User talk:Ponyo

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message. If you have come here about a page I deleted, you will probably find the explanation here; if that does not answer your question, click the link just above to leave me a message. Please mention the name of the page, and sign your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ so that I know who you are. If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I am watching it. If you leave a message here I will usually reply here, so please click the 'watch' tab at the top of your page in order to add my talk page to your watchlist.

Regarding deletion of content of Surveen Chawla

You have deleted my edited content to that page by saying that it is cited to a unreliable source. Now I am providing you link of her official fan site where you can find my addition was not wrong. The link is "http://www.isurveenchawla.com/vital-stats-height-weight-date-of-birth-age/".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravdas1 (talk • contribs)

• Multiple conflicting birth dates have been provided at Surveen Chawla, none of which have ever been supported by sources meeting the criteria required to support contentious material about a living subject. A fansite cannot be used unless it is controlled by the subject themselves or a recognized authority. Again, as I requested on your talk page, please read the requirements for reliable sources and do not restore the contentious material without first gaining consensus on the talk page that any potential source presented meets WP:RS.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Moved to Talk:Surveen Chawla.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Smatprt sock puppets

I'm not familiar with this area of WP. What's next? Do I file a WP:AE request or is that taken care of automatically? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

And BTW, Ponyo, thanks for the good work. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello P. I hope that your summer is going well. Recently I have notice a spate of trolls (for example) who go around creating new user and/or user talk pages like this one User talk:Nishatanvi. A welcome message or some other note is used to create the new user. My question is should these pages be deleted? They may be harmless at the moment but they do take up server space. Furthermore they might be used as a back door for the troll to return down the road. I took a look at the speedy deletion templates and I wasn't sure if there was one to fit this situation. Any help or knowledge that you or your talk page watchers can provide will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, I'm battling an epic perfect storm of head cold and allergies. I slept nearly 16 hours yesterday. As soon as the fog around my brain dissipates I'll take a look. If any friendly (talk page stalker) wish to provide some advice in the meantime there may be a wikikitten or somesuch in it for you!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So sorry to read this. Wish I could send you some Chicken soup to help your healing and some Duck Soup to make you smile. Get well soon!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes these are school mates doing it for lulz, but in this case the accounts are technically unrelated. It's likely a matter of the troll account making acceptable edits, both in article and in user space, in order to get their offensive username plastered in as many places as possible prior to being blocked. I replaced the welcome message on Nishatanvi's talk page with my own, but I don't see anything worth deleting in this specific instance. If it was a known sock creating the page it can be deleted under G5, or if it's pure vandalism/intent to disrupt G3 could apply. Hope this is coherent, I'm not 100% better yet (but your virtual chicken soup was helpful!). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On second thought I've rev-deleted the username from the troll account's contributions as both blatantly disruptive and a BLP violation.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at things and for taking the time to reply. It is so weird for new users (offensive user names or not) to be creating other new user pages for people who don't exist as editors. Ah well, the longer I edit here the Curiouser and curiouser! it gets :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Recent Changes log displays new accounts as they are created, even if they haven't edited yet. They could be targeting newly created accounts (such as Nisatanvi, who received the welcome message within a minute of creating their account) from Recent Changes or from here. I'm rarely surprised by anything I see around here anymore, and when I am it's generally not a pleasant surprise, unfortunately.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Farid Simaika

Hi. Farid Simaika is an Egyptian sporting hero. When I set out on researching him, I was struck by how little was known about his life!

I used the following references:

Archives of the USA government and US army

World war II books

American newspaper clippings. In fact, I acquired over 200 clippings from American newspapers and went through them one by one. Some of them were in poor shape (and whoever had scanned them had not scanned the date at the top on the page!). I felt it would have been inappropriate to list 200 references for the purpose of a wikipedia article (in the reference list).

I also interviewed members of the Simaika family who gave me valuable information which they had personally witnessed and/or heard in relation to Farid Simaika's life.

I understand that you feel that some material is not being adequately referenced. I am sure that you appreciate the difficulty of getting references relating to a mere sporting champion who died back in 1942 at the young age of 35. After all, he was a mere diver and not a leading politian and eminent nuclear physicist! He lived in the era where there was no internet or wikipedia.

Thank you for highlighting any particular parts(s) of the text you feel need more references and I can work on them.

Thank you for appreciating that I have spent eleven months researching Farid Simaika's life in order to share my knowledge with Egyptian youth and humanity.

I would be grateful if you allowed me to amend Farid Simaika's page on wiki (without undoing my changes). Just tell me which part(s) you object to and I can work on it/them.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.188.42 (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• The only material that can be added to the article is that which is verifiable. You are overwriting the current article to include your original research, such as personal interviews with family members, which is not allowed. You can integrate the reliable sourced material you have into the current article as long as it is neutrally worded and supported by a citation to the newspaper article you obtained the information from. MOS:BIO outlines the preferred style for biography article on Wikipedia, it may be helpful to review that page if you do intend to add material to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

YOU DELETED MY PAGE

Hello,

My page was deleting on grounds of "promotion". I don't know what that means even after visiting ALL of the links that were provided on the deletion page. Could the page be placed back up WITH practical suggestions so it would be in compliance with Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stltigga (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The page cannot be restored for the reasons I explained in my message on your talk page. Wikipedia does not allow promotion anywhere, whether it be in article or user space. Any page that contains the peacock/promotional terms "critically acclaimed", "virtuoso", "respected", "superb", "unquestionable ability", "numerously featured...on multiple occasions" (which imparts no information whatsoever and serves as puffery), and "extraordinaire" in the opening paragraph of a short two paragraph blurb obviously serves to promote the subject and is not appropriate for inclusion as it is contrary to Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality. If you would like to create a neutral and reliably sourced article on Mickey Thomas Terry I would suggest using Articles for Creation which will guide you through the process and will allow other editors to review the work prior to (potentially) moving the article to main space. Note that if you have any affiliation whatsoever with Mickey Terry you should be aware of the Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Poudar

Do you remember your note in the last filing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Admirenepal/Archive? I think the user has created more socks and is doing similar stuff all over again. Should I open yet another SPI? - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You can add them to the SPI report, or if you'd like you can list them here and I can take a look.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

See these contributions], those of 116.68.213.60 and possibly User:BhagyaMani. I realise that you might not be prepared to even look at the last two but the first is a duck and I'll be amazed if there are not some other accounts already. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, forget BhagyaMani. That is my mistake, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Jrpoudar is a confirmed sock. I've blocked the account and semi-protected a number of target articles. Thanks for the heads up!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll see you (and him) in a week or so ;) - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The range(s) they are on is a freaking nightmare. I wish I could block it, but the collateral looks daunting. I may reconsider if the disruption continues and semi-protection proves ineffective.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Now editing as Nepalgovernment (talk · contribs), which would be a block-able username anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and G5ed a couple redirect creations. They were using a proxy to create the account, so I've blocked that and put together a small rangeblock to hopefully slow them down. The intent is for them to get bored and find a new hobby. We'll see if that happens.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I really don't want to start adding Nepalese articles to my burgeoning watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you take bribes?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

According to one blog entry that has been repeatedly revdel'd, yes. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I did see that. The amount of abuse that is thrown your way is unbelieveable. I hope you know how appreciated you are! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes. While I'm in the vicinity, do you have any opinion (just as a normal user, no fancy rights etc) regarding Wikipedia:Ani#Vote-stacking_and_warring_at_deletion_discussions? I was in a rush when I wrote that and, of course, meant "checkuser will not link", not SPI won't. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a tough call. CUs rarely link IPs to accounts except for instances of long term abuse or particularly disruptive behaviour. There is wiggle room in the privacy policy to do so, however I tend to err on the side of caution as the line is a vague one and who wants to be hauled before AUSC or the Ombudsmen? You could always email your concerns to the Checkuser mailing list, or to an individual CU. This affords a bit more privacy to investigate without publicly tying an IP to an account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were any exceptions but, in any event, I reckon this is a duck. If an article involves promotion of the Aam Aadmi Party (that is, showing it in a good light or rebutting something that might make it seem less good), you can be sure GKCH is around somewhere and the idea of an IP turning up at DRV simply boggles my mind. Is it possible for me to run the user compare report without actually going to the hassle of creating a report at SPI? I'd like to, erm, get my ducks in a row before I take that step. Presumably, the tool is on Labs somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I generally us this report for account overlaps.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I assume the creator of Nepali Bihari (redirecting to Nepalese people of Indian ancestry) may be a fellow know to you two. Sam ^Sing! 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's him all right. I put a short time soft block on his typical range to prevent account creation, so he's resorting to proxies. If nothing else it's helping me find and block some abused proxies!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, naturally. But what's up with this Kamikaze socking? A new user, Narayanpoudel96 has now created three redirects: Nepali Biharis, Nepali biharis, and Nepali Bihari. Sam ^Sing! 07:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ... and I should add they redirect to Nepali bihari created by Amarshrestha27. Both new accounts were created after the latest block of Madhesi. Sam ^Sing! 07:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

With so many socks over a prolonged period, would it not be beneficial to tag those that have been blocked since the last SPI with the relevant template? It's fine doing CU blocks etc but keeping the trail in place via the suspected/confirmed category might be handy for other admins if ever you were not around for a few days. For example, the emphasis is shifting from Poudar-related material to Nepalese immigrants. @EdJohnston: has some familiarity with the history. Sam, the sockmaster has repeatedly claimed to be aged 17: he'll likely keep this up until gets bored or "grows up". - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the accounts I've blocked as confirmed (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Admirenepal). This is the advantage of an SPI, it keeps all of the info in one place and the clerks generally make sure the applicable tags are in place. I could create protect Nepali Bihari, but it's serving as somewhat of a honeypot for quick detection. This sockmaster is very active right now, but they're not very effective as their edits are fairly predictable and they essentially out themselves with their poor edits and redirects. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm beginning to think it would have been better filing at SPI even though the backlog seems to be horrendous. Is there any way I could make a note of this thread in the archive? Agree re: the honeypot, btw. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The good news is that I watch all of the SPIs I run checks on, so if I'm online you'll receive pretty much the same response as if you left a message here. Assuming there will be a new SPI opened in the near future I'll add a link to this thread at that time, which is better than trying to add info to the archive. I may forget though, please feel free to remind me!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll polish my size 12s (UK) in readiness for giving you a kick if needed. I doubt that it will be. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reema_Welling is driving me mad. They're causing chaos of the WP:CIR variety and the report has been there for ages. Has there been a recent increase in SPI reports or is there a decline in competent/authorised people overseeing things there? I can understand that it must be frustrating work and that people need a break from it. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely a shortage of admins willing to review and act on reports that don't require CU or are declined as stale. Recently Atama was helping with the backlog and some admins pop in and out, but in depth behavioural reviews are time consuming and the burn-out rate is high.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see why there might be problems. I've just taken another tack with this. If they continue contributing as they have been doing then I might find it easier to get an admin involved that waiting on SPI. It would be escalating blocks, of course, but at least it will give me and SPI some breathing space. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed their edits and the disruption is extensive. I've blocked them for 48 hours for BLP and copyright violations and general disruptive editing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply for Abhirami (actress)

Whatever I have added to the article definitely comes from the reliable sources. She herself said all that in an interview for Mangalam Publications, a leading newspaper in Kerala, India. Please go through references 1 & 7 in references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai98 (talk • contribs)

I didn't realize that you were expanding on content that was already supported by the extant references. I apologize for the confusion, but it would certainly have helped if you had included an edit summary explaining where the info came from. A cursory review of your last 200 edits shows that you haven't ever used an edit summary even when adding 6,000+ kb of material to an article, despite consensus being that an edit summary should be provided for all edits. An edit summary certainly would have helped in this case! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yowza

So I get on WikiP this morning and see the whole Vagout (son of - er I mean sock of) TCLB. This is one of several things going on around here that remind me of why the term Silly season exists. There does seem to be more of it this year than in the past but that could just be a fading memory on my part :-) Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No kidding. I'm feeling better though, so there's that at least! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That is Good News. I'm glad about that. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the opposite of Shut the Door. Have a Seat, which is NEVER "good news".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hah - you got that right. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.166.179.92

He did edit warring for Clarity (Zedd song). It was User:ChrisHamburg's IP address. Both IP and user has same edits on Blue (Da Ba Dee). Can you create SPI for ChrisHamburg? 183.171.174.218 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if there was significant evidence of disruption (which there isn't) and even if I did run a check (which I haven't), barring exceptional circumstances I couldn't publicly tie an IP to a specific account. This looks to be a content dispute, so please follow the steps at dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with IP vandal 68.45.208.157 [1]

I am a bit exhausted from continuously having to monitor and revert this user's malicious editing patterns and general vandalism of articles, by their reverting of my own and others' cited contributions. Especially at Chrysler Neon in this diff and many others [2]. They have been warned several times about their actions, yet continue to do otherwise. I hope it's sufficient to at least block them from editing that article, as clearly that vehicle was factory produced from November 1993 and not 1995 as the vandal keeps changing it to. Thanks for your help, as I already contacted User: JohnCD and have not heard anything from him.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Since they just came off a one month block for the same disruptive and unsourced edits I have re-blocked the UP for three months.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and being so prompt and responsive. Unfortunately, according to DES here apparently this recently banned user might be doing sock puppetry through another IP account[3]. They undid my correction, as did User:68.45.208.157 numerous times. Sorry about this, but I want to avoid WP:3RR on my part.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since they continue to IP hop to disrupt the article and to evade their block I've semi-protected Chrysler Neon for two weeks. Hope this provides you with some relief.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, sorry if disturbing, but for the page of Aline Lahoud. i did an edit or her birthday date which must be 1986 and not 1981, i am her personal assistant so the orders came directly from Aline, i provided a proof of it from her Official facebook page because we have all the info, and if you want to check just watch her auditions at the Voice France you'll see her age. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madonna Al (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Aline Lahoud talk page of the article, this is where any discussion should take place. There is a discrepancy in her age which has been reported variously as 1986 and 1981. As her assistant you have a conflict of interest and you should not be editing the article directly, especially to add disputed content, but instead request changes on the article talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong written religion of Deepika Singh

I am sorry but your written article has technical mistakes.The article about Deepika Singh has basic mistakes as it's written that her religion is Punjabi while she is Hindu and punjabi is not a religion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.82.64 (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thank you for pointing this out. "Punjabi" was added in this diff of Deepika Singh, and has now been removed. Sam ^Sing! 08:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that Sam!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi ponyo, can i change my ip for editing on wikipedia Doelanha (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, that would depend on your ISP.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a sock from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aldota. Ponyo, any chance you can get this one checked so it can be closed and archived? Tanbircdq (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no check to be done in this case. There is no evidence that the two accounts listed are related to Aldota, and the IP who made the report is stale. The report itself is malformed as it was simply tacked on to the SPI case without the proper transclusions. I'm not sure if reverting to DeltaQuad's archiving here will solve the problem, but the report can be safely be deleted. @Bbb23:, do you know if reverting back to the dif above will effectively remove the report? Or does it need to be manually archived/deleted? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just Curious

Did you get your name from the Hayao Miyazaki movie of the same name? Do you like it? Sorry if I sound childish. Sincerely, Dalekusa (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm very aware of the film, my account actually predates it (2006). My username is actually a play on an old nickname.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

HoshiNoKaabii2000

Pretty bad LTA. It can't get much worse for the project. Has anyone talked to him about a 6 month wait then unblock with monitoring? Bogus claims, you say, but he really seems ready to deal. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never run into this particular sockmaster before today (at least I don't think I have). I'm not sure whether Standard Offer has ever been extended to them, but I don't hold much hope that anyone who regularly makes edits such as this has the maturity to abide by the standard offer and to edit constructively upon their return. But I'm jaded; if you think it's worth extending them the opportunity then be all means...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

jaded = realistic.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! That's a pretty nasty post he made. I see your point. My hope for him is small, but it can hardly get worse. I'll bring it up with Bonusballs. He probably knows the master best. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Anna, I didn't think anyone actually used the word "yikes". --Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It was good in the 50s and is still good today! :) Retro is good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jinkies! Everyone knows all the cool kids still say "yikes"!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

God, I never even heard of jinkies - had to look it up. These are both cartoon exclamations. Go ahead, Ponyo, tell me how many cool kids use the word yikes. I want a sworn affidavit from each kid that includes their age. You can submit them to ArbCom for dispassionate review. I'm sure it'll grab some of the older ones as the younger ones shake their heads (the older ones have trouble shaking their heads, creaking noises and all). I know. We'll change ArbCom policy. From now one, they can accept only cases that involve cartoon characters. That would lighten their load and be a lot more fun. Gun control??!! Ka-Pow! Jumpin' Jehosophat!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I like this plan. All Arbcom discussions would be available in Ogg files that consist of Charlie's Brown's teacher's voice ("wah wah wah...wah wah wah wah") and each case will end with "Th-th-th-that's all folks!".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent bookends. Then those stilted notices - "for the Abritration Committee" - can be dispensed with in favor of Porky Pig.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I want to say I did, though looking around on my computer, CU wiki, my email, I can't find a single mention of it anywhere. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okie dokie.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable...

Hi Jeb.

I noticed by the log that you're around. I just wanted to ask what you make of this user page. It might be edging into something not allowed, but i'm not too sure, thought to run it by someone with experience.

Grazie. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did it!)} 22:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest it gives me the creeps as it comes off as somewhat baiting. Either they're young and the message is mildly inappropriate, or it's outright trolling. I'm going to blank it and leave a note on their talk page explaining. We'll see what happens next. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and U5'd it...WP:NOT comes to mind way too much to keep it imo, innocent or not. Maybe it's preemptive for WP:CHILDPROTECT but I'd rather air on caution than not. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me and likely the right way to go. There were too many red flags there.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reversal of my edit

Hi Ponyo

You reversed my edit yesterday because of lack of citation. I tried so hard to figure out how to cite proof on wiki, but not being a technical person I failed!

I have just done another edit and written a source for you to look at in the "comments" box before I saved the changes.

Would dearly love to know how to do this properly . . .

Kind regards Schoolforscoundrels (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noting your sources. I have modified the article somewhat as has another editor. As I noted on your talk page, exact birthdates of minors are generally not included in their parent's article (you can read more about this at WP:BLPNAME.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

HELP ASAP! SOCKPUPPET

Hi, I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that new user Singegurus is a sockpuppet of Oglesruins a previous account (Reranian) another sockpuppet of Oglesruins was editing the List of UFC events changing the venue of one of the Upcoming Events from Arena Ciudad de México to Mexico City Arena and now he has started to and looking at his contributions he has been moving loads of pages to other names just like the previous accounts did, I am new to this sort of thing and haven't got a clue what to do. Can you help me please, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can give you one clue: don't use all caps.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your a very useful editor, thank you the problem is now fixed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(tps)  Confirmed and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I need to go away more often, I come back and everything's taken care of! Thanks to DoRD and Bbb23.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I didn't do anything; DoRD did. Of couse I couldn't even do what he did as I don't have the POWER (speaking of all caps). We should all get away more often. I'm amazed at how Wikipedia survives without me. :-) Plus, it's healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Silly Bbb23, don't you know that you have to get the MONEY to get the POWER?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There must be easier ways. Al Pacino, Brian De Palma, and Oliver Stone - talk about an over-the-top trio. Me, I believe in earning a living.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding content of Deepika Singh

Hello, I would like to point out that I did not add the Height parameter (article Deepika Singh). I just adjusted the rowspan of the table present in the said article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky24 (talk • contribs)

• Sorry about that, I hit the wrong talk page from the history, I meant to warn the IP.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent interrogation

Hi Ponyo, I've been watching your recent interrogation with curiosity. If someone says they're not a paid editor, I'm not sure how anyone will prove otherwise. However, many of the editor's first few articles were connected to Gareth Johnson (writer) who claimed, amonst other things, to run a publicity agency. I had my suspicions at the time, but they're likely to remain suspicions only (particularly because the aforementioned article was deleted). If someone starts blanking articles for no good reason they're liable to come unstuck anyway. By for now! Sionk (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's strange, I asked a few specific questions but only received an answer to one of them, specifically if they were editing for financial gain. I didn't expect an admission, but you never know. For months individuals have been blanking the same sourced info from Manu Sharma, an article that came to my attention due to innumerable BLP violations. I've tried different lengths of protection, but it always seems to be a target due to the Murder of Jessica Lal connection. Mainly it's rotating IPs blanking the content, but there have been a couple occasions when relatively established editors have done so, also without explanation. When pressed as to the reason I've only received either complete silence or incorrect excuses in return (e.g. the information is not sourced (but it is) or the links don't work (but they do)). At this point I'm convinced that someone has posted a monetary reward for the removal of the content as both established editors who've blanked the content show the hallmarks of paid editing accounts. Maybe I need to put Dennis Brown on the case? He has a great sniffer for paid editing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Last bit of serious sniffing, I blocked over 300 socks in one sitting, so it is entirely possible for a bunch of different people doing the same thing really being controlled by a single person. I can't promise anything, but I will look around and see what I see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm following this as far down the rabbit hole as I can go, which is surprisingly complicated for so few edits. Because of the nature of it, I will have to email you the results Ponyo, as I don't like to reveal methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• You have mail, again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I probably should add for Sionk's benefit that my investigation didn't provide anything conclusive enough for any action. Farmer Brown (alt of Dennis Brown) 11:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

94.41.116.190's new account

I just found out IP's has new account Special:Contributions/Mr. LuxeTH, started in January, most recent Paramore, was the same edit as Under My Skin and Avril Lavigne album. And also another IP Special:Contributions/95.105.28.11 has only one edit, was similar edit pattern. 183.171.170.230 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 95.105.28.11's only edit was over two weeks ago. If you believe that Mr. LuxeTH is related to IP 94.41.116.190 and is using that account to evade a block, please open an investigation and include diffs outlining the evidence. As a checkuser there are only rare circumstances wherein I can confirm an account is using a specific IP. This is not one of those circumstances. I could look at behavioural similarities, however I will be offline for several days, hence my pointer to the SPI page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gay Soper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star Quality. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hi, could you move Bound For Glory (2014) to Bound for Glory (2014). Both pages are needlessly been created one a blank page with a redirect and the other the proper article, because someone tried to create the page and found out they couldn't because it already existed they decided to created another with a uppercase F, thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the alternative (incorrect) title as it was created and heavily edited by a globally locked account and is a duplicate of an extant article (CSD:A10). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and just a quick note to say I hope all is forgotten about the past as I am a different editor now who now thinks more carefully. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your hard work and collaboration with others to avoid edit warring is to be commended. Well done.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies again for my past stupidity, I now understand that for Wikipedia to work editors have to discuss and collaborate with each other. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

I want to thank you for the excellent article about Judge Jerold Krieger, which I have just now discovered. He was my late life partner - I am Jon Smith, and I am now living in Santa Fe, New Mexico. (Redacted) 76.26.102.99 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the note, I only made one small edit to the article. It was actually created by Billyboy01 and edited extensively by RichardMathews. Credit were credit is due! (P.S I removed your email address for privacy reasons).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Bumpass

Thank you for your message about Roger Bumpass. I added (that is to say, cut and pasted) the line about his 'death' directly from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries I was unaware that Wikipedia was not a reliable reference location. I will make a note of that fact, so as not to use it for verification purposes. Baron Zamedi (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the conjecture from List of premature obituaries as well as it's unsupported conjecture. Thank you for letting me know where that particular tidbit came from Baron Zamedi.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Charley Webb

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Taggart's Picture

Jeremy Taggart has publicly announced how he dislikes his current Wikipedia picture [Jay and Dan Podcast] and acknowledged [on twitter] that we uploaded the new picture. Unless Jeremy specifically told you to take down the picture I don't see why that picture is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyNumberOneFan (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk to keep the conversation in one place. Please respond there as I'm watching your talk page and will if you respond further.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:DragonTiger23 #2

It appears that DragonTiger23 [[4]] [[5]] is once again socking. This time the case seems to be more clear: Dunderstar (an old blocked sock account) nominated an article for gar instead of gan: [[6]] and now a brand new account [[7]] attempts to correct this and follows the right procedure [[8]] nominating the same article.

I'm afraid that Dt23 is again into sockfarming in his old fashion.Alexikoua (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically it's possible that this is DragonTiger23 using proxies for block evasion, but it's not nearly strong enough to conclusively tie the account to the master. However, Soprannn is controlled by an individual who created several accounts in quick succession to edit the same topic, which is typical sock behaviour and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I've blocked those accounts.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Great chefs, great cities

Dear Sir or Madam Ponyo, Do you know the name of the woman who hosted the early season of Great Chefs, Great Cities? Originally her name was in the title of the show and she appeared on it, interviewing the chefs. When the show changed format and the narrator no longer appeared onscreen she was gone and gone from the credits as well. Kind of un-personed. Kind of spooky. Hope you can help. Thank you, Kat Krischild. (Redacted) 99.121.56.168 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue. Perhaps someone at the Reference Desk may know? Note that I've removed your email address for privacy reasons.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankie Grande

Thank you very much for protecting the Frankie Grande page. Are you able to tell if the IPs are sockpuppets? JHUbal27 had already been edit warring, and I suspect that he logged off to avoid a 3rr block. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Checkusers cannot (or more accurately very rarely) directly link accounts to IPs per the Foundation's Privacy Policy. In this case the IPs were dynamic, so short-term semi-protection seemed the best way to go.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Frankie Grande page, JHUbal27 has now redirected again and seems to have admitted to sockpuppetry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they flamed out, first posting a retirement message and then throwing themselves into a revert war at the Frankie Grande page upon which they were blocked. I have a feeling we'll see JHUbal27 again, under this account or another.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like JHU has returned as this character. You may be off wiki (and I hope that your are having a wonderful time) so I'll file a RFPP just in case. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa and Newyorkbrad have done the needy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock

Do you mind checking this out? You will have a blast reading his "evidence" against me. AcidSnow (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the SPI has been closed as baseless.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh... the humanity!

Well, Ponyo. Guess what? You blocked me without a reason very bad, you lied to me, these vandalizing users screwed up these pages, you ruined my life, and worst of all... YOU made me very angry! I'm not vandalizing Wikipedia! Promise you will never, NEVER do this terrible thing again! --68.170.223.134 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shane Cyrus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disputed block

I don't see what you blocked User:68.170.223.134 for, as the only disputed edits that user made since the last block that I was able to spot were at Atomic Betty, and those have already been restored in their entirety (excepting minor changes, of course). In fact, the user's overall editing at that page has been highly useful to the project in my opinion. I strongly suggest that you unblock that user. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been requested by multiple editors to include sources when adding or changing content and were blocked for ignoring the warnings on their talk page, choosing to communicate solely via ALL CAPS edit summaries. Immediately following the expiry of their block they pick up exactly where they left off by adding unsourced material and original research across multiple articles. I have no intention of unblocking the editor without a commitment from them to state their sources when making changes and updates. It would be helpful if they would endeavour to seek help from a mentor; would you be willing to take on that responsibility?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read and perhaps comment at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Blocking for adding unsourced material. In short, I gather that blocking users for adding unsourced material - especially without any warning whatsoever, as in this case - is frowned upon at Wikipedia. Note that aside from the Atomic Betty edits - where the reverts have themselves been reverted, as I mentioned - not a single other edit this user has made since the last block has been disputed, as far as I could tell.

Please understand that I have not exactly had a great experience at Wikipedia myself with regards to sanctions, so I am very sensitive to any mistreatment of other editors, whether perceived or otherwise. (I also think that excessive sanctions do much to drive would-be contributors away from the project.) By the same token, I don't think I'm ready to mentor anyone here, unfortunately. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To say a user who has multiple warnings on their talk page and who just come off a previous block for the same edits was blocked "without any warning whatsoever" is untrue. The link you provided is to a talk page and from what I can see has one editor questioning blocks for unsourced material and two editors responding to the question with differing opinions (I haven't included the IPs opinion as I couldn't parse it). I don't see how that applies at all other than to show that a very small handful of individuals had differing opinions on a topic. The IP was blocked for disruptive editing, that is for failure to include their sources and adding original research and does not discuss their edits with others when reverted (see for example exaples of disruptive editing #2 and #4). I'm sorry that you have had a poor personal experience with Wikipedia and welcome your questions regarding the block, however if the IP is unblocked I have no doubt they will continue to add their own original research and unsourced content to articles and refuse to discuss the changes with others - I've blocked the IP in order to prevent this from happening. I'll leave a message on their talk page outlining a very quick route to an unblock, let me know what you think. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat

Just wanted to let you know before I stopped contributing to Wikipedia, that when I said that I felt that you should assume good faith and allow me to fix articles that another user was purposely nominating for speedy deletion because I had created those articles while I was blocked. I was not asking for a full unblock, and had admitted to making a mistake and wanting to correct it, and correct the pages to avoid them being deleted, rather than just losing all of my work. I was not trying to point a finger, I was just begging for mercy in order to save literally YEARS worth of positive contributions that I have made to Wikipedia. I think as a someone nomintated to your position you should be encouraging positive contributions rather than just enforcing punishment because you can. Looking at your talk page I see I'm not the first person who has had a problem with your style of "justice." You and the editor who was speedily deleting my articles are completely out of the spirit of Wikipedia and have truly ruined the experience for me. So please don't reply, as you can see I no longer contribute to Wikipedia, and will no longer contribute. Just think about it so maybe you can prevent others from leaving in the future as I have.

War wizard90 (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In your second unblock request, which I declined, you continued to allege that you were "under attack" when the articles were being tagged for deletion for perfectly acceptable reasons and were deleted as promotional and copyright violations. There was absolutely nothing improper with the deletion requests of these articles, and your appeal to be unblocked was denied as you still viewed this as a "personal vendetta" against you. Given that the reaction to the initial tagging of your articles led to you calling the article tagger by various homosexual epithets and essentially told them to off themselves (now rev-delete of course), and that you still viewed it as an attack on you personally, the block was declined accordingly in order to prevent further disruption. You can choose to leave Wikipedia or you could stay and try to address the problems that led to your block. The choice is yours. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I noticed in the UTRS statistics today that you've handled more than twice as many tickets as the next-most-active admin there. Thank you for all your tireless work! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah shucks; thanks Fluff! I'm trying to work through some of the backlog now...-Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal User

• User:Sahib9022
• User:Sahib0921

This user is using multiple accounts and creating vandal articles, including blatant and obvious misinformation.

• Ek Naaye Badi Aii
• Suhag Raat Ek Mohabat Ki Liye
• Behna...Ek Safar Ki Khushiyon Aur Pyaar
• Lakshmi (TV series)
• Sapnon Hai Pyaar Ki Kahaani
• Pihu Ki Parivaar Aur Sasural
• Ghar Aii Hamari Pyaare Bahu
• Ghar Ek Sapna Hai

Babita arora 10:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no editing overlap between the accounts, and neither is blocked, so I don't see any particular issues with regard to the two accounts. There is nothing prohibiting an editor from abandoning an account and starting a new one, as long as it's not done in a way to avoid detection. It would be preferable to link the old account to the new however. That being said, if the editor is creating articles that include blatant misinformation, that definitely is a problem. The first step would be to bring your concerns regarding the accuracy of the information provided to the editor in question. If a reasonable explanation isn't forthcoming and the disruption continues I would suggest starting a report at AN/I that includes diffs showing the disruption caused. Admins can then review the edits and decide whether sanctions are warranted. I'll be away for a couple of days so I won't be able to help much if it does indeed end up at AN/I.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2014)

Sheridan Le Fanu was one of the leading ghost story writers of the nineteenth century Hello, Ponyo. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Ghost story Previous selections: Animatronics • Vatican Library Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) •

Blocking and Rx4evr

Ponyo, I've been following 67.83.61.170 because of the user's habit of changing articles I monitor (and others) to use contractions in contravention of the MOS, despite any number of notices to the user's talk page. I was surprised to see that last month you extended 67.83.61.170's block to two weeks, apparently because this is the IP used by user Rx4evr, who you had just blocked for that long.

I just noticed that 67.83.61.170 was blocked again on August 9, this time for a month, by Mkdw, for vandalism. I was wondering whether this should extend to the user's main account, Rx4evr (edits there still continue); if it's the same person, it seemed to me that they probably shouldn't be allowed alternate avenues to edit when they're blocked for cause. Thanks, and sorry to disturb you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I would ask the blocking admin if they would consider extending the block to the registered account (assuming that they are certain it's the same user). My guess is that if Rx4evr continues to disregard criticism regard their edits they will ultimately find themselves indef blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the series of incidents and blocked Rx4evr. Not only does it look like a case of WP:DUCK in terms of block evasion (numerous common articles in editing), but more important that several issues such as adherence to WP:MOS have been ignored. Due to this editors lengthy block log an indef block is required until they address competence. Mkdw^talk 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I appreciate you looking into this. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of IACAPAP page

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia and am investigating why the page below got deleted from Wikipedia. I am doing this on behalf of the authors, who in good faith were trying to create a page for their association. They only recently realized the page had been reverted. In your notes you say it was removed because of copyvio (copy right violations) but it gives no detail as to what the copyright violations are. Can you elaborate. Also, is it possible to get the old content back so the authors can fix the copyright violations without losing all their work to create the content?

Any help you can provide would be helpful

Brian

Bcorrie (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=International_Association_for_Child_and_Adolescent_Psychiatry_and_Allied_Professions_(IACAPAP)&action=history

The material added by editor User:Danielfungss consisted of material cut and pasted from from iacapap.org which constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. As you can see from article history, it was another editor who noticed the copyright issues and reverted the changes. I then helped "clean up" by removing the copyvios from the article history. Note that those working for and on behalf of IACAPAP should not be editing the article directly with the exception of removing vandalism or fixing minor errors (spelling, grammar etc). Instead it is advised that they use the article talk page to suggest major content changes they would like to see made to the article. Additional information and advice regarding editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest can be found here. It would likely be helpful if you would share the link with the individuals you are assisting.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo,

Thanks for the clairifcation. The authors (and myself for that matter) did not understand the process of how pages should be edited, in particular those pages that involve conflict of interest. I will pass this on to the authors from the society and they can act on using the talk page to suggest updates etc.

Thanks again for your help

Brian Bcorrie (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully the experience wasn't too jarring and the links I provided prove helpful.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Need An Example To Understand

I am A New Editor So I Request You To Please Explain me How To Provide Article For Support Of Facts While Editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam3376 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As a new editor you may find this link helpful. It's also important that you phrase the information you add in a neutral manner and refrain from including trivia and gossip to biographies. As a side note, please don't capitalize the majority of words when adding information to articles, generally only the first word of the sentence and proper nouns require capitalization. Additional assistance can be found here and here. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

danish taimoor page

Hey my change was correct .......