User talk:Ponyo/Archives/December/2011

Ann Sheridan page.

First of all, I didn't blank anything. Aside from that, I see that you did not delete the ann-sheridan.com link, which is a fan site. Why delete one fan site and leave another? I'll abide by the rules but don't you think they should apply to everybody? Thank you. Randrall (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The blanking I was referring to was a previous message on your talk page requesting you review the external link guidelines. It occurred here. Thank you for noting that the Ann-Sheridan.com link is also a fansite, it will be removed as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ann - Sheridan.com link

Please guide me to the Wiki information that says no fan sites shall be linked.

I think my site falls within one of these:

"A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Ponyo/Archives/December/2011 at Curlie template. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

And you are doing a disservice to people who want more information about Ann Sheridan by excluding it.

I await your response.

Thanks,

JohnnyChill (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO (also available under the shortcut WP:FANSITE) states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" It is Point #11. If a link is challenged, as instructed WP:ELBURDEN, the link should not be restored without consensus that it is an appropriate link. This is generally done through review at the External link noticeboard. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

??

Hi there PONYO, VASCO here,

tried to be polite with this user, blocked by you from what i see (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.245.149.70), regarding a difference of opinion we had (have?) in Domingos Paciência. What did i get? He BLANKED the page, without one word of reply...

Attentively, happy weekend from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP has been reblocked as it is consistently used by User:G.-M. Cupertino to sock. They are of course welcome to blank their page, but the block notice will need to be restored per WP:BLANKING. You have a great weekend as well Vasco. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, this is user Survir. Can you please block the following IP user 188.222.139.134. This user keeps vandalizing pages associated to this actor, Pallavi Kulkarni. He/she has been previously blocked as well for disruptive edits. By the way, you have also left a message on his/her talk page, but I guess that didn't do any good. He/she has recently removed info from Pallavi Kulkarni page without any proper notation. Please help! Thank you Survir (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I have blocked the IP for 1 month to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! WikiPuppies! (bark) 16:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Macy Gray and Henry Silva

How can you call allmusic.com more reliable than a government database? Who the hell made you to an administrator? Veromi.net has been given as a reference many times before in several other articles and no one has complained before. It's information comes from the authorites and can not be wrong. Besides, allmusic.com whick is provided for 1970 dosesn't even say that her DoB is 1970, but 1967. Perhaps someone should look over your administrator priviligies. Karbuncle (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out where, in my messages or edit summaries, I said that allmusic was more reliable? What I did say was the veromi.net has been reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard and rejected as a reliable source for personal info in BLPs as it calls for conjecture and inference. If you would like to dispute that view then start a new thread at WP:RSN and get consensus that it is is a reliable source for personal information in BLPs, but I strongly suggest you cease to add it as a source when adding or changing information in biography articles now that it has been pointed out to you that it has been rejected as a reliable source. If you believe that explaining these critical issues to you and removing BLP violations when I see them is somehow abusing my admin privileges, then the correct venue to make a complaint would be here. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And for Henry Silva, what would you consider as a reliable source, since you obviously don't even consider public records as one. There are millions of sites which gives his DoB as 15 September 1928. Are you saying that all these are unreliable? Karbuncle (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! If there are a million sources that list his birthdate as 15 September 1928, it shouldn't be hard to find at least one that meets Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. An article in the New York Times perhaps? Some BBC reference? An interview published somewhere with editorial oversight wherein Mr. Silva states his birthdate? I have to admit that I have serious concerns regarding your understanding of Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and biographies. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And as I said, veromi.net has been used as a source many times before, in several articles before from a lot more persons than me and no one has ever regarded it as unreliable before. I don't see how refering to public records where you can check it out black on white could be counting as "conjecture and inference". I would rather call it common sense.

So, now all references to birth dates must be in etablished media? In that case you'll have to remove the birth date from 90% of all articles on wikipedia. And trust me. I've no problems understanding wikipedias policies regarding sourcing and biographies. I just happen to have something called common sense, which you seem to be missing. Karbuncle (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter where and when the website has been used before, per previous discussion and consensus it should not be used. If you would like to change this view then you need to change community consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. It is conjecture and inference because there is now way to know for certain whether the record you have pulled up is the subject in question. You are making a guess based on the timeline and possible relatives. And yes, the birthdates need to be verifiable through reliable sources when challenged. If you do not or cannot understand why then you should stay away from biography articles altogether. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you should be consistent and delete all previous references to veromi.net. It's just about 500 pages at least but I guess you gladly will do that since according to you, it was "consensus" that it was not a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=veromi.net. Though I don't understand how you can get about 3 users oppinions to be consensus, but that's another question. And what about ancestry.com? Is that just as unreliable according to you? Karbuncle (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put "consensus" in scare brackets. When the question as to whether a site is reliable is raised at a noticeboard specifically designed for that purpose and the conclusion is that it should not be used, that is consensus. Regardless as to whether you like it or not, that is what Wikipedia is founded upon. And no, ancestry.com is not considered a reliable source for BLPs as it is user generated content (again, per previous discussion at WP:RSN). Have you actually read WP:RS yet? Or would you prefer to keep going around in circles with me, which won't get you anywhere with regard to actually changing the policy you obviously disagree with? I feel as if I've had this exact conversation before. You wouldn't happened to have edited under any other accounts would you?Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not talking about reliable sources. I was talking about etablished media. Is that the only source that is reliable enough for you? Karbuncle (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If by "you" you are referring to "the Wikipedia community", then reliable sources are those that meet WP:BLPSOURCES. Have you read it yet? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I put it under scare brackets because consensus means that everbody agree, but 3 users is hardly everybody and therefore it can not be regarded as consensus. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of the word before you use it. If you disqualify ancestry with the reason that it's "user generated" you should disqualify books as well. It's the same thing. In fact, you would have to disqalify every source that's not a free web page. It would be vary hard to find sources with your criteria of reliable sources. Luckally, all admins are not like you. Ancestry for example has been approved as a source many times before, even by other administrators. Many questions have been solved through using ancestry in biographys Karbuncle (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And if I have edited under other accounts is none of your business. All I can say is that I have never discussed with you before Karbuncle (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as an admin the fact that you have multiple accounts is my business, especially if they are undisclosed and you are using them concurrently. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Suggestion

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, this is user Survir. I need your advise on how to fix issues on the following page, List of programs broadcast by Star Plus. All the shows that are listed under "Currently broadcast" list have wrong (false) information. Majority of the IP users keep adding wrong information (such as wrong air dates, changing names of Cast members who have worked or currently are working in the series, removing logo images, adding shows from different channels on STAR Plus page, etc...). I have been noticing the trend for a while and I believe this is mostly done by one user whose IP address keeps shifting. The current IP address of the user that is adding false information is User:86.171.233.197. I believe that the article should not exist on Wikipedia if it contains/provides wrong information (Wikipedia is not a Blog!). How to stop these users from making future disruptive edits. I will greatly appreciate your help. Thank you! Survir (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As it appears to be mainly one IP that has been inserting the unsourced/disputed material in December I have left them a warning on their talk page requesting that they use sources when adding/changing data. If disruption continues via multiple IPs you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP or leave me a note and I will restore protection on the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User 98.246.160.196

Hi. Please see user 98.246.160.196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).

You blocked them for adding Jewish categories, & they now seem to have resumed where they left off. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've reverted their edits and reblocked the IP. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - much obliged. Trafford09 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Cohen (Australian author)

Hi Ponyo, and thanks for setting me up with a talk page. On my recent edits: some editing of 'Bernard Cohen (Australian author)' appeared to be for the purpose of highlighting another page (Gangaroo) and therefore were not neutral. Thus my edits removed those references as well as updating the publications. Regarding the photograph, it appears to be a personal snapshot (and was earlier attributed to the owner of Gangaroo), rather than anything to do with the author in a professional capacity. It should be removed. Enthalpio (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's strict copyright and licensing policies, it's very difficult to obtain free use images for living persons. As we currently have one for Mr. Cohen it should remain intact until an alternative replacement can be found. If you are aware of possible replacement image that you have the rights to and can donate then I encourage you to submit it (see Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission for instructions). Once uploaded it can be used to replace the image currently in the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

General Odierno's page

Ponyo, I understand your point. However, I work on his staff and his family information is part of his official Bio. The other part to this is that scammers often use his name with unwitting single ladies for financial gain. By having his family and marital status on the page it alleviates some of the issue.

As for neutrality, if you have better wording you are welcome to edit. Thanks Jt.thomas5 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily my point, it's Wikipedia policy that information (especially that of a personal nature) regarding living persons include reliable sources for verification. If you have a link to an official bio that verifies the personal info, it can be added, however it should be worded neutrally (for example "Odierno is married and has three children"). We generally do not include the names of private family members. As a final note, as a staff member you should refrain from editing this article completely (other than to remove blatant vandalism or libelous material) as you have a conflict of interest in doing so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand. It is now cited from his official bio which is from the US Army's page. Two your second point about neutrality. I don't see the language as being biased. Regarding you last point. I also don't see a conflict of interest. I am closer to the facts than most people and have as much right to ensure that the Bio is accurate. Lastly, you never acknowledged the point that this page is most often edited to remove family information which enables unwitting people to be victimized. Jt.thomas5 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see the language as being biased" is why we have the COI guidelines (please click and read this link) in the first place - it is nearly impossible to write completely neutrally regarding subjects with which you have a close affiliation. The vague and somewhat self-serving statements such as "Linda Odierno has dedicated herself to supporting soldiers and their families" is not neutral in tone and the fact that you are a staff member is a de-facto conflict of interest. It is clear now that the information you were inserting was actually a copyright violation and therefore I have stubbed the sentence down to a simple encyclopedic statement of fact - we cannot accept cut and paste material from other documents/websites. Please take any future concerns you have with the article to the talk page, but do not continue to edit the article directly. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo, Actually, that sentence works for me if it meets the guidelines. I have no interest in editing the page but continual deletion or distortion of his marital status is unacceptable. Feel free to keep an eye on it for vandalism. However, if it occurs and isn't fixed then I will fix it. Regards, Jt.thomas5 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My hope is that the single sourced personal statement will address your concerns regarding possible fraud while keeping within the parameters of Wikipedia policy. Note that removing vandalism is an exemption of COI editing, so please feel free to revert it when you see it. The talk page is a great venue for making any article update requests or for discussing potential content. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Memoira

hey i see that you have deleted the page I have been trying to make for the band Memoira. I looked under the rules for being on Wikipedia and it said that you only need to meet on or more of the requirements and they meet some of them. I would like to create the page and if you could help so it won't get deleted again that would be very appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalhowling (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has actually been deleted multiple times, not only by me. Per the lengthy message provided by User:JohnCD on your talk page, you need to stop trying to create the article in mainspace. If you truly believe that the band meets the notability requirements outlined at WP:BAND then you need to work on your userspace draft (located at User:Finalhowling/Memoira) and clearly demonstrate notability through the inclusion of reliable sources. Please reread the advice provided to you here as it contains all of the information required to get started. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again, and now salted. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good; hopefully that will encourage the editor to draft a notable userspace version instead of just plonking another G4 copy into mainspace. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And looks like they have at least a week to gather some solid sources....--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Always the optimist! Drmies (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Silambarasan Rajendar

hi Ponyo, its great to see that you protected Silambarasan Rajendar page.Meanwhile i want to add more information to that article so that i need your help for improving the page and i request you to guide me . thanks admin ,pls leave a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregviswanath (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there something specific you would like assistance with? I can always try to help, but note that I will be online only sporadically over the holidays so I may not be around when you need help. The Wikipedia help desk is a great resource if you're stuck on how to format links, references, images or if you need other editing assistance. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your kind reply and i'll do my best Greg (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregviswanath (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 

Tom Williams 2

Remember this article? Tombola3 (talk · contribs) is now back and removing referenced information...could you have a look please? GiantSnowman 11:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've left User:Tombola3 a note on their talk requesting they raise their concerns on the article talk page as opposed to simply blanking the sourced content. Hopefully there will be some type of compromise made with regard to the Kettering Town info, but until we know exactly what Tombola is objecting to it's hard to tell. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. GiantSnowman 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo, this is user Survir. Can you please delete the following template, Template:SO Shows. The template was created to list current shows of the channel, STAR One. The channel ceased its operation on December 16, 2011 ending all of its current shows that were on air. The channel is replaced by a new channel, Life OK. I will create the new template. Thank you! Survir (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the template incorrect/outdated template is essentially a duplicate of the correct content the please tag it for CSD T3 deletion deletion or nominate it for deletion via TFD.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you please block the following IP user, User:86.171.233.197. This is the same user we discussed earlier. You left a message on his/her talk page, but he/she continues making disruptive edits. Recently, he/she removed logo images and other information from various pages related to Indian television channels. I have reverted back some of the edits made by this user. Please help! Thank you. Survir (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As they have only had a single level 1 warning previously I have warned them again.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the trouble, can you also please move the following page Beend to its original title Beend Banoongaa Ghodi Chadhunga. Some new user moved the page stating the title has been changed. Well it has not been changed. I have checked the official site of the series on Imagine TV, other sources, and also watched the last episode, which still shows its original title. Therefore, can you please move the page. Thank you! Survir (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to its original title and noted that as the move is disputed consensus needs to be reached for any future moves. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Season's Greetings, Ponyo/Archives/December! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers to you both and best wishes to you and yours over the holidays! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

David Guetta a French House producer?

C'mon bro. We all know that David Guetta is nowhere close to a French House DJ. French Touch / Neu Disco / French House has a distinct sound using strictly 80s R'n'B or Disco samples. David Guetta makes Ibiza House or Spanish House or maybe Disco House, but not French House. Please change it since you are an autoconfirmed user. --Trickymaster (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is an error on the page the best place to discuss it is on the article talk page here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess what, I have been trying to do that, but some SineBot claims that I haven't signed my post and it ends up deleted what I did. I always sign my posts. I have no idea what on earth is going on. Please help.

--Trickymaster (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked the talk page and it appears that an earlier message had some unclosed reference mark-up that was keeping new messages from displaying (and that is also why sinebot thought your messages were unsigned). I've fixed it now. Note that I also undid your removal of French from the lede of the article. "French" is being used in the context of Guetta's nationality which is always stated in the opening sentence of biography articles (WP:MOSBIO has additional info if you are interested). He is a French (nationality) house music producer (occupation). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Williams again, sorry

Hello. Re the removal of information on Tom Williams, I tried a different form of words, removing any mention of him signing for Kettering but keeping the game he played for them, sourced to the club site, but Tombola3 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to like that either, and still won't discuss the matter. Thought you might like to know... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've been keeping an eye on it but am somewhat involved due to a related OTRS issue. My best suggestion would be to proceed as you normally would (example via WP:AIV or WP:3RN) in order to get uninvolved admin input if necessary. I do appreciate your patience in trying to explain the issues to this editor both on the article talk page and on their user page. You have been exemplary in trying to engage the editor in order to find a solution despite their lack of communication. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Simms Taback page edits

As will be obvious, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'm hoping I can get clarification over having entries edited or deleted without requesting citations first. I went to lengths to add factual material to the Simms Taback page after learning he had died on December 25, 2011. If I read the record correctly, the fact that he died had been deleted, due to a lack of attribution, but was later reinstated once it had been attributed to the website http://www.simmstaback.com. Interesting in that I am also the webmaster for said website, and could well "attribuate" any statement of fact or non-fact to the site - and back it up on the site. Also, I entered material augmenting listings of some of this author's key works. These credits are in print, but do not exist on the web. I assumed that if someone wished to challenge them, or request a citation, such a request would be made on the page (ie citation needed) rather than deleting facts that had been researched. Jeffreyseaver (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jefferey - I'm sorry that you have found your initial Wikipedia editing experience to be frustrating. It's a rather large place with many rules and guidelines that can be overwhelming at first. One of the key policies on Wikipedia is its protection of biographies of living persons. As Simms Taback's death had not yet been confirmed the article still fell under the living persons umbrella of protection and this is why unsourced material added to the article was removed. Another Wikipedia policy is verifiability, most commonly established through the use of reliable sources. A basic rule of thumb is - if you're adding or changing information, make sure you include a source so that others can verify or research the information further. It's much simpler for the editor adding the information to state how they know it to be true than for an outside editor to attempt to research and pinpoint the origin of the information months or even years later. I've left you a welcome message on your talk page which outlines both Wikipedia's basic policies as well as helpful editing guidelines that I thought you may find useful. If at any time you feel stuck regarding the sometimes tricky wikipedia mark-up (such as adding inline citations) there is a help desk available full of helpful volunteers who can assist you here. There is also a "Help me" template that you can use on your talk in order to ask a question. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)