User talk:Ponyo: Difference between revisions

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Thank you: new section)
(→‎Thank you: nothin' to it)
Line 211: Line 211:
   
 
Hi Ponyo, just wanted to drop in and say a quick thank you for handling the vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it! -- '''[[User:LuK3|<span style="color:#DC143C"><span style="font-family:Verdana">LuK3</span></span>]] [[User_talk:LuK3|<span style="color:#000080"><span style="font-family:Verdana">(Talk)</span></span>]]''' 22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 
Hi Ponyo, just wanted to drop in and say a quick thank you for handling the vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it! -- '''[[User:LuK3|<span style="color:#DC143C"><span style="font-family:Verdana">LuK3</span></span>]] [[User_talk:LuK3|<span style="color:#000080"><span style="font-family:Verdana">(Talk)</span></span>]]''' 22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  +
:No problem.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:07, 14 February 2020

2a02:c7f:1244:2500:a071:8aeb:cff:5f01

Could you please block user:2a02:c7f:1244:2500:a071:8aeb:cff:5f01 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2A00:23C5:ECA2:B400:954B:A0BC:AF0C:1605

Could you please block user:2A00:23C5:ECA2:B400:954B:A0BC:AF0C:1605 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Done, but why wouldn't you report them to AIV? It would be quicker...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, CLCStudent does a very good job of fighting vandalism but often (I haven't kept track) reports the problem to individual administrators or to WP:ANI. Unless it's something out of the ordinary, I wish they would stop doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I see you've done some year-end cleaning of your Talk page. Happy New Year!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I cleared it to allow for lovely missives from wonderful people :) -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

XXI Submarine

Hey Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You're past WP:3RR on the article. If you try to restore your edit again you will be blocked. At this point, I'm certain you're just trolling.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I just want to add my little own “spice” to the article Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, don’t be a Female Dog. Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding User:Truthsayer1224

Hi Ponyo, thank you for so quickly handling the oversight and block! However I noticed that you blocked the user indefinitely but the notice on their talk page says it is temporary. Ordinarily I would try to fix a mistake like that myself, but I don't know what your true intention was, or if there is policy against a non-sysop from modifying a block notice. Thanks! –Erakura(talk) 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't pick on Ponyo. It's not her fault she's block-challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Erakura, it doesn’t really matter as I got rid of TPA and the system message displays the message from the template that explains how to appeal. Plus they’re never going to be unblocked... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry TonyBallioni, didn't mean to be bothersome to anyone. –Erakura(talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Erakura: You weren't bothering anyone. I was making fun of Ponyo. It's one of the few entertaining things I get to do on Deep web.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Erakura, yes, I’m not bothered at all. I just tend to talk rather straightforwardly, which doesn’t always convey via text :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Give me a break, TB, when it comes to talking "straightforwardly", you're in the minor leagues compared to yours truly. Sing it out, Ponyo!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Block evading tunnel IP

Hi Ponyo, thanks for your quick action blocking 173.95.164.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). However, I suspect (but can't say for sure) that there may be more suspicious IP user or accounts operated by this person.

For example, just today at the Lincoln Tunnel article, I see three other users changing images (Blue Peep (talk · contribs), 70.60.107.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2606:a000:111d:4155:51c:bac4:c338:834 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), with the same MO as the blocked IP user: 1, 2, and 3. Another IP user who edited on the page is uninvolved. I'd appreciate if you could take a look - though these may be two or more completely different people, they seem to have the same disruptive intent. epicgenius (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Epicgenius. I've semi-protected Lincoln Tunnel.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

I don't think you know that there's a "standard offer" unblock appeal of a block you made in May 2019. Here: Deep web:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer - Joseph2302. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd, I wonder why I didn't get a ping? Regardless, I'm cool with whatever the community decides. It's Friday after all! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't even notice that you'd been pinged by Ritchie. Don't know why it didn't work. Good thing I don't pay attention, I guess. -Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:122.110.67.11

An anon you blocked for soapboxing at Talk:White pride is soapboxing on their talk page. Your block summary seems to say you were blocking their talk page access. Can we mute them? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like ST47 took care of it while I enjoyed a relaxing weekend! ST47, with regard to your edit summary here, I didn't shorten the block. Doug Weller blocked the IP for 1 month on Jan 17. I was just trying to revoked talk page access (leaving the unblock date as the original Feb 17). What I didn't realize was that Doug had only set a partial block, so my ticking of the talk page removal box apparently had no effect on the IPs talk page. Thanks for cleaning up! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Partial blocks = crud.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea of partial blocks in a specific set of circumstances, I just haven't come across a situation where they're a better option to a full block as of yet.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
BREAKING! Came across an instance today where a partial block may work! Stay tuned...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ponyo. Glad you enjoyed some time off from the mop. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It can be such a traumatic experience.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

UTRS

Hey!

When you get a sec, would you be able to look at UTRS please? There's a couple of CU requests, one of them has been waiting for 2 weeks.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done :) -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

I would like to point out there are discussion ongoing on the talking age and I am simply going back to the consensus as it stands. The discussion and consensus as it stands are for the inclusion of this information. If you would like to take part in the discussion please feel free. I would also hope you have the same kind of eye on User:JDDJS who is imposing their preferred revision of the article, without currently engaging in the ongoing discussion. It is typical not to make changes against consensus until a new consensus is formed and to have the article in the most stable version pre-discussions occurring. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you are not going back to "consensus as it stands", you are edit warring to restore your preferred version of the article. I have no idea how you can assert that User:JDDJS is not engaging in the ongoing discussion regarding the infobox given that he started it. As I noted on the article talk page, the content you continue to restore is disputed and the onus is on you to get consensus to restore it. You do not have that consensus at this time and further edit warring will very likely lead to a block.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see the evidence provided on the talk page of the article in the discussion in question which clearly shows inclusion of the parameter has been a stable part of the infobox since 2018. User:JDDJS is the one trying to change consensus on the article here. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter if the content has been in the infobox since 2018, it is disputed now. So, again, you need to gain consensus for its inclusion prior to restoring it if the content is removed again. Policy is clear on this.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
You are going about it backwards User:JDDJS wants to remove information which is reliably sourced and has been part of the article in a stable form since 2018. User:JDDJS, therefore, wants to change the current consensus, the onus is on the person wanting to change the consensus. This is also the whole reason for having discussions. Unilateral actions should be taken by no one and the stable revision of the current consensus should remain until the discussions have actually concluded. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
That's your opinion, which has no basis in policy. I get that you clearly want the material to stay, but it is disputed, you don't have consensus for its inclusion, and the other two editors who have commented on the talk page disagree with you. You obviously have no interest in taking this administrator's attempt to explain policy to you onboard, so I'll leave you to your own devices. Note, however, that your misunderstanding of WP:ONUS will very likely lead to a block if you continue to edit war while disregarding it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Aren't socks fun?

Are you having fun dealing with the aftermath of my blocks? And your responses are so cynical.Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The couple I dealt with yesterday were making such ludicrous claims I couldn't help but give flippant replies. At least they were entertaining.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Because sock-hunting is serious business? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dideye Dito

Its not meant as advertising. I thought that was quite clear looking at it. I just thought it would be neat to actually have My creation to have a Wikipeda article on it so people could get some context. I hope for it to become popular someday and then people will have somewhere to look and get some info on it, aka here. But if you just want to find evry loophole you can to not allow my article to let through, then that is just dumb. Ifif wanted to advertise, which i have, I wouldn't and havent used wikipedia. I use much simpler to understand sites for that. Here, I wrote a page describing the characters and plot/ setting. Just because it isnt something popular doesnt make it advertising. I spent way to long making my article, and i felt proud of it, but then you people have to find every insult to hurl at me for why it sucks. Just read it with your eyes. You wanted a primary source i gave you guys one. Thats not advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talkcontribs) 01:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatCheeseGuy: You misunderstand the purpose of Deep web. Editors are not finding "loopholes" to decline your article, they are following long-established guidelines and policies. I challenge you to provide me with any link that demonstrate any editor finding "every insult to hurl at me for why it sucks". Everyone has been polite and respectful, you just don't like the outcome. Good luck with your comic, and if one day it meets the notability criteria for inclusion here, I'm sure an editor who does not have a conflict of interest will create an article covering Dideye Dito. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:Conflict of Interest--Mr Fink (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just tell me whta is wrong with it. I was told at first that i need some sources. So i gave you guys a few. Media, links, and names. And then i am told that it is advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talkcontribs) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I included two links in my reply to you above. Did you click on them and read the information provided on those pages? Did you read the explanation for the draft decline provided by 94rain on your talk page? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My article is NOT about the website https://dideyedito.wordpress.com/ . It is about the comic series, most of which consists of over 300 hand drawn PAPER comics. The Website is just a source that i added after my first decline that said i needed sources. Such as media and/ or WEBSITES — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talkcontribs) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The link is to a self-published wordpress web page. It doesn't meet any of the sourcing requirements or demonstrate that your comic meets any of the required notability criteria for inclusion. It is evident that you don't understand how Deep web works when you write "I hope for it to become popular someday and then people will have somewhere to look and get some info on it, aka here" above. First the comic needs to be covered substantially in independent reliable sources, then an article can be created. But not by you.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ahuja spammer

they have returned. Mind blocking the ip and protecting the page now that they're evading? Praxidicae (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the two target articles for a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Homero Gómez González

Will you restore the cited content one last time? The IP has been blocked from editing the article for one week for edit warring and I've used my three reverts. Enwebb (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@El C and Floquenbeam: The IP blocked IP has now flipped to 98.103.132.98 to make the same edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo, I went through RPP and the article is semi-protected now. Enwebb (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Clampi page edits 2020-02-04

Hello, could you reinstate the changes Dawnseeker2000 removed as of 21:16, 4 February 2020, as the changes were helpful, non disruptive and supported by an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.171.109 (talk)

You mean the copyright-violating material that Cyberofficial broke broke three reverts to restore despite being warned on their talk page? No. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No I think there is a misunderstanding, I am simply talking about this line, which was added before the copyright infrangement was done : This is also often used by tech support scammers to pressure individuals into sending them money for the removal of a fake virus.[1]

There is something very odd happening at that article today, and another editor has reverted back to the status quo prior to the disruption. If you think something useful has been removed in the process, please use the requested edit template on the article talk page as described here and a helpful volunteer will come back to review your request.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
A very popular scambaiter named Kitboga had a scammer take him to the article. He mentioned (in good faith) that the article should mention that scammers take people to the article. He was streaming to 12,000 people at the time on Twitch. He later was very dismayed to learn that there was edit warring on the article. I could post links if you are interested. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Very interesting AdamF in MO! It was clear that something had occurred to draw the interest of various new editors, I just didn't know what it was. Mystery solved!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, will do, sorry for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.171.109 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "What is the Clampi Virus?". Kaspersky. Retrieved 2020-02-04.

Untitled

Why do you keep deleting the subscriber amount on Samantha J? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.69.14 (talkcontribs)

It's irrelevant because it doesn't impart any useful information (subscribers to what exactly?), and it is also unsourced. The rest of your edits are just a mix of outright vandalism and opinionated talk page commentary. Stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating Clampi

Hey, just trying to add relevant information to the clampi page. I had added some generally critical information to the page yet it has been removed. The information is relevant, is not a violation in any way to the page due to the lack of content on the page, and was looking to make a first useful post. Do you mind helping me understand why the information was reverted, would love to know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeusChops (talkcontribs) 23:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see the section above titled " Clampi page edits 2020-02-04" for details. Multiple new editors have been brought to the article based on a recent Twitch stream, all attempting to add similar unsourced material. Please read through the discussion at Talk:Clampi regarding proposed changes to the article and join in there if you would like to add your voice.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The main issues are source misrepresentation and close paraphrasing. There is also an issue with WP:TONE, which says that we don't address the reader by saying "you" or "your". There's also the idea of using a neutral source. The Kaspersky article is not. Dawnseeker2000 23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Would there be a proper site to use instead of Kaspersky that you might know of regarding the topic, aside from personal background I cannot really attest to any "neutral" source existing as far as legitimate malware/virus information that's publicly posted. Unless a scholarly article is enough to reference and then avoid close phrasing of the reference to the article unless sourced properly, then I can work with that. ZeusChops (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020
Hello again. Your first sentence describes why the article is as short as it is (few to no appropriate sources available). Your second mentions academic sources. If you are able to find something please do. Dawnseeker2000 03:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Creation protection -> Semi protection

Just recently, Yeet was approved as a redirect to Yeet (disambiguation), but this action could not be completed due to the article being indefinitely create-protected. I would suggest that this protection be replaced with semiprotection on the redirect, as it's still a likely target for vandals. 04:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopes (talkcontribs)

I came here with the same request. Adding that there's the recently deleted Talk:Yeet, which may or may not need to be restored. – Uanfala (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Uanfala and Utopes: I've down-graded the protection to semi; do with it as you wish! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Fan4Life

JSYK.. I saw the warning you left on their page, and they not only removed it, but went immediately back into their pattern of behaviour. Clearly, they have not learned from their previous block and they're going to continue with this behaviour. livelikemusic talk! 14:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone noticed.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I had help from livelikemusic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting my Draft.

So, you decide to find another reason to not let my article go through. But then you DELETED IT. All the work i put into it is gone. I can never see it or work on it again. Thanls a lot jerk. This is why mods suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCheeseGuy (talkcontribs) 21:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted well before our last wonderful conversation. Nothing has changed since then.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

IP: 185.130.159.238

Hello Ponyo, just to inform you, I have reported the IP 185.130.159.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to the admins. This is the same user that has previously been blocked under IP:62.172.166.201 by yourself and Acroterion for making persistent unsourced edits to a number of BBC pages. The "contributions" have been reverted by another editor and myself, they have not responded to the entries on their Talk page - as usual. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: I've blocked the IP for continued evasion.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Our favorite LUNAtic is back

It's been a bit, but seems after his latest lawsuit was forcibly tossed, he's active. 173.49.234.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Oh frabjous day! Ravensfire (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Was I involved (as an admin, not ZOMG WP:INVOLVED!) with this issue previously? I seriously have no recollection of it. Regardless, this is clearly the same person, and it's been going on for years, so I semi'ed the article indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo, Oh good grief ... it was Prolog who was mostly dealing this guy back when he was more active. Sorry for that, was VERY sure I knew who was helping and 4 hours of sleep did not help. Sorry for that, and appreciate the help! Ravensfire (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem...I needed a break from being myself.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Who are you anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I am no one.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

UTRS

Hey,

Could you please take a look at UTRS? There's quite a few CheckUser appeals there...................... Face-smile.svg-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll poke some folks at WT:SPI to remind them that that queue needs monitoring as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a question.

Is [tvguide.com] a reliable source for BLPs? I’ve seen edits get reverted for using it as a source, but other articles have it, and it’s really confusing me. R71B (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

He's no longer confused.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe more confused than ever! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ponyo, just wanted to drop in and say a quick thank you for handling the vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it! -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)