User talk:Ponyo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:21, 16 June 2020 editKileyco17 (talk \| contribs)32 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:36, 21 January 2025 edit undoPonyo (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,968 editsm →January 2025: typo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Busy}}
	{{archive box\|

			{{Archives\|collapsed=yes\|search=yes\|
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
Line 39:		Line 41:
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
	}}		}}

	==Thank you for reverting my talk page==

	Thank you for quickly reverting ] vandalism on my talk page and then blocking them. ] (]) 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
	:No problem. They've been messing about across the range for far too long.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
	:::No worries Ponyo, glad that someone blocked them. ] (]) 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

	== User:LoganRich ==

	Hello Ponyo, Trust you are well in these uncertain times, we are on lock-down and have not seen our family, except for video phone calls. Could I please draw your attention to the activities of {{userlinks\|LoganRich}} who keeps adding unsourced information to various BBC articles. I have asked on their Talk page several times for them to supply reliable, secondary sources, but they have ignored all requests - and seem to be doing the same with others editors comments. Can I please leave this with you. Thank you and best regards, David, ] (]) 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
	:I tried. We shall see if it has any effect. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
	::Thanks so much. I wouldn't bet that you will get an answer. Hope the rest of your Easter is good. David, ] (]) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

	== I'm shook ==

	You're here on a weekend. Also, do you have any particular experience with our dear friend Kingshowman. Pretty sure he's back and using proxies/is the same person as the SPI troll we've been dealing with off and on for a few years. I normally pestered {{u\|DoRD}} about him, but, alas, DoRD has left for greener pastures. ] (]) 18:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
	:Well, I dug enough that I'm willing to call it him: ] if you or Mr. DoRD are curious. ] (]) 19:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
	::I edited just long enough to lull you in to a false sense of security, then poof I was gone again! Diabolique!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Sock drawer ==

	Hi, I've just blocked 30 socks from a sock drawer. I see you've tagged some of the previous ones and blocked a few ranges, so I'm letting you know they came back. I don't know if it makes sense to tag all of these. ''']''' ''']''' ] 20:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Eagles247}} Do you have a link to two for context? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
	::Never mind, I figured it out.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
	::There were a number of sleepers that I've blocked as well. No point tagging, they're not worth the time or effort.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, I've also blocked a couple IP ranges that cover ones that posted on my talk page yesterday. Could you review those blocks to confirm they aren't too large? ''']''' ''']''' ] 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
	::::I can't really comment on specific IPs or ranges; the curse of being a Checkuser.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, I hope they're the right size. ''']''' ''']''' ] 19:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Possible block evading ==

	You blocked ] in March of this year, it appears that the editor is evading their block by using other account ]. For example, the block IP created the article ] without adding sources , the IP just recently recreated the article without adding sources also . I don't know what who this editor is but the edits looks similar. ] (]) 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
	:Behaviourally there is some overlap, but the technical details don't align (unsurprising as the 103 IP is a webhost). Given that IP 731.1.41.245 has been editing for well over a year, I don't feel comfortable blocking it without more pressing evidence.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Thank you ==

	Thanks for your kindness...;) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:Blocked as a sock of ]. ] (]) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

	== I got a message from Ponyo to declare connection with an account ==

	I got locked out of FeiGao2020 and created another account (AprilAnon2020). That other account is inactive and as far as I'm aware hasn't been banned from anything so I'm not trying to avoid a ban or any form of sock puppetry <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	:Hi {{ping\|AnonApril2020}} I was pretty sure that's what had happened, which is why I asked. It would be helpful to include ] on your user page, just to keep the connection clear. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Request ==

	This probably won't happen because of the whole issue with ] but would you have a problem with lowering the protection level for Template:Justice League characters and Template: Avengers characters. ] (]) 20:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
	:I've made a few adjustments to Template:Avengers characters protection, but the Justice League template needs the additional protection - it's a prime sock target. You could always request an edit be made using the requested edit template on the template talk page (see ] for instructions).-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Quick help?==
	Not sure if it helps/hurts anything, but I saw your warning on this users page and their last three or four edits have been just . I gave them a fourth warning and it didn't really make them budge. ] (]) 00:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
	:Sigh. I get their frustration, it's never fun to see your work reverted. It takes maturity to take on the information that more experienced editors are attempting to provide, and lashing out with "fascist/nazi" personal attacks demonstrates that this editor may have a way to go (and grow) in that regard. As they've posted a retirement template on their talk page it would be overly harsh to block now, so we'll just wait and see whether time away will help {{U\|ZombieHorrorMovie13}} achieve some interspection. It would be nice if they could tone it down a bit and return willing to follow our sourcing and verifiability guidelines and policies as they seem very knowledgeable on their topic of interest. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
	::Fair enough. I was trying to be be reasonable as I could with the user without removing their content, but it didn't seem to go well. Thanks for your help on the whole ordeal though. Its greatly appreciated. ] (]) 18:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	You may wish to revoke TPA.--] (]) 08:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
	:Done by {{U\|JJMC89}}. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi P, sorry to bug you with this, but I just blocked {{noping\|Trusha.daware}} for undisclosed paid editing based on on-site info and a touch of off-site info. Short story, Prajakta Koli is affiliated with One Digital Entertainment, an article that Trusha.daware created, so it seems like just a marketing team taking ownership of both topic articles. But I also notice {{noping\|Latika2301}} seems rather interested in the Koli article as well. Is there any way you could look into the unraveling of whatever sock/meat ring-ery is happening there? If you want me to write up an SPI, I'd be happy to. Thanks, ] (]) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
	:I know it's a pain, but an SPI would be helpful. A number of CUs have been working hard to keep the backlog down and I imagine it would get quick attention.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
	::Can do. Thank you. ] (]) 19:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Clarification on G11 denial for ] ==

	Hi P, could you clarify why you presumably declined the speedy here (even though it wasn't mine)? I have struggled at points to understand why some admins follow through and some remove. There doesn't seem to be a consistent rationale based on past new page reviewing I've done, and I'd like to have a firmer idea so future admins don't think I'm just indiscriminately CSD tagging articles. ] <sup><small>(]) (])</small></sup> 19:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
	:The article has bounced around from article to draft space. I've salted the article until an approved draft becomes available (if it ever does). As with any speedy deletion, it's up to the reviewing admin to decide whether the page meets the criteria using their own judgement, experience, and interpretation of the deletion policy. Outside of G10 and G12-eligible deletions, there is a gradient as to what admins consider inappropriate for inclusion to the point of speedy deleting. A7 and G11 are the common deletion rationales that rely most heavily on individual administrator's interpretation of the deletion rationale, and, in my opinion, the draft does not meet G11 (from G11" "This applies to pages that are ''exclusively'' promotional and would need to be ''fundamentally'' rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles"). From my experience there is also a great deal more leeway provided in draft space with regard to promotional tone, allowing new editors to work on writing more neutral content supported by reliable sources outside of article space.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
	:: Well said. Thanks, I appreciate it! ] <sup><small>(]) (])</small></sup> 21:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
	:::I did just pull a copyvio image from the article, and a removed a couple of ] violations as these shouldn't appear on any pages, article or draft. Thank you for the work you put in to reviewing drafts; it is an endless and often thankless job.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

	== IP socking ==

	Hi,
	Can you clarify to which master did the ] IP range that you blocked belong to? Thanks. ] (]) 00:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Gotitbro}}, our privacy policies prohibit Checkusers from directly linking accounts to IPs in most situations, this being one of them.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

	== CGSFH ==

	Found this IP readily admitting to being a sock, see . ]\|<sup>(formerly ])</sup>\|] 02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
	:The IP is blocked now (not by me).-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Block temp ==

	Sorry, was unaware only the blocking admin is authorized to put the template. Won't happen again. ]] 20:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
	:No problem; I also left a note on your talk expanding on my edit summary. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Revdel request ==

	Hi P:

	Would you be willing to revdel what I have flagged on ]? ] <sup><small>(]) (])</small></sup> 20:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Etzedek24}}, can you confirm which portions of the article you find to be a blatant copyright of the Washington Times article? If it goes back to the B4byfir3fly182 addition on April 7th, I'm not sure the amount of overlap is significant enough to require revdelete (per ), but {{U\|Diannaa}} would know better than me.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
	:: Huh. I could have sworn it was more. Don't know what I was looking at. I'll remove the revdel but maybe someone with more experience could take a look. ] <sup><small>(]) (])</small></sup> 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
	:::Dianaa is the best of the best.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
	::::I have done the revision deletion.— ] (]) 00:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Thank you ... ==
	{{User QAIbox
	\| title =
	\| image = Carnations, Kesselbach.jpg
	\| image_upright = 0.8
	\| bold =
	\| normal =
	}}
	... for speaking my mind better than I could, while I slept, and often --] (]) 08:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{♥}}-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
	: --] (]) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

	: a composer pictured who wrote a ], in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --] (]) 15:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Revdel request on TwoSet Violin ==

	Article ] was hit with a wave of vandalism that meets Criteria #2 "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" Last known good version was on 28 April 2020. Thanks in advance. ] (] • ]) 14:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|AngusWOOF}} Rev deleted under RD#2, blocked the /64 for two weeks and added the article to my watch list for a bit.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

	==Please see...==
	The history of ], with which you've previously been involved. Thanks. ] (]) 20:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Shadikk}} If you think the IP is a sock of Dopepenguins, please report it at ]. I can't really look into it further as I can't directly link accounts to IPs in most instances (like this).-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	==Untitled==
	What can i do?, can you help me to upload my profile to[REDACTED] , because i want to get verified on instagram. My instagram id is @__mohitjaat__ ] (]) 14:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages has no interest in helping you get verified on instagram. Please read ].-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	] is obviously a Mrwallace05 sock. Same as before with previous socks.. ] (]) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
	: Materialscientist blocked the user. ] (]) 04:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Problematic remnants ==

	Hi,

	the sock with various evasions created this redirect page (), but ] who this time reverted all the sock edits, forgot to delete this page...I just wanted to draw both of your attention to this, to perform deletion. Regards(] (]) 07:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC))
	:{{ping\|KIENGIR}} It's not eligible for ] because there have been significant edits by another editor. Is the redirect useful and plausible? If not, ] may apply.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Ponyo, no significant edits were made, those three edits were from a reviewing admin ({{ping\|Zanimum}}) and just put some technical edits there, maybe missing to check the background of the creator. {{ping\|Materialscientist}}, could you solve this is issue with Ponyo and Zaminum together somehow? (anyway not just technically, but the redirect would have problems historically as well, it was created the same way of POV pushing as the sock did in those large number of articles...)(] (]) 10:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC))
	:::The AfC reviewer accepted the draft and moved it to article space; I believe most admins would agree that that counts as a substantial edit. So the question remains, is it a plausible helpful redirect or a disruptive POV one. If it's the former, there is no reason to delete it solely because it was created by a sock. And I'm saying this as an admin who leans ''very'' strongly towards deleting or reverting sock edits.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::Sure. Well I think it may be regarded as a POV, but will address the issue to an uninvolved admin who also comfortable with the subject itself, particularly.(] (]) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC))
	:::::If you do approach another admin, please also point them to this discussion. Thanks, -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::: I would say the safest is to send it to MfD. I would also add that even of the redirect is eventually kept nobody is going to die.--] (]) 05:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Thank you for your opinion, I will now create the MfD (I do it first ever, hope won't do any mistake), Ponyo please correct me in case. Thank You.(] (]) 07:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC))
	::::::::Ponyo, in theis edit of mine () I failed the link properly, it would be correctly ''Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Ancient Ukraine'' (by mistake I duplicated the ''Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion'' prefix...), could it be corrected somehow? Thank You(] (]) 07:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC))
	:::::::::Looks ok now, I think?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::I did not notice any change, but just noticed a fresh user Crazyboy826 claims I ''chose a wrong forum'' and closed the Mfd with non-admin closure ()...?? What concerns me he also notified the sock () about changing it to ]...what's going on??(] (]) 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC))
	:::::::::::I think that {{U\|Ymblanter}} mistakingly mentioned taking it to ] instead of ]. While it's considered courteous to notify good faith editors that a page outside of their user space has been nominated for deletion, it doesn't make any sense to notify a blocked sock. In fact, there are many reasons why this is very much ''not'' a good idea. Perhaps {{U\|CrazyBoy826}} didn't realize they were notifying a blocked sock account.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Yes, this is right, I should not have commented before taking my first coffee in the morning. At least now the redirect seems to have been taken care of.--] (]) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Archives vandal ==

	* {{Userlinks\|2806:2F0:9100:C6B5:0:0:0:0/48}}

	I see we found them at about the same time. There was more on the /48, going back about a month. I think I've reverted all the archive edits. In case you were assuming good faith, as I was at first, see ]. Do you think the unsourced article space edits should be rolled back as well, as presumed sneaky vandalism? ] (]) 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Suffusion of Yellow}} I was working through reverting the main space edits when I ended up being sidelined by a call. The edits I checked consisted mainly of the addition of unsourced dates of birth, which, even if I assumed good faith <small>(I don't)</small>, should be reverted.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
	:P.S. I switched the block to include the larger /48 range. Thanks for catching that.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
	:: Thanks. I'll help with the mainspace reverts for a bit. ] (]) 19:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Vendalism ==

	Mr Bugti is a living person. Any details about him requires reliable sources. You edited false information and facts about him which you're not authorized to do. Remove the protection template so i can add reliable statements about him. He has a image and reputation to keep which you're intruding in. ] (]) 23:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages is not a venue for you to manage the image and reputation of people you're personally connected to. It's an encyclopedia on notable topics that includes material supported by ]. Your attempt to remove all content you personally disagree with despite it being very well sources is unacceptable. When I protected the article I also created a section on the talk page to allow editors to discuss their concerns, feel free to use it and see if you can get ] for the changes you want to make. Throwing around false claims of vandalism will get you nowhere. Please also be aware of ], it seems particularly pertinent in this case.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

	The information added previous were of trusted sources and reliable. It is not my personal disagreement, nor I feel it is. You're added edits are false and are just accusations which you might not be aware of. Mr. Bugti is a political leader and has human rights affairs, but you listed him as a terrorist which him and I won't appreciate. I'm aware of the our policies regarding illegitimate use of multiple accounts. People similar to your IP address have been editing it falsely since they day we created this page. So I suggest you remove your edits and the protection template ] (]) 10:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
	:There is nothing you have written here that negates anything I wrote in my reply to you above. If anything, it leads me to believe that the article will need to be protected for a longer duration as the intent of the protection, i.e. to drive discussion to the talk page to gauge consensus, has not been realized. The various discussions on your talk page insinuate that you intent to wait out the protection and to continue the disruption, which, if true, will ultimately lead to you being blocked from editing the page entirely. You've been directed to the talk page. Use it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
	:: Hey Ponyo! I stumbled upon the above user during RC patrolling. They've continued and are clearly ]. I agree with your assessment of reprotecting the article or block. ] (]) 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::I can't say I'm surprised. Thanks for stepping in {{U\|HickoryOughtShirt?4}}.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Vandal continues to attack Pat Day page ==

	Hello,

	Can you please revert the changes made by 72.227.160.141 and Aryeh10 (sockpuppets of the same user as banned Peteski 123, YYY613 and JIJJRG) back to my version (last update May 7 at 15:54)?

	I have spent a lot of time providing the most historically accurate, balanced and non-biased version. I need my edits protected and locked from further attack by this user who is dedicated to destroying the reputation of Pat Day. He will not quit until his one-side negative attacks on Pat Day has completed destroyed his reputation. In addition to his attacks on the biography page, he has taken out dozens of big races that Pat Day won off the page. This is vandalism at its worst. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:A content dispute at ] may be frustrating for you, but it most definitely is not "vandalism at its worst". If you find yourself in a content dispute, you can make use of the advice ]. If you believe there is a ] active at the article, ] is the correct venue.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

	== /* Devlin (surname) */ ==

	Any way to get link to Michael J. Devlin page removed from Devlin surname page?

	Secondly if not, can the name the biography page title be changed to Michael John Devlin?

	] (]) 07:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages is not going to remove a completely valid navigational link because a single individual who shares ] doesn't like to see it there.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

	== A brownie for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thanks for helping me find help on how to do things. ] (]) 18:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
	\|}

	== Some bubble tea for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Here is some bubble tea to go with your brownie P. I've been meaning to stop by and say that I hope you and yours are safe and well in these crazy times. Best regards ]\|] 19:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
	\|}
	:This came at the perfect time. A nice post-lunch treat! Cheers, -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

	== At ] and ]. ==

	Thanks for noticing this obvious issue. I have reported it at ]. Has there been a report filed at ]? I wouldn't want to be duplicating requests. Cheers, ] (] \| ]) 23:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
	:It very much looks like offsite coordinated editing as opposed to outright socking. I did some very basic initial checks and quickly realized that ] is likely the case. If the recruitment template doesn't help, it may be necessary to protect the talk pages as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Bigg Boss socky socks ==

	Hi! Since you blocked the accounts, could you also leave a note or something at ] where I reported them. — <small> ]   ▎]</small> 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I didn't realize there was an SPI, just sort of stumbled upon it. I've closed the report; thanks for letting me know.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
	Hey again! for your consideration. It might also be time to semi this particular article too. — <small> ]   ▎]</small> 14:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Thanks for taking care of it. I also filled in ] since a couple new ones popped up. — <small> ]   ▎]</small> 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
	::SPI updated and closed. Thanks for letting me know.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

	== fake game show ==

	I figured it was at least meat puppetry. I just hadn't see the whole fake game show thing in a while, I guess I was dumb enough to think they might have gotten the point and moved on... ] (]) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I never really get the end game for this type of socking. None of it's in article space and they're not really fooling anyone with the hoax; it's just a huge waste of time. <Shrugs>.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Yep. I was dealing with it a lot maybe 7 or 8 years ago, and I kept trying to get one of them to engage and explain what it was they were getting out of it but I never got an answer. ] (]) 23:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

	== RevDel ==

	Please RevDel ]. Thanks. --Stay safe, ]] (]•]) This message was left at 22:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I already redacted it and revoked talk page access, and it's not really directed at anyone. I think anything further at this point would just be leaning in to ].-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	::But even trolls need to eat... ] (]) 22:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::Silly Ballioni, weekends ]!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::Silly Ponyo, weekends are when we day drink. I had a nice Sav Blanc today. BH was drinking some fancy alcoholic root beer last night. We need DoRD to join us for his bourbon wisdom, though. ] (]) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::We need DoRD to <fill in the blank here>. {{)':}}-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Request to reduce protection level of ] ==

	Hey, I think admin protection was a little too harsh. I think Extended confirmed protection would be better since the only user that has been disruptively changing the page . ] (]) 16:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|OcelotCreeper}} I think you mean ]. Extended confirmed is better suited for articles, not redirects that are being protected so that they remain in place pending talk page consensus otherwise. It's essentially the same as ] and create protecting the redirect. Is there an edit you need to make to the redirect? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
	::No, but thanks for explaining. ] (]) 16:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Article Creation Tips? ==

	Hi,
	I saw some of the articles you've created and I was impressed. Do you think you could give me some tips on places to look to get started with writing an article from scratch?
	It looks like a bit of a daunting task given formatting challenges.
	If you are too busy feel free to disregard!

	Warm regards,
	] (]) 19:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

	== That "American" IP... ==

	...see . ] (]) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I knew I'd seen them before, and they were indeed using another open proxy.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Rothschild1234 ==

	Hi Ponyo. Rothschild1234 has been using the {{Ip\|114.5.250.143}} IP for socking. As you blocked a previous sock, I was wondering if you can keep an eye on this one, and block it if the disruption continues. Regards. --] (]) 13:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Thanks. Rothschild1234 was later editing with the {{Ip\|114.4.213.215}} IP, but it seems inactive now. --] (]) 21:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Got it. I also semi-protected a handful of their target articles.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

	== unhelpful edits ==
	You might want to remove this edit from an IP who seems to know an awful lot, as I would imagine it's going to be confusing to a newbie. ] (]) 15:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Draft: Kamil Tolon ==

	Hello, Could you check this page. It is from TRwiki. Thank you!--] (]) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
	:It looks like there are already a couple of helpful people checking the draft for you.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

	But they did not take to the main section :(--] (]) 19:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Note the bolded message in the draft review box that states "Review waiting, please be patient" and "This may take 5 weeks or more". There are ] in the meantime! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

	Okay Thank you! I need to wait so then...--] (]) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Maybe you can work on to make the time go faster, if it interests you? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Sorry ==

	Sorry <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{ping\|Mirchindia}} Your edits required a significant amount of clean up. Please leave drafts alone until you have more experience and basic editing skills.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Help me to develop this Article ==

	] i did not created this article may be if you help to develop this article for me please <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:There is no such article and there has never been an article under that title. Your edits are very concerning and follow a pattern that we have seen many times when it comes to ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Mirchindia}} What edit exactly brought you to ?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Thanks and a question ==

	Thanks for the rangeblock. I should spend the time figuring those out. We crossed paths; I removed talk page access while you were rangeblocking. My change didn't mess yours up, did it? --] (]) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	:It should be fine. I removed talk page access from the range as well when I blocked, just to avoid the inevitable time sink. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Rendering me pointless again. --] (]) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::Not pointless. We're mutually redundant.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::Uh... I didn't think a range even ''had'' a userpage? Or does it have thousands of them ? ] \| ] 20:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
	:::::The rangeblocked editor will have access to whichever talk page their IP is currently allocated to. By disabling talk page access when blocking the range, it stops that particular avenue of disruption (assuming they're known to abuse their IP talk pages).-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Even when she's not pinged, and even when she does it silently, Bish always shows up to mock me for not being able to rangeblock. That's right, Bish, I know what you're ''thinking''. --] (]) 21:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Perhaps your ] can do rangeblocks? I mean, he's quite clever. ] \| ] 21:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC).

	==Stolen userpage==
	Ponyo, I made several attempts to delete the userpage of new user {{noping\|MTV Hits}}, purloined from Legacypac, but I kept getting error messages saying it couldn't be deleted, or failed to be deleted, or similar. Isn't that odd? Did you have the same experience, since you merely blanked it? ] \| ] 20:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
	:Well, I see you now ''have'' deleted it. Hardly fair. :-( (On me, I mean.) ] \| ] 20:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
	:{{ec}}I had the same issue; ] and it eventually worked. I think I know who this is as they're on the same range of an LTA who has done similar things in the past. I'm just double checking a few things...-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	::I persisted too, say five or six times. Do you think it's possible that we tripped each other up in mid-air? Anyway, I hope you find... stuff. Very annoying character. ] \| ] 20:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
	:::If it was our fault it affected !-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::I hope it was all my fault, that would be powerful. I must say MSGJ got considerably more helpful messages than I did. ] \| ] 21:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
	:::::You ''are'' powerful. You have ] backing you up!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Cloudkitty sock? ==

	Hi Ponyo, maybe another Cloudkitty sock - ] (suspecting them because they also went to WT:RFA as one of their first actions to request administratorship - not super firm evidence, I know, but color me suspicious that two people did that in the same day). ] (]) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
	:There's CU evidence beyond just the standard IP and UA that make me believe this is the same individual. Thanks for letting me know.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

	==Thank you for trying==
	Hello P. Thanks for you efforts in talking to G. I was concerned when I saw to shut down the SA page. Best regards and enjoy your Sunday. ]\|] 03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Sigh. It's frustrating when there is someone who wants so badly to help but is both clueless in how to go about it and is not receptive to criticism. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	::So true P. Fortunately, my evening is being made magnificent by watching this video of ] singing that is airing in my PBS station. :-) Cheers. ]\|] 03:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::That's infinitely more enjoyable than what I'm doing. I grew up listening to ]. What a voice!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::That is even truer than your first post in this thread!!!! :-) ]\|] 04:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

	== I do not understand your edition on the ]'s page ==

	Hello, I do not fully understand your edit that you made on the Saki Nakajima's page here , I have tried to add the Saki Nakajima's birth year, what happens is that the users of Japanese Misplaced Pages erroneously deleted the date of birth of the seiyu, now that there was no source and guess that, one already exists and well, they add it again. ] (]) 04:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	:In order for a year of birth to be added, it needs to be supported by ]. Reliable sources include independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; ] websites such as movie and celebrity databases ''do not'' meet the criteria, which is why your edit was reverted. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

	==What the heck==
	You have gone too far you. You have reverted my edit yet it is true, what wrong with you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:You'll have to be more specific.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

	== ] Sock ==

	] looks awfully familiar. Best, ] (]) 19:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
	:It sure does {{U\|GPL93}}. Or at least it ''did'' before I deleted it. Sock account blocked as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

	== Thank you ==

	Hi Ponyo, just wanted to say a quick thank you for your help over at RFPP. Always appreciate the help! -- '''] ]''' 20:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
	:No problem. I should check in there more, so it's a guilty response.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

	== Re: WDDM Article ==

	Hi. Firstly thanks for protecting the article. Secondly, I don't believe it necessary for me to be making a case on the article's talk, as I have been purely removing unsourced speculation. Similarly why I continued to revert beyond 3RR, in accordance with the exceptions listed on the policy page. If you review the respective revisions you'll see that comparatively, the other entries (that were accidentally removed by your rv) all had citations to official MSFT documentation. While the other user persisted in introducing information (Along with abusive summaries) with no sourcing other than Reddit/Forum gossip and speculation. It'd be greatly appreciated if you could restore the lost sourced information, and prune the unsourced speculation. Thanks. ] (]) 01:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
	:As the protecting admin it's really not my role to choose sides and the amount of diffs involved is overwhelming. My best suggestion is to lay out your argument(s) on the article talk page and to leave a '''neutral''' message at relevant Wikiprojects requesting their input. From the article talk page, ], ] and ] appear to be related to the article. If the consensus is that a specific revision should be restored, please ping me and I'll lift the protection.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
	::I appreciate the response, and that as the protecting admin policy (or convention) may tie your hands somewhat, but I feel I must stress that there really isn't an argument for me to make beyond "Does unsourced speculation belong on Misplaced Pages?". I'd like to refer you to the two revisions prior to your intervention, as they (The unsourced additions relating to "Hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling") are the entirety of the dispute in question. The other information that was unfortunately pruned by your subsequent rv was sourced and neither in contention by either myself or the other user. My stance is essentially "Don't add unverified speculation until MSFT or another authoritative party provide appropriate documentation". Apologies for continuing to push this issue, but I feel strongly that the matter is clear cut with regard to Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks. ] (]) 02:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::, while humorous, touches on the reality that the version protected is always wrong to one side or the other. As there is no blatant vandalism or ] involved, there is no immediate need to restore the article to any specific version. It will benefit you in the long run as you will be able to point to the talk page discussion if your edits are reverted once the protection is removed or expires.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
	::::I disagree, there is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policies of WP:V and WP:NOR. I am unable to discuss the matter on the talk page as there is nothing ''to'' discuss beyond the aforementioned policies themselves. As MSFT have yet to release any documentation for the relevant bulletpoint this dispute is regarding, there is no recourse for further action. I strongly implore you to consider the matter further, and take a stand in stemming the tide of misinformation from individuals enshrining Reddit hearsay and speculation as fact. This is the last I shall say on the matter, as I do not wish to bother you further. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 02:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

	== A barnstar for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Original Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Hey! I just saw your page. Great work. Chandranshu Gupta 02:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
	\|}

	== ] ==

	You may wish to revoke TPA.--] (]) 07:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
	:{{done}}-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

	== ~~Increasing~~ of ~~security~~ ~~level~~ ==		== Opinion on Zhoban predecessor ==
			Hey, Ponyo. Happy holidays! I was wondering, would you be able to take a look at a now-archived query I brought up on the ]? I remain fairly convinced that because of the IP ranges and editing styles that before he created his Zhoban account, this vandal was JohnRamirez. RoySmith opined in 2021 that it wasn't really relevant to merge the pages as neither case is active nowadays, but I believe that consolidating it to one investigation could be helpful, in case he rears his ugly vitriol once more. What do you think? ''']'''<sub> (]•])</sub> 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Or, perhaps we could merge everything ''into'' the JohnRamirez investigation, given it preceded his Zhoban days? ''']'''<sub> (]•])</sub> 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree with Roy. There are enough active cases that reaching back a decade+ to evaluate and re-tag accounts is not a great use of volunteer time. Thank you, though, for keeping tabs on this LTA.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== 2030s ==
	Dear administrator,
	Please, increase the security level of the article 'bp mandal' as it the victim of wrong editing and removal and distortion of statement sourced by a reliable source by an unauthorized/ unregistered editor. The sentence is correct and sourced by reliable source, though some unauthorized editors are creating vandalism. ] (]) 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	:I've semi-protected the article for one week. It looks to me like the IPs involved were introducing punctuation and grammar errors and blanking sourced content.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

			Can you add 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 years on their own page I think it's time to add those years because we are like near the 2030s by 5 years sorry for asking you ] (]) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Please, increase the expiration date of protection to indefinite or for a year.Same unregistered person edits with different IP address. ] (]) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	:We'll start with a week and go from there.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

			:@] {{Not done}}: it's unclear what you're referring to. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:1.15em"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== check mate? ==
			::{{ping\|Chenkens}} Any pertinent info regarding individual years can be added to ] until there is enough notable and reliably-sourced information to create standalone articles on the individual years.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Didn't 2025 have an article back in like 2010 I looked on its edit history goes way back to 2006 why dont y'all do that to 2030 to 2039 as standalone articles and we are 5 years from 2030 just saying I will stop bothering you after this ] (]) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The article was created in 2002, however it's important to check the article diffs from the past and to note that things have heavily changed on Misplaced Pages since the time frame you're talking about. / ] <sup><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== You've got mail ==
	The apparent sock ] was a check user block, so I was unsure. But like you say, they have an uphill climb if they wish ti be unblocked. --<b>]</b> ] 16:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	:Ah, I see. That would be confusing.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

			{{You've got mail\|dashlesssig=]}} I explained you the situation, I'm not sure why I've been blocked. There's a user named 'Sinclairian' who repeatedly deletes edits from others, including mine, without providing any explanation. I'm sure you would agree that a proper explanation should accompany the reversal of any edits. Otherwise, what distinguishes a responsible editor from a dictatorial approach in this context ] 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Block ==
			:You are blocked because you continue to edit disruptively despite much advice on your talk page in March 2022 as to how to discuss your concerns with the article on the article talk page. You have multiple unblock requests on your talk page (you should have only 1, please delete the extra one), another admin will review the block.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you ==
	Thanks for blocking me for a week. You didn't even review the circumstances of the block, and didn't even let me request a unblock appeal because you blocked my talk page. Thumbs up. Sounds like you ] ] (]) 18:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	:She did not block your talk page, because as you may have noticed, you actually requested an unblock on it. Passive aggressive dishonest whining should be grounds for an indef block, IMHO, but for some reason we tolerate it here. In limited amounts. You got caught acting like a 12 year old, told the least believable story imaginable (and yet, for some reason, the most frequently attempted) as explanation, and '''you're''' the aggrieved party? You're lucky it wasn't indef. "My friend did it, on my computer, that I left at their house"! Good grief. Like we're all idiots or something. --] (]) 18:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	: {{ping\|Floquenbeam}} I got my talk page unblocked after I submitted a UTRS appeal. I literally said I didn't want to sound ] Why are you acting like it is impossible for another user to hop on someone else's computer? You obviously don't even know what happened. Why would I try to vandalize a page on a random day when I am autocomfirmed? obviously it wasn't me as I didn't log into my account after like an hour or so later after the vandalism happened. The worst part is that the person who blocked me was a girl. ] (]) 18:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	::Holy fuck. Did you really just say that? In the 21st century? Blocking indef. Troll or idiot or 10 years old, unclear which. --] (]) 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::If Matthew hated being blocked by a girl, imagine how he's going to feel now that he's been blocked by the deposed King from Ashara Kor.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, that's probably gonna sting a little. --] (]) 19:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

			]
	== Some more warring ==

			]
	Hey Ponyo, hope you are well. I saw you fully protected ] for edit warring. I'm seeing the same editing behavior over at ]. The dispute is between the same two editors. -- '''] ]''' 20:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
	:Ok, protected that one too. If the same usernames keep popping up I'll just reach for the block button instead of allowing this to spread further.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

			]
	==Thanks for saving me some time==
	Thanks for the protection and blocks around Ponyo. The IPs look to be the return of {{userlinks\|Icewhiz}} (though I should add that it could be someone else) and I was clicking on the SPI page when I found that you had dealt with it. SPIs and 3RRs are such a time sink so I appreciat not having to spend time on this one. Unless you think I should :-) Best regards. ]\|] 23:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
	:Sorry you had to deal with the fall out from this one.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
	::No worries P. You were hit by the shrapnel as well. As I wrote on El C's talk page I don't know if my acronym for that kind of troll will ever become part of the vernacular but they are just another CWaK. That is a "Coward With a Keyboard" and yes that can be pronounced as Quack or Qwack :-) Best regards. ]\|] 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::Very clever. CWanKer would work as well, with acronym or without.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
	::::Hashtag I like it :-) ]\|] 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

			]
	== Saïd Taghmaoui ==


	Hey Ponyo, Can you take a look at my reply to you in "]". It's been over two weeks since I notified you. Kind Regards -] (]) 00:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

			]
	== Why did you revert my talk page? ==

			I think they should be linked together. ] (]) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	You reverted my page to remove this:

			:I've reverted their disruptive edits. ] (]) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8
			::{{ping\|Theofunny}} If you see addition socking or block evasion, start an ] using the name of the oldest account for the case name.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], they are at it again. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Æ's old account wasn't working ==
	But that video is quite right: the Israeli cause is meet, right and just. Why are you removing the explanation of things that are right from this site? ] (]) 22:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
	:An IP user was spamming the link across multiple user talk pages with zero context and no exit summary. If you want to take the chance of clicking on an unknown mystery link from an unknown mystery IP that's your prerogative, but I hope your anti-virus software is up to date.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

			Hi Ponyo, I rarely disagree with your administrative actions. Although I understand why you chose to pblock the user rather than block them sitewide, based on these edits, and , plus their history, I think an indefinite sitewide block is in order. In addition to their repeated disruptive behavior, I don't think the user is mentally competent to edit the project.--] (]) 00:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Thank you==
	~~Thanks~~ ~~for~~ ~~blocking~~ ]. ~~I seriously didn't know how much longer that was going to go on.~~ ] (]) 23:01, 13 ~~June~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)		:They reinstated their edit to ].--] (]) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It's ~~not~~ ~~their~~ ~~first~~ go at ~~adding~~ ~~that~~ ~~particular~~ ~~BLP~~ ~~violation~~. ~~The~~ ~~article~~ is ~~semi~~-~~protected~~ ~~now~~.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 13 ~~June~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)		::{{ping\|Bbb23}} It was near the end of the wiki-work day for me, so I did what I could to start the immediate disruption but admittedly didn't look deeper in the history of the account. If you think an indef or timed site-wide block is more appropriate in this case, then please take whatever action you think appropriate.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I ~~was~~ ~~actually initially wondering "why was~~ the ~~article~~ ~~protected~~ ~~indefinitely?"~~ ~~Now,~~ ~~thanks~~ to ~~the~~ ~~gift~~ ~~of the "View history" tab, I know why...~~ ] (]) 23:07, 13 ~~June~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)		:::Do you think the edits I reverted at ] makes me ]?--] (]) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

	== A ~~barnstar~~ for ~~you!~~ ==		== Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet... ==

			I've suspected since ] first appeared that it was a sockpuppet for ] but they seemed to be behaving and making useful edits before their latest meltdown. Did I shirk some responsibility by not reporting my suspicions? ] (]) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
			:It could be that any SPI would have been closed without action of the evidence wasn't strong enough to make a determination. All buttoned up now though.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Bravo: you are excellent. ] (]) 17:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
	\|}
	:The red star is nice. I assume the gold star is reserved for those who don't make such errors in the first place.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

			== The Holiptholipt Saga ==
	== Issue on Kevin Andrew Tan article brought back and page-protected article ==

			Hello there, I'm writing this to thank you for the relief that the block of Holiptholipt's IP range has brought me! If the block expires and the topic returns, well, I suppose we will worry about it then (another admin suggested edit filter to me, which seems like a great idea). However, there is an IP range that was missed and which the ban evader continues to use - it has been mentioned by me and ] on ]. If you have time, would you be willing to extend the block to that range as well?
	Hi {{u\|Ponyo}} I see that you brought up again this issue and even made this page protected. I'm here to inform you that the issue COI/UPE has already been resolved. Accounts have already been disclosed and the article has gone through a numerous edits to improve notability. I'm asking for your assistance on this one since I can't "resubmit" the changes nor publish it. I hope you can review it and finally, move it back to the mainspace. Thank you. ] (]) 00:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
	:Just noting that after a request on my talk page I submitted this page to AfC on Kileyco's behalf as it seems that the COI/PE has been appropriately declared at this time. Best, ] (]) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
	::Thanks {{u\|Barkeep49}}. How will I know the status of the article on AfC submissions? I can't find it there. Also, what is the timeframe for this to move to the mainspace? ] (]) 03:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

			Thank you so much, and have a great week! ] 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Air Canada ==
			:Thanks for the note {{U\|Brat Forelli}}; I've updated the SPI.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You're welcome, and thank you! ] 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== January 2025 ==
	I want to remove Air Canada fleet section content because the content has been transferred to Air Canada fleet need your opinion ] (]) 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

			] Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to ] can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as ]. Misplaced Pages is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-harass2 --> ] (]) 22:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	and leave the summary of the fleet in Air Canada fleet section ] (]) 01:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
			:{{U\|Valorthal77}}, I'm an admin and a checkuser. Noting that you are creating and using multiple accounts on this Misplaced Pages every time your old ones get blocked for socking at ar.wiki is not harassment. I'm advising you to declare your accounts and stick to one so that you don't end up blocked here as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I am aware of all that, and I am not editing with two accounts simultaneously. Why did it occur to you to conduct this check at this specific time? Isn’t this a breach of policies on your part by revealing my identity publicly? What is your purpose behind this action? Do you intend to discourage me from contributing to Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I can see that you're not editing with two accounts simultaneously, which is why I didn't block you. But you ''are'' editing the same topics without declaring your previous accounts, which is an issue. There is no breach of policy, if was your edit history that made the connection to all of your previous accounts clear - I didn't even have to run a check! As there are many, many issues with the articles and drafts you create, you should declare your previous accounts. Editing not only the same topic area, but the same articles, without declaring the intersection of the accounts, can be seen as avoiding scrutiny, especially given your history of socking on another project. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Correction: I have not used sockpuppets in Arabic Misplaced Pages or any other project while having another active account. That old account has not been used there since November 2022. I had an issue with one of the administrators and decided to leave it behind. My matter with that Wiki is unrelated to the English project. I do not understand why you are taking this serious action and disclosing my identity publicly, especially when the original topic is entirely different. What you are doing could lead to significant consequences. ] (]) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm not disclosing your idenity publicly, I have no clue who you are outside of Misplaced Pages. What I have gathered through even just a brief look at your contributions is that you're editing with multiple accounts on this project without disclosing them. is extensive. And you are banned from editing for socking at ar.wiki per and . I had suggested that you declare the accounts on your talk page and restrict yourself to one account so that 1) your editing history is clear and 2) there is no concern that you are also evading scrutiny on this project. There to make the declaration.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::We have something called the email feature; you could have used it to communicate with me instead of creating an atmosphere of discomfort and intimidation here! ] (]) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I have only '''one '''active account, and I am not concerned with anything else. I do not edit using two accounts simultaneously because I am fully aware of this policy. My user page is my right, and I can put whatever I want on it.
			:::::::Question for you: Why did you bring up this topic now when we were discussing something entirely different? ] (]) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::{{ec}} Well, I'm concerned. Socking doesn't just mean using multiple accounts simultaneously. What you're doing is essentially stringing one ] after another, except they're invalid clean starts due to the fact that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it was clear from just a quick look at your editing history that you were operating multiple undeclared accounts contrary to ] given the myriad concerns raised regarding your article creations under your other accounts and especially your particiption in ] articles. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tpw}} In addition to the other things you're doing wrong, you've been editing logged out since August 21, 2023, with ]. And your edits with those IPs are as prolific and rapid-fire as your various named accounts. And you '''cannot''' put whatever you want on your userpage.--] (]) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::What does this have to do with me as well? Is there a problem with contributing to the encyclopedia in a calm manner? Do we need to ask for permission if we want to make quick edits? ] (]) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I created this account because my previous account was blocked on Arabic Misplaced Pages without making any edits. I did not create this account with bad intentions or to achieve anything specific. I did not ask for any privileges! ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. If you are editing the same articles here, including ] where your accounts are receiving ] notifications, you should be declaring all of your accounts in order to having issues on en.wiki as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::"''However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a '''negative '''reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past '''bad '''behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions''".
			::::::::::::None of this happened. You are falsely accusing me with incorrect allegations. I already told you the reason I created this account is to avoid having any account with issues (i.e. blocked on a wiki)! ] (]) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::You've been warned for edit warring. You've edited contentious topics and received CTOPs notifications. Myriad concerns have been raised about your article creations (many of which you just blank from your talk pages). You're creating new accounts without connecting them to your previous accounts despite these issues gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny (the exact wording of the ] being ''"Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see ]), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."'' '''You are creating alternative account that confuse editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions'''. Stop. Stick to one account. Log in to edit. It's really simple. You don't need to post here any more, just don't use multiple accounts on multiple projects.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:36, 21 January 2025

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Opinion on Zhoban predecessor

Hey, Ponyo. Happy holidays! I was wondering, would you be able to take a look at a now-archived query I brought up on the Zhoban SPI page? I remain fairly convinced that because of the IP ranges and editing styles that before he created his Zhoban account, this vandal was JohnRamirez. RoySmith opined in 2021 that it wasn't really relevant to merge the pages as neither case is active nowadays, but I believe that consolidating it to one investigation could be helpful, in case he rears his ugly vitriol once more. What do you think? BOTTO_(T•C) 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Or, perhaps we could merge everything into the JohnRamirez investigation, given it preceded his Zhoban days? BOTTO_(T•C) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Roy. There are enough active cases that reaching back a decade+ to evaluate and re-tag accounts is not a great use of volunteer time. Thank you, though, for keeping tabs on this LTA.-- Ponyo 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

2030s

Can you add 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 years on their own page I think it's time to add those years because we are like near the 2030s by 5 years sorry for asking you Chenkens (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chenkens

Not done: it's unclear what you're referring to. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chenkens: Any pertinent info regarding individual years can be added to 2030s until there is enough notable and reliably-sourced information to create standalone articles on the individual years.-- Ponyo 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't 2025 have an article back in like 2010 I looked on its edit history goes way back to 2006 why dont y'all do that to 2030 to 2039 as standalone articles and we are 5 years from 2030 just saying I will stop bothering you after this Chenkens (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The article was created in 2002, however it's important to check the article diffs from the past and to note that things have heavily changed on Misplaced Pages since the time frame you're talking about. / RemoveRedSky 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Elliyoun

I explained you the situation, I'm not sure why I've been blocked. There's a user named 'Sinclairian' who repeatedly deletes edits from others, including mine, without providing any explanation. I'm sure you would agree that a proper explanation should accompany the reversal of any edits. Otherwise, what distinguishes a responsible editor from a dictatorial approach in this context talk 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You are blocked because you continue to edit disruptively despite much advice on your talk page in March 2022 as to how to discuss your concerns with the article on the article talk page. You have multiple unblock requests on your talk page (you should have only 1, please delete the extra one), another admin will review the block.-- Ponyo 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you

User contributions for 2001:8003:DDB1:C600:B015:1D76:F1EC:EED4 - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for 2804:D59:1502:E190:C87B:7449:7AED:608D - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for Wladimiroclarine - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for 2804:D4B:9A19:8900:DC7:FA7C:29E5:65C7 - Misplaced Pages

Pilar Primo de Rivera: Revision history - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for 2804:D4B:9A08:D000:718F:F8C6:4B73:7AE6 - Misplaced Pages

I think they should be linked together. Theofunny (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted their disruptive edits. Theofunny (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theofunny: If you see addition socking or block evasion, start an WP:SPI using the name of the oldest account for the case name.-- Ponyo 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 - Misplaced Pages, they are at it again. Theofunny (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Æ's old account wasn't working

Hi Ponyo, I rarely disagree with your administrative actions. Although I understand why you chose to pblock the user rather than block them sitewide, based on these edits, AN3 and this one, plus their history, I think an indefinite sitewide block is in order. In addition to their repeated disruptive behavior, I don't think the user is mentally competent to edit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

They reinstated their edit to Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It was near the end of the wiki-work day for me, so I did what I could to start the immediate disruption but admittedly didn't look deeper in the history of the account. If you think an indef or timed site-wide block is more appropriate in this case, then please take whatever action you think appropriate.-- Ponyo 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the edits I reverted at Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars makes me WP:INVOLVED?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet...

I've suspected since PonapsqisHous first appeared that it was a sockpuppet for Spooninpot but they seemed to be behaving and making useful edits before their latest meltdown. Did I shirk some responsibility by not reporting my suspicions? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be that any SPI would have been closed without action of the evidence wasn't strong enough to make a determination. All buttoned up now though.-- Ponyo 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The Holiptholipt Saga

Hello there, I'm writing this to thank you for the relief that the block of Holiptholipt's IP range has brought me! If the block expires and the topic returns, well, I suppose we will worry about it then (another admin suggested edit filter to me, which seems like a great idea). However, there is an IP range that was missed and which the ban evader continues to use - it has been mentioned by me and User:JayCubby on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Holiptholipt. If you have time, would you be willing to extend the block to that range as well?

Thank you so much, and have a great week! Brat Forelli🦊 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Brat Forelli; I've updated the SPI.-- Ponyo 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Valorthal77 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Misplaced Pages is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Valorthal77 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Valorthal77, I'm an admin and a checkuser. Noting that you are creating and using multiple accounts on this Misplaced Pages every time your old ones get blocked for socking at ar.wiki is not harassment. I'm advising you to declare your accounts and stick to one so that you don't end up blocked here as well.-- Ponyo 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of all that, and I am not editing with two accounts simultaneously. Why did it occur to you to conduct this check at this specific time? Isn’t this a breach of policies on your part by revealing my identity publicly? What is your purpose behind this action? Do you intend to discourage me from contributing to Misplaced Pages? Valorthal77 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I can see that you're not editing with two accounts simultaneously, which is why I didn't block you. But you are editing the same topics without declaring your previous accounts, which is an issue. There is no breach of policy, if was your edit history that made the connection to all of your previous accounts clear - I didn't even have to run a check! As there are many, many issues with the articles and drafts you create, you should declare your previous accounts. Editing not only the same topic area, but the same articles, without declaring the intersection of the accounts, can be seen as avoiding scrutiny, especially given your history of socking on another project. -- Ponyo 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Correction: I have not used sockpuppets in Arabic Misplaced Pages or any other project while having another active account. That old account has not been used there since November 2022. I had an issue with one of the administrators and decided to leave it behind. My matter with that Wiki is unrelated to the English project. I do not understand why you are taking this serious action and disclosing my identity publicly, especially when the original topic is entirely different. What you are doing could lead to significant consequences. Valorthal77 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disclosing your idenity publicly, I have no clue who you are outside of Misplaced Pages. What I have gathered through even just a brief look at your contributions is that you're editing with multiple accounts on this project without disclosing them. This article overlap is extensive. And you are banned from editing for socking at ar.wiki per this notice and these tagged socks. I had suggested that you declare the accounts on your talk page and restrict yourself to one account so that 1) your editing history is clear and 2) there is no concern that you are also evading scrutiny on this project. There are many to many templates to make the declaration.-- Ponyo 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We have something called the email feature; you could have used it to communicate with me instead of creating an atmosphere of discomfort and intimidation here! Valorthal77 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- Ponyo 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have only one active account, and I am not concerned with anything else. I do not edit using two accounts simultaneously because I am fully aware of this policy. My user page is my right, and I can put whatever I want on it.

Question for you: Why did you bring up this topic now when we were discussing something entirely different? Valorthal77 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm concerned. Socking doesn't just mean using multiple accounts simultaneously. What you're doing is essentially stringing one WP:CLEANSTART after another, except they're invalid clean starts due to the fact that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it was clear from just a quick look at your editing history that you were operating multiple undeclared accounts contrary to WP:SCRUTINY given the myriad concerns raised regarding your article creations under your other accounts and especially your particiption in WP:CTOPS articles. -- Ponyo 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) In addition to the other things you're doing wrong, you've been editing logged out since August 21, 2023, with Special:contributions/2001:4645:B0B3:0:0:0:0:0/64. And your edits with those IPs are as prolific and rapid-fire as your various named accounts. And you cannot put whatever you want on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What does this have to do with me as well? Is there a problem with contributing to the encyclopedia in a calm manner? Do we need to ask for permission if we want to make quick edits? Valorthal77 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I created this account because my previous account was blocked on Arabic Misplaced Pages without making any edits. I did not create this account with bad intentions or to achieve anything specific. I did not ask for any privileges! Valorthal77 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. If you are editing the same articles here, including contentious topics where your accounts are receiving WP:CTOPS notifications, you should be declaring all of your accounts in order to having issues on en.wiki as well.-- Ponyo 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions".

None of this happened. You are falsely accusing me with incorrect allegations. I already told you the reason I created this account is to avoid having any account with issues (i.e. blocked on a wiki)! Valorthal77 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You've been warned for edit warring. You've edited contentious topics and received CTOPs notifications. Myriad concerns have been raised about your article creations (many of which you just blank from your talk pages). You're creating new accounts without connecting them to your previous accounts despite these issues gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny (the exact wording of the policy being "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." You are creating alternative account that confuse editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Stop. Stick to one account. Log in to edit. It's really simple. You don't need to post here any more, just don't use multiple accounts on multiple projects.-- Ponyo 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)