This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Ahhh, that makes sense. I came across it independently through Recent Changes where I saw "6th nomination" for an AfD, which piqued my interest. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
They've been at it for some time. Both
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ken Hoang (6th nomination) and the variant with a capital "N" on "nomination" are salted, so I was puzzled how he'd managed it - he did it by adding an extra . at the end. I doubt if salting any more is worth while - too many possible variations. Just carry on with whack-a-mole till they get bored.
JohnCD (
talk) 23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Will do - and I've watchlisted the SPI in case for when they pop up again. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Image removal
Reverting block evasion by Chace Watson. No issue with you undoing if you so choose.—
Kww(
talk) 20:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
You are restoring material removed on BLP grounds - this is absolutely not vandalism and the
onus is on you to show how the contentious material and its sources meet Wikipedia policy. Any restoration of the disputed material without consenus may lead to sanctions on your account - it is very important that this is raised at
relevant venues if you feel the material needs to be restored. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You are not paying attention. The alleged BLP was removed. You are section blanking.
Kausticgirl (
talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that you understand Wikipedia policy in this matter - you are attempting to add an entire section labelled "controversy" based brings into disrepute an organization and
private individuals. In such instances the sourcing must be impeccable and the material not be
overstated. As an
Wikipedia administrator I have been asked to neutrally review the content and found that the sources are poor and need to removed in order to meet our various policies - if you would like to see any of the material restored you need to gain consensus to do so. This can be done either at
WP:BLPN or
WP:RSN. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 05:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Help ME
I wanted to create a wiki page about me , I don't want to advertise myself , but there should be a record of me what I am or what I do, if somebody does internet check on me like my company , so If you can help me in that please let me know ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Swarngarg (
talk •
contribs) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
sorry am new to wikimedia and dont know how to explain the change.
He is not the "American editor of the hindu" but the editor of the hindu. He is known as the editor. His nationality, where he studied, who he married and where he lives are all secondary.
One could add later that he was born in America of Indian parents who moved back home where he then grew up and lived. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
26725lk (
talk •
contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
All information in articles
biography articles needs to be supported by
reliable sources to allow for
verification - in this instance the content you are removing is supported by
this source which states "Asked if Varadarajan can be made editor since he is a US citizen, Ram said: “I don’t think there is any bar.”".
WP:MOSBIO explains that citizenship is included in the lead sentence of articles, and Varadarajan's citizenship is American according to the source. If you have concerns regarding the accuracy of the sourced statement and quote, please raise your concerns on the article talk page in order to discuss the details with other editors. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Dave the paramedic
... see also
this. Thanks, Ponyo! --
Dianna (
talk) 04:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Diana - I've deleted and blocked pretty much everything now. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I nominated his images for deletion on Wikimedia Commons, but at the images are really sensitive, i.e. EMT identification cards, they need to be speedily deleted and not sure they even have a speedy deletion process at Commons.
Safiel (
talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The Commons images and account are now taken care of as well. Thanks for the note Safiel. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edit
Hi. You seem to be an experienced editor. I undid your edit because the name you removed and that person's uses of aliases in multiple (apparently partially self-written) news stories also appears in major mainstream news, and in five sources in the article body. Furthermore, going public to the interntional press in multiple press stories disentitles any possible claim of privacy. There was an
announcement that someone would come in as an editor and start deleting this exact information today, then you did so, which together with
This edit and these edits
[1],
[2], and
[3], supports that there may be a WP:SP issue, but I will AGF that this is not the case.
64.134.223.140 (
talk) 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As it was removed citing BLPRPIVACY concerns, and per BLP policy it should not be restored without consensus. I will start a discussion via
WP:BLPN if you would like to comment there. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
1. What is your RS that this is a minor?
64.134.223.140 (
talk) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
2. How do you explain the apparant SP violations?
64.134.223.140 (
talk) 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent removal of an addition to article about Bob Blackman
Dear sir,
I am surprised to see that you have chosen to remove an addition I made to the above mentioned article, citing "Gossip tabloids do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for contentious info in BLPs" as the reason.
Please tell me do you have any idea how many articles on Wikipedia have references to the more working class papers? Any idea at all? I don't think so, because there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands out there. What are you going to do about them I enquire?
Also, I would like to enquire who decides what is a valid report or not?
I think you are abusing the system by deciding, for whatever reason, to censor bona fide news reports in order to protect the integrity of fallen MPs.
Which publications, according to you, are therefore newsworthy? I don't think that censoring purely to satisfy your own beliefs is in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am calling for an enquiry into your methods and actions of censorship. Interesting to note that you seem preoccupied with the removal of article sections more so than pure editing or contribution.
Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of instances of poorly sourced material in
biography articles, but thankfully there are also hundreds of volunteers who are working very hard to find these articles and ensure they are in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not here to censor or "satisfy my own beliefs" - as a Wikipedia administrator I'm here to make sure that Wikipedia's founding policies and consensus based guidelines are adhered to. If you would like to call my actions into question then
ANI is the venue. If you would like to discuss content removed citing
BLP concerns then the appropriate venue is the article talk page or
WP:BLPN. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ponyo: thanks for the information and the revert. I wasn't aware of the issue with IMDb. Good to know. Thanks for your understanding and help. --FeanorStar7 01:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting. Could you perhaps create-protect it as well? —Theopolisme 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Will do, just doing some other clean-up at the same time... --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Really?
Dude what is your deal? This is legit information on actor in am interested in. Stop deleting the page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jcolonster (
talk •
contribs) 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I assume your taking about Dean Miller Actor? What you are doing is repeatedly creating a
promotional article, seemingly using
multiple accounts to do so. If you read through the messages on your talk page(s) you will understand why the article is being deleted. You should also read
our conflict of interest guidelines. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Ditto page
hi ponyo,
i'm new to creating pages on wikipedia and realize my first attempt was in error due to my excessive use of another webpages content. i have since then updated it with original copy but it to has since been deleted. i'd appreciate any help in being able to get my page correctly published on wikipedia. thank you.
And to you as well! (and a belated congrats on passing 100k edits - that is quite the accomplishment). --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
DomainTools
"Creating multiple accounts and IP-hopping to continue your crusade at DomainTools.com is against Wikipedia policy. Any additional disruption from this account will result in an immediate block. "
You want to block my account, because you dont like the truth !
Are you working for DomainTools or are you lobbying for DomainTools ?
I think lobbying for DomainTools is also against Wikipedia policy ! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Erlkoenig07 (
talk •
contribs) 01:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ponyo. I saw how you blanked user page
User:Swarngarg as being promotional. Can you also look over at
User:Yohan indunil ? As this user had also created the article
Yohan indunil on themselves which was soon speedily deleted after I had tagged it for deletion a few days ago. The content on the person's user page is, as far as I remember almost the same as it was in the article. So I believe your review will be helpful in this case. Regards. TheGeneralUser(talk) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Although the material on
User:Yohan indunil would certainly be inappropriate for article space, I think it's borderline as a user space violation and wouldn't worry about it too much (unless it continues to grow into something looking like a resume). The Swarngarg user page however was more promotional (I have a book coming out! Check out my blog! Here I a on Twitter! etc). I think I answered your question, but if I missed something let me know and I'll be happy to expand/clarify. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
NRA talk page
Hi Ponyo, regarding
this edit, I'm puzzled by your (and others') response to the obvious violation of
WP:NOTAFORUM. Isn't the proper solution to respond with an explanation of Wikipedia's policies, rather than to revert the offending edit? After all, this is a talk page, not an article. By my understanding the reversion is technically a
WP:TPO violation. Plus, as a practical matter it merely exacerbates a (rather silly) revert war. (P.S. I'm picking on you rather than the others only because your an administrator so hopefully you can explain to me what I'm missing.) Cheers, --
Nstrauss (
talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The IP's edits were pure vandalism/trolling which is why they were reverted. Edits such as
this and
this make it obvious that the IP's sole intent was to cause disruption. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I gotcha. Thanks. --
Nstrauss (
talk) 23:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Happy
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 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-)
MarnetteD |
Talk 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Marnette! I just finished stocking the fridge/freezer/cupboards full of goodies for Christmas dinner (which I crazily agreed to host this year). I hope you have a relaxing and satisfying holiday :) --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And a very happy holiday season, and new year to you too!
Thank you for all you do here at Wikipedia, you make this place better, my friend. Have a great holiday season, and I'll see you around some biography or another soon, I'm sure! (And re, vistas, I just submitted a residency application to try and get
somewhere even crazier, it's a long-shot, but boy, would that be a nice gig. :) ) --
j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Ponyo! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser(talk) 12:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
IP disruption
Hello, Ponyo, and happy holidays.
The category-meddling IP-jumper has returned with a real vengeance in the last 48 hours or so, resuming their "descent"-focused mass-editing of BLPs with a whole slew of IPs on the 166.137.101.140–80 range. I've just reverted a lot of unsourced and/or misleading edits, and wonder whether it would be prudent to block the range given the large number of unhelpful contributions (
166.137.101.128/26 (
talk·contribs) – similar to a range that is
currently blocked).
Elsewhere,
24.184.120.253 (
talk·contribs) seems to have picked up righted where they left off shortly after the expiry of their latest two-week block, adding unsourced content and making unhelpful category and interwiki changes to various articles, such as
Raquel Alessi.
Best wishes for the New Year! SuperMarioMan 03:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Well that's not a very good present! I've blocked the single IP and laid down a two week soft block on the 166.137.101.128/26 range. I can extend it and disable account creation later if they start up disruption on that range when the block expires. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, he's all over that range. It's been locked down before for disruption and block evasion so I blocked it for three months. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Tatyana Ali
Hello Sir-
I hope this message finds you well.
I am writing regarding updates made to the Tatyana Ali (American TV/Film Actress) page, that don't seem to be up to reliable source standards.
As I inserted as references into the categories section, the source for these updates is IMDB, and the link was provided. Here it is for your reference:
This is an existing external link and Wiki's Reliable Source standards.
If these Sources are not reliable, could I ask where other ethnic, religious or descent categories are sourced for this particular article?
Here are a few additional sources, if they are deemed fit to the reliable source standard:
1. Jet Magazine, November 23, 1998, Archive link provided below
[2]
The categories updated were, namely,
Actors of Indian descent
American people of Indian descent
American actors of Indian descent
Trinidad and Tobago people of Indian descent
Please let me know if there is any further information I can provide to be of assistance.
I'm not sure whether you saw the note I left on your IP talk page, so I will repeat the information here. Tertiary sources with user generated content such as IMDB and NNDB can be included as an external link but do not meet
reliable sourcing criteria for
biography articles. The Jet magazine article does meet the criteria but only supports the inclusion of the categories
Category:American actors of Indian descent,
Category:American people of Trinidad and Tobago descent and
Category:American people of Panamanian descent. To meet the requirements of
WP:BLPCAT the categories cannot be added unless they are supported by sourced article content; the content needs to be written into the article, along with the Jet magazine source and then the categories can be added. If you get stuck and are unsure of how to add sources the volunteers at the
help desk can lend a hand. Good luck with your editing! --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Why
Why are you always trying to block me for no damn reason?? At the momment, I am trying to rid the r&B/soul black female singers of having "pop music" in their musical genres (which you probably add) and I am trying to add
Angel Taylor,
Kim Yarbrough,
Gwen Sebastian, and
Erin Martin to the notable contestants. Do you have a problem with black female singers being successful in their own right??? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.168.81.68 (
talk) 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you still believe that your edits are not disruptive despite the many explanations on your talk page is disappointing. Have you ever even read
any or the
important policy
links that other editors have pointed you to time and time again? You cannot change genres and add unsourced personal information to biography articles at whim, period. State your sources, discuss potential changes with others, and seek help when you're unsure - that's how Wikipedia works. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I'll take a look at the references a little later today to see if they can be incorporated into the article. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi There,
Just following up on the above. Would the 2 references mentioned (Vogue and Maxim article) would satisfy the policy for reliable sources re: Edit of biography for living people ?
Best,
Arnaud
Arnonyc2000 (
talk) 08:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, the Vogue interview states she was 26 in 2011, which puts her birth year as either 1984 or 1985 (we have a
template that auto-calculates and updates this information). I have added the template along with the September 14th birth date from the Maxim page to the article. Thanks for your help in tracking these sources down! --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi ... I was trying to understand your deletion
here. Could not figure it out, and there was no edit summary other than what we use for vandalism (indicating reversal), so I thought I would ask. Happy new year. You can answer here. Best.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Epeefleche. Unfortunately there is an IP hopper who has been active for a very long time adding as many
WP:BLPCAT/
WP:EGRS categories to articles regardless of whether they meet the requirements for inclusion. They try to hit as many articles as possible before those who are aware of their history catch on and can try to mitigate the fall-out. There are likely some false positives in the bunch, however sorting through 100+ quick-fire category additions each time they switch IPs is a bit of a nightmare. If this particular revert is indeed a case of collateral damage them please do feel free to undo my revert. Wishing you the best in 2013, --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Understood -- if they are adding massive innappropriate cats, I can understand a mass revert. Just let me know (here) if you disagree with my assessment. If I have a chance, I'll glance and see if there is any more gold in the chaff, and if so do the same there as I did here. Best for the new year, and good bumping into you again. BTW -- It might be helpful to indicate with specificity on his talk page the reason for his block, so other editors can divine what is afoot. Best.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 04:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- I just took a look at the last 15-20 or so, and it seems that there was RS support in more than half (though it was lacking in the rest). I reverted you on 10, per the above, but wanted to point it out to you in the event that you want to consider self-reverting. It doesn't seem in this sample that most of his entries were violations. Just the opposite -- most of them are RS supported, and appropriate, and should not be deleted. The last I touched was such an example -- the reason the person is even notable in the first place relates to the fact that they are the religion he indicated -- see
Evelyn Kozak. Best.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 04:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The IP is very well aware of our policies regarding the inclusion of religious categories. After years of the same behaviour I am not working through hundreds of of their edits to catch the ~50% that may be supported by sourced article content; it's exhausting enough trying to keep up with the revolving IP addresses. The lack of a correct category in a biography article is really no big deal when compared to the inclusion of an incorrect or misleading one - with this specific IP-hopper it's best to err on the side of caution. Kudos to you for taking the time to ensure the inclusion of the specific cat is warranted, it's certainly appreciated. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for your good work. Best.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 05:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
OTRS
I will be leaving a message for you there in a few minutes. --Rschen7754 23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yo, Ponyo, just letting you know that I think you misread the block log: this guy's block expired, and I reblocked him without removing talkpage access, so he posted that request in response to the latest block as normal. (No idea why it's a renoame block, but whatevs...) Not a big deal, just thought I'd let you know that
this doesn't really fit the situation. Thanks!
Writ Keeper⚇♔ 05:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, looks like I did. The fact that it was a rename request and posted at the top of the page instead of under the other declines threw me off as well. Looks like they've been infinitely more naughty than nice this holiday season though so I suppose it's all moot now. Cheers, --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Correct Storage of Information
Thank you for your contact, can advise as to where to store (Safely and Reliably?) information may include the following?
[redact] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Romance buggy (
talk •
contribs) 20:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest a Word document on your own personal computer - it's not appropriate for Wikipedia so please stop posting it around random articles.--
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
THere are About 67,800,000 results (0.29 seconds) Google Results found for "computer has broken" and you are telling me that I can use this as reliable?
I have actual hundreds of this data and am to access the "cloud" for better storage and security.
Good edit! I was just trying to remove a v bad wording, but your edit/removal was better!
Manxwoman (
talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy to help; even if the sentence had been reliably sourced it really has no place in a biography article as it casts aspersions without any real relevance. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
PS I do hope you don't mind, but I was so impressed that I 'stole" your orange banner at the top of your talk page and have used it on mine! If you do object in any way, I will of course remove it, but... here's hoping!
Manxwoman (
talk) 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I was doing NPP and I came across this article. Looking at the revision history, it's clear the page has had a problem with BLP violations, but in my opinion, the Pending Changes Protection is unnecessary. It's obviously slowed the rate of edits quite a bit, but it's not apparent that it's the best way to halt and prevent BLP violations on the page. The unconstructive edits centering on Irish nationality originated from a total of five unregistered users:
86.42.8.86 (
talk·contribs),
86.44.179.184 (
talk·contribs),
86.44.249.31 (
talk·contribs),
86.44.247.30 (
talk·contribs), and
86.46.141.77 (
talk·contribs)). The first, you will note, has been blocked after ceaseless edit warring and countless warnings. The others though, are a different story. In general, they haven't been meaningfully contacted about their edits and why they are not constructive, and to me it's reasonable to guess they may not have any idea what they were doing wrong. The editors reverting their BLP violations (especially
Murry1975 (
talk·contribs)) tried to use edit summaries to communicate, and as a result, the problem failed to solve itself. Coming back to the central point (apologies for my long-windedness), I believe that by now the page protect is no longer necessary, and if the problem returns, it can be solved with proper communication and, if necessary, dispute resolution. Thanks.
Rutebega (
talk) 04:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
They IPs are all the same disruptive block-evading editor that is currently under multiple rangeblocks in order to limit damage to Wikipedia articles; although your good faith is admirable, treating them as a new user and attempting to educate them each time would be futile. Murray left a note on the article talk page explaining why the edits are inappropriate, however in cases like this the IPs will rarely attempt discussion - it's much to easy to reset their router and keep chipping away at the article. It's important to note that the Level 1 pending changes protection does not prevent IPs and new accounts from editing, it simply adds a level of moderation to ensure edits added to this BLP are sourced and non-disruptive. I would seriously hesitate to lift the protection as there have been BLP issues with this article from the week it was created through to when I set the protection based on a request at
RFPP. I believe it's more important to ensure that information added to this BLP is properly sourced then to have the IP edits be immediately visible to readers. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Sidharth Malhotra
Hi Ponyo, I saw your
revert on
Sidharth Malhotra which I think was the good edit by the
IP. IP made the heading which was missing on that article. I hope you can undo your edits on that page. Otherwise, thanks for blocking that IP for violating other BLP articles.
Torreslfchero (
talk) 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for signing on with the project! Happy editing, Northamerica1000(talk) 01:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Tanya Levin
Hi, do you mind if I work a bit on this page using the previous material from before your redirect as a basis? This person has written at least two other books, "Crimwife" and "People in Glass Houses", which might have attracted sufficient attention to establish notability as an author (I'm not sure yet). As an aside, it seems inappropriate to have a redirect to the church that this person has criticized. Best wishes,
Sminthopsis84 (
talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If you think you can create an article that demonstrates notability beyond the
single event then please do. I would suggest leaving a note on the talk page explaining your intent and using
Template:Under construction to avoid anyone reverting your changes prematurely. Good luck! --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps the single edit that I made, adding that one of her books was short-listed for a significant prize (and adding a bit more), might do the trick.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk) 08:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
User talk:164.116.223.244
For reference, the "threat" I made on
this user's talkpage is a meme, it was a response to
this message. I can see that it might look bad if someone doesn't understand the context. Kind regards,
James086Talk 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't think you had suddenly gone rogue. The death threat they made is brightline though - revert, delete, block. Cheers, --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, I might be completely wrong. But something is wrong concerning the IP that I have reported at Admins intervention against vandalism, it just feels like the user is someone who has been blocked on his original account. If not the IP is very rude in comments and overly argumentative and does heavily edit articles, and bites established users that questions his edits. All I ask is that you take an extra look. Thanks.
[5]---
BabbaQ (
talk) 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand your concerns. First, this certainly doesn't belong at AIV as the edits are not vandalism. Second, the difs you provided on the AIV report to show disruption appear to be courteous exchanges and valid warnings. You mention "warning established users for no reason" but the two difs provided show
twonew editors being correctly warned for vandalism and copyright violations respectively. Is the IP a brand new user? Perhaps not, however unless you can show specific disruption or are able to provide evidence of abuse of multiple accounts I'm not sure what you would like me to do. I will however leave the AIV report open for another admin to review. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The recent information on the page for Cliff Stearns
he recent information on the page for Cliff Stearns is neither promotional or biased -- one is sourced to a newspaper article and the other to a news release on a web site -- again neither promote this indivdual or his work -- they only provide recent information from a reporter who covered hum for many years and what Stearns is doing now. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.192.214.222 (
talk) 16:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Any information that is added to an article that reads like ad-copy is promotional in nature and your use of a press/news release as a source shows as much. The information added to the article must be written in a completely neutral fashion in order to meet Wikipedia guidelines. You are including entire paragraphs of content extolling the virtues of Stearns in a way that is entirely non-neutral and that is why it is being reverted. Please read the
conflict of interest guidelines on your IP talk page and do not continue to restore the promotional material to the article - you will be blocked if you continue. I see that you reverted my removal of the promotional content as "vandalism"; you should also read
this link to see what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Harese Youssef
Hi,
I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef.
Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.
I don't "keep" deleting it, I have only deleted it once. It has been deleted two other times under the title "Hares Youssef" and three times (by other administrators) under the title "Hares youssef". The article has also been declined multiple times via the
articles for creation process. The article was deleted as a result of
this discussion and will continue to be deleted unless the issues that lead to its deletion are addressed. If you are at all affiliated with Hares Youssef then I urge you to review
the guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I was contacted by Micig to provide more references which I did and still doing. Please read carefully before deleting.
I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef.
Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.
I will move it to your userspace to work on it, but I can't restore an article that is essentially a verbatim copy of an article deleted via
WP:AfD. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I was contacted by Michig to provide more references which I did and still doing. Please read carefully before deleting.
I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef.
Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.
You've just re-posted the same message here (as has another editor). I've already replied above. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The article was at AfD and I closed the discussion. The community decided that the article should be deleted, so it was deleted. I don't believe that I ever contacted
User:Jeiboul to provide more references. Thanks. --
Michig (
talk) 06:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Michig, that certainly helps. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
What about the article of Hares yousef which is on discussion.
May I get your attention and advise on how to contribute to this subject!!
In the discusion it is clearly stated that the person is notable but ill referenced. I do believe that this issue can be resolved easily if you republish the article for me to add/modify some references
Hi Ponyo. Apologies for blanking the user page there. The reason was (ironically trying to be in accordance with
WP:DELTALK) because I was deleting one item (which was the spam) -a serious violation i thought- and forgot that, as that was the only item on the page, it would have the effect of blanking the page! I should have wriitten, deleted entry instead of blanked page maybe-! Anyway thanks for pointing that out. Cheers!
BasketFeudalist 20:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You did the right thing, spam and promotion should be removed from the page, even if it results in a blank page. In those cases I usually tack on a {{
subst:Welcomespam}} template to replace the blanked text, although in this case it looks like they've been previously welcomed and blanked the note (genrally not a good sign). What admins rarely do (except in cases of severe abuse/BLP violations/copyright issues) is actually delete the user talk page. Carry on! --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello
Thank you for the speedy deletion of
MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards. Much appreciated. Apologies for the accidental creation, I didnt realise what I had done until I had done it. I shall endeavor to be more careful next time. See you around. MisterShiney✉ 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I believe that you had deleted
this page yesterday, as advertising. I'm a bit confused by it at this point to be frank, but just in case the re-add was not correct, I thought I would bring it to your attention.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 11:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I read through it again and came to the same conclusion as yesterday, it's just too promotionally toned to be kept. Perhaps if it was an article I could try to find some sources and stub it down to neutral facts, but I can't very well do that to someone's userpage. I tried to explain things on their talk page, hopefully it will bring some clarity. --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Makes sense. Nicely done.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 18:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Though apparently the editor
does not agree, or is not reading the posts on his talkpage.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw that as well so I've left a less flowery request to cease recreating the article. crosses fingers--
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.