to be getting on with. Ho hum. Haploidavey (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The garbage on your page was significantly worse, but tis gone now! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:216.230.150.59

The IP is still adding dates to articles even though we both pointed this out at his talk page. DJ Magician Man (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated reply, luckily another admin has given the IP a temporary "break" in order to give them time to peruse the MOS links we provided. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting the Brian Keating hoax article just now. You may also wish to take a look at James Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. As with the BK one it was created by an editor with no previous edits. Then it was heavily edited by 92.18.9.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP falls into the range used by blocked user HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has finally been banned per this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposing community ban on HarveyCarter. If you prefer to let the AFD run its course that is fine with me. Thanks again for your work and for taking the time to read my post. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to leave you a link to the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bate. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"I've come across a number of these fake actor articles in the past couple of days and there are many tell-tale signs that they're hoaxes perpetrated by the same user. I'll take a look at the James Bate article and delete it if it's an obvious hoax. Please feel free to drop a note here if you come across similar articles in the future - I'm sure there are plenty out there that have escaped our keen eyes! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the time that you took to look into this. I will keep my eyes peeled for more of this sort of thing. Thanks again and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is one that looks dodgy Bobby Prescott. Same MO of being created by a newbie though no anon IP followup. MarnetteD | Talk 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. If not from Harvey Carter, it might have been User:Jake Picasso. The empty headers with other sections fully formed is pretty classic for that banned user. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on the other possible sock master. That will help in any sock tags that I might place in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Moore Physics

(and various other names) looks to be starting again as User:Bill Moore: Physics Teacher - should these be blocked when I find them or do they need to go to SPI? (I should know this - losing track. Too busy revising my French and getting odd things done...) Peridon (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've had run-ins with either of these accounts previously, but would be happy to help if you need anything. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad - getting mixed up with Harvey Carter... Peridon (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few new hoax articles

Hi again. Just found a three new ones today. Alan Cassady, Ronald Hamilton and Alan Hendry. All were created by Sullyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sheesh this person is putting in a lot of time on these. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the IP 86.141.255.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that is doing the followup edits including adding the hoax actor pages to numerous film articles. MarnetteD | Talk 18:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor has joined in the hoaxing VocalZ1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor just created this What Lies Above hoax article MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Update. As you will see these are all red links now. JohnCD took care of these hoaxes for us. What a way to start a new week. MarnetteD | Talk 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Users blocked, IP blocked 24 hr, I have raised an entry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Picasso to see if it's him. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all - a long weekend here in Canada combined with a Vancouver Canucks afternoon game led to a bit of a lag on replies. I think Jake Picasso might be stale, but if we can establish a new trail based on behaviour it will certainly be helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope your weekend was enjoyable. The Canucks sure looked good. It would be great to have a Canadian team playing in the finals. I'm old enough that I got to see the Vancouver Canucks (WHL) play the Denver Spurs when I was a kid. I wonder if our hoaxer is ever gonna find something else to do with their time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser linked in some previous hoaxers and a sleeper. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You deleted my Wiki page for our site, www.Rankography.com

How come and how can I recover it?

I don't understand what we did wrong.

Tyler [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankography (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rankography movies was deleted under the A7 criteria, specifically it did not assert any significance or importance with regard to the subject. In order to have a Wikipedia article, an organization or company needs to identify what makes it significant in comparison to the other millions of companies throughout the world. Please review the notability criteria for inclusion in order to see what Wikipedia requires with regard to notability. Unfortunately your username gives the appearance of representing a company or organization and is therefore a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. I will need to block the account, however I will leave instructions on how to request a rename once it has been confirmed you are aware of Wikipedia's policies against using accounts for promotional purposes. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Another IP in the 99 range

Hello again. It looks like you are already on this but the IP that you are currently reverting looks to be making the same edits as this on 99.56.184.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you blocked on May 21. I wish we could use rollback on these though I can understand why we aren't allowed to. On another note "Go Canucks"!!!! MarnetteD | Talk 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits were outright BLP violations by an IP hopper who has previously been blocked - I've reverted all of their edits. When it comes to serial violators such as this sometimes a little IAR goes a long way. And yes, I'm both excited yet terrified about the upcoming game. Fingers crossed Luongo comes to the ice with his game face on. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you are still online but I thought that I'd let ya know that the one from this morning 99.135.192.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still at it. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I was blocking them as you were composing this message! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much - there is no better response time than getting something done before the request is finished :-) Those NHL rascals are making us wait until Wednesday for game one, Grrrrr. In fact this could be the first time in I don't know how long that the Stanley Cup is won after the NBA title. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

a new version of our BLP vio IP

Hello P Looks like they have come back as this IP 99.135.192.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is one that you previously blocked. I'm busy cleaning up their new edits but they may need another time out. Best of luck again tonight - or if you don't get this til after the game I hope it went well. MarnetteD | Talk 20:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Having had a chance to examine their recent edits it looks like they are trying to add other info, that is already in the body of the article, like spouse etc. to the infoboxes as well as their unsourced religion stuff. This may or may not be an attempt to hide their main edit but it does mean that we have to look at little closer at the sum total of things. MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks like they haven't edited since yesterday, so I'm not sure a block will help now. If they start up again they'll certainly need a longer time out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. What an ending to last nights game. I was just settling in for a tension filled OT and then it was over! I hope that you have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It certainly was a "blink and you'd miss it" goal. I'll take what I can get though! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo - Still trying to figure out resolving the Don Sahli Page issue

I did review the links, thank you, and I will contact the owner of that website and see if they can update it with Creative Commons. My concern is the website owner, you can see that they have not updated any of the content since March 23, 2003. Is there another alternative to achieve the page? Can I just resubmit with different content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSahli (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have already responded to this query, but unfortunately I think it may have been archived before you had the opportunity to review my response; as such, I've copied my response below:

"Rewriting the article from scratch is of course an option. I would suggest using the article wizard as it will help guide you through the process. As long as you ensure that the material you include is verifiable through the use of reliable sources, and the content is not promotional in nature, it should be fine. You may also want to review the notability criteria for artists to ensure Mr. Sahli meets the criteria for inclusion. Good luck with your article!"--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

jim jordan

ponyo - why are you deleting jim jordan's actual biography? the current page is more about unsourced politics then jordan's background and resume. trying to fix the page, so what's up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm80 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The text you are attempted to add is a copy of http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/jim_jordan.html and therefore a copyright violation. All information added to biography articles on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and neutral. In additon, any material added in violation of copyright will be removed immediately. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

ponyo - its not a copyright violation because politico cites that the information they are presenting was not written by them and is is written by contributors to the magazine and is not copywrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm80 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand Wikipedia's copyright policy, so please review it here. The website carries a copyright tag ("© 2010 Capitol News Company LLC") and requires explicit licensing/permissions to be re-used here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to submit document twice Kevinqi (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Miss/Sir

Link below is first page , I need develop detail content of our company , named wanhua http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylene_diphenyl_diisocyanate I find that the content of my document is similar with BASF,DOw and so on .but why do you delete my document submit on the website .

the process to submit document is so complex , would you like to share simple way , Thank you very much.Kevinqi (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as being blatantly promotional in nature, which is against Wikipedia's policies regarding advertising and promotion. Upon further review of the deleted article, it also appears to be a cut and paste copy of information available at the Yantai Wanhua Polyurethanes Co. website (http://www.ytpu.com). Wikipedia has very strict policies with regard to copyright, and any violations are removed on sight. As you mention that you are affiliated with Yantai Wanhua, you should also be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. If you believe that your company meets the notability criteria for organizations, I would suggest adding them to the Requested Articles page available here. If your company is truly notable, an uninvolved and neutral editor will eventually create an article covering the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Birdges family

Dear Ponyo,

Im glad that you always warn me, but in this website called NNBD I typed in Jeff Bridges and it said that his religion was a Lutheran so I thought If he was A Lutheran So his father Lloyd Bridges might be a Lutheran, im just a 11 year old kid who really likes history,

So please write me back thanks.

from lenin99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.87.8 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two requirements that need to be met in order to include religious affiliation in biography articles:

• 1) the inclusion must be supported by a reliable source. Note that NNDB does not qualify as a reliable source for personal information in biography articles; an example of a reliable source would be a newspaper known for its editorial oversight and fact-checking.
• 2) the subject must have publicly identified with the religion and it needs to be pertinent to their notability.

If both criteria are not met, the religious affiliation should not be added to the article. Additional information can be found at WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT. If you are unsure of any of the above, I would suggest you stop adding religions to biography articles altogether. If you would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, there are many areas that could use enthusiastic and helpful editors; the community portal lists many tasks that you may find enjoyable. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

IP 99.63.87.8 continues to add unsourced religious cats. Further warning given.Span (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I've blocked the IP, but given their history I expect they will pop up on another one. They are rather persistent, so if you see IPs adding the same info to the same target articles, let me know and I will take a look. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Disney22, IP 99.21.170.110 and Eversman seem obsessed with religious categories - particularly Catholic ones - although following various blocks Eversman has turned his attention elsewhere for now. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

One day out of a block and IP 99.63.87.8 adds unsourced religious cats again. Some kind of masochism possibly, unless I'm missing something. Span (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you've given them a level 3 warning - I'll reblock if they add any further unsourced religious categories. Note that Jackie Gleason one wasn't too terrible as it is sourced he is buried in a Catholic cemetery, however that could be coincidental. It's likely just a matter of time before they return to adding the categories where they do not apply. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It continues. To me it's not a degree of terribleness, but that religious categories need sources that show there was religious practice as an adult. Thousands of Catholic cats have been added across biographies added mostly because the person's parents were Catholic. It's a BLP problem. Span (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for an additional two weeks as it is apparent they have no interest in abiding by BLP policy. Thanks for staying on top of this, and please let me know if you see the editor pop up under any other IP addresses in order to get around the block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email.--Chaser (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded, thanks. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Adam Sessler edit

Where do you suggest I start looking for "reliable sources" of the critisism directed at Adam Sessler's Evo 2010 commentary? --FLStyle (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources page breaks down what is and what is not considered a reliable source. With BLP articles the need for reliable sources becomes paramount, especially when it comes to negative or contentious information. While I appreciate that you attempted to show both sides of the issue, forum thread posts simply do not meet the sourcing criteria for a BLP (from WP:RSOPINION: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material). Have no reputable gaming news sites covered Sessler's commentary? If not, then it likely is not a notable enough incident to be included in an encyclopedia. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wells Tower

Dear Jezebel'sPonyo, I am Rockfeather, the editor who added a new section to the Wells Tower bio page about an essay that was critical of Tower's work. I did this months ago. Recently, my contribution caught the attention of another editor named Foolzgold who duly deleted it. We went back and forth many times, Foolzgold and I, re-inserting and deleting the section in turns, sometimes a dozen times in a 24-hour period. It got to be quite silly, but I persisted because I believe my contribution is legitimate. A few days ago an editor named Bbb23 got involved and did a good -- and by that I mean honest and fair -- job of refereeing the tit-for-tat, cleaning up language that didn't appear to be neutral, reorganizing sections, etc.

Now you have weighed in on the matter. You have declared that the essay in question is not worthy of inclusion on Tower's Wikipedia bio page. In fact, I see now that you have deleted it outright and warned others not to "undo" your deletion without some sort of consensus on the appropriate "Talk" page. I do not believe your deletion came after the consensus you apparently seek, having joined the conversation only hours ago. But I do agree with your comment on the noticeboard that Paul Maliszewski, the author of the essay, is merely "one individual expressing their personal opinion." I would only ask that you consider the larger question raised by your assessment: what literary criticism is not, in effect, based on personal opinion? Michiko Kakutani's? Edmund White's? Are their judgments based in some empirical form of literary criticism? Of course not. What separates their opinions from those of the casual blogger is that they make well-crafted and sound arguments to support their opinions. And to that end, so does Maliszewski. He is a published author with two books to his credit, and the Brooklyn Rail is not his personal web page. It is a serious literary journal. I would argue that the very occasion of this disagreement is reason enough to include mention of Maliszewski's essay in the "Awards and critical reception" section. After all, is that not what Wikipedia is all about? Encouraging divergent input from the widest possible range of verifiable sources?--Rockfeather (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The criticism has been removed as carrying undue weight under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy; specifically I removed the information in my role as a Wikipedia administrator based on an OTRS complaint, the section of BLP policy that states "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", as well as agreement at the BLPN noticeboard. Once contentious information is removed from biography articles, it cannot be restored as is without first gaining consensus on the article talk page, which is what I have requested in my edit summary. Please take any further discussion regarding the restoration of the material to the talk page for wider review. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm registering my objection to your deletion of my entry and the reasons given for it. It's not consistent with other Wikipedia articles on other writers. For instance, look at Malcolm Gladwell's page. It has a long section about the critical reception of his work, which includes many direct quotes from many individual critics with divergent opinions. This paragraph stood out, which I will quote here:

"Maureen Tkacik and Steven Pinker [21][35] have challenged the integrity of Gladwell's approach. Even while praising Gladwell's attractive writing style and content, Pinker sums up his take on Gladwell as, "a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning", while accusing Gladwell of "cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies" in his book Outliers. Referencing a Gladwell reporting mistake, Pinker criticizes his lack of expertise:[21] "I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong."

Malcom Gladwell is a popular, best-selling writer with a broad following among critics and readers. There can be no doubt that those critical of his work represent the viewpoint of "a tiny minority." Would his Wikipedia page then be improved by removing the above paragraph, according to the rules you cite? Of course not. Removing it would in fact diminish the relevance of Gladwell's Wiki page by turning it into a promotional vehicle for Gladwell's work. And this is precisely what you have done with the Tower article. --Rockfeather (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You are completely welcome to object, however the objection needs to be made on the article talk page and consensus for its inclusion needs to be reached on said talk page prior to restoring the info. If you do not agree with specific aspects of Wikipedia's BLP policy, then you are welcome to begin a discussion to change the policy (the WP:WikiProject Biography talk page would be a good place to start if you would like to begin a review of the semantics of the policy). Regardless of the eloquence or verbosity of your replies here, BLP is paramount and consensus is required on the article talk page prior to restoring the contentious criticism; my talk page is not the proper venue for dissection of WP:BLP and its consistent usage across all articles. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the message is: tough luck, pal. Your decision to erase the material is not up for debate. But any decision to put the material back in is eternally debatable until some fuzzy consensus coalesces, which only you can determine, and after which the decision to restore the material is, still, completely in your hands. Wikipedia: all the trappings of a democratic process with the efficiency of a dictatorship.--Rockfeather (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia does not declare itself to be a democracy. The policies and guidelines that you disagree with were developed through years of community editing and discussion; my only activity has been to respond to genuine complaints raised regarding the article and ensuring those community based policies are being upheld in this biography article. I have pointed you to the appropriate talk pages you can use to attempt to affect the changes you desire, for the specific Wells Tower issue the talk page is the correct venue for determining consensus. If you believe the BLP policy itself require review or tweaking you are welcome to raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say Wikipedia was a democracy. I said it has all the trappings of a democracy: the emphasis on compromise and discussion and civility and process with all the attendant rules and guidelines that go with it. It is more like a dreary bureaucracy in some faded East Bloc state. In the end, an administrator or someone with the right set of keys can parachute in, delete information based not on knowledge of the subject but rather on an acute familiarity with bureaucratic protocol, and hand it back to the editorial minion with instructions to come to a consensus. Well, you see chief, we were in the process of coming to a consensus...-Rockfeather (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on BLPN (Wells Tower)

I must tell you that regardless of whether I agree with you, your deft approach in communicating your points effectively and diplomatically is admirable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of Carlos Cesar

Good day Ponyo. The reason for dropping the Category:Portuguese politician category was that article it was already nested within the Category:Azorean politician category (which itself was within the Portuguese politician category). This is in line with the exist Categorization convention about diffusing categories. Also, one other point mentions the fact that "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs". By having a nested article in both the specific and general category seem to me to be redundant based on those two conventions. Mind you, that is my opinion. If you decide to revert the recategorization edit that I made, please provide me with an explanation. I will not likely dispute you on this, since my experience with Wikipedia categorization has been limited to the Wikimedia Commons, which uses the same categorization specificity. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) - hmmmm. Just noticed. I removed the Category:Portuguese politician because it was redundant to Category:Azorean politicians, not Category:Portuguese agnostics, with the same logic explained above. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the dif viewed from the history caused some confusion on my part as to what was being removed as redundant. I of course defer to your much greater knowledge on the subject. Thank you for the explanation. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Humphries

Hi, Please do not edit or erase information from Taylor's page. I am his publicist and all of the information which I have added is verifiable. Thank you, Nicole Voight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Voight (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see on your talk page that someone has already pointed you to our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. The edits your are trying to add consists of unsourced or unreliably sourced personal information. Also, links to fansites are removed as they do not meet the requirements listed for external linking. Finally, and very importantly, Wikipedia is a 'wiki', which means that anyone can edit. No single individual owns an article, and no single individual has the right to tell other editors they cannot add or change information in a given article (unless said editor is specifically prohibited from doing so as a result of sanctions). It is strongly suggested that those with a conflict of interest point out any changes and updates that need to be made on the article talk page, and other uninvolved editors can make the changes. What certainly won't be allowed is for a publicist to try to control their client's article and to use it for promotion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Src

Hi, Yes, no src that Gobbi died, but one IP is in upstate NY, one is in Bronx and an IP in Sardegna just added that to Italian Wiki. So my guess: source will show up in 2-3 days. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have little doubt that the IPs are posting the information in good faith, however its important that the information is not be added until there are reliable sources confirming his death. If it continues to be a problem the page can be semi-protected until sources emerge to verify the news. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. That was why I did not support the IP edits - because I have no source either. I just checked to see if the IPs were playing us, and unless the 3 of them are together that is unlikely, given that one is on another continent. In any case, there is no need to make a big deal, let us wait 3 days to see if it shows up in the news before we pronounce him dead. By the way, that reminded me of Andy Warhol's near death - he was "pronounced dead" at the hospital after he was shot. Then the ER doctors realized who he was and brought him back to life. So fame paid. His Wiki-page missed that fact, but no big deal. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Probabbly time to unprotect Stefano Gobbi. It is all over the Catholic news now. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly verified now! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunflower

	Sunflower
	Thanks for all your work Span (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bio IP editor returns

Hello again P. I though that I would let you know that it looks like our unsourced biography editor is back. Here is the latest IP 99.35.43.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They've been gone just about a month but they are back to making a few housecleaning edits and then sticking in their unsourced info again. Hope things are going well where you are. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when they would pop up again, it seemed rather inevitable. I have their talk page watchlisted and I will block them if they exceed the final warning given yesterday. Thanks for the head's up! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Navneet Kaur edits

This is to inform you that, in fact, Navneet Kaur is my senior classmates. I took every care of making the info neutral. Should I add the information that is sort of original research? Your opinion is awaited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannanwrites (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kannanwrites - you can of course continue to add information to the article, but please ensure that any personal information you add is supported by reliable sources so that it can be verified by Wikipedia readers. My note regarding removal of POV edits did not apply to your recent edits - it was in relation to my removal of such words as "bombed at the Box office" "famous actor" "Megastar" and such. As long as the information you add is sourced and not "word of mouth", then you will be fine. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Simon Fields

Hi Ponyo, you recently deleted my contribution for the Article "Simon Fields" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fields

I was wondering if you could help me better understand the WP policies in regards to article creation. I have been trying to create a Wiki article for Simon Fields for what seems months now and I'm just understanding it properly I suppose. Is my article not properly cited or is that the wording is just entirely wrong? I would love any kind of direction you can give, but would appreciate if you didn't just point me to the Wiki FAQ's....those aren't helping me.

All the best, xhourspass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhourspass (talk • contribs) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you have submitted the article through Articles for Creation twice, where it was declined. I would suggest requesting additional information from the reviewers that declined the creation to help pinpoint the issues with the article. I can tell you from reading the article after it had been tagged for speedy deletion, it was rife with what is considered peacock terminology which affects the neutrality of the article; these words include "prestigious" "award-winning" (if the individual themselves is not the recipient of said award), "distinguished as a leader", and so on. Peacock words and puffery are promotional in nature as they are used to impart a false importance to the subject. If an individual is truly notable, the facts will speak for themselves. Also, it is important that the facts that you add are referenced to reliable sources. Although you have links to IMDB and Box Office Mojo, there is not a single link in the article from an independent source that would show how Fields meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. One of the best ways to assert notability is by including material referenced to reliable sources such as newspaper articles, magazine coverage, etc. I would suggest working on the article in your user sub-space (example: User:Xhourspass/Simon Fields), and working on it there to try to cut down on the promotional tone of the article. Once you are happy with the article, you could ask for a review at the drawing board to ensure any potential issues are caught before moving it to main article space. I hope this was helpful, please let me know if anything remains unclear. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Neuttro

Neuttro is very active in the local rock scene. Both albums were sold in stores and online stores. 2 Music Videos rotating in local TV (TVS)... Articles were on the news papers...Radio Air Play in 3 Rock Stations.. Most Rotated News Paper in Puerto Rico "Primera Hora" was on the "farandula" section printed, this is the online version: http://www.primerahora.com/sin_extremos_neuttro-346443.html The signed a compilation with Brutal Noise of best rock bands in Puerto Rico (Puerto Rock Vol 2) Brital Noise (label of Sol D' Menta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroxidizer1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally deleted as not meeting notability standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. You reposted the article without addressing these concerns. My best suggestion is to read through WP:MUSICBIO and re-write the article clearly showing how Neuttro meets the criteria listed there. This should be done in your userspace (preferably using the article wizard to ensure proper formatting). Once you are satisfied with the article, it can be moved back to main article space (you may want to request review from the editors at Requests for Feedback prior to doing so). Do you need a copy of the article? I can move it to your userspace if you would like to continue working on it there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I understand, so, You need a reliable source where you and people can check?, I will read WP:MUSICBIO and try again later. Peace. Mroxidizer1 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)MrOxidizer1

-record certified gold or higher in at least one country. This is the onky criteria the band don't meet, the rest, yes. Both albums never been "gold".. but, is possible a consideration?. The rest the band has done all on the WP:MUSICBIO criteria.I will like a copy of the article please, please can move it to my userspace if is ok to me to continue working on it there. ..Peace Mroxidizer1 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)MrOxidizer

Note that the band does not need to meet all of the criteria listed, just at least one of them. The more criteria you can show that Neuttro meets, the stronger the argument will be for keeping the article. I have moved the draft copy to User:Mroxidizer1/Neuttro2 (User:Mroxidizer1/Neuttro was already being used for various notes and information on the band). When you are happy with your draft, you can request feedback from other editors to see if it's ready to be moved back to main article space. Good luck and happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks 67.203.240.38 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mroxidizer

Dory and SafeWallet page issue

Hi Ponyo,

you just deleted my article about SafeWallet. I also wrote a long explanation about why it should not be deleted. you have not responded to the explanation...

There are 18 password manager entries, many of them with much less significance.

Why was ours deleted? can you please explain? We are an established company for 8 years and the product has a long standing history.

Can I please re-enter the page and have published on Wikipeida?

Please let me know, thanks. dory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doryzi (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

After deleting the article I left a thorough explanation as to why the article was deleted on your talk page, as well as instructions on how to work on an article in your own userspace. The crux of the problem is that the article did not assert any importance or significance. If you can create an article that shows how your company meets the notability criteria listed at WP:ORG, the article will have much less chance of being deleted in the future. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NOT SPAM

I was on the GAC forum earlier and on a thread there, the wikipedia came up and not one of many posters had anything good to say about the moderators here. I know it's a lot of hassle looking at a link but if you had checked them, you would find why a number of links I gave on fifteen different threads are the same ones, as in there are FIFTEEN, count them, FIFTEEN photos linked to on the first page alone on MY forum.

And even if I were to waste a criminal amount of space and put them one per page, it would still be virtually the same link. Further information on my talk page. (Cyberia3 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Note: replied here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maleiha Bajunaid Candao

Greetings of Love and Peace. The article on Princess Maleiha B. Candao and the infringement laws you have cited are the very links given to me by the Princess. The websites you named are the same websites I managed on her behalf. I would not post exact words if those were not mine. Please be informed. If you wish to communicate with the Princess for further verification, please let me know. Good bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datu Oman (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted text from another website must be explicitly licensed for use on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instruction son how to ensure the correct licenses are in place. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of article C.H.Prahlada Rao

Our first article on C.H.Prahlada Rao was tagged for Speedy Deletion and got removed under G8/12 based on copyright grounds, with respect to the external site mentioned. Please note that that the external site is maintained by us, and the content is not borrowed!
Repeating the same on the site was however an obvious mistake that we didn't realize!
Now the content is removed from the external site with a shorter info, and the same article (since more descriptive and suited to Wiki in format) is created as a draft. But we are unable to Move it for review.
Please advice on how to proceed, whether the editors can access & review from the Special page on which the draft is created, or to submit under a different article name.

Chp.bym (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that it is not enough to assert permission to reuse text from another website, it must be properly licensed. Instructions on how to ensure your material is licensed for use on Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you believe the new article you have written addresses the previous concerns, I would suggest leaving a review request at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback in order to ensure the article is ready to be moved back to article space. Good luck and happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

autoconfirmed status to create

You have new messages

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Mackie

Hi, Ponyo. Please could you take a look at this edit you recently made to Andrew Mackie. According to your edit summary, you were reverting a previous edit. However, what actually happened does not appear to match the edit summary, and some other text was removed. I was wondering if this was your intention, or whether the software did something strange because another editor was making the same reversion at the same time? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like User:StaticGull and I edit conflicted removing the IP's posting of dating rumours. I did however also purposely remove the "Early life" section as it consisted solely of unsourced personal info as well as POV statements. I just removed another unsourced bit from the 'Personal life section" as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can I ask you something?Ahmad4d (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Likely not, as your account has been blocked for disruptive editing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My Page - Unosys Technologies Deleted with A7 Criteria

Hi Admin.

I'm Trying to create a Page with title - Unosys Technologies, which is not either a Spam or nor an Advertisement post.

Please review my page and make my content available.

Krishna.Bahadur.Karki (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, the article was deleted under the CSD A7 criteria - namely there was no significance or importance asserted for the company. I also pointed you to WP:ORG in order for you to review what notability criteria is required for Wikipedia to keep an article. What you have done is simply recreate the deleted article verbatim; the article does not explain why Unosys Technologies is significant in comparison to the other millions of companies in the world. Again, please read WP:ORG and show, in the article, how Unosys meets the criteria for inclusion outlined therein. Once complete you can request a review of the new article at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aotex s.a.r.l.

Dear Sir, I don't find any reason to delete my article as it is not advertising any content! Hope that you will do the needful and thank you in anticipation.

Best Regards, osman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osman909 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording is indeed promotional in nature; unsupported claims such as "industry leader" and "long-proven ability" combined with peacock terms such as "renowned" are very promotional. More importantly, the text is a copyright violation of the Aotex website. Please do not continue to restore the article as it is currently written. Note that if you are at all affiliated with the company, please read our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll make an absolutely fine admin Qwyrxian. Two bits of advice that have worked for me; trust your gut when things don't feel "right", and when in doubt, don't act - ask. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly x2!

		A tall glass of ice cold milk!
		I was going to drop a cookie to say thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page, but since you had just had a cookie delivered, I thought I would bring the milk! Many thanks for keeping your eyes open. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

nom nom glug glug. Tasty! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the help the other day. Here is a kitten.

NCSS (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You've saved me!

You have saved me! From making an ass of myself while copy-pasting messages. Thankyou.

The Cavalry (Message me) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why they pay me the big bucks my friend.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of 'antenarrative theory' by Dr. David Boje

(NOTE: THIS POST WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE TALK PAGES OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORS HOWCHENG, AND RON RITTMAN, WHO ALSO HAD A HAND IN DELETING THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY)

Hi Ponyo

Your deletion of Dr. David Boje's work in quantum physics and storytelling, and his concept of ANTENARRATIVE, is THE single most egregious and unfortunate edit I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please allow it to be reposted, or re-post it yourself, if that's possible.

I have made my entire career (30 years) in the storytelling business, from working as the publicist on the original TRON, when I had to explain to the news and entertainment media how a new technology (CGI) was going to change filmmaking forever (I also wrote the book the Art of TRON)...to when I produced the website for the first 'Toy Story' film and subsequently participated fully in the construction of early internet narratives...to today, when I use improvisation and (improvisational) game structure to help our clients generate productive business narratives in networks...

I am an expert in narrative, Ponyo. And I have never read anything more relevant to the future of narrative than Dr. Boje's work. We are, I believe, entering an era akin to the shift that took place at the end of the last century, when machines began giving way to information systems, and Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics. Today, like then, the old narratives are tired, and have sapped of their economic vitality (nowhere more so than in the U.S.). We need 'new story creation' on a unprecendented scale, and this effort will, of necessity, require what I call quantum narratives. These narratives will explore big themes like sustainability, education, religion, politics, leadership, etc. etc, We've spent 20 years building the technical infrastructure and now it's time to use the infrastructure to build the new narratives.

To do this productively (i.e. not chaotically) takes massive re-design in the conceptual, virtual and physical realms in which we dream and bring our dreams to life. Dr. Boje's theory of antenarrative and his other work in quantum physics and storytelling is going to be at the conceptual epicenter of this re-design.

By deleting his work, you are plopping yourself squarely in storytelling's past, when we spent all our time and professional energy battling to establish dominant narratives. The new narratives don't seek dominance, they seek flow. They are not 'owned' in the Disney IP sense of the word; they designed to invite participation. In terms of improvisation, the new games (which are used to generate narrative) are positive sum.

It will take Dr. Boje's work, translated to action in a multitude of different ways, to impose the discipline of design, the cosmos of creativity, on the chaos of information and invention that churns through the networked world in search of meaning (e.g. economic exchange) that can be assigned to it by people, environments and objects.

I urge you to reinstate his work. It's important! To me, it's like you're at editor at a science journal in 1904 who rejected Einstein's 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects' that ushered in the new era of physics. That's how important, and potentially transformative, I believe Boje's work is. I don't care whether he self-publishes it or not. It doesn't matter. It is thoroughly documented and accredited academically.

My wife is on the faculty of the School of Cinematic Arts at USC, and I can tell you that Boje's references and the people he cites in his work pop up all the time in the most sophisticated and evolved academic conversations anywhere in the world, around the subjects of multimedia literacy, social media, cinema, games and participatory culture.

BTW, I don't know Dr. Boje, have never met him, don't even know anyone who knows him (although I know a woman who's married to a blacksmith in New Mexico who may know him, as Dr Boje's side business is blacksmithing). I came across his work a little over a month ago on a website published by the University of Bath in the U.K., where he presented his 'The Quantum Physics of Storytelling' paper earlier this year. Only time (or as Boje's paper would call it, 'timespacemattering') will tell, but there's every possibility it could be this century's 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects.'

Thanks for your consideration in this urgent matter.

Regards, Mike Bonifer GameChangers [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.110.254 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing in this message that changes or negates my last comment regarding the subject archived here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Full stripping unsourced articles

Hi Ponyo, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of myth have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just back from holiday and about to tackle my watchlist. Once I've caught up I'll make sure to try to put together a coherent response for you. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Deleting all unsourced material in a non-BLP article just because the letter of the policy applies would appear rather pointy; common sense should always be used when interpreting the phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged". Without knowing the particulars it is hard to say for sure what the correct response would be in the case you outline above. There's certainly a difference between an editor taking on a single or small handful of articles and cleaning them up, removing unsourced info in the process, and someone who is removing every bit of unsourced info across multiple articles simply because they believe their moves are supported by WP:V. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Thanks for your response. I didn't post a link partly because I was interested in the question in general as I realised I didn't have answer to it, but also didn't want to get into a set-to with deleting blokey. I just wanted to understand better. However, this is the article change I'm thinking of. It upset some regular editors on the page, of which I am not one but help was requested on the Literature Project page. There is far from consensus. It seems pointy behaviour.Span (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that appears less than ideal and is taking WP:V to the extreme in my opinion. The only thing I can suggest if a similar situation arises would be to start a Request for Comment to gain additional outside input. If consensus is that the information should be fully or partially restored, and there are no BLP or copyvio issues confounding the issue, then it would be considered disruptive to continue to blank it. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Span (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That mis-Cat'er...

Re: your Warning here I previously filed an SP/I because of the similarity of recent edits between these different IPs. But now looking through the Malek article I see there seem to be some more possibilities... Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely some systematic attack going on if sockpuppetry has been excluded. The IPs that popped up for me were User:166.248.40.107, User:166.248.42.184, User:69.118.16.247, and User:67.82.171.39. Right now it appears to be a case of whack-a-mole, unfortunately. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He's baaaaaack...take a look at these contributions. Shearonink (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has rangeblocked a small portion of the 166.248 range in order to try to suppress some of the BLPCAT vandalism, however given the extensive range and apparent meatpuppet actions we're left with simply reverting and blocking as new IPs pop up. In the meantime I've semi-protected Rami Malek for a few weeks as well as it seems to be one of their prime targets. Ping me if anything else pops up. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zukov

User_talk:General_Zukov#BLP_warning. I think this was a rather less than optimal use of the block button. Qwyrxian warned rather than block. Zukov hasn't edited since the warning, and a block without intervening edits is fairly unusual. Or were there some revdel'ed edits? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian gave General Zukov a final warning regarding BLP violations for his actions at Talk:Sondra Locke. I did not block Zukov for continuing BLP violations after a final warning, I blocked him for disruptive editing for his completely unacceptable comments at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Spewing religious intolerance such as they did on that talk page is an example of gross incivility and I stand by the block. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with this block. I was warning more as an editor than an admin, as I'm watching Talk:Sondra Locke, where the defamatory BLP comments came from. I glanced briefly at the contribution history, saw a few trivial edits (not an obvious vandalism-only account) and warned. Seeing more details, I have no problem with Ponyo blocking if they believed that allowing Zukov to continue to edit would likely result in more disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Peck's Signature

Dear Ponyo,

How can I put a celebrity's signature into the wikipedia, if you want to can YOU please put the signature of Gregory Peck, I already typed in "Signature =" its all nice and ready for you, thanks bud.

Sincerly, DisneyChicago99

P.S. can you show me if you like how to type in a signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyChicago99 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo. This editor looks to be a new version of our 99. IP hopper from earlier this year. This editor is following same pattern of a several innocuous edits that seem okay combined with the insertion of unsourced info. Edits have occurred to several of the articles that the IPs focused on. A look at this editors name and userpage shows that they are in Chicago which is where many of the IPs geolocated to. I don't if they are a candidate for mentoring but the previous socking and ignoring of multiple warnings makes it hard for me to AGF. Any suggestions are welcome and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, help transfer file to commons

Dear Ponyo, please, help place this file: File:LCC.jpg to Commons, category:Klaipėda's LCC International University. The problems are, that:

1. It seems I'm blocked, as I personally can't transfer any file to Commons
2. On Commons other file with the same name really exists, so one need rename it. (e.g. to Klaipėda's LCC International University2007-03-27 or similar)
3. No one of collegues tried help with this problem yet (as to 2011-08-04 17:30 (UTC))

Thank You in advance. --Kusurija (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is already being handled here. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility - Reply

Hi there PONYO, VASCO here,

indeed they are getting out of hand. I try my bestest, but it's clearly not good enough, not by a mile. If i do get blocked again (not saying i do not care about solving this problem, i do!), i'll take it like a man.

Attentively, my sincere apologies, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of blocking you Vasco, I just wanted to attempt to get you to tone it down a couple of notches before someone else does. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

i assume that you'll be warning 216.117.11.39/99.65.186.186/Pyong kong phooey as well regarding the IPTAY article? you realize those are all the same person, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, only the editors insisting on adding this completely unsourced, ridiculous, and dubious trivia to the article. Namely you. You are far far beyond 3 reverts, and if the material is restored then your IP will be blocked to prevent further disruption to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

oh, i see...using more than one account to edit war (far far beyond 3 reverts) is fine as long as you are deleting "trivia". thanks for clearing that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't even cross the line in to trivia - it's just something made-up being added for lullz. Don't restore it. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP Cats - Special:Contributions/170.35.208.206

I was going to send this to AIV, but since I know you've been working on it, I'll wait to see you what you suggest, or do. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked. Let me know if they pop up elsewhere (which is only a matter of time unfortunately). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That was quick - thanks! I will let you know as soon when I see this nuisance again. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a large chunk of their common targets on my watchlist (as you obviously do as well), so they are pretty easy to spot. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Special:Contributions/12.185.48.105 --CutOffTies (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Zapped. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/64.134.96.12. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given them an only warning and will block if they persist. I'm pretty sure this is a different BLPCAT vandal than the Rami Malek/Danny Nucci socks; the Piper Laurie and Tony Goldwyn articles are like honeypots to these various BLPCAT sock groups! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong, they are definitely part of Malek/Nucci sock group - and now blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Colletti

How do I add photo or other links to sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopeishelp (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read our policies with regard to reliable sources and appropriate external links. If you are at all affiliated with Daniel Colletti, you may find it helpful to read our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest as well. I assume you are the same editor as Surfgirl771? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How was the image copyrighted? How do I upload photos then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopeishelp (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot upload images that you do not have the explicit rights or permissions to. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for additional information. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Blocking Martello736-

He made extremely disruptive and derogatory edits referring to both the movie and devoted users. I was fed up. I am extremely thankful.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable to be fed up in such a situation, but it's important to not lash out with with personal attacks. There are venues for reporting such disruptive behaviour (such as WP:AIV). Sometimes it's best to take a deep breath and have a cup of tea until you feel less frustrated. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for your advice. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Random Encounter (band) disambig.

Please explain why you view this article as SPAM and won't let it be categorized under disambiguation. I want to move on to create/edit content for the Warhammer/40k sections but would like a more clear understanding of what you disagree with before moving on and incorrectly modifying other pages.

In the defense of my actions: Random Encounter (band) is one of a dozen actively touring/performing video game cover bands and has more brand recognition, has played more shows than, appeared at more major conventions than (13 per http://www.animecons.com/guests/bio.shtml/2768/Random_Encounter) and released more albums than the following bands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NESkimos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaDriver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitron

Random Encounter has sold thousands of albums internationally (especially in Poland/US) and are fighting to raise accordion awareness, following in the same spirit/dream as Titano's owner Faithe Deffner. http://www.accordions.com/fdeffner/ Random Encounter was also one of five bands involved in the world's first video game themed national tour.

By direct comparison to other uses of the term Random Encounter: The Random Encounter (comic) has a smaller following than the band, no internet presence or reviews, only contains an article stub, has no references to anything except its own website. I am unable to find anything to make it noteworthy but has been left on the disambiguation page. The Random Encounter (film) has only minimal recognition, only cites imdb.com as a reference to the fact that it was indeed filmed, and contained one named actor: Elizabeth Berkley. Reviews are minimal and strongly negative (two stars average on amazon.com) and it never got real distribution beyond digital, but it did contain a named actor so it makes sense to include.

Thank you very much for your help. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtalison (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand the purpose of a disambiguation page in Wikipedia. The DAB pages are used as a directory of Wikipedia articles that have the same or similar titles. As there is no article titled Random Encounter (band), and no related article that contains significant information on the band, there is no purpose in listing it in the directory. Notability is a completely unrelated topic. If an article titled "Random Encounter (band) is ever created, then it should be listed on the disambiguation page. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. May I join? I believe it is also true that an article may remain red-linked on a DAB page if there are sufficient other articles pointing to it. You click on the red link and then go to "What links here" to find out how many there are. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for including that information George, I had previously explained that in my edit summaries when editing the dab page, and also directed the accounts adding the link to WP:DABRL, but had not reiterated the information in my reply above. In any event, an article has now been created on the band and as such it is now included on the DAB page. All's well that ends well! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but the main DAB page should be Random encounter (disambiguation), with a small e, right? Can you fix it if you agree with me? In Wikidom, I am GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, normally yes, however three of the four entries are proper nouns and are capitalized. I'm not sure if that is enough to override the general naming conventions though. Perhaps you could post a query at the project page to confirm? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth date Nancy lee grahn

FYI, Intelius gets its data from credit reporting bureaus and the like. 1956 is the date they list, as does ancestry.com, but viewers would need a paid subscription to access that which is why I didn't link it. You are citing capridge.com - a fan-based website! LOL Leave it. It is what it is and she and fans will have to deal with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry.com and Intelius are not reliable sources for personal information in biography articles (see previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard for example here). I have added an additional published book that states that she was born in 1958. If you would like to begin a discussion regarding the sources supporting the birthdate then I would suggest the article talk page or the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing my heading - I was trying to talk to at least two people at the same time and didn't review my post. (Slaps wrist.) (Ow! too hard...) Peridon (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly worth a wrist slap! I actually have myself convinced that I only make mistakes when I don't preview before saving :)I just happen to have the page on my watchlist (I'm a little concerned about this particular's editors BLP edits and interaction with others, as you've obviously picked up on as well).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Scott Parker actor

As his publicist, I am requesting that you leave Mr. Parker's page alone. We have no interest in a discussion as to your opinion as to what is or is not appropriate. If you tamper with it again, we will report it to Wikipedia. Publicist01 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No single person owns a Wikipedia article, and it is contrary to Wikpedia policy to edit articles for promotional purposes. As Scott Paker's publicist, it is a direct conflict of interest for you to edit the page unless it is to remove obvious cases of vandalism. I have again restored the article to it's non-promotional, Wikipedia manual of style-compliant, NPOV version. The correct venue to discuss proposed changes to the article or to point out errors within the article is the article talk page, however continued promotional editing on behalf of Scott Parker will in all likelihood lead to block of your account. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo. In case you don't see it this SPA made a request for protection here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Scott_Parker_.28actor.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. I added a bit of info. The RFP was then declined. I think (though I could be wrong) that Fastily may have thought that all the IP editing was what Publicist01 was calling vandalism. In fact, that looks more like tag team editing by the same COI/SPA person(s). I don't know if this will be a problem over the next few days, but, we may need to protect the page from the edits that are trying to turn the article into a promotional piece. Just thought I would fill you in before logging off. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I was offline all of last night. I'm sure the IP and the Publicist account are one and the same, however it's more likely a case of not logging in or understanding how Wikipedia works than an attempt to avoid scrutiny - regardless they will count as the same account as far as edit-warring goes. The more wiki-knowledgeable eyes on the article the better! I'm starting to think that dropping a note at WP:COIN or WP:BLPN may be a good idea if the publicist persists in attempting to use Wikipedia to promote their client. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Either notice board-or both-sounds like a good idea. You will have seen that Publicist was back since my post last night. The constant claim of vandalism is a bit annoying be we are both used to worse. Hope you have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 14:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left another attempt at explaining why the material is inappropriate on their talk page. Hopefully they will read through the policies and step back from edit-warring. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Advise - Updates to The Cooper Companies wiki page

Hello Jezebel's Ponyobons mots ,

I am writing to you on behalf of The Cooper Companies. It was brought to my attention that we have an existing wiki page that has been created, and I believe it was by you? Can you please tell me the how the page originated? There is some incorrect information on the Cooper wiki page. I have tried to edit the page, but my edits immediately got reverted back and I consequently got blocked by you. Can you please advise? We would like to have accurate and updated information about the company available on the page.

Many thanks! Coo246 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that as an employee or affiliate of The Cooper Companies you have a distinct conflict of interest with regard to the article. Although it is acceptable to remove vandalism from the page, or to make neutrally worded fact-based changes supported by reliable sources, the information you were adding was the same marketing script as is used on the Cooper Companies website; this violates Wikipedia's policies regarding using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and copyright. After multiple warnings on your talk page you continued to blank your company's article are replace it with your own copyright violating material which is what led to the block. If there are pertinent that needs to be updated on the company you should make specific suggestions on the article talk page; an uninvolved and neutral editor will then be able to make the changes on your behalf. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

Pneumonia? Ai! Hope you are in full recovery. Span (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The pneumonia didn't kill me me, but I think following up on a week long 8000 article watchlist might.... Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a message from the ether norns to cut back a bit :0) Span (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in and say that I too hope that you are feeling better and send best wishes for your continuing recovery. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow

That was nothing short of ridiculous. Nice block. I looked at the antisemitic edits before the last block, and then at the more recent batch, and decided that it wasn't a static IP--how wrong I was. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure which registered account the IP is linked to; I gave them an "I'm watching you" shot across the bow so hopefully there will be no more logging out to unleash their vile outpourings. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead deletions

Hi Ponyo, I'd welcome your thoughts on some recent IP disruptive activity. User:24.11.246.211‎ is knocking out any lead references to the Pulitzer Prize in biographies of writers. I have pointed out it goes to criterion of notability which should be pointed up in the lead. He just deletes the comments on his talk page. Your thoughts welcome. Span (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP edits actually conform to biography guidelines. The use of terms such as "Academy award winning" and such are generally not used in the opening descriptor of the lede; the preference is to give a fuller explanation of the award and its significance further in the lede or body of the article.WP:FILMBIO#On-going projects/to do lists has a more thorough explanation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. So to say "the author won a Pulitzer Prize for Heaven's Boat in 1987" is better than just noting they won the Pulitzer. It seems important to mention some reason for their notability in the lede. Best wishes. Span (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Coincidentally I discovered this nugget of info the same way you did, I reverted an edit where an editor blanked "Emmy award winning" and someone pointed me to the snipped above. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Cheers. Span (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

jon deibler edit

What should I do to source my edit of the osu basketball player to your satisfaction? The information I posted was correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRIM (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Information added to articles, particularly biography articles, need to include reliable sources for verification. Where did you obtain the information you wish to add? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very new to wikipedia--first day--so here are sources for the info I posted onto the jon diebler bio: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/36132/jon-diebler (his career stats) and http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/03/ohio-states-jon-diebler-on-record-setting-3-point-tear/1 (school and big10 records). You are welcome to attach these sources to his bio for me because I haven't figured that part out yet. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRIM (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see where within the USA Today article where it confirms the three statements that you are looking to add "he earned the popular nickname 3-bler due to his 3 point shooting", "Diebler's 374 career 3 point baskets is the current school record at Ohio State", and "His 2010-2011 senior season 3pt field goal percentage of 50.7% is also a school record for minimum of 100 attempts". I do admit however that my eyes glaze over a bit when I read about basketball, so I could very well have missed it! For adding references to articles, this page provides a "quick start" type of explanation on how to add citations to articles, which you may find useful. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Understanding you have no interest in basketball: the usa today article provided states that Diebler's records are big10 conference records (which by default makes them school records) and the espn page verifies his statistics. Upon re-reading the usatoday article I did notice that his 2010-11 shooting percentage was not mentioned as a school record however I found another article on espn (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6133370) which verfies his 3bler nickname and the OSU athletic department verfies his other 3 point related school records http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/diebler_jon00.html. I want to responsibly contribute to the wiki but I guess if I'm going to be dragged over the coals for every little thing....do you think it's worth the effort Ponyo?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRIM (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fantastic that you have found references for the statements you wish to add, it is exactly what is needed to ensure the edits are not challenged and/or removed; this is especially important when adding personal information such as the nickname. I understand that as a new editor you could find the exercise of including sources frustrating, however verifiability is one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. The welcome message I left on your talk page has a wealth of information regarding best editing practices and guidelines - it may seem overwhelming at first, but it is ultimately a rewarding experience. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Max Nicholas Dell

Hi, I see you deleted Max Dell as a G3. There's a suspicious creation today of Max Nicholas Dell. As you are hopefully familiar with the reasons for the G3 of the original article I thought you might like to take a look and see if the new one is equally dubious. Thanks QU ^TalkQu 20:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it has now been deleted and the creator blocked. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Max Dell

Whoops, I was leaving a "Doubtful" comment on talk page when you deleted main article. talk page will need deleting now., cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Gone now :) Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Dell case... can you believe that Xavier Aquino Velasco lasted for 2 years! Amazing. Whenever a Mr Zbot or Suncreator find a bunch of old untagged UBLPs, after cursing them for while, a few articles like "Sir X" and you think this is worthwhile. Aveagudweekend, The-Pope (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing regarding the article's longevity when I reviewed the history. The "love life" section was particularly, um, inappropriate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of SALTed article

Hi there, last night you SALTed the hoax article Vladan Dyse Vujic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and indeffed Hqtred (talk · contribs), the creator. Today we have Vladan Vujic Dyse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by meat/sock puppet Gregormatap (talk · contribs) - can you work your magic again please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 13:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I zapped the new hoax article and blocked the creator. Let me know if they pop up anywhere else. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks so much for the speed. Vladan dyse vujic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) existed at one point as well, so SALTing that could be an idea to discourage re-creation. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 14:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to leave a honeypot open in case any new sock accounts were created so I could lock them down in short order. If it becomes a more wide spread problem I'll throw together an SPI report and do some additional salting. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good thinking. I've added that page to my watchlist, so I'll see if/when it gets created. GiantSnowman 14:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note ...

You might want to see my note here because it somewhat contradicts your statements there ... we wouldn't want them to actually use up three whole usernames just to become a good editor :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that may be confusing. I have been in email correspondence with her via email as well and provided her with all of the optional venues to request an unblock. The Kellie45 account will be perfectly acceptable for the new username, as long as she understands the account shouldn't be used to add promotional material to the TitanFile article.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

woohoo!

		The Empty Set Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in eliminating unreferenced BLPs! joe deckertalk to me 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)	{ }

Greetings

Hi Ponyo, hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit. ϢereSpielChequers 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

All done (though I'm certain it will remain a formality only!) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Viette

I can't understand why you removed the dates I put for Pierre Viette. I have already made many pages on entomology, you can believe me, please next time ask me first before removing what I write. If you need references see: Nouvelle Revue d'Entomologie, Nouvelle série, Tome 27, fascicule 1, p. 69; also: Henri-Pierre Aberlenc, In Memoriam Pierre Viette (29 juin 1921 – 30 avril 2011), L'Entomologiste, Tome 67, numéro 3, pages 153-155.Jacqueshb (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the references, I have added one of the them to the article and restored the date of death. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kellie 45

This user has requested unblock in compliance with the terms suggested by BJwilkins, and says they will only use that account. Are you comfortable with an unblock? Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, as long as they commit to adhere to COI guidelines. Thank you for checking. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :)

That's for checking my edit to Alekos_Alexandrakis - it turns out that I'd misunderstood the wikipedia policy on citing imbd - always happy to learn :)

Failedwizard (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, that's why I left a clear edit summary; I wanted to ensure you knew I wasn't simply reverting you offhand. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Little David & Little Tuesday

• If you recall our brief foray into child preacher "Little David", you might be intrigued to learn about Little Tuesday (userspace draft), who I stumbled[3] across - briefly famous child actor of the 1890s. Sadly I can't find an obituary, her trail runs cold around 1930.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How could I forget the ANGRY FIST OF GOD? I'll see if I can dig up any additional info on our Little Tuesday...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Vladan Vujic

Remember this one? You deleted Vladan Dyse Vujic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and indeffed Hqtred (talk · contribs), the creator, before working the same magic on Vladan Vujic Dyse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Gregormatap (talk · contribs). Well now we have Vladan Vujic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by Mauricebelay (talk · contribs), and edited by his meat/sock puppets Burfernio (talk · contribs), Deearjohn21 (talk · contribs) and Michaelman1990 (talk · contribs) (who were all active on the previous incarnations if I remember correctly). What course of action could we take - SPI? GiantSnowman 10:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like WilliamH pretty much cleaned up the whole mess. If anything else pops up, let me know. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube 03:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Rose

Hello.

I saw your recent revert on the Kevin Rose article. Someone seems to be adding promotional info to the page every so often. Do you think semi-protection is called for? They tend to be edits from IP editors.

Thanks NCSS (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

At this time the promotional additions are not frequent enough or egregious enough to warrant protection; however I am watching the article and can temporarily protect it if it gets out of hand. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! NCSS (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Do disruptive editors ever fade away?

Hello P. I hope that you are having an nice fall. After a couple of months away DisneyChicago99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped up again and has gone right back to adding unsourced info to bio articles and their infoboxes. I have started the warning process but I thought I would let you know so that you can help keep an eye on things. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, enough is enough; I've blocked the account indefinitely for disruptive editing. I pulled together all the good faith I could muster and I still cannot believe that this is not a sock account. We will see these same edits via another account soon enough, my guess is that we have the majority of their targets on our watchlists by now that it should be fairly obvious. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where my manners went. So please accept these belated thanks for your actions in this situation. As you say our eyes are peeled for the return of this editor. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries; have you considered jumping through a ring of fire? Then you could smite the BLP-violating IP-hoppers and socks too! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I did about a year after I had started editing but the more I watched what admins have to put up with - cries of "involved" "bullying" "desysop them" and on and on - I decided that I am better suited to the work of an aging, grizzled wikignome :-) I have seen good admins leave in disgust and I can only admire those like yourself who hang in there and do all you can to keep things moving forward. Many thanks for the thought and cheers! MarnetteD | Talk 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me any time if you think I can help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wally Buono Award

Andrew Harris and Chris Ciezki

Question: Where did the award come from? Thin air? Just got established overnight? Happened to show up one day and poof it was there? Way out of bounds on this one but you do what you want. Not going to say anymore on the topic as I am an unrelated party practicing my edit skills on something I know about as in Canadian football at university level in Quebec.

Save the response for the next guy. Spam? Really? So much for detail and fact.

Carl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmerlino3 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam and promotion have different connotations here then elsewhere - an account who's only edits have been to add information regarding a specific product, company, charity etc. across multiple articles gives the appearance of being promotional. Many editors who run afoul of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines regarding promotion do so completely without realizing they are doing so. In this specific case, the history of the award is completely irrelevant for the individuals who received the award and the information does not belong in their biographies. This is why I left the relevant info in and formatted your reference instead of reverting the edits altogether. If you believe the award is notable enough for its own entry, then you are free to create such an article, that is where the history of the award belongs. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not interested in writing about the award as the foundation is in Switzerland and my interest is football in Quebec at a university and junior football level. I am writing on what I know. I do not know Bellemare or Saint-Marche or Wally Buono personally. I write on them because they are from Quebec and that is my home town although I am in Southern Ontario now. I write on this to practice my English and structure as English is not my mother tongue. I also write on this because they re small articles and I can handle them as a novice. So what we are saying here is we can discuss a Ferrari model, say a BB 512, and never mentioned Enzo Ferrari designed it and gave "birth" tot his model. We don't need the founder of the company even though it was his or her idea? That's your position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmerlino3 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, note that this is not my position, these are Wikipedia policies and guidelines that have been developed through consensus over several years. You admit that you are a new editor - I have been editing for over four and half years and have tens of thousands of edits. This does not make me infallible by any means, but I do have a rather extensive history and knowledge of how Wikipedia works. There is an overwhelming amount of information that is thrown at you when you begin editing, what I am trying to do is explain why your edits are being reverted (or in this case partially reverted) and point to the policies and guidelines the reverts are based upon. Your analogy is not a valid one - a more accurate example would be adding the fact that a an individual (say Brad Pitt for example) purchased a special edition Ferrari, and then launch into the history of the Ferrari within the Brad Pitt article. It is WP:UNDUE and not directly relevant. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not re-edit the entries as per your request. You do as you wish. I have stated my case with merit. I will get my account closed in the next couple of days as I see Wikipedia is not for someone trying to learn. There is no room for someone trying to tach themselves the system on a limited topic. Sends a great message to the world.

Cmerlino3 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cmerlino3, the entire point is that you do not need to teach yourself the system, there are many editors here who will help guide you through the process. Nobody gets everything right the first time, but in a collaborative environment such as this you need to be able to be willing to take good faith advice and make an effort to read and understand policies and guidelines when they are explained to you. Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating in the beginning, but in the long run it can be very rewarding. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go. I learnt something Cmerlino3 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Cmerlino3 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Cmerlino3 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo, I am not questioning your ability. Someone, say , Pininfarina (http://www.pininfarina.it/index.html) would have had to made the design for Ferrari as they do for the majority of all Ferraris. Special designed Ferrari? Ok, lets stick with that? Who designed it for Pitt? How did it come about? Who drew the pictures? Was Pitt involved? I would not give the entire history of Pininfarina but it lends itself to a sentence or two and that is what I am being denied here. Where did this award, this national award, come from? Where did Pitts Ferrari come from as in who designed it? Same question, same answer. Besides these two small accounts are a couple of sentences each. Not like there is not room. You have your position and I have mine. You call it promotional and spam and I call it a fact that someone or some organization did this for Wally Buono. Wally Buono didn't have this done for himself. I attended one of these events in Montreal years ago and he spoke of the award and how it came about. You do what you have to do I guess. I already wrote to Wiki to close the account. Who needs this? To argue over one sentence of who founded an award that some player won? No, I am not interested in that. I am just trying to learn so i can contribute more but the headaches are more than one needs. I should have looked more at the non-wiki blogs closer. I have an entry on Wally Buono's wiki which lists all the players who won the award. I hope that can stay in place but I leave that to you. Some of wiki's editors, not you, are over the top with power and that is sad. Lots of people don't want the hassle of this so I have read and one has to wonder how much "good stuff" is lost because of it. Thank you, and I really do mean it, for your interaction. I'm still right (laughing) and you realize it (one line please! I have seen way worse) but you are the first guy to take the time to explain things. I appreciate it. Carl. I mean Cmerlino3 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo, since you are from BC and a major BC Lions fan can you edit this ? Lets try to keep as much, if not all, of it eh? Many thanks signed respectfully as I fall on my wiki sword (this whole signature thing is so cool!) Cmerlino3 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

article information and sources

The Wally Buono Award (http://www.slillegard.com/buono/) was established in 2003 by The Saint Bernard Pass Charitable Foundation for the purpose of recognizing Canada's top junior football player. The award is a national award. Recipients must prove their athletic and leadership ability on the field as well as a high level of leadership within their community. The Saint Bernard Pass Charitable Foundation is the Swiss based foundation of Christina Saint Marche. The winners of the award are as follows: 2010 — DL Kleevens Jean-Louis, Châteauguay Raiders (QJFL) (http://monteregieweb.com/popUp fr 01_300 Raiders__JeanLouis_wins_Wally_Buono_award.html?Print=1&ArticleID=673068) 2009 — RB Andrew Harris, Vancouver Island Raiders (BCFC/CJFL) (http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/sports/story.html?id=3f2dd140-bbe0-4af3-95fa-bb92a3a17af3) 2008 — WR Cassidy Doneff, Calgary Colts (PFC/CJFL) (http://www.bclions.com/article/wally-buono-award-winner-announced) 2007 — RB Tristan Jones, Edmonton Wildcats (PFC/CJFL) (http://www.13thman.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32045) 2006 — QB Nate Friesen, Winnipeg Rifles (PFC/CJFL) (http://www.universitysport.ca/e/story_detail0605.cfm?id=7439) 2005 — RB Jeff Halvorson, Posthumous, Okanagan Sun (BCFC/CJFL) (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/wally-buono-marv-levy-vince-lombardi-jr-visit-montreal-the-late-jeff-halvorson-be-honoured-538918.htm) 2004 — RB Chris Ciezki, Edmonton Huskies (PFC/CJFL) (http://www.sherwoodparknews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1876062) 2003 — RB Alan Giacalone, Calgary Colts (PFC/CJFL) (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Calgary/2006/06/08/1620687-sun.html)

The additional award information does have more relevance in relation to the Wally Buono article, which is why I left it there in its entirety. A single sentence noting that the award was given, the year the player received it, and what the award is for is more than sufficient for the remainder of the bios. Trust me on this. If you do not feel confident starting an article on the award, but feel that it is notable enough to merit inclusion, you may want to consider suggesting that the article be created at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football. That particular group of editors is specialized in creating and editing CFL articles and may be able to assist you further. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A solid editor and smart too Cmerlino3 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I trust you on this. Thank you. I think I'll leave wiki while I am ahead or rather have my head. Cmerlino3 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fakes

Are people on Wiki allowed to impersonate real people? I'm referring to user Edward.erickson. He's only editing the page of Edward J. Erickson and he's making major grammar and syntax mistakes. I've talked to Erickson through e-mails in the past and read his work. I know that he wouldn't make English mistakes in an edit of his own page. Is it possible to check his IP address to see if it's the same as any other user? Thanks. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a strong suspicion that the editor is impersonating Mr. Erickson, then the best way forward would be to post a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention explaining your concerns. I don't do a lot of admin work with regard to usernames and the admins there are much more adept at analyzing and responding to these types of situations. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He haven't done much yet. I think it's more about someone creating an alt to make a specific edit rather than someone impersonating Erickson. I'll know that if he ever decides to use the talk page. Thanks for pointing me at the right direction. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have my eye on the article and the editor's talk page as well. If the COI editing continues without any attempt at discussion then I'll take a closer look. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

erickson article editing

Sent to info-en-q@wiki ---

Dear Wiki,

Please refer to the dispute over my editing changes to Edward J. Erickson - VIEWS. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edward.erickson&redirect=no

Some clown calling himself Darklordseth claims that he knows me personally. He does not. He keeps deleting the following phrase from the VIEWS part of the article:

", however, as a matter of fact his writing is limited to the Armenian rebellion and nowhere does Erickson address the genocide issue."

This is a factual phrase. I wrote it and it accurately describes my work. As a matter of accuracy regarding my "views", I would like the phrase included and I would like it to remain unaltered.

Can you assist me by verifiying my identity and then blocking anyone from changing the phrase? Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Erickson [redact]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward.erickson (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am Erickson himself. Have you ever read any of my work? The changes regarding my views by "DarkLordSeth" are flat wrong. It's just that simple. The citations listed do not justify his edits. I ought to know as I wrote the books! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward.erickson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, the article talk page is the correct venue for noting inconsistencies or perceived errors with regard to articles on yourself or subjects with which your are affiliated. The changes you would like to make can be discussed openly amongst interested editors and the article updated according to the output from the talk page discussion. Please also read WP:AUTO#IFEXIST in order to review the guidelines for editing an article wherein you are the subject. If, after discussing the issue on the talk page, an agreement cannot be reached as how best to represent information in the article, there are additional steps for dispute resolution that can be taken. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of valid, valuable content. Please review and reconsider...

Ponyo, I hope this finds you well.

My name is Dr. Noah Arthur Bardach. I am an art-historian specializing in post-Revolutionary Mexican political graphics, with a special emphasis on works by leftist political graphics collectives, including the Taller de Gráfica Popular (TGP). In addition to my doctoral work, I served as an Expert in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress and have consulted with many major institutions on their collections of works by the TGP.

I maintain a free, non-commercial, academic website (Gráfica Mexicana), which provides access to the most comprehensive catalog available of works by the TGP. This catalog of more than 4200 entries is database-driven and also includes nearly 150 images of works by members of the TGP. The catalog is an invaluable resource for scholars of Mexican political graphics, providing a central point of reference for the examination of both individual artists and the group as a whole.

You recently removed a number of pointers to this site from the Extrenal Links section of articles about the Taller de Gráfica Popular and its individual members. These links referenced Gráfica Mexicana and cited the number of cataloged works from the specific artist that can be viewed there. I believe these are valid, non-pomotional pointers (again, the site is academic in nature and free of charge, nor does it support adveristing of any kind) that are viable and valuable information.

Could you please explain the rationale behind your action? If, perhaps, you misjudged the nature of these links, please replace my edits at your soonest convenience.

I look forward to hearing from you. [redact]

Thank you, Dr. Bardach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbardach (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

When an account or an IP editor's only edits are to place the same link across multiple articles it gives the appearance of promotion and/or spam. There are many guidelines that are used to help determine which external links should be used in an article - they can be found here. The specific guideline that resulted in the removal of the links is #13 in this list. In addition, there is a direct conflict of interest when you add a link to a website or organization with which you are affiliated. If, after reading through the information and links I've provided above, you still believe the links should be added to the various articles, please request feed back at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard (you can use the same information you provided me above if you'd like, but please do not include the personal contact information). The editors there have experience in evaluating external links and determining which should be included in articles.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and informative reply. I think I understand, now, why the links where removed. I will rewrite them with the guidelines in mind, using deep links to specific content wherever possible (as per #13). With regard to COI, I have no personal, commercial or financial interest in driving traffic to Gráfica Mexicana. Rather, my goal is to improve the information on Wikipedia and to make available information about the subjects therein to scholars and those interested in the subject. I believe this is in compliance with the COI guidelines you pointed me to. Once again, thanks for your attetion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbardach (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just added an External Link to the article for Arturo García Bustos. I would love your opinion/feedback. Please advise. Thanks! Noah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.49.131 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ponyo! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligence with the Kevin Rose article... NCSS (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Ponyo! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

audio interviews

Hi there! I just joined Wikipedia recently and today I have been adding some audio interviews to some articles from a site that I found really enlightening. I realize that Wikipedia doesn't want spam or advertising, but I also know that there have been many other interviews on Wiki as well under external links, so I don't understand why what I added has been removed. These conversations with the people I added to have been very interesting and I thought pretty helpful in seeing new and upcoming information regarding popular fictions. Is there a way to correct this? I really think that these audio interviews are just as informative or exciting as other written interviews that have been posted under external links. Thanks, and have a great rest of the day. Best, Keelymacd (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Keelymacd

Hello Keelymacd. Another editor had the same query as you elsewhere on my talk page, so I will repeat the response as it applies to your links as well. When an account or an IP editor's only edits are to place the same link across multiple articles it gives the appearance of promotion and/or spam. There are many guidelines that are used to help determine which external links should be used in an article - they can be found here. The specific guideline that resulted in the removal of the links is #13 in this list. In addition, there is a direct conflict of interest when you add a link to a website or organization with which you are affiliated. If, after reading through the information and links I've provided above, you still believe the links should be added to the various articles, please request feed back at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard (you can use the same information you provided me above if you'd like, but please do not include the personal contact information). The editors there have experience in evaluating external links and determining which should be included in articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Trick or treat!

Whpq has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Thank you for that - there's no better way to start the day than on a sugar high! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Brodsky

Hi Ponyo. Happy Halloween. I wonder if you could swing by Brodsky talk page. We are trying to determine the poet's nationality via WP:OPENPARA, tussling with ethnicity/citizenship/nationality question and not getting too far. Brodsky left the Soviet Union and settled in the States, taking up citizenship there and never going back east. A third opinion on the Openpara would be useful, if you have a moment. Thanks very much.Span (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that some sort of rough consensus as to how to proceed has been reached in the discussion. Although MOSBIO exists as a guideline to how biographies should be written, there will always be special circumstances wherein it makes sense to diverge from the general style. It appears that there is consensus that this is one of those cases. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran article - request to delete claim that 'The A Team' video cost only £20 to make.

I made a request yesterday that the factually incorrect claim that 'The a Team' video cost only £20 to make should be deleted. This request was acted on, and the statement has been removed. What I want to know is on what grounds my request,explaining the reason I was making it, has been deleted from the Talk and Edit user logs, since everything I wrote in it is a matter of verifiable fact. SAM539 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I have already responded at Talk:Ed Sheeran. To re-iterate, the information was removed on the basis of WP:BLP which is Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons. You made several contentious claims within your post that are both original research and unsourced. As the purpose of your post was to have the £20 claim removed, and it has been (as there were no sources included for verification), I assume you are satisfied with the outcome? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor 74.64.126.212

Per our discussion on my Talk page. Yet another edit summary ref: Diff JohnInDC (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've stepped in and laid a crystal clear "only-warning" on the IPs talk outlining the issues and explaining how it will play out if they continue to refuse to include sources in the article and remain uncommunicative. I really hope this kicks in for them, because if it happens again, they will be blocked. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's - well, tiresome I suppose is the word for it. If they'd do it right they'd on the whole be improving the encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Griffin O'Neal

Trimmed Back? Recent edits to the article completely eliminated the "Legal Troubles" section and omitted nearly all of the subject's extensive criminal past and convictions which were thoroughly referenced in news reports of the day. Heck, O'Neal's arrest for carrying a ballistic knife eventually led to federal legislation making such weapons illegal, just like the switchblade. Now all there is a brief paragraph on the subject's "Accidents". Good grief. I fully admit I'm not experienced in adding material on current bio articles - but in any other type of article this would constitute outright vandalism of referenced work. Dellant (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing contentious information based on WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns is never considered vandalism, especially when there is consensus to do so by multiple editors on noticeboards designed to handle such specific concerns. If you believe specific information should be restored it needs to be argued on a case by case basis and agreed upon prior to restoring. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I already did, at Wikipedia:BLPN. How about responding to the points I've raised? Dellant (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued re-insertion of unsourced content

Anonymous user 166.137.136.75 (talk · contribs) has recently been re-inserting the unsourced content that was previously removed from Herbert Lom and other acting-related BLPs. In view of the similarities between this IP address and those of 166.137.139.73 (talk · contribs) and 166.137.139.95 (talk · contribs) (probably due to IP-hopping), perhaps a rangeblock would be in order. SuperMarioMan 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, don't I know it. Unfortunately I am anything but proficient with calculating and performing rangeblocks, so I've asked another admin to weigh in on the possibility of locking something down. I'll make a note here whatever the outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - rangeblock applied. Hopefully this will help slow things down. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that may not be the end of it - there's recently been a very similar pattern of editing from 166.137.136.227 (talk · contribs) (e.g. changing the parentage and background of Steven Berkoff and removing sourced text in the process). Almost certainly the same editor, just a different IP. SuperMarioMan 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: entering all six IP addresses listed here and/or at Timotheus' page into the rangeblock calculator produces the range 166.137.136.0/22 (talk · contribs). The block may need to be extended from the 166.137.139.0/24 (talk · contribs) range. SuperMarioMan 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

New rangeblock: 166.137.136.0/22 (with full credit going to Timotheus Canens). Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris Martin

Hi, i saw that user Omaraty009 changed the photos of Chris Martin's Wiki page (and other band members too). I saw you closed the editing on that article (vandalism?) I'm the photographer whose photos has been changed, and I think the quality of the new ones isn't enough for the size of the musician. BTW, in Martin's page the caption hasn't been changed, in fact it talks about a guitar is not there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbySpace (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has been the subject of a spate of recent vandalism, which is why it was semi-protected. If your account has not yet been confirmed, you can request an update to the article via the talk page; instructions on how to make an edit request are here. Once your account has been autoconfirmed you will be able to edit the page directly. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Image caption

Hi Ponyo, I noticed you removed a detail from the Muhammad Michael Knight article referring to the removal as being related to WP:OTRS:2011110510000805. However, when you click on this link (WP:OTRS:2011110510000805), it does not exist. So could you explain the removal and the background for it as well as why you believe it to be a miscaption? Just so it is clear. Nimom0 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The link contained a typo, it should have read OTRS:2011110510000805; only those with OTRS access are able to view the original email. You can read more about the Wikipedia OTRS Ticket system at WP:OTRS. In addition to the OTRS identification number, I also included an explanation for the deletion in that there is a valid claim that the image being used as a source contained an error in the caption - as I could find no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia mirrors to verify the accuracy of the description of Mr. Knight's wife as a film maker, the personal information was removed in following with BLP policy. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Well I have been looking at WP:OTRS but not that much wiser really though I understand it's a volunteer service that deals with various articlerelated issues. It's a small detail nonetheless. Can I ask how you came across this article and this issue? Nimom0 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article came to my attention via a concern emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation via OTRS. Unfortunately I cannot expand further due to privacy concerns. Is there a reason why you believe the information should not have been removed? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Can you tell me though if this was an external email to wikipedia or internal? You see I yesterday advised an anonymous to contact wikipedia to remove it, as he insisted the source was wrong. He is either MMK himself or an associate (based on his edits and "references"). So just to clarify if the concern was internal or external brought this to OTRS' attention seeing as you said it was via OTRS which is internal? Nimom0 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS handles incoming email from individuals whether they have Wikipedia accounts or not; it is not an internal email system. Anytime anyone emails the Wikimedia Foundation it is handled by the OTRS email system. Does that make sense? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, he probably took my advice then. I thought it was the best way to handle his objection as it poses a conflict of interest whenever people start editing their own articles and I wasn't successful in advising them to stop repeated removals or reading/complying with editing policies. But I knew people can contact wikipedia and ask them to change or remove incorrect information in their articles, hence I referred him to contact WF. Nimom0 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Revdel requested

The Tom Zakrajsek article has been undergoing considerable recent vandalism, but shouldn't this be RevDeleted?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've revdeleted a couple of the edits summaries and associated offending text (please let me know if you think I've missed anything). I also blocked one of the IPs and semi-protected the article for a month. This type of activity is completely unacceptable for a BLP. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for looking earlier than the first diff and for your other actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: Miami

The MTV bio page indeed mentioned that material, which is why I included it. It no longer mentions it, presumably because Padron complained to them, which is precisely what she should've done from the start. But this does not justify removing the citation from the passage, since other the material in that sentence still needs a cite, and is still supported by that webpage. I reverted the removal of the citation. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, blocks are not punitive, they're preventative, and a one-week block is appropriate for this matter. The editor in question has not "jumped through any hoops", nor would I ever presume to obligate any editor to do so. The editor only ceased removing sourced material from the article when their ability to do so was taken away from them, and has not contacted me (or anyone, to my knowledge) since. I presume they contacted MTV, which is why MTV removed that material from their bio page, but whether the editor did this after the block, and as a result of it, or embarked on this approach concurrently with their content deletion on this site, I don't know, so it's not like anyone can say that they've made any conciliatory gesture regarding their behavior. If they have, then why have they not filled out the block appeal form that's include with the block notice? Or for that matter, why not just sign in for a free username account? I didn't include preventing people from that IP from logging in when I blocked the IP, did I? Or use the other IP from which I believe they originally removed that material? In any event, why is it so important for you to unblock this person, especially when they've made efforts at communication? This isn't punitive; it's just allowing a one-week block to remain because nothing has happened to give cause to reconsider it. But if that editor really wants to edit again, and only from that particular IP, I'll remove the block if they simply ask me to, and offer an explanation of their intent. Would that be a fair compromise? Beyond that, I see no reason for your bending over backward for someone who hasn't asked for it. Nightscream (talk)

What does MTV removing the info have to do with that editor "jumping through hoops"? Are we both using the same meaning for that phrase? One more time: That editor has not contacted me or anyone else on this site, or even used the block appeal on the IP talk page, so how have they "jumped through hoops"? Contacting MTV was simply a reasonable course of action, and does not constitute bending over backwards or going above and beyond that, which is what the phrase "jumping through hoops" connotes. As for the "two admins", that other admin attacked me with false accusations and threats, which is hardly something to lend any sort of credibility to an unblock. As for you, I really do appreciate your good faith intervention, but I still don't understand why that IP's unblock is so important to you. Can you please explain to me why not letting the one week block run its course is such an important issue for you? Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The poor editor contacted Arbcom to try to get you to stop adding this BLP nightmare, based on nothing but MTV - and MTV had been spoofed into putting it up in the first place. I have had to apologise for your behaviour as well as unblocking the IP. Read WP:BLP, and do not attempt to support such contentious information based on such flimsy evidence again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom Williams

Shocked and surprised by this edit - did you even check what you were undoing? You have removed valid information in the infobox regarding his spell with Kettering, as well as a valid category... GiantSnowman 20:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was updated as a result of an OTRS complaint (which is linked in the edit summary). I gave a clear explanation in my edit summary; Williams is no longer listed as a player on the Kettering Town Wikipedia page, nor is he listed on their official website. Are you suggesting that the Kettering Town website is incorrect? (This is not meant to be facetious, I'm asking in seriousness). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - his squad profile is now also 404 on the BBC website. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on the OTRS link but it wouldn't let me log in...while I agree that Williams is no longer with Kettering, that does not mean that he was never with Kettering - in fact reliable sources exist to confirm he did indeed sign for them. Howeber, your edit removed ALL mention of Kettering from the article, including a valid category - that is my issue here. GiantSnowman 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There was never any contention that Williams had not played for Kettering - I removed Kettering Town FC from the "current club" section of the infobox as it is no longer accurate, the sentence "who plays professionally for Kettering Town as it is no longer accurate, and the category "Kettering Town F.C. players" as it is no longer accurate. If it is common practice to include all teams an individual has ever played for in the category section, then please feel free to restore it there. Note that only those with OTRS access can view the particular ticket I linked to, which is why you could not log in. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, your removal of the category was not valid - footballer categories list ALL players, past and present - and your removal of the Kettering section of the infobox (i.e. where playing stats are listed) was also wrong. GiantSnowman 21:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion it was wrong, however it was not his "current club" and the information in the lede was incorrect. You also repeatedly restored the information despite it being incorrect to the point where an OTRS ticket was sent. Perhaps it was not done the way you would have done it, but it certainly was not "wrong" to remove incorrect information from a BLP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining it properly or you're failing to get it or what, but here goes. I reverted the edits by Tombola3 on two occasions, because no reference or edit summary was provided on any occasion, and I saw it as the unexplained removal of valid content from a BLP - including appropriate paremeters in the infobox and an appropriate category. Yes the 'current club' should have gone, and yes the lede should have been changed - but I've never disputed that, and with the lack of edit summary/reference, I wasn't to know any better. What I have disputed, and will still dispute, is why Tombola3, and then yourself, both chose to remove valid content from a BLP i.e. the Kettering stats in the infobox and the Kettering player category. There was no need for an OTRS to be filed, and I would have thought that, seeing as you & I have collaborated in the past, you would have asked me to explain my rationale before blindinly undoing my edit. GiantSnowman 21:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you did, however many editors are not aware of how Wikipedia works, or how to review their talk pages. I did not "blindly" revert your edit, I reviewed the OTRS ticket, researched whether the content removal was valid, and only then reverted the re-insertion of the incorrect information. In this particular case we will simply have to agree to disagree. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're asserting that your removal of the Kettering stats in the infobox and the Kettering player category was 100% correct? GiantSnowman 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm asserting that removing incorrect information from the article that had been repeatedly re-inserted without review despite being incorrect was correct. I already mentioned in my very first response to you that the category should be restored if that is the standard practice for footballer articles. You seem to be taking this personally, which it is not - it was simply an edit in response to a ticket for which I cannot go into any more detail than I already have. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking personally at all; I was simply trying to help you understand that the removal of all of the info wasn't correct, in the same way that you have helped me understand that the removal of some of the info was correct, if you get what I mean. GiantSnowman 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, between the two of us the article is now both accurate and formatted correctly. Perhaps we can chalk this up as a win-win for the article as a whole? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, definitely! Cheers, GiantSnowman 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Judson Kilpatrick

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

Joanne Froggatt

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

Sorry!! sent that previous message to wrong person. You were the person that sent me the advice!

No worries - and please don't forget to sign your posts (using four ~ marks). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No you've convinced me

No,I've problem with you adding it back it - I'm not even sure how or why that article is on my watchlist, I guess I 'inherited' it from AN/I or somewhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob

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

Do I have to? I so badly want to say something. Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia without him (at least for me).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

His email is still enabled; a quiet personal note never hurts. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, but, for various reasons, I never e-mail anyone at Wikpedia because I don't want to reveal my own e-mail address. Oh, well, maybe he'll see this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You can write something up here if you'd like and I can send it on your behalf. I'll just remove it from my page after I send it...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thing you can do is start a new email account with Gmail or whathaveyou that doesn't identify you in the address, then change the email associated with your WP account through your preferences. The Interior (Talk) 16:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup - that's how I have it set up. Though The Interior lives close enough they could hand deliver a note to me if they chose to :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo, you're very kind. Interior, I'd actually thought of what you proposed, but thanks for mentioning it (I got hung up speculating about a way it could still be traced to me - paranoia :-) ). Let me think on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ann Sheridan page.

First of all, I didn't blank anything. Aside from that, I see that you did not delete the ann-sheridan.com link, which is a fan site. Why delete one fan site and leave another? I'll abide by the rules but don't you think they should apply to everybody? Thank you. Randrall (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The blanking I was referring to was a previous message on your talk page requesting you review the external link guidelines. It occurred here. Thank you for noting that the Ann-Sheridan.com link is also a fansite, it will be removed as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ann - Sheridan.com link

Please guide me to the Wiki information that says no fan sites shall be linked.

I think my site falls within one of these:

"A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

And you are doing a disservice to people who want more information about Ann Sheridan by excluding it.

I await your response.

Thanks,

JohnnyChill (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO (also available under the shortcut WP:FANSITE) states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" It is Point #11. If a link is challenged, as instructed WP:ELBURDEN, the link should not be restored without consensus that it is an appropriate link. This is generally done through review at the External link noticeboard. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

??

Hi there PONYO, VASCO here,

tried to be polite with this user, blocked by you from what i see (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.245.149.70), regarding a difference of opinion we had (have?) in Domingos Paciência. What did i get? He BLANKED the page, without one word of reply...

Attentively, happy weekend from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP has been reblocked as it is consistently used by User:G.-M. Cupertino to sock. They are of course welcome to blank their page, but the block notice will need to be restored per WP:BLANKING. You have a great weekend as well Vasco. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, this is user Survir. Can you please block the following IP user 188.222.139.134. This user keeps vandalizing pages associated to this actor, Pallavi Kulkarni. He/she has been previously blocked as well for disruptive edits. By the way, you have also left a message on his/her talk page, but I guess that didn't do any good. He/she has recently removed info from Pallavi Kulkarni page without any proper notation. Please help! Thank you Survir (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I have blocked the IP for 1 month to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! WikiPuppies! (bark) 16:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Macy Gray and Henry Silva

How can you call allmusic.com more reliable than a government database? Who the hell made you to an administrator? Veromi.net has been given as a reference many times before in several other articles and no one has complained before. It's information comes from the authorites and can not be wrong. Besides, allmusic.com whick is provided for 1970 dosesn't even say that her DoB is 1970, but 1967. Perhaps someone should look over your administrator priviligies. Karbuncle (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out where, in my messages or edit summaries, I said that allmusic was more reliable? What I did say was the veromi.net has been reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard and rejected as a reliable source for personal info in BLPs as it calls for conjecture and inference. If you would like to dispute that view then start a new thread at WP:RSN and get consensus that it is is a reliable source for personal information in BLPs, but I strongly suggest you cease to add it as a source when adding or changing information in biography articles now that it has been pointed out to you that it has been rejected as a reliable source. If you believe that explaining these critical issues to you and removing BLP violations when I see them is somehow abusing my admin privileges, then the correct venue to make a complaint would be here. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And for Henry Silva, what would you consider as a reliable source, since you obviously don't even consider public records as one. There are millions of sites which gives his DoB as 15 September 1928. Are you saying that all these are unreliable? Karbuncle (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! If there are a million sources that list his birthdate as 15 September 1928, it shouldn't be hard to find at least one that meets Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. An article in the New York Times perhaps? Some BBC reference? An interview published somewhere with editorial oversight wherein Mr. Silva states his birthdate? I have to admit that I have serious concerns regarding your understanding of Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and biographies. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And as I said, veromi.net has been used as a source many times before, in several articles before from a lot more persons than me and no one has ever regarded it as unreliable before. I don't see how refering to public records where you can check it out black on white could be counting as "conjecture and inference". I would rather call it common sense.

So, now all references to birth dates must be in etablished media? In that case you'll have to remove the birth date from 90% of all articles on wikipedia. And trust me. I've no problems understanding wikipedias policies regarding sourcing and biographies. I just happen to have something called common sense, which you seem to be missing. Karbuncle (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter where and when the website has been used before, per previous discussion and consensus it should not be used. If you would like to change this view then you need to change community consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. It is conjecture and inference because there is now way to know for certain whether the record you have pulled up is the subject in question. You are making a guess based on the timeline and possible relatives. And yes, the birthdates need to be verifiable through reliable sources when challenged. If you do not or cannot understand why then you should stay away from biography articles altogether. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you should be consistent and delete all previous references to veromi.net. It's just about 500 pages at least but I guess you gladly will do that since according to you, it was "consensus" that it was not a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=veromi.net. Though I don't understand how you can get about 3 users oppinions to be consensus, but that's another question. And what about ancestry.com? Is that just as unreliable according to you? Karbuncle (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put "consensus" in scare brackets. When the question as to whether a site is reliable is raised at a noticeboard specifically designed for that purpose and the conclusion is that it should not be used, that is consensus. Regardless as to whether you like it or not, that is what Wikipedia is founded upon. And no, ancestry.com is not considered a reliable source for BLPs as it is user generated content (again, per previous discussion at WP:RSN). Have you actually read WP:RS yet? Or would you prefer to keep going around in circles with me, which won't get you anywhere with regard to actually changing the policy you obviously disagree with? I feel as if I've had this exact conversation before. You wouldn't happened to have edited under any other accounts would you?Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not talking about reliable sources. I was talking about etablished media. Is that the only source that is reliable enough for you? Karbuncle (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If by "you" you are referring to "the Wikipedia community", then reliable sources are those that meet WP:BLPSOURCES. Have you read it yet? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I put it under scare brackets because consensus means that everbody agree, but 3 users is hardly everybody and therefore it can not be regarded as consensus. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of the word before you use it. If you disqualify ancestry with the reason that it's "user generated" you should disqualify books as well. It's the same thing. In fact, you would have to disqalify every source that's not a free web page. It would be vary hard to find sources with your criteria of reliable sources. Luckally, all admins are not like you. Ancestry for example has been approved as a source many times before, even by other administrators. Many questions have been solved through using ancestry in biographys Karbuncle (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And if I have edited under other accounts is none of your business. All I can say is that I have never discussed with you before Karbuncle (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as an admin the fact that you have multiple accounts is my business, especially if they are undisclosed and you are using them concurrently. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Suggestion

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, this is user Survir. I need your advise on how to fix issues on the following page, List of programs broadcast by Star Plus. All the shows that are listed under "Currently broadcast" list have wrong (false) information. Majority of the IP users keep adding wrong information (such as wrong air dates, changing names of Cast members who have worked or currently are working in the series, removing logo images, adding shows from different channels on STAR Plus page, etc...). I have been noticing the trend for a while and I believe this is mostly done by one user whose IP address keeps shifting. The current IP address of the user that is adding false information is User:86.171.233.197. I believe that the article should not exist on Wikipedia if it contains/provides wrong information (Wikipedia is not a Blog!). How to stop these users from making future disruptive edits. I will greatly appreciate your help. Thank you! Survir (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As it appears to be mainly one IP that has been inserting the unsourced/disputed material in December I have left them a warning on their talk page requesting that they use sources when adding/changing data. If disruption continues via multiple IPs you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP or leave me a note and I will restore protection on the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User 98.246.160.196

Hi. Please see user 98.246.160.196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).

You blocked them for adding Jewish categories, & they now seem to have resumed where they left off. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've reverted their edits and reblocked the IP. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - much obliged. Trafford09 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Cohen (Australian author)

Hi Ponyo, and thanks for setting me up with a talk page. On my recent edits: some editing of 'Bernard Cohen (Australian author)' appeared to be for the purpose of highlighting another page (Gangaroo) and therefore were not neutral. Thus my edits removed those references as well as updating the publications. Regarding the photograph, it appears to be a personal snapshot (and was earlier attributed to the owner of Gangaroo), rather than anything to do with the author in a professional capacity. It should be removed. Enthalpio (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's strict copyright and licensing policies, it's very difficult to obtain free use images for living persons. As we currently have one for Mr. Cohen it should remain intact until an alternative replacement can be found. If you are aware of possible replacement image that you have the rights to and can donate then I encourage you to submit it (see Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission for instructions). Once uploaded it can be used to replace the image currently in the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

General Odierno's page

Ponyo, I understand your point. However, I work on his staff and his family information is part of his official Bio. The other part to this is that scammers often use his name with unwitting single ladies for financial gain. By having his family and marital status on the page it alleviates some of the issue.

As for neutrality, if you have better wording you are welcome to edit. Thanks Jt.thomas5 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily my point, it's Wikipedia policy that information (especially that of a personal nature) regarding living persons include reliable sources for verification. If you have a link to an official bio that verifies the personal info, it can be added, however it should be worded neutrally (for example "Odierno is married and has three children"). We generally do not include the names of private family members. As a final note, as a staff member you should refrain from editing this article completely (other than to remove blatant vandalism or libelous material) as you have a conflict of interest in doing so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand. It is now cited from his official bio which is from the US Army's page. Two your second point about neutrality. I don't see the language as being biased. Regarding you last point. I also don't see a conflict of interest. I am closer to the facts than most people and have as much right to ensure that the Bio is accurate. Lastly, you never acknowledged the point that this page is most often edited to remove family information which enables unwitting people to be victimized. Jt.thomas5 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see the language as being biased" is why we have the COI guidelines (please click and read this link) in the first place - it is nearly impossible to write completely neutrally regarding subjects with which you have a close affiliation. The vague and somewhat self-serving statements such as "Linda Odierno has dedicated herself to supporting soldiers and their families" is not neutral in tone and the fact that you are a staff member is a de-facto conflict of interest. It is clear now that the information you were inserting was actually a copyright violation and therefore I have stubbed the sentence down to a simple encyclopedic statement of fact - we cannot accept cut and paste material from other documents/websites. Please take any future concerns you have with the article to the talk page, but do not continue to edit the article directly. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo, Actually, that sentence works for me if it meets the guidelines. I have no interest in editing the page but continual deletion or distortion of his marital status is unacceptable. Feel free to keep an eye on it for vandalism. However, if it occurs and isn't fixed then I will fix it. Regards, Jt.thomas5 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My hope is that the single sourced personal statement will address your concerns regarding possible fraud while keeping within the parameters of Wikipedia policy. Note that removing vandalism is an exemption of COI editing, so please feel free to revert it when you see it. The talk page is a great venue for making any article update requests or for discussing potential content. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Memoira

hey i see that you have deleted the page I have been trying to make for the band Memoira. I looked under the rules for being on Wikipedia and it said that you only need to meet on or more of the requirements and they meet some of them. I would like to create the page and if you could help so it won't get deleted again that would be very appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalhowling (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has actually been deleted multiple times, not only by me. Per the lengthy message provided by User:JohnCD on your talk page, you need to stop trying to create the article in mainspace. If you truly believe that the band meets the notability requirements outlined at WP:BAND then you need to work on your userspace draft (located at User:Finalhowling/Memoira) and clearly demonstrate notability through the inclusion of reliable sources. Please reread the advice provided to you here as it contains all of the information required to get started. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again, and now salted. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good; hopefully that will encourage the editor to draft a notable userspace version instead of just plonking another G4 copy into mainspace. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And looks like they have at least a week to gather some solid sources....--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Always the optimist! Drmies (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Silambarasan Rajendar

hi Ponyo, its great to see that you protected Silambarasan Rajendar page.Meanwhile i want to add more information to that article so that i need your help for improving the page and i request you to guide me . thanks admin ,pls leave a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregviswanath (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there something specific you would like assistance with? I can always try to help, but note that I will be online only sporadically over the holidays so I may not be around when you need help. The Wikipedia help desk is a great resource if you're stuck on how to format links, references, images or if you need other editing assistance. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your kind reply and i'll do my best Greg (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregviswanath (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 

Tom Williams 2

Remember this article? Tombola3 (talk · contribs) is now back and removing referenced information...could you have a look please? GiantSnowman 11:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've left User:Tombola3 a note on their talk requesting they raise their concerns on the article talk page as opposed to simply blanking the sourced content. Hopefully there will be some type of compromise made with regard to the Kettering Town info, but until we know exactly what Tombola is objecting to it's hard to tell. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. GiantSnowman 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, this is user Survir. Can you please delete the following template, Template:SO Shows. The template was created to list current shows of the channel, STAR One. The channel ceased its operation on December 16, 2011 ending all of its current shows that were on air. The channel is replaced by a new channel, Life OK. I will create the new template. Thank you! Survir (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the template incorrect/outdated template is essentially a duplicate of the correct content the please tag it for CSD T3 deletion deletion or nominate it for deletion via TFD.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you please block the following IP user, User:86.171.233.197. This is the same user we discussed earlier. You left a message on his/her talk page, but he/she continues making disruptive edits. Recently, he/she removed logo images and other information from various pages related to Indian television channels. I have reverted back some of the edits made by this user. Please help! Thank you. Survir (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As they have only had a single level 1 warning previously I have warned them again.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the trouble, can you also please move the following page Beend to its original title Beend Banoongaa Ghodi Chadhunga. Some new user moved the page stating the title has been changed. Well it has not been changed. I have checked the official site of the series on Imagine TV, other sources, and also watched the last episode, which still shows its original title. Therefore, can you please move the page. Thank you! Survir (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to its original title and noted that as the move is disputed consensus needs to be reached for any future moves. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Season's Greetings, Ponyo! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers to you both and best wishes to you and yours over the holidays! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

David Guetta a French House producer?

C'mon bro. We all know that David Guetta is nowhere close to a French House DJ. French Touch / Neu Disco / French House has a distinct sound using strictly 80s R'n'B or Disco samples. David Guetta makes Ibiza House or Spanish House or maybe Disco House, but not French House. Please change it since you are an autoconfirmed user. --Trickymaster (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is an error on the page the best place to discuss it is on the article talk page here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess what, I have been trying to do that, but some SineBot claims that I haven't signed my post and it ends up deleted what I did. I always sign my posts. I have no idea what on earth is going on. Please help.

--Trickymaster (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked the talk page and it appears that an earlier message had some unclosed reference mark-up that was keeping new messages from displaying (and that is also why sinebot thought your messages were unsigned). I've fixed it now. Note that I also undid your removal of French from the lede of the article. "French" is being used in the context of Guetta's nationality which is always stated in the opening sentence of biography articles (WP:MOSBIO has additional info if you are interested). He is a French (nationality) house music producer (occupation). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Williams again, sorry

Hello. Re the removal of information on Tom Williams, I tried a different form of words, removing any mention of him signing for Kettering but keeping the game he played for them, sourced to the club site, but Tombola3 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to like that either, and still won't discuss the matter. Thought you might like to know... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've been keeping an eye on it but am somewhat involved due to a related OTRS issue. My best suggestion would be to proceed as you normally would (example via WP:AIV or WP:3RN) in order to get uninvolved admin input if necessary. I do appreciate your patience in trying to explain the issues to this editor both on the article talk page and on their user page. You have been exemplary in trying to engage the editor in order to find a solution despite their lack of communication. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Simms Taback page edits

As will be obvious, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'm hoping I can get clarification over having entries edited or deleted without requesting citations first. I went to lengths to add factual material to the Simms Taback page after learning he had died on December 25, 2011. If I read the record correctly, the fact that he died had been deleted, due to a lack of attribution, but was later reinstated once it had been attributed to the website http://www.simmstaback.com. Interesting in that I am also the webmaster for said website, and could well "attribuate" any statement of fact or non-fact to the site - and back it up on the site. Also, I entered material augmenting listings of some of this author's key works. These credits are in print, but do not exist on the web. I assumed that if someone wished to challenge them, or request a citation, such a request would be made on the page (ie citation needed) rather than deleting facts that had been researched. Jeffreyseaver (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jefferey - I'm sorry that you have found your initial Wikipedia editing experience to be frustrating. It's a rather large place with many rules and guidelines that can be overwhelming at first. One of the key policies on Wikipedia is its protection of biographies of living persons. As Simms Taback's death had not yet been confirmed the article still fell under the living persons umbrella of protection and this is why unsourced material added to the article was removed. Another Wikipedia policy is verifiability, most commonly established through the use of reliable sources. A basic rule of thumb is - if you're adding or changing information, make sure you include a source so that others can verify or research the information further. It's much simpler for the editor adding the information to state how they know it to be true than for an outside editor to attempt to research and pinpoint the origin of the information months or even years later. I've left you a welcome message on your talk page which outlines both Wikipedia's basic policies as well as helpful editing guidelines that I thought you may find useful. If at any time you feel stuck regarding the sometimes tricky wikipedia mark-up (such as adding inline citations) there is a help desk available full of helpful volunteers who can assist you here. There is also a "Help me" template that you can use on your talk in order to ask a question. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10