User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Geraldo Perez. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
DNA Helix
Happy new year! In the vein of the Tunebat discussion held open one and a half Marches ago I present to you another one which might be dubious verification: DNA Helix. The article with the website used as a reference? Jimmy Neutron that is, with the source being an archived forum thread under Conception and creation subsection which dates back to June 24, 1998! Should it be refrained as a source? Please respond.
Happy new year,
67.81.161.226 (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- This one has also written gibberish on my Talk page, and on yours at least once before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
About the Wander Over Yonder ratings
I changed the ratings listed on the episode page cause the sources were stating differently and they did not look like they were going above 1 million after the swap to Disney XD so claiming they did go above a million means you didn't check your sources correctly.
173.71.215.165 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes § "Mad About Yuletide" episode. I know you've explained the whole "&" vs "and" before, and I'm not 100% sure if the reason I gave is correct. Amaury • 23:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you check this article for me? We've got an editor who keeps on adding a portrait image that I'm pretty sure is a WP:COPYVIO. You're better at figuring this stuff out than I am, so it would be good if you could take a look. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Looks like her publicist based on edits and she may want to use that image in her profile like she does in IMDb. IMDb doesn't need unrestricted free-use like we do and it appears there is a lack of understanding who actually owns the image, not likely her, and who can legally give permission to use it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- If so, you may want to leave a friendly WP:COI notice on their Talk page – will have more weight coming from you than me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
In case you are not already aware, I have merged to content of the various Mickey Mouse Clubhouse "season" articles (e.g. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (season 1)) to the List of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse episodes article – none of these were justified as being standalone TV season articles. Also, merging them to the LoE articles should make "vandal fighting" easier (and this show seems like another perennial target of IP vandals). Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oops at List of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse episodes – I didn't mean to revert you: I meant to restore the last good version. Sorry about that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: IMDb said the directors were Donovan Cook and Victor Cook, not Don Cook and Vic Cook, for everything they were in. I see you reverted those changes that I made to make the article match. I can't confirm independently of IMDb how those two were credited, I assume you have better information so will go with what you decide. I missed the other changes the IP did though so the revert was valid to undo those. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you can restore Donovan Cook and Victor Cook – I was more concerned with the episode numbering monkeying by the IP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: IMDb said the directors were Donovan Cook and Victor Cook, not Don Cook and Vic Cook, for everything they were in. I see you reverted those changes that I made to make the article match. I can't confirm independently of IMDb how those two were credited, I assume you have better information so will go with what you decide. I missed the other changes the IP did though so the revert was valid to undo those. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this user. I thought it was named-account socker, but it look like it's likely some kind of block evasion from 73.235.14.165 that was blocked one month ago. I suspect this may go deeper than this, but I'm not sure how to check. (The various pro-/anti-MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE edits is a hallmark recurring behavior.) So I thought I should let you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I've reverted all of their edits twice now, other than on the Jim article which you got last time. Add: I've left them a final warning as well. Amaury • 17:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Need more eyes here – co-writing a (single?) song doesn't make "songwriter" a notable profession for this subject, and she definitely doesn't qualify as a singer-songwriter. Ping Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Yup, it's still on my watchlist. I just wasn't checking the specific edits on it today. I've been doing other stuff. Amaury • 00:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: A song written for her by a pro songwriter producer is what appears to have happened. She gave some input and got a songwriter credit. This is an adjunct to being a singer and is fairly common. I'd take songwriter as an occupation more seriously if she were the sole writer and if she had more than one credit and maybe wrote for other people. Singer-songwriter has a specific meaning, it doesn't just mean she does both. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Geraldo, can you find anything that confirms that it was Jace Norman who voiced this film?! They are claiming he was credited under a pseudonym, which means his participation would have to be independently sourced, but I can't find anything to verify this after a quick search. Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Obviously the credits were extracted from IMDb for the article, not the film. They list uncredited cast as well without references and that is where Jace Norman is listed with a credited as pseudonym note. IMDb is, of course, not a reliable source. I found nothing on a quick search that confirms. We are supposed to list cast as credited with the released film being the source. Norman isn't there and is unsourced otherwise. This is one of those things that IMDb cast lists can be wrong as user edited, I've seen vandalism on IMDb cast lists that wasn't caught so can't trust them fully. I'd suggest removing any mention of Norman from the article and also all the uncredited people as being unsourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Contributions from an IP range?
Geraldo, I'd like to check the contributions for the IP range that includes 2600:8800:F00:400C:9466:8839:565A:A709 – how would I do that? (I don't understand the /24 and /16 stuff!) TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Use Special:Contributions/2600:8800:F00:400C::/64. Edit what you have to just include the first 4 sections end with the :/64 to get the normal range most IPv6s operate in. usually the /64 range is assigned to one person and they get a new specific IP in that range whenever they connect to the net. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK, thanks – confirms that the only problematic editing has likely been at Michael Copon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be wholesale changing character names at numerous articles. Likely ignoring "names as per credits". Don't know if this M.O. matches any other IP disruptor/vandal. But I'm making you aware. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- And continuing this, now with subtle reversions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: A lot of his edits are OK and so far I haven't seen any overt misinformation that I can prove is wrong. Changing credited names from what is in the actual credits is, though, adding unsourced information and should be tagged as such. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:FILMCAST also says "names as per credits", so changes like ths should be plainly reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also keeps adding "quotes" around names – e.g. [1] – which I would certainly bet are not from the credits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Changing names from what is credited should be reverted. That is not all he is doing though. He is also adding minor cast. Also removing redlinks. For a block need warnings that can be interpreted as either vandalism or disruptive editing by continuously adding unsourced information or going against an established guideline after warnings, I added one to start. Also some of the names he is fixing to match the credits, at least as listed by IMDb, so can't be sure he is wrong or fixing mistakes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Now rangeblocked for a week. Some stuff he just got wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Likely for the best – didn't seem very interested in trying to get it right. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: A lot of his edits are OK and so far I haven't seen any overt misinformation that I can prove is wrong. Changing credited names from what is in the actual credits is, though, adding unsourced information and should be tagged as such. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Calm down
You need to calm down with the talk page warnings, mate. 217.32.179.205 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
List of Rugrats episodes, 14:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I just discovered that my adult autistic daughter has been editing Wikipedia articles. She makes lists from IMDb of animated series and movies with their release dates and memorizes them. When she sees a discrepancy between the release dates on IMDb and Wikipedia, she tries to change Wikipedia; or if Wikipedia only has the month and year of release, she tries to add the day. I've spoken to her about it and she says she won't do it again. Sparkmadley (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Another IP mass changing the distributor parameter based on company name changes and ignoring template documentation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mxhyn16 seems to be the same editor, or is at least doing exactly the same type of edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- And now someone doing the same kind of thing at 2600:1002:B100:6954:0:4C:E616:5801. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Different geo location but likely same motivation. Looks like he was running a bot making the changes so fast. I'll keep a watch for similar on the /64 range but it is from Verizon Wireless so range may be much wider. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The ever-popular adding claims of "flash animated" to articles. There were previous warnings, so I just left a Level 4 UW. But these additions all need to be mass-reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Olivia Rodrigo revisited
I am assuming that this is WP:COPYVIO image, yeah? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Acceptable source?
Geraldo, is this source acceptable? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Self published source aside, the interview is with an actor and an interview is a primary source assuming the medium is trusted to report it accurately. Actor can only speak for themselves, not give information about other stuff per WP:ABOUTSELF. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like this article may need protection, based on recent editing history. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Rio 2 § Big Boss's fate
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rio 2 § Big Boss's fate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Note that Special Agent Oso (series 1) and Special Agent Oso (series 2) are invalid articles – they are both insufficient as "season" articles, and they are actually redundant with the content at List of Special Agent Oso episodes.
Because some content from the season articles will have to be merged to the LoE article, this is too big a job for me to tackle right now. But I wanted you to be aware that this is an issue that needs to be fixed at some point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Reused IPs
Hola, Sr. Perez. Regarding https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:174.250.160.41, no idea who the person who troubled you circa December was. We assume he/she was the previous holder of this dynamic IP address. We ourselves only rarely contribute edits, and we always do so for constructive purposes. Estamos con vosotros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.160.41 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is in a pool used by Verizon Wireless for mobile data service. I leave messages as sometimes people stay on an IP for a while and may see it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Will probably need help with a vandal at this article, as I'm already at 3 reverts. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- And now a WP:MINORS violation from an IP at the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968 and IJBall: I've just reverted another attempt to move this page, especially given that the RFC last year to move it was rejected. Amaury • 02:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given the rejected move request discussion, another one should be started by anyone who wants to move the page. Last bold move was by a sysop who "knows" he is right to move the page but still shouldn't override the previous decision without discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
In the article's history, I see four accounts listed in the February 8 entries, all of whom made the same kind of disruptive edit about the show's ending or cancellation by inserting the end date in the infobox (with the same format, "September 11, 2020", as opposed to the templates we usually use for that). I checked each account's creation time, and all of them were created on February 8, two in the space of less than 15 minutes, and the other two in the space of less than 30 minutes, but overall about 12 hours apart. This is clearly a red flag, and I'm tempted to report sockpuppetry here, though I'm not sure any of these is the sockmaster. Any thoughts? MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Obviously the same person. The first created should be considered the sock master. Should report if for no other reason to check for sleepers. Otherwise accounts look to be throwaway accounts unlikely to be reused. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up: All four accounts have been indef blocked, and are confirmed sockpuppets of User:Lizen543t4565y6. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Funny how the master account never even edited the article. Amaury • 18:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968 and IJBall: I've added two more socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lizen543t4565y6. I will be requesting semi-protection on all affected pages. Amaury • 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Thanks. I was about to do the same, though I could get some diffs to provide some evidence at the report. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Feel more than free to do that. Amaury • 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Thanks. I was about to do the same, though I could get some diffs to provide some evidence at the report. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
While the article for the TV series and most of the actors with wikilinks in the cast section are all currently semiprotected, there's one more actor's article, Albert Tsai, that needs some watching. I just reverted another instance of "2018–2020" under the Coop & Cami entry in that article back to "2018–present" [2]. I just hope I didn't re-awaken the current army of sockpuppetry across all these actor articles. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Is This Acceptable Sourcing?
Is this acceptable sourcing for this? – [3] It's a primary source, but it doesn't really verify what they're claiming (WP:SYNTH?).
I suspect there is a source for this (probably in a book somewhere), but what this editor keeps coming up with looks to fall short... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I can't see the reference so can't judge what it supports, but I don't understand why the information that was added has any value to the article beyond what was already there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's just a generic TV Guide program/schedule listing, I'm pretty sure, not an article. But I agree – with the weak sourcing, that this is probably undue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism here from an IP editor geolocating to Wales – this is too big a range to range block, isn't it? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: that would be an IPv4 /8 block and too large to block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Some poor stuff for a WP:BLP had been snuck in there. I think I've cleared that all out, and have cleaned up the article. But if you're watching it, keep an eye out for IPs trying to sneak the unsourced WP:DOB or the poorly sourced ethnicity stuff back in there... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Birthdate is at https://www.webcitation.org/698BWqJSk?url=http://www.disneyxdmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=900078&type=howard used as reference 4 in article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- OK, you're right – I missed it the first time in the Disney bio, but it's buried in the last sentence. I'll go ahead and properly source that then, as it was totally unsourced before... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
She has co-written some of her songs from her albums, and some of them have their own Wikipedia article. Is that not enough to justify notability as a songwriter? Heymid (contribs) 16:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Heymid: See discussion about this on the talk page of her article. Basically co-writer is a bit soft as most singers get some input to the songs written for them and credited for that input. That is more of an adjunct to being a singer. She would have a stronger claim if she were sole writer on some of her notable songs or had written songs for other singers. Some reliable source evaluating her songwriting output would also help, but unlikely to get when just part of a writing team consisting of professional songwriters and the singer. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
More WP:DE from this IP related to anachronistically adding, or changing to, CBS Media Ventures as a "distributor" of TV shows. May be related to Special:Contributions/213.194.183.49. May also be related to SigKauffman (though this is less certain)... Anyway, all of the IP's edits from today should be reverted – Amaury and I already got a couple of them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Now at 192.169.76.247. Needs mass-revert and a block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Destiny's Child/Tina Knowles
I noticed something I don't feel is accurate on Destiny's Child. It says: "Though group members have claimed that the name was taken from a passage in the Book of Isaiah,[8] the phrase does not appear in any published English translation of the Bible, and more likely originated in the 1967 Waylon Jennings song of the same name." And, I think it should be edited. None of the members mentioned that 60s song or claimed the phrase "Destiny's Child", which is what sentence seemingly implies, orginated in the Bible, just the word "destiny" itself. The "child" was added later, because there was another group already using "Destiny" as a name. So I think instead of "Though group members have claimed that the name was taken from a passage in the Book of Isaiah, the phrase does not appear in any published English translation of the Bible, and more likely originated in the 1967 Waylon Jennings song of the same name." It could say "The group members have claimed that the name was taken from a passage in the Book of Isaiah; per Texas Monthly "Tina pulled out a Bible and found the word “destiny.” Mathew added “child.”" Link: https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/its-a-family-affair/
What do you think? I was actually thinking about including on the Tina Knowles page, as they've always credited her with naming them "Destiny". Should I? By the way, we talked last time I edited her a few days ago (my ip just changed again lol). 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:C07C:AEEF:209C:36E0 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- As long as it is fully sourced, a mention on her page, in an appropriate section, would be reasonable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Important situation
You're right, I need to stop using disruptive editing. Thanks for telling me that.--MLJ 657 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
"Bubble Guppies vandal" is back
This time at 2600:1702:3180:5E70:4F3:B799:7346:3FDD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You actually raise a good point there. Also, the parameter is called picture_format, and since HDTV is the actual format, perhaps that should be all that's there for all television series by technicality of the parameter name. I always thought the format and resolution were connected to each other, but they're two different things. I guess one could also argue that we don't even need that parameter since HD is virtually the standard. Although, of course, there are still people who have SD televisions, perhaps because they're in the lower class and can sadly barely afford necessities, let alone a more expensive television, or because they're in developing countries or a plethora of other reasons. So HD is the standard/default, but networks or providers—whoever is responsible for the definition and resolution—still supply an SD signal in addition to the HD signal for those people. Then again, I haven't seen one article that uses SD for that parameter, at least those that I watch. I've only seen HD used for that parameter, so maybe we would be fine without that parameter at all as people would just assume HD since that's what networks or providers primarily supply, even though they also supply an SD signal. Amaury • 06:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I'd generally prefer to see that parameter omitted from TV series articles. It is never referenced in the article and is implied by the network. Anyone interested can go to the network page for all the gory details of how their shows are broadcast, it is seldom just one resolution, and depends on the actual outlets the network uses. The main stream on a broadcast channel generally gets the HD feed either 1080i or 720p in the US, with the other streams generally getting 480i. But that is for the main over the air networks, not streaming/cable/sat networks. I doubt that Nickelodeon is ever released as either 1080i or 720p, most likely it is 1080p for most streaming outlets and sales. There is a major push to ATSC 3.0, already available in some markets, which broadcasts in UHDTV so I expect all current production is being done in 4K or 8K formats for future proofing. Also 480i isn't just for television, when I watch stuff on my phone it is generally at 480i so I don't use too much data on my cell data plan. Also most streaming services will pick a resolution based on what bandwidth you have available for streaming. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'll leave the latest disruptive edit for you to decide what to do. I should leave it alone, at least for now. But, as you mentioned, it's contentious and should be removed entirely in a situation like this. It needs to be discussed on the talk page. BRD still applies, even though it's a different editor, because the problem is with the edit itself, not who's doing it. The only difference is that they did at least provide a source this time, but that's beside the point, because of what you mentioned above and in your edit summary about the production resolution being one thing, but the networks or providers broadcasting it in another. The source likely just provides the latter. It is clearly contentious and needs to be discussed, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. And also because by technicality, the parameter is for the format only, not the resolution, though I know from what you said above, you'd agree with removing it entirely. But putting that part aside for now... Amaury • 08:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I generally agree with this. In the case of NTSC, "480i" shouldn't even be listed, because by definition NTSC means "480i", so indicating that is entirely redundant. In the case, of HDTV, it's more complicated because there are two resolution variations – 720p and 1080i – so indicating either makes sense. But if it's not clear which resolution is being used, just "HDTV" should be perfectly acceptable. And in neither case, should "4:3" or "16:9" be indicated – again, that is redundant and obvious in the case of NTSC and HDTV, respectively. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Last edit provided a good source and formatting matches infobox instruction examples. That is sufficient and pointless to get into a discussion over given the reference. Resolution is just additional info over format, harmless to have if sourced and infobox instructions show it included. My general issue is mixing them up saying 1080i is the format, which it isn't. Also the general issue of broadcast format isn't really an attribute of the show itself, but of the outlet used. Production format would be show related and more interesting if sourced but absent that best format used on initial release is OK. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good. This is exactly why I left it for you to evaluate as you know more about this stuff than I do. The reference will have to be cleaned up, as it's not formatted properly or consistent with the other references, but I'll take care of that later. Amaury • 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- You can use that reference on other Nick shows of the same time to support that info once cleaned up.
Just as an aside, I checked the actual format of an episode of I Am Frankie I have downloaded from iTunes. It is stored as MPEG4 1080p24 and uses 2 channel sound. 1080p24 is likely the actual production format for that show but original broadcast was still likely 1080i60 which is simple to created from 1080p24. This is one of the reasons I think having format info on the show articles is kind of pointless, even if common and supported by the show template. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- You can use that reference on other Nick shows of the same time to support that info once cleaned up.
- Sounds good. This is exactly why I left it for you to evaluate as you know more about this stuff than I do. The reference will have to be cleaned up, as it's not formatted properly or consistent with the other references, but I'll take care of that later. Amaury • 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Last edit provided a good source and formatting matches infobox instruction examples. That is sufficient and pointless to get into a discussion over given the reference. Resolution is just additional info over format, harmless to have if sourced and infobox instructions show it included. My general issue is mixing them up saying 1080i is the format, which it isn't. Also the general issue of broadcast format isn't really an attribute of the show itself, but of the outlet used. Production format would be show related and more interesting if sourced but absent that best format used on initial release is OK. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is the same as 2601:81:C402:AD20:18B4:AFD3:8BF1:2BC0 that was blocked in early Feb. for the same behavior, and is the same vandal that has been vandalizing episodes tables of "season 1's" of TV series going back at least 6 months. I'd advise reporting to WP:AIV as repeating the same behavior since release of block. And maybe a range block is possible here?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Last 6 month block on 2601:81:C402:AD20::/64 expired end of December. And that was off a 3 month block before then. I reported to AIV as resumption off a long block. See what happens, some admins are timid about range blocks. Also range may need some cleaning as he used a lot of IPs this year so far. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: - and now gone for a year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
As per my Talk page, I would say this one is ripe for a block at this point. Purely WP:DE and nothing else. I just gave them a Level 4 warning – anything they do from this point forward should be fair game for WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Re: these edits – just so you are aware, this is a long-term pattern of "figure vandalism" at this article. It was originally changed to 8.1 a long time ago. Then I sourced the article, and discovered that no source quotes that figure (they all quote 8 million, or "7.8 million"). So it's pretty clearly a made up number, and thus vandalism. I haven't looked for an editing pattern (or for socking evidence), but this is all clearly the same editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This isn't just a WP:NOTBROKEN issue – it appears that the anachronistically incorrect listing of 20th Century "20th Television" must include hundreds of TV series articles, many of which you and I are not aware of. I almost think this requires a WP:AWB solution, except that the mass changing of 20th Century "20th Television" back to 20th Century Fox Television probably runs afoul of the AWB rules against using it simply for "gnoming"-type edits like this... But this clearly requires a "bigger solution", because it's affecting far too many articles for a couple of editors to deal with. (Ditto the similar issue with CBS Television media entities.) I'm kind of at a loss about what to do about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Most of the changes I made were just removing the unnecessary NOTBROKEN pipe to 20th Television and letting the redirect at 20th Century-Fox Television do its job. I didn't see any links to 20th Century? Do you have an example? Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Lots of stuff like this and this, especially where the
distributoris listed as20th Century"20th Television" which is a complete anachronism for any show that aired from the 1980s to the 2000s. There's a separate NOTBROKEN issue that you are also finding, but plenty of articles only are listing20th Century"20th Television" in place of "20th Century Fox Television" when that's just flat-out wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)- @IJBall: You meant "20th Television" (not "20th Century" which confused me), replacing the correct original credited name. Yes that is a lot more serious than just keeping the original name and adding an unnecessary pipe which is what I was fixing. Easy to undo these erroneous changes when recently made, a lot more work for stuff that has been there for a while. Looks like about 200 articles. Best I can think of is fix it when seen and work at fixing it a few articles at a time. I'll try to do some when I find the time. Don't know if it can be easily automated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Looking at 20th Television article, some of the old distribution credits listed are likely correct as it had an older incarnation as a distributor. Best to just leave things alone unless see obvious errors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Based on 20th Television#20th Television distribution arm, pre-2020 "20th Television" would really only apply to TV series in "rerun syndication" between 1989 and 1994 (and some first-run syndication series afterwards). I would not trust "20th Television" in any article on TV series which were "new" previous to 2020, esp. if some edit within the last year or so changed "20th Century Fox Television" to "20th Television", and I'd want to see credits proof of the claim. This is basically the same as all of those edits in regards to the CBS Television media entities. I'm still reverting these on sight, though I may leave 1989–1994 series alone for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- How were you able to figure out that this issue affects about 200 articles? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I did a search for insource: "distributor = 20th Television" with a limit of 300 and found 313 this time. Last time I looked at inbounds and didn't get a good count. This is still an estimate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- The other thing that occurs to me is that many (most?) "one-season wonder" TV series should actually have the
distributorparameter blank, because they were never rerun anywhere in the U.S., and a decent percent of them were never distributed overseas either. But I suspect a good chunk of these have something (erroneously) listed in thedistributorparameter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)- @IJBall: This looks to be a lot of work to verify and fix, and best we can to is make sure the articles we generally watch are correct to match sources. Also recent changes to 20th Television are likely wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- The other thing that occurs to me is that many (most?) "one-season wonder" TV series should actually have the
- @IJBall: I did a search for insource: "distributor = 20th Television" with a limit of 300 and found 313 this time. Last time I looked at inbounds and didn't get a good count. This is still an estimate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Lots of stuff like this and this, especially where the
I think this article needs monitoring, as well as the editor who has made recent edits here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Potential vandal question
Geraldo, there was previously a (blocked?) editor who used to do this – "😡😡😡" – a lot in their edit summaries. Do you remember who this was?... IP 174.95.202.88 did this in an edit back in February, and I know I've seen this before, so I'm assuming this is the return of a problematic editor, probably one that already has a "block" history... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also ping Amaury, as they may remember what I am talking about. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I don't recall who it was. Doesn't appear to be in this general IP range though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I remember the emoticon summaries like that. Just don't remember who or which articles were targeted. Amaury • 03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has now twice added a controversy section, but I find it unnecessary. This seems akin to the people who were insistent on adding a controversy section on Bella and the Bulldogs (Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs/Controversy). The content of the controversies between the two series is obviously different, but I feel like at its base, it's the same issue. Details on this controversy would belong better on Stephen Hillenburg, just like details on the Jonathan Butler "controversy" would belong better on his page, though in his case, he doesn't have an article, but still. Although in the case of the Jonathan Butler "controversy"—and why I am putting it in quotes—it doesn't even belong at all because it was a fake controversy created by some person who thought Jonathan Butler couldn't separate his adult production work from his children's production work. Amaury • 00:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It looks like a WP:SYNTHESIS based on a bunch of unverified twitter messages and an interview. Some person who is not Hillenburg, thinks he wouldn't like it. Really adds nothing to the article to have that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Bigfoot Family
I just want to say that you did a great job editing Bigfoot Family as it was one of my favourite movies to watch!
Also, Some of my changes were reverted so do you know anything about that? I think it was a bot but I am not sure.
Thanks again,
--185.9.34.127 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- The bot reverted because you added a link to an external site. Bot just reverts everything when that happens. It didn't like the link you added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
What kind of IP is that? First time I've seen it. Amaury • 09:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It is not an IP, just an all digit user name for a registered user. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah. What a strange username. Amaury • 16:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen a name like that before. Unfortunately, I couldn't track it down to see if it was linked to this editor... Regardless, this named account is very likely the same as the IP editor who used to make these same edits at the article before. Bears monitoring. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah. What a strange username. Amaury • 16:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Need more eyes here. Editors are trying to add material that is certainly defamatory about another individual. And the sourcing being used to support it is weak. Need more experienced editors to keep an eye on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Accusations of abuse after a breakup is somewhat of a cliche so really don't put much credence on it. It is a defamatory accusation and we really don't want to get in the middle of this even if it is sourced and attributed to her directly. I don't think it adds anything of value to her article to bring up stuff about some other person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've added it to my watchlist. Amaury • 19:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Don't know if you think it's worth it to back me up here, but this edit is not an improvement, and it's weird that this relatively new named account has come out of nowhere to back up a disruptive IP editor with zero comment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
DCOMs How to Build a Better Boy, etc. and 69.127.80.35
OK, so I decided to check for myself – according to Disney+, How to Build a Better Boy is listed as a "1 hour, 34 minutes" runtime, which is 94 minutes, not 109 minutes or 93 minutes (which is what the IP put). For the others, Disney+ has Zapped as "1 hour, 35 minutes" which is actually 95 minutes, and neither 102 minutes (nor 92 minutes, which is what the IP put). It has Cloud 9 as "1 hour, 28 minutes", which is actually 88 minutes, and neither 85 or 87 minutes (the latter is what the IP put).
So, in all of these cases, the IP was wrong. But the currently listed runtimes also look wrong. So either, they are currently wrong, or these movies had a different runtime on Disney Channel when they originally aired (and I think this possibility is unlikely...).
Thoughts? Should we just change these to the listed Disney+ runtimes? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: They look to have different times on Netflix too, likely where IP got the info. IMDb technical info gave the original info (102) on Zapped [4]. Initial airing is what we should be putting there, but there is no source that I could easily find. Disney+ looks as good a any, and it is Disney, to use as long as it is clear that is where the info came from. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm disinclined to put an "inline source" ref to Disney+ (I dislike it when other editors do stuff like this with Netflix, etc.). But I could certainly see citing Disney+ in the edit summary for the change. If you think this is OK, I can start looking to do this. I definitely think I would trust Disney+ runtimes over what's on the IMDb. (OTOH, if it can somehow be sourced/verified that the original Disney Channel airing times were different, I could see changing to that if it's verifiable.)... Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, it looks like very, very few of the Disney Channel Premiere Films (pre-DCOMs) are on Disney+. I am mildly surprised by this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: If you use Disney+ times, at least add a hidden note to state where it came from to avoid the issue in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was considering doing that, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: If you use Disney+ times, at least add a hidden note to state where it came from to avoid the issue in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm disinclined to put an "inline source" ref to Disney+ (I dislike it when other editors do stuff like this with Netflix, etc.). But I could certainly see citing Disney+ in the edit summary for the change. If you think this is OK, I can start looking to do this. I definitely think I would trust Disney+ runtimes over what's on the IMDb. (OTOH, if it can somehow be sourced/verified that the original Disney Channel airing times were different, I could see changing to that if it's verifiable.)... Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, it looks like very, very few of the Disney Channel Premiere Films (pre-DCOMs) are on Disney+. I am mildly surprised by this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest IB television distributor parameter vandal/disruptive editor. As before, some of these edits – like changing to Touchstone Television (original) – look valid. But a lot of it is either unsourced, trivial, or anachronistic... Dunno if this is the same editor that was doing edits like this before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK, previously at 79.36.159.198 – both IP's geolocate to the same place in Italy. So this is not the same as the "Carolinas vandal", but it is the same individual doing similar type edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just gave a Level 4 UW here. Next time, IP should be reported to AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did you just revert my minor edit in the NHL on ABC article
You said that there are no flag icons allowed. When exactly was that some sort of rule that it can't be in the infobox. I don't understand why something like that is problematic to you. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @BornonJune8: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. This is a part of the Manual of Style which we are all supposed to follow. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Clarification
To clarify, do you think an artist must be solely credited for the writing of a song for him/her to be labelled a songwriter? Do those songs have to be notable enough for its own article as well? --Heymid (contribs) 14:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Heymid: Not necessarily solely credited. People like Elton John are notable songwriters but he is part of an established team with Bernie Taupin and they are usually credited as a team. To be labeled a songwriter, the person should be notable as a songwriter which usually means a fairly significant body of work creating notable songs as such. Notable songs usually have or should have articles on the song. My general concern is with singers who get a co-songwriting credit with a team of professional songwriters. More plausible if they are the sole songwriter, more likely a courtesy credit for creative input if just for a song written for them that they sing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- When you say ”team”, are you just referring to who wrote a particular song or established songwriting teams? Also, sometimes not everyone from a team is involved in writing a song, I believe. I'm currently thinking about Zara Larsson; she doesn't appear to deserve the songwriter label. She did write "Ain't My Fault" with two others. --Heymid (contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Heymid: I meant established songwriting teams usually two people, one the composer, the other the lyricist and usually established as such. Not generally a rotating committee which is what it looks like for Larsson where she is just one of many on the committee for a particular song. Larsson looks like a typical singer giving creative input to the people who actually write the songs for her to sing, not a notable songwriter in her own right. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- When you say ”team”, are you just referring to who wrote a particular song or established songwriting teams? Also, sometimes not everyone from a team is involved in writing a song, I believe. I'm currently thinking about Zara Larsson; she doesn't appear to deserve the songwriter label. She did write "Ain't My Fault" with two others. --Heymid (contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: This doesn't even appear to remotely meet even the most basics. How it's been around since August of last year is beyond me. Amaury • 19:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Has 3 major main cast credits so looks to meet WP:NACTOR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Glad I asked you, because you (and IJBall) clearly know more about BLPs than I do. Amaury • 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Assistance Requested
I need some assistance if possible. In regards to the DuckTales character page, I'm debating whether to move Don Karnage from the Supporting Characters section over to the F.O.W.L. section. Even though he was only with them in "The Last Adventure!" and technically in "The Lost Cargo of Kit Cloudkicker!", I don't know if that's enough to warrant the move since he wasn't with F.O.W.L. in his first two appearances. Thoughts? Blazewing16 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Blazewing16: I don't think that is enough to move. One time at the end of the series. Looks more like a temporary position. Geraldo Perez (talk)
- @Geraldo Perez: Gotcha. Thank you. Blazewing16 (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding unsourced WP:BLP categories to a number of redirects, in violation of WP:CATVER for one. Should be mass reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop reverting
We are concerned of your disruptive revert edits as you did. If you keep reverting again you may be blocked or banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:500:F700:6861:B5D5:B3CF:152F (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Stop adding unsourced bio info to bio articles. Content removed per that policy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) IP, please be aware that you have already been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for other disruptive behavior. The section is Special:Contributions/2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 and disruptive redirect requests. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nice to see that ANI is still ignoring valid reports on multiple different problematic editors, based on a quick glance at it this morning... [/sarcasm] At least Oshwah blocked one of these IP, even if the range block request has been ignored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- ANI report archived here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JalenFolf and IJBall: Now range blocked for a year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- ANI report archived here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nice to see that ANI is still ignoring valid reports on multiple different problematic editors, based on a quick glance at it this morning... [/sarcasm] At least Oshwah blocked one of these IP, even if the range block request has been ignored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
Your recent editing history at TommyInnit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reverts were per WP:3RRNO#7 - WP:BLP violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing on commas in date ranges. I'm pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968 as well, because I feel like we've seen this before, esp. the "citing" of an off-Wiki website on the subject – this may be a sock of an editor we've seen before, but I'm not sure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I know the editing pattern very well, I just don't remember the exact articles that have been targeted in the past, but it's been done by various different users and IPs. Amaury • 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pwt898/Archive. Pretty sure it's that user. Amaury • 07:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Now blocked indefinitely. Amaury • 08:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I vaguely remembered last year there were several editors and IP addresses doing the exact same thing. I am glad that editor has been blocked indefinitely — YoungForever(talk) 16:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @YoungForever: There is another editor who did the same thing at American Idol here. following last night's events. Both and IJBall and myself don't care about the article and we only appeared there due to that editor. If you feel strongly enough about it and/or it's an article you care about, you're free to revert it yourself, though. Amaury • 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I vaguely remembered last year there were several editors and IP addresses doing the exact same thing. I am glad that editor has been blocked indefinitely — YoungForever(talk) 16:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Now blocked indefinitely. Amaury • 08:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Geraldo and IJBall, do keep an eye out, per User talk:Simonrankin#March 2021. They've made it clear they're going to commit block evasion, regardless of whether or not they were already doing that, as I strongly suspect. Or, at least, they threatened to. Amaury • 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not very smart of Simonrankin to threaten evading block, thinking they would get away with it. — YoungForever(talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Assistance Requested (Again)
Hi again. I need help once more. How do I request page protection? The following IP address, 86.133.149.242 won't stop changing any and all instances of the term "latter" in the DuckTales character page. It's not vandalism, but the fact that they're still doing this even after I asked them to stop, their refusal to respond to my messages, and their refusal to accept that "latter" is a real term is getting really annoying. Please respond when you can and help me out with this before they resort to actual vandalism. Blazewing16 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Go to WP:RPP and follow the directions there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: could you explain why you reverted my edit on Wreck-It Ralph? The film is an animated film, so shouldn't it be in the animated film category, not the general category of films? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Morriswa: Because it is not a film based on a video game which was the category you changed it to. It is a film about a video game which the original category matched. A video game based on the film was developed in parallel to the film. It wasn't the other way around. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: I had no idea that the category I used was incorrect. I apologize for the confusion. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Geraldo the information I put on Mulan II is correct Rodoforok (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodoforok: No it's not. See this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you check the range on this IPv6? Been on at least two IPs at articles like In the Dark (American TV series). Geolocates to Tampa Bay, FL area... I would like to know how long this editor has been around and doing these types of edits. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: See Special:Contributions/2603:9000:A003:9D00::/64 and related block log. Off 4th block, a 1 year block that ended in January 2021. Looks like used 2 IPs since resumed editing yesterday. I reported range to AIV as resumption from previous range block. Also Special:Contributions/202.27.212.26 is obviously the same person. Same geo location, same article editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
User SibTower1987
Seems to have created a couple of useless pages related to GLAAD. As with categories, my understanding is that you should have a minimum of 12 page before creating a category or template. See their contributions, linked in the header, as well as Category:GLAAD Media Award templates and Template:GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Kids and Family Programming. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well on this. Add: I've run into problems with this user before. Amaury • 08:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Too close to contentious cultural issues. I generally avoid these. Creator will argue Category:Film award templates lists precedents and this is another major award that should be covered the same way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Going to need more eyes here. Courtesy ping for LoveWaffle who has reverted them as well. Amaury • 16:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Jeff “Swampy” Marsh edits
Those edits I made to Swampy’s page weren’t unsourced. He made a Tik Tok video and said his full name in the end. It came from Swampy himself. I don’t see how that’s “unsourced” Filmmaker8306 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Filmmaker8306: Unsourced means no cite to the source is in the article. If the Information is sourced, add a proper cite to it so it can be verified by others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The site was the Tik Tok video. Filmmaker8306 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Cite. Not site Filmmaker8306 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
henry danger production codes changes
All the other wikipedia pages has these production codes related for those episodes! (Redacted) Cezar Teodosiu (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Cezar teodosiu: We go with sourced content. Other articles being wrong don't set a precedent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Missing production companies
I know they aren't even listed on their respective pages (e.g. Raven's Home, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Best Friends Whenever, Kickin' It, etc) and I always try to add them there, but you keep reverting. Here are some proof for you that they are ACTUAL production companies. I put some CLG Wiki links so you can find these logos on which shows they appear on (See "Availability" on those respective pages). I also wanted you to read this aswell before we can ACTUALLY put those companies on these shows' respective Wikipedia pages.
- November 13th (Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Raven's Home)
- Entertainment Force (Best Friends Whenever, Raven's Home)
- Institute for Individual Education (Raven's Home)
- Kushellivision (Fam)
- Poor Soul (Kickin' It, Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything)
- 37 Monkeys (Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything)
- CSMO (Bella and the Bulldogs)
2001:8003:1C6E:6200:D77:8DFB:B10F:5FD1 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
None of these links are reliable since all of them are full of user-generated contents under the guise of a repository for many end cards through TV film and even games just like the original which most likely had shut down in the middle of last year I believe. IJBall would rather take a closer peek at that.
Alright, I'll send it over to him, thanks :) 2001:8003:1C6E:6200:39EE:EED5:CD93:63EC (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
New message from Amaury
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 21 § Category:Jessie (2011 TV series). @IJBall and MPFitz1968: Inviting you as well. Amaury • 20:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been seeing recent additions to the Minor characters section, like [5]. I'm looking at this section and going "Whoa! This is too big." It is clearly larger in the prose (as well as the table of contents) than either the main or recurring cast/characters sections. This looks like a section that can be seriously trimmed or removed altogether, though some mention of special appearances (like Jeanette McCurdy in the "Ponnie" season 3 episode) might be OK if brief. Thoughts? Pinging Amaury and IJBall. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Will correct myself on the lengths of each section ... the minor characters is slightly smaller than the main characters (just slightly over 6 pages worth of scrolling in my browser, vs. 6 1/2 for the main characters), but nevertheless still a bit large. The recurring section is quite a bit smaller than either of the other two. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- MPFitz1968: Yes – the subsections should be removed there, and that should be converted to a bulleted list in which these minor characters get one sentence, two at the most! of descriptive prose. Something like List of Black Lightning characters#Guest stars should be the rough template for 'Guest cast' sections at LoC articles like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also, it's worth noting that the IP in question, 73.119.153.173, has done nothing but a series of disruptive edits to this article, and Sam & Cat. I would suggest that, if they keep this up, they should probably be reported. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Question on categories
Should categories added to articles be based only on the country of origin and original network? For example, Backstage (Canadian TV series). More specifically, its episode list. Would the category Category:Lists of Disney Channel television series episodes, which isn't currently listed there, still be appropriate since Disney Channel acquired the rights to air it or is that category only appropriate for Disney Channel originals? For example, something like Liv and Maddie, in which case, it shouldn't be added to the Backstage episode list? Amaury • 20:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Generally foreign broadcasts shouldn't be considered defining, but this one is mentioned in the lead and has a column in the episode list for air dates, so seems appropriate for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Done Amaury • 21:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC) - Another question: Something like Category:2010s American children's comedy television series clearly supersedes Category:American children's comedy television series, so only one or the other should be listed in an article, not both. However, it should preferably be the former one since it's more specific, of course. Likewise for something like Category:2010s Nickelodeon original programming and Category:Nickelodeon original programming—only one should be listed, and it should preferably be the former.
- (edit conflict)
- This is my question, and I hope it makes sense: If a program runs into the next decade—Henry Danger being one of a few clear examples—such as premiering in the 2010s, but ending in the 2020s, should we list both Category:2010s Nickelodeon original programming and Category:2020s Nickelodeon original programming, or should we still list only Category:2010s Nickelodeon original programming since that's when it premiered? Or would it be better to simply just have the more broad Category:Nickelodeon original programming in a case like this and avoid the issue altogether? Amaury • 22:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Generally list both decades as aired in both. Like what The Casagrandes has done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Amaury • 22:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Generally list both decades as aired in both. Like what The Casagrandes has done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is my question, and I hope it makes sense: If a program runs into the next decade—Henry Danger being one of a few clear examples—such as premiering in the 2010s, but ending in the 2020s, should we list both Category:2010s Nickelodeon original programming and Category:2020s Nickelodeon original programming, or should we still list only Category:2010s Nickelodeon original programming since that's when it premiered? Or would it be better to simply just have the more broad Category:Nickelodeon original programming in a case like this and avoid the issue altogether? Amaury • 22:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Is this even necessary? Don't we need at least 12 articles to be part of a template or category before creating? Second, based on the category name, only the main Jessie page and its List of Jessie episodes page would belong, which would make the category even more pointless. And, actually, only the parent article Jessie should be listed there based on the name, as per User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 24#Template:That's So Raven. I imagine what you said—in a diff I have linked in that message—applies to categories as well, not just templates. Amaury • 17:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: The category isn't needed. It is an WP:EPONYMOUS category as well so what should be in it are thing about what is main page topic. Stuff about other shows doesn't belong as this category is WP:NOTDEFINING for them. Should be pruned and nominated for deletion at WP:CFD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Will need more eyes at the relevant articles. BRD still applies. At work, so can't do much. Amaury • 02:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Query
Is this appropriate?... I've never seen this done before, and I worry about the WP:COPYVIO implications. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It is as appropriate as any free-use image would be for an article if it adds value to that article, which is an editorial decision. I am extremely surprised that Nickelodeon released this under a free-use license on YouTube, but it appears they did. Pretty much all the videos on that YouTube channel are licensed free-use and the channel does appear to be owned by Nickelodeon so they have the right to do that. I wonder if some low level functionally made a mistake on the license. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Once again, a WP:BLP with a 'Discography' section that absolutely should not have one. Anyone can release a single. Nothing in this section is secondarily sourced. There is nothing in the article prose that indicates "singer" is in anyway a notable profession.
Why do we keep having to go through this? Why are we letting (presumably IP) editors continually add trivial, non-notable, and WP:UNDUE content to WP:BLPs? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry!
I didn’t mean to double-link on the page for Schneider's Bakery. Queen GameHackGirl (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
IP editor questionably changing cats to "children's" categories, almost certainly in contravention of WP:CATVER. I think this particular editor has possibly been doing this for weeks (probably from this range, not this specific IP). Almost certainly WP:DE on this. Likely needs to be mass-reverted, at least on the "children's" categories thing. May need a (range?) block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Resumed off 3 month block on range, now blocked 1 year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
2804:D49 (etc.) range
I know they've had a focus mainly on TV articles and I've seen you revert/warn them multiple times. Just letting you know I've opened an ANI discussion regarding this range at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent WP:DE IP range. Magitroopa (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Geraldo, my recollection is that this article has been a target of a previous vandal or sock... I don't remember the details, but I know we've had problems here before. Anyway, it seems to have taken on a renewed focus from a problematic IP – 69.127.80.35 (see IP's Talk page) – so I'm wondering if there might be a connection... Just letting you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Lots of deleted messages on his page too. Worth a watch. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
File:Game Shakers.jpg
Someone vandalized the image at this location (leading an IP to remove the image from the infobox at Game Shakers). I attempted to restore the clean version at the image location, but I'm still seeing the image that doesn't belong there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I put a speed tag on the image file with a message to fix this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
This has been released on Disney+. A few things I notice – The episode listing is under "1 season", so it makes no "season" distinction. Second, unlike a lot of other streaming services, the original airdates are not listed on Disney+ (they don't seem to do this for any show, not even their recent ones), so it's no help with that. Finally, and this is the part that concerns me – the episode listing order on Disney+ is different that the current episode order listing at the Wikipedia article. I don't know what to do about this. Disney+ lists "Herstory in the Making" as "S1:E5", but I am a little skeptical about this as it does seem likely that this is the first episode of the series (or at least the first one broadcast...), and the U.S. Copyright office does have "Herstory in the Making" as episode "101" (or "1-01"). So, for now, I'm not going to touch the episode listing order at the Wikipedia article – for the correct order, we really do need the original air dates. (I may add some of the prod. codes from the U.S.C.O., if it's a slow day and I feel like it and I am bored.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Disney+ doesn't have the original airdates and we can't really tell if they are ordering them per the original airing order or some other order that makes sense to them. Best to leave the current order alone until we get more information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: I've already reverted quite a bit, but I need help mass reverting this IP. I don't know how far their disruption goes, date-wise, but they are violating WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. Amaury • 02:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
WTF did you do that?
Sorry I didn’t get the message wrong on Coco. DeBlockerMan G7 (talk) 17:31 (UTC)
- @DeBlockerMan G7: See WP:MFILM. Also don't move articles until you better understand the article naming conventions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Here We Go Again – Draft:Cooper Barnes
@Amaury and MPFitz1968: Draft has been recreated. I believe all previous attempts have been from a banned socker – Cadeken. Report has already been filed at WP:SPI, but bears watching. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
May need more eyes here – edit warring IP is insisting on an edit that is both redundant with information that is already in the article, is not an improvement, and is vaguely WP:SYNTH-y to boot. They don't look to be dropping the stick, and I'm now at three reverts. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Pig fancier
The guy disrupting Babe and Pig Racing seems to have worked out that he can evade the threat of blocks and continue editing in the same way by shifting computer. I've just asked Gilliam if he'd consider blocking the whole range (as he has done in the past) to show that warnings have teeth too. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sweetpool50: He edits in range of 2603:7000:903E:E2F1::/64 was previously range blocked for 3 months for unsourced WP:OR species pipes, generally irrelevant to the the story as well even if correct. Still at it. I've reported in the past but nothing was done. Hope you have better luck. The new IP each time is somewhat automatic for how ISPs give out dynamic IPs. The /64 is the real person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I reported again - now range blocked for 1 year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well done! Gilliam has given the article just a fortnight's protection from IPs. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
List of TV shows that Nick Jr. aired were cancelled
Here are the list of TV shows that Nick Jr. aired were cancelled. They are Corn & Peg, Top Wing, Rusty Rivets, and Butterbean's Café. All of these shows will not return. 2601:C2:4100:46E0:181B:6E4E:FD68:7634 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- All of them either need to have 1 year pass since the last episode aired or have a reliable source support that there will be no more episodes if within the year before we can note them complete in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-related to User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 24#Dove Cameron, though this was added earlier this year, so it seems we finally got direct confirmation there, though even there I would argue it would be nice to have a more official statement, but it's enough. I'm actually posting this based on the latest talk page discussion I saw. Like with Dove Cameron, Pink News is also being used here, which seems to be a gossip website, which we know is WP:NOTRS. And their source is just from the Twitter account of another gossip magazine or whatever, which isn't even verified. The video includes the quote "Who doesn’t think Harry Styles is cool? Also he’s hot, you know... This is also my coming out video I guess.
" I completely personally agree with the notion that, especially in 2021, coming out shouldn't be a big deal. In fact, I'd go father and say that there should be no coming out. Someone who is gay, for example, should be just that. I don't see straight people having to "come out." I'll stop here, though, before I end up ranting. I'll also note that is not the full quote. See here for the entire quote/line of compliments.
Now, the first two sentences of that quote are actually irrelevant, and all you'd need would be the last sentence. To elaborate on that, and I'll try to keep this short so I, again, don't end up ranting as this is a stereotype that still seems to exist which bothers me, though thankfully, not as much as it used to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with females and males complimenting each other. And I'm sure you've seen how two people, regardless of gender and sexuality, who are really good friends will often have their own inside jokes or just "inside statements" in general. So if two guys compliment each other and call each other "hot," it doesn't necessarily mean they're each not straight. They're just really close friends who are comfortable making statements like that about each other. Although a person can of course also make comments like that about someone they know of, but don't know personally, like a celebrity, in this case.
Anyway, to my point, can we use that as a source to back up that he's part of the LGBT community? If it came from Joshua Bassett directly, the video itself would be okay, as per WP:ABOUTSELF, the problem is it doesn't come from Joshua Bassett himself, it comes from an unverified Twitter—though even if it were verified, it wouldn't change anything, since it's a gossip magazine—and I checked his Twitter as well and found nothing. So the video itself is fine, just not who's providing it. I will note, too, that nothing in the video says which specific part of LGBT is, just that he's part of LGBT. So we don't know if he's gay, bi, trans, etc. Amaury • 18:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: The video is the real source and an interview is WP:ABOUTSELF, an advocacy site interpretation of what he stated isn't reliable and is just putting their own hopeful spin on what he said. I agree, he wasn't clear in the video although in context of agreeing with Stiles it is strongly implied that what Stiles stated is what he would have stated about himself too. As I stated before, without real evidence, claiming LBGT membership is somewhat of an empty "I'm special too and I'm one of the good guys" claim that doesn't really mean much and the "unduly self-serving" part of ABOUTSELF sources seems to apply. On the other hand this is a contentious social issue where normal standards of Wikpedia don't seem to apply and this sort of thing is considered important to have in bio articles with even the flimsiest justification. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- When you say "Stiles" (
although in context of agreeing with Stiles it is strongly implied that what Stiles stated is what he would have stated about himself too
), are you talking about Harry Styles? Or are you referring to something else? I'm a little confused on what you're trying to say there. But I agree that all areas of Wikipedia should follow guidelines the same, with occasional exceptions being reached via local consensus, especially BLPs. However, the basics, such as sourcing, shouldn't have these exceptions. Things involving LGBT, death, cause of death—such as with Cameron Boyce—etc. should come from strong sourcing. Unfortunately, not all areas of Wikipedia follow things the same. Or, rather, as you stated in your last sentence, they do, but with weak sourcing. Amaury • 19:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)- @Amaury: Sorry, just a typo - I misspelled Harry Styles. I meant the implication of Bassett's words is that he would say the exact same thing as Styles - what Styles said about himself is what Bassett would say too about himself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. It just wasn't making sense to me, even taking that into account. So basically, if I read that right, what you're saying is that just because Bassett was "gushing" over Styles, it does not necessarily mean Bassett isn't straight. I completely agree. Now, based on the video itself, even though it is not clear on where he specifically falls and comes from a WP:NOTRS, he's more than likely part of LGBT, but yeah. Plenty of people have or have had "man-crushes" or "fem!crushes" and while some have turned out to be part of LGBT, it also doesn't necessarily mean they're all part of it. Amaury • 19:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the rumors removed here, which we obviously shouldn't list on Wikipedia because rumors can be either true or false—and we should only be listing stuff that's factual only and sourced to a reliable source, so props to that user for removing them—he likely falls under the bisexual part of LGBT based on the rumors of dating Sabrina Carpenter and Olivia Rodrigo. Now, even if they weren't rumors and were strongly sourced, I would still encourage staying with the current wording simply saying he's part of LGBT and avoid using bisexual, unless of course we had him or another reliable source directly stating that due to the correlation-causation fallacy. Just because he supposedly dated them does not mean anything. While he likely is bisexual, for all we know, he could be gay, and he dated Carpenter and Rodrigo while he was still straight and figuring out himself and who he liked and such. Overall, this is why, like you mentioned when we were discussing this about Dove Cameron, I generally avoid these types of areas. I'll still watch the article, but will generally hold back on sections like that. I will still ask questions and will still revert if it's something that's clearly vandalism, but otherwise, yeah. Amaury • 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: The quote I was referencing to was "This is also my coming out video, I guess." His direct words in context where "coming out" has a specific meaning. Nothing else he says really matters as much as that quote in that context. Unlike rumors of dating which we can't use even to try to interpret what he said, he did make an ABOUTSELF statement which we normally can use I though I still think it self-serving. He gave no further information. As far as we know, he never had any proven het relationship or actually any proven relationships of any sort so we have no evidence of anything other than what he directly stated. He himself may not know what he means, and may still be trying to define himself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now I getchu. Sorry, I tend to get confused sometimes. Heh. Amaury • 19:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: The quote I was referencing to was "This is also my coming out video, I guess." His direct words in context where "coming out" has a specific meaning. Nothing else he says really matters as much as that quote in that context. Unlike rumors of dating which we can't use even to try to interpret what he said, he did make an ABOUTSELF statement which we normally can use I though I still think it self-serving. He gave no further information. As far as we know, he never had any proven het relationship or actually any proven relationships of any sort so we have no evidence of anything other than what he directly stated. He himself may not know what he means, and may still be trying to define himself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the rumors removed here, which we obviously shouldn't list on Wikipedia because rumors can be either true or false—and we should only be listing stuff that's factual only and sourced to a reliable source, so props to that user for removing them—he likely falls under the bisexual part of LGBT based on the rumors of dating Sabrina Carpenter and Olivia Rodrigo. Now, even if they weren't rumors and were strongly sourced, I would still encourage staying with the current wording simply saying he's part of LGBT and avoid using bisexual, unless of course we had him or another reliable source directly stating that due to the correlation-causation fallacy. Just because he supposedly dated them does not mean anything. While he likely is bisexual, for all we know, he could be gay, and he dated Carpenter and Rodrigo while he was still straight and figuring out himself and who he liked and such. Overall, this is why, like you mentioned when we were discussing this about Dove Cameron, I generally avoid these types of areas. I'll still watch the article, but will generally hold back on sections like that. I will still ask questions and will still revert if it's something that's clearly vandalism, but otherwise, yeah. Amaury • 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. It just wasn't making sense to me, even taking that into account. So basically, if I read that right, what you're saying is that just because Bassett was "gushing" over Styles, it does not necessarily mean Bassett isn't straight. I completely agree. Now, based on the video itself, even though it is not clear on where he specifically falls and comes from a WP:NOTRS, he's more than likely part of LGBT, but yeah. Plenty of people have or have had "man-crushes" or "fem!crushes" and while some have turned out to be part of LGBT, it also doesn't necessarily mean they're all part of it. Amaury • 19:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Sorry, just a typo - I misspelled Harry Styles. I meant the implication of Bassett's words is that he would say the exact same thing as Styles - what Styles said about himself is what Bassett would say too about himself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- When you say "Stiles" (
Discord
Do you have a Discord account? I can add you if you want. TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TheRavineStudios:No, and no thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for your reply and have a nice day. =) TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Does this pass WP:GNG?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I my opinion, no. Press releases and mostly passing mentions only. Looks like marketing for the owning company. The company that owns this "Almar Sales Company" doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article, let alone one of its products. Also site looks dead. I don't see any long-term enduring notability about this sufficient for an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Based on recent edits at this article, I think there is a decent chance that Onezerothreefive7698 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MrBlueBirdLover6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same editor – i.e. socks. I just filed an unrelated SPI recently, and won't have time to do another for several days, but at the least this bears watching... Pinging Amaury too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
xSighx range is still at it... and still apparently unable to follow templates such as regarding writers here. Clearly hasn't learned from their two blocks about a month ago at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa: I left a message here for blocking admin for last blocks. This is becoming annoying as editor seems to be, in general, good faith but ignores guidance and refuses to communicate. Mobile edits, dynamic IPs forced by his ISP, and suspect English skills may be an issue. Or he is just ignoring guidelines and instructions deliberately and just doing what he wants. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting to note that after ignoring guidelines/instructions/all talk page warnings, now with the /40 range being blocked for 3-months, now they finally decide to communicate- so far it's only been a, "3 months isn't fair", and, "why am i blocked". I decided to leave them a message on their latest request, but it's quite telling that they apparently don't even understand why they are being blocked- seems like it is a 'doing what they want' and/or not understanding how Wikipedia works... Magitroopa (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Likely to need more eyes here. There are several things wrong with this IP's edit, starting with MOS:FILMCAST, followed by nothing in the film(s) confirm the connection to the comics character at all, so media speculation from 3 years ago confirms exactly nothing about this in any case (IOW, WP:ONUS applies). Also, be warned, they may be hitting Zendaya too, based on their latest edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
What is going on here?! While Glitter Force seems to be a real thing, and this seems like it may be a real project (but upcoming and not released yet), it is definitely not currently on Netflix, and certainly was not released in January of this year, so the "episodes listing" looks like a pure hoax. I also don't trust the cast section at all. Note that a lot of the questionable content looks to be the work of a single IPv6 editor... What should be done here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Most of the references used in the article don't mention the name of the series - the cites just falsify a title to make it look like they do. There is some indications in some sources that Saban had something planned but nothing looks to have come from that. Everything else in the article is pure invention. I added a hoax speedy tag to the article. Looks pretty blatant to me after looking into this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: ...and it has now been deleted. Need to watch for re-creation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: I just bought the complete series on PlayStation Network, as well as Lost in the West, the second season of Max & Shred since I didn't have Nicktoons at the time and therefore never had the chance to see it, and the three original The Karate Kid films. For Big Time Rush I may take advantage of it to cleanup the articles, but for now, like when I got the complete series of Boy Meets World, if you guys ever need me to verify anything, feel free to ask. Amaury • 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)