User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 33

Moana

I strongly feel like the passages in the production segment of the article should be in the their own little passages Sarah afton (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah afton: I disagree. Start a discussion on the article talk page if you wish to change the organization of the article. Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film applies and article conformed to the layout recommended. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

24.21.186.246

IP is making mass changes to TV series articles, some to the 'distributor' parameter of articles, but in general to the 'company' parameter. I doubt the changes are correct. Probably needs a mass revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Not all edits are bad but a lot are. Last 3 month block for this IP ended Apr 19, 2022 and he resumed immediately it ended and very active. I'll watch and fix what is obviously wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Tunisia IPs

Is there anything at all to do with this besides just reporting ranges as they appear? I'm sure you know what I mean by now, as you've reverted multiple IPs of theirs. Checking the history of articles such as MBC+ Drama, List of television shows set in Los Angeles, MBC Bollywood, and plenty of others should help point out what I'm talking about... (most recently at 197.244.128.0/17). Magitroopa (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I'm aware. I've seen at least 9 -/16 and -/17 ranges being used by that editor, maybe more I haven't caught yet. ISP:TopNet using ASN:37705 see [1] - there's a lot. I can't think of much more to do than just report the ranges as they get used and identified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Query

Is this in scope for the article? It doesn't look like it to me. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Article scope says: been broadcast under the banner "Nickelodeon Original Movie". Nothing about that in the article added so I'd judge it out-of-scope for article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done – I have reverted on WP:SCOPE grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ViacomCBS or Paramount Global

Not sure which one of those is right in terms of what should be displayed - the IP address you reverted (e.g. here) has also changed those links as well by looking at these contributions earlier on. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: That IP was part of a range, recently blocked, mostly making disruptive edits. Some were likely good but I consider any edit done dubious without checking. As for ViacomCBS and Paramount Global, it depends on the context and the sources. We should display the appropriate sourced name in the article without piping - the redirect works (MOS:NOPIPE). If the article is talking about the present state, the latest name. If the article is talking about the past, the name used then should be used. This normally comes up in credits and how information is sourced. A note such as "old name" (now "new name") may be appropriate if true. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess that would be right given Paramount Global is the current name of the mass media unit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Kandyse McClure

How do you think the lede of this article should be handled? "Kandyse" is not exactly a WP:HYPOCORISM of "Candice", but a completely nonstandard spelling, so I am thinking that in this case the "quote name" is actually justified. Though there are also other ways to handle this... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: It isn't a hypocorism but an alternative spelling of her legal name pronounced the same way. I would prefer the construction, known as Kandyse McClure, following the name, though. I think quoted isn't appropriate here as it isn't really a hypocorism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think my preference is, "..., known [or credited] professionally as Kandyse McClure..." I think that's usually the best way to handle this sort of thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That works. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The Villains of Valley View

You're very knowledgeable on this stuff. Is the recently added category by the IP correct? It needs to be fixed to be alphabetical, but before I do that, is it WP:DEFINING? I know that if a series has twins, for example, like Stuck in the Middle, it's just a series with twins, but not about them, hence why we don't include the category about twins there. (However, the about twins category is correct on a series like The Thundermans.) Would this series be about supervillains or just with supervillains? I'm leaning toward it being about supervillains, but you're more knowledgeable here than I am. Ping IJBall as well. Amaury • 17:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: A TV series featuring villain protagonists seems to fit the category. From what I am reading, that is sort of the central premise of the series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. On a side note, if you take a look at User talk:Starforce13#The Villains of Valley View, this is basically The Thundermans from the villains' perspective. Amaury • 17:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Colin Ford

What exactly are we supposed to include under the notable works parameter? Because it seems like it's otherwise easy to just list everything under the sun. Amaury • 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: Should be limited to things he got a major award for or is specifically known to be a major contributor in. It isn't meant to be a copy of the filmography in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so... Hm... Does status also count, such as whether a person is main or recurring? Should we only include those where the actor is/was a main cast member and has gotten a major award? Or does it matter whether they're main or recurring? Amaury • 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'd say more than just main cast, more something the actors is strongly associated with, like the lead character. It should be a major part of that person's career. It is a bit of a judgment call. Shouldn't be more than a few major projects listed. 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it should generally not be used at all. It is certainly over-used on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Lab Rats (American TV series)

Need your assistance here in regards to an editor who does not understand WP:CATVER. Maybe you can explain it to them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Essentially the same issue over on The Villains of Valley View. Amaury • 21:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Camera type at Ultra Violet & Black Scorpion

I don't exactly know the difference between single and multi-camera, so I just go by what the sources say. In this case, the "About the Show" section on The Futon Critic lists it as multi-camera ([2]). There have been two attempts now to change it to single-camera, one of those by a user I trust, but wanted more opinions. Thoughts? Courtesy ping for SatDis. Amaury • 00:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: Go with what the sources say. If people think the sources are wrong, their WP:BURDEN to prove it. If it is contentious make sure the data is sourced in the article where it is mentioned. Edit summary sourcing is pointless. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source for the casting section coincidentally also sources that, since it's the series' homepage on TFC. Amaury • 01:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: @Geraldo Perez: Thanks for the ping and for calling me "trusted"! The show is definitely single-camera, as multi-camera setup is reserved for sitcoms. I agree that it should be sourced though - the best I could find was an interview with the show's cinematographer (you can safely assume they are a reliable source). I have added this in. SatDis (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for finding that source! Amaury • 15:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Descendants (2015 film)

Could use your help here explaining to IP editor what makes for a valid article category. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of What's Next for Sarah? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article What's Next for Sarah?, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's Next for Sarah? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandal question

Geraldo – could this IP be the Thomas the Tank Engine vandal? (Is there more than one of these?!) Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Possibly. Seems a common edit is replacing dashes with "is a" in character lists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Samuelloveslennonstella

... has been reverted around 20 times now for violations of WP:SPLIT and has multiple final warning on his/her talk page. Wouldn't it be time for a sanction/block or something? --FMSky (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky and Samuelloveslennonstella: Should probably be discussed at WP:ANI for the excessive number of undiscussed splits done without due consideration. However WP:SPLIT permits and encourages WP:BOLD splits for obvious cases, a judgement call, and it only really becomes an issue if the split is redone after the revert of the first one. Still ignoring the messages and basically spamming splits where splitting is not needed is disruptive. I may take it to ANI at some point if it continues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Question on page protection template

Hi. The reason I didn't simply revert as you ultimately did here is I didn't know what Template:Pp-pc1 was. That redirects to Template:Pp-pc. So I just tagged it with that from the TW dropdown. After looking further, it seems be a page move resulting from Template talk:Pp-pc#Requested move 5 October 2018 for whatever that's worth. I guess it doesn't matter if the pp icon currently redirects through this old name? --DB1729 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@DB1729: Thanks for the info. That IP was making lots of dubious edits and was blocked before so I just put the article back to the state it was before his edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey dude my name is Jack I was the one editing the Puss in boots cast I was just wondering why you keep on removing my descriptions on the characters i’m not vandalizing the page or anything not trying to be rude but can you please stop 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:C04E:F981:32B4:F980 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

puss in boots character descriptions

Hey dude my name is Jack I was the one editing the Puss in boots cast I was just wondering why you keep on removing my character descriptions I’m not vandalizing the page not trying to be rude but can you please stop 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:C04E:F981:32B4:F980 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at the edit history for the page and read the edit summaries. I explained why there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well i’m sorry dude I just thought that I would add character descriptions I’m very sorry but I won’t stop it’s not vandalizing the page if I was vandalizing the page I would understand but i’m just adding character descriptions I don’t know what else to say to you dude 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:C04E:F981:32B4:F980 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. You make changes, they get evaluated by others, if deemed not improvements to the article, they get undone. If you disagree, start a discussion on the talk page about it. I wasn't the only person undoing those pointless and obvious character relationship descriptions. That is just extra noise added to the article that has no value. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Look dude i’ll start a discussion but don’t call my changes pointless please i’m not trying to be rude to you 2601:18D:67E:EF30:240F:1D8B:A986:B4A8 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And I have a piece of advice for you just please stop wasting your time on removing my stuff I’m just gonna add it back so yeah I don’t know what else to tell you dude 2601:18D:67E:EF30:240F:1D8B:A986:B4A8 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

DUDE I don’t know if you forgot but I literally told you yesterday don’t waste your time removing my stuff I’m just gonna put it back i’m sorry if you have a problem with it but I’m not vandalizing the page 2601:18D:67E:EF30:E906:E446:A260:BF75 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:edit warring and take it to the talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

DUDE i’m trying to keep my patience with you stop removing my stuff IAM NOT vandalizing the page gosh 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:CCE8:92A2:48A2:4119 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides adding incorrect info that isn't supported by the references and persisting. That is WP:disruptive editing. Discuss this on the talk page if it matters but at the least don't add incorrect and unsourced info to articles. 16:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok dude look I am sorry can you ask whoever locked the page to unlock it I promise I won’t mess with it again I swear i’m actually serious 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:CCE8:92A2:48A2:4119 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I won’t mess around with the editing anymore 2601:18D:67E:EF30:F4B3:310A:5295:3962 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Again dude I’m very sorry 2601:18D:67E:EF30:F4B3:310A:5295:3962 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ana de Armas

Wouldn't hurt to have you take a look at this, when you get a chance. FTR, I have posted to Talk:Ana de Armas about MOS:ETHNICITY issues. One IP, in particular, is not interested in discussing. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I strongly believe that she should be described as a Spanish actress based on notable work but I know that would not be stable in the article. Spanish and Cuban was stable for a while but got changed in May. It is good to have the talk page discussion as no matter what is decided it will be changed because people aesthetically don't like "and" and prefer "-" even though "and" is grammatically correct and unambiguous in meaning for equal weight adjectives. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by CBC Television

Nothing to do with your revert. Just an FYI. Majority of the list isn't sourced. So... Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Just Add Magic (TV series)

According to MOS:TVPLOT, "For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table...If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username: The guideline at the beginning recommends a "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview" section at the beginning to give context to the rest of the article. At the very least something needs to be there describing the overall series in some manner in a bit more detail than what belongs in the lead. Episode summaries talk about the individual episode contents and don't give the overall description of the season or series. Most articles I have seen have something there at the beginning tell what the series is about. The Plot content in the Just Add Magic is excessive and should be trimmed a lot, but not removed completely. This was also brought up on the talk page and MPFitz1968 mentioned some plans to split the episodes out to a separate article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL that was two years ago and they never did anything w/ it. This is my biggest frustration w/ Wikipedia. Everybody loves to talk about what we "should do" but everybody's afraid to do it.

I'm looking at the series articles cited in MOS:TVPLOT. Looks like some series articles do have a "premise" section, but it isn't necessarily standard. State of Affairs doesn't have one; they just go straight to Characters. The Blacklist has one, but their episode summaries are on a different page. If you really think it needs one, I would say a couple sentences sketching out the basic premise would be adequate. Policy seems pretty clear that anything more than that is not desirable. Speaking of that episode table, some of those summaries are looking awfully long too... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username and MPFitz1968: MOS:TVSPLIT supports an episode list split out at 50 to 60 episodes, this article has 61. A split would be a reasonable thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If you do the splitting, I'll chop down the plots. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username: Need a few days with the split tag up to gather comments or objections. If no objections by then, I'll split the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

BrandtM113

Please advise what to do about this editor – just made the exact same edit at Katherine McNamara that I gave a Level 4 warning for back in March. This has going on for years now, I think. To be clear, what they are doing is specifically disallowed under WP:FILMOGRAPHY – "Use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns (ex. #2) is acceptable, but rowspan formatting should not be used in other columns...". But they continue with the rowspan vandalism. I have no faith in WP:ANI at all. Are there any other options here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I doubt ANI would do much. Most that would happen is a message from an admin about the issue. However repeating after the warning could result in a block. Most edits are fine as far as my scan can tell. Not much that can be done other than just revert the somewhat rare periodic violation of the MOS and maybe drop a reminder message on his talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Left another (personalized) Level 4 warning for this. If they do it again, I may try WP:ANEW, as this is clearly slow-motion edit warring (and contra-MOS, to boot). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Blush (Maya Hawke album)

Does this pass WP:NALBUMS? Ping MPFitz1968 as well. It looks to me like only Ref #5 (Variety) and Ref #19 (USA Today) look like significant sources, but I'm not sure either of those actually count for more than "passing mentions" of the album itself. Everything else looks like minor internet site as "reviews", with nothing from something like Rolling Stone. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Meets point 1 of NALBUMS. Sufficient reliable secondary source coverage. Basically article meets GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: (edit conflict) I'm going to think no on the NALBUMS notability. The article lacks something like a "commercial performance" section which would identify record chart success or sales certifications. It also doesn't have a section containing tables for the charts or certifications, so a pretty good indication that it wouldn't meet those criteria under NALBUMS. I checked the US Billboard 200 in the weeks following its release, going about a month out (the entire month of September 2020 in this case), and couldn't see it on the chart. I also looked at the Grammy Awards over the last two years, and no nominations. I discounted awards like the American Music Awards, MTV VMAs, etc., since it would have to have some sort of chart presence, either with the album itself or the songs on it (no appearance of any of those on the Billboard Hot 100 either), for it to be considered. Not sure about any international charting, outside the US, but I'm guessing no shows anywhere. All in all, I can't say it passes NALBUMS. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968 and IJBall: Charting is just one indication of notability for albums, though. Basically how popular the album it is. NALBUM is fairly clear that if GNG is met for an album it really isn't any different than for other topics that meet GNG. Still the significance of the coverage of the existing sourcing is open for debate. Means AfD for a full discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How GNG is met matters – Is it passing mentions or not? Are the sources quality secondary sources or not? This is one of those articles that looks like it throws a bunch of crummy refs at you to obscure the fact that the subject is not really notable. The sources at this article aren't really covering an album – they're covering a celebrity. This is basically exactly what's wrong with WP:POPMUSIC-type articles on Wikipedia these days – they aren't encyclopedic, they're "fanish". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Seems a reasonable argument to make at an AfD. Passing mention of the album when the celebrity is actually the topic being covered seems a pretty strong refutation of that source providing the necessary significant coverage of the album. Showing GNG isn't met when on the surface it appears it has been will be needed to sway the consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Jodie Sweetin

This article is gonna need more eyes. Unsourced content (with possible hateful comments concerning recent overturn of Roe v. Wade), and once again, undue emphasis on her activism as a primary occupation. Pinging IJBall, Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

'Animation' header vandal is back...

At 107.77.229.56 – e.g. [3]. I'm quite sure they've already been blocked multiple times for this. Will require a mass revert, and a report to WP:AIV, I'd think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Reported as block evasion of Special:Contributions/2604:2D80:EE02:5300::/64. This IP is likely transient as ATT cell phone data network outlet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting you check an edit

Geraldo, can you please check this specific edit and the cats at Motherland: Fort Salem in general? FTR, the show is definitely about "witchcraft", and so is likely about "magic" too. But I'm wondering about WP:SUPERCAT/WP:SUBCAT issues with all of these cats here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sofia Carson (debut album)

Geraldo, I'm not at admin, so I can't check, but I am pretty sure that this was previously deleted from some reason or other, and User:Dhiego Allvez has just disruptively created it again. One, it's at the wrong title (and I have no idea if it passes WP:NALBUM yet). And two, I'm pretty sure this user should not be blocked for WP:DE on this. Just letting you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Carson (album). Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Even though the result of that discussion was a redirect to Sofia Carson discography, I pretty much equated that as a delete when the user recreated the content into the above article (improperly disambiguated one). Definitely deserves an WP:ANI report if we're seeking a block. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See what happens with the speedy I requested. Delete is cleaner as at wrong location. If not deleted, AfD results still apply to this article too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

But still nothing has been done about the editor in question. At best, this seems to be a clear WP:CIR issue. And that's the best-case scenario... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor is obstinate, not incompetent. Possibly not comfortable communicating in English. Generally articles he creates and other edits seem mostly ok and in my opinion his contributions are generally a net benefit to the project. He is somewhat encouraged in fact by WP:BOLD. I doubt much will be accomplished at ANI other than firmer warnings to follow group consensus. That is just my opinion, I wouldn't object to others pushing this at ANI, I just doubt it will accomplish much. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Girl Meets World

I'm fairly positive this is WP:NOTDEFINING. Mostly due to the fact that this series is a spinoff, not a sequel. Amaury • 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: WP:CATVER as well as not mentioned as a sequel in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Shantel VanSanten

I'm likely going to need help here – editor keeps replacing portrait image at this article, after ignoring a talk page discussion that they started. At this point, they are officially edit warring. I've now given them a Level 4 warning, but they show no signs of stopping. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And right on cue, they've immediately (soft) rereverted. I'm probably past the point where I can revert, but something must be done. If you think an WP:ANEW case should be filed, or something else, let me know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aniket Singh Bhadoria reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Amaury • 15:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So they're back, doing the exact same thing – now what? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Report at WP:ANEW as resumed from EW block for this. Continuation should get a longer block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if they do it again after your revert. If they do, I guess I can report to WP:ANEW again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Did it again, I reported, 1 week block for edit warring. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Likely continuing edit warring as logged out IP 202.142.121.61 (geolocates to India) – I have requested semi-protection at WP:RfPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I reported the IP's block-evading edit at the existing WP:ANEW entry for the editor already blocked, so the admins know about this and could likely extend the block duration of that editor. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Danielle Rose Russell

Geraldo, I would appreciate you looking at this, especially because this new editor is mischaracterizing what is going on (e.g. accusing me of WP:EW, which is patently false, etc.). Feel free to also look at my comments on their talk page. Despite me lodging an objection to their edits, they persist, along with their casting of false WP:ASPERSIONS. Feel free to handle this anyway you wish – I am not going to revert further, though I disagree with the edit and how this has played out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Seems to be responding to your inputs, only issue is order of presentation now. I suggest accepting the latest edit as he dropped the "best known" assertion, the major issue originally. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the main issue now is the implicit personal attacks by casting WP:ASPERSIONS (and doing the same on their talk page in the conversation – it's another case of "I didn't do that, you did" argumentation), and edit warring to their preferred version. (I'm not sure that really can be described as "responding to my inputs" in all but a superficial way.) This is not a good way to start out editing, and this editor should know that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I see frustration of a new editor and strong pushback to what he thinks is unfair treatment and a somewhat lack of understanding of our interaction norms. He is pushing things a bit too far but nothing will be accomplished by responding further to this and might end up discouraging a potential valuable editor. A continues pattern of behavior going forward may make it an issue. Be careful of WP:BITE Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Followup

May need additional help here on another matter – new editor who may be a "representative" of the subject (or claims to be?) making undiscussed changes including the removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content and adding a likely WP:COPYVIO image to the article. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: That photo was ripped from IMDb. I tagged it for deletion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Katheryn Winnick

Please keep an eye out here. The added cat looks redundant to me, but more importantly recent citizenship is not ledeworthy, esp. when done in a way that violates MOS:ETHNICITY. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: No information on how she is a dual citizen and when that happened based on reference in article. Could be naturalized, could be a parent is American and thus had it from birth. Not enough info to tell. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But no matter what, she is not notable as an "American actress" – all her formative earlier career work was as a Canadian. So "American" does not belong in the lede. Also, based on your changes, the article now contains some questionable cats that you may wish to remove. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: If she became an American national mid career and lived and worked in the US after that point with notable work in both countries she is as much an American actress as a Canadian one. My choice would be to change the lead to say she is an American and Canadian actress. I don't think becoming American is very recent as the article where she stated her citizenship was published in 2015 and she did have notable activities after that point. The only change I made to the article so far is to accurately reflect what a given source stated so the naturalization category could be removed and the acquired one remain. The other categories reflect having American and Canadian (definitely not the ethnicity tag Canadian-American) in the intro. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the American citizenship is recent – possibly within the last 5 years. But Big Sky is filmed in Canada, Wu Assassins was filmed in Canada, and Vikings... well, it wasn't filmed in either country. Polar was also filmed in Canada, though other recent films of hers look like they were filmed in Canada and/or the U.S. There is no evidence that she even lives part-time in the U.S. Based on all of that, "Canadian" seems like the correct description – that's where she started her career, and where she's still primarily working out of. The "American citizenship" looks mostly incidental. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: She asserted she had American citizenship 7 years ago and gave no indication it was recent even at that time, she seemed comfortable about having it and talked about how it made working on some projects easier. Still no info in the article about where she normally resides and works. Lots of projects shot in Canada for cost reasons, doesn't mean people working on them are Canadian based. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Raven Symoné and Jess McAvoy

@IJBall and MPFitz1968: It's likely I'll need more eyes here. IPs and one user, likely the same person, ignoring WP:STATUSQUO and not attempting to discuss and reach a possible consensus. Amaury • 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Raven's talk page about this where I commented. Beyond that MOS:GENDERID, while officially part of the manual of style, is effectively Wikipedia policy in terms of how it is enforced, so tread with care. I generally chose to not get too involved as the rules imposed to implement this annoys me too much. Basically the changes to the articles in question follow MOS:GENDERID as strictly interpreted. Only issue is level of reliable source support for the supposed gender change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I will be careful, but basically this is another one of those instances where people are dumb and don't know how things work and believe that guidelines are binding top-down rules that we must absolutely robotically follow to the T. They're not, hence guidelines. Amaury • 21:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo

Need some extra eyes here – you may recall that that this whole suite of articles draws IP vandals, but right now it's the DAB page that's getting unwanted attention. Hopefully the IP gets the hint and nothing more happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo#Filmography

This edit added a number of her talk show appearances and other events that she was involved in (including Tiny Desk, which is done by NPR), but are things that bloat her filmography, as they are not necessarily works of hers, but her talking about those works. To what extent should we be including this stuff in her filmography. I'm thinking her SNL appearance last year is fine, but going into every talk show appearance is not. I reverted the edit. Will ping IJBall and Amaury for additional advice on this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Revert – hosting something like SNL is considered notable enough to include. But general talk show appearances are not. This has been discussed, more than once I think, in WT:FILMBIO and the conclusion has always been that talk show appearances don't merit inclusion. I would think "podcast" appearances on podcast talk shows would also not merit including... As for Olivia Rodrigo, I have taken that one off my watchlist and have no interest in editing there: in general, the "pop music" articles are all edited too "fanishly" for my tastes, and I do not want to deal with that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I agree. In SNL she is a performer doing comedy skits, not herself just being interviewed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Leonor - Heir apparent

Moved to Talk:Leonor, Princess of Asturias § Heir apparent

User:Turboplate

Geraldo, a heads up that this editor is going around and mass changing the wording in articles. In some cases what they are doing is an improvement, but in many cases what they are doing is replacing their preferred term for a term like "tween" which is coming directly from sources. This needs to be monitored, and some reversions are going to be required here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ICarly (season 1)

About tht edit I made, I didn't know that it was overlinking and contained original research. Sorry about that. Cwater1 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Dog with a Blog

I may need more or closer eyes here. This particular user has tried this before back on December 7, 2018, ignoring names per credits. Another user tried this back on November 14, 2021. Trying this a little less than four years later does not change things. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is literally a "names per credits" situation, and I'd want to see a firm talk page consensus to not follow that before changing it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The section should be converted to "Cast and characters" format, which would make it flow better, but regardless, yeah. Amaury • 20:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Request

Geraldo, could you please take a look at this edit, and other recent edits from this editor? – In the case of the edit in question, that last category added does not look correct to me. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Redundant supercat for one and the other category is for TV episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

IP Targeting List of Awards Articles

IP editor at (so far) 186.132.185.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 186.132.221.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) performing unexplained removals from various BLP List of Awards articles (including some WP:FLs), with Portuguese(?) language edit summaries, over the last few days. No idea if this IP has been involved in shenanigans before, but this does not look on the level to me. Certainly bears watching, and reporting if this persists. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverting IPs and block notices

I appreciate the back up, but remember that IPs are allowed to blank block notices. It's declined unblock appeals that they are not allowed to remove while blocked. If they want to remove the black notice, let 'em. No point in fighting them over it. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Zombies 3

I may need some eyes here with a user I've had issues with before. Ping IJBall as well, as I believe you're the one who said somewhere that the infobox for films is only for theatrical releases. They're trying to use WP:OSE arguments. Them posting on the talk page does not mean they automatically have consensus for their version. Amaury • 09:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dunno which IB is supposed to be used for streaming films – I'd ask in WT:TV about that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking user

Any chance to get some help here? A user is going against MOS:OVERLINK in most, if not, all of their edits. Rollback/revert of said edits would be much appreciated - [4]. Magitroopa (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Response to your comment at IJBall's talk page

@Geraldo Perez: As per WP:V [5][6][7]. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Horatio Bumblebee: Yes that supports the article move for Ryerson University, irrelevant to issue at hand, the name of the university the person attended and graduated from, what is on their diploma. That is what is sourced in the article and we go with that. That is why we have redirects to get people to the correct article if they care to click a link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a very pedantic argument. Fine, I am updating the categories to Category:Toronto Metropolitan University alumni - without making a reference to the fact that Ryerson is now called Toronto Metropolitan University - the cat will confuse some people. Making a reference to Ryerson now being called TMU would make things clear but if clarity is not desirable, so be it. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Horatio Bumblebee:What you should be doing is leaving Category:Ryerson University alumni in the articles for those who graduated from there and to honor WP:CATVER, and add that category as a subcategory to Category:Toronto Metropolitan University alumni which effectively adds all the names to the higher level category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense as the school has had several names over the years and so by your argument we'd need separate categories for Ryerson Institute of Technology, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Ryerson Polytechnic University, and Toronto Metropolitan University. If you want to create all those categories and populate them, you are free to but I'm done. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanking

Hey sorry - I didn't mean to thank u for ur last edit. I pressed the wrong thing - and I tried to click 'unthank' as it was being processed - but it thanked u anyway for some reason. I have no idea what that source actually says and don't want to become part of a potential edit conflict I have no idea about. I also dunno who besides u can see I thanked u. Stephanie921 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler

Can you please take a look at the current discussion about calling her a "television personality"? It needs a third opinion. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jules LeBlanc

Could you please review the source used for this edit? I decided to revert as I am doubting the source is reliable enough to be used for something WP:BLP-related. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: https://twitter.com/louisvillemojo1 isn't a verified account. Louisville Mojo doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. I don't see any indication that they have a reputation for fact checking. I think we can do better for a source for BLP data. The traffic accident should be sourced in some known news outlet. Dating info looks like gossip. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankie Grande

I added some recent things. One of them is that he reprised his Nickelodeon role of Frankini in 6 recent episodes of Danger Force, as noted in IMDB and other web sources, but I don't see very good WP:Reliable sources to cite for that. Can you add any? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Any aired episode is itself the "published" reliable source for the credits it lists - I assume he showed up in the credits. No need for anything else after it has aired. IMDb generally transcribes the credits correctly so is a convenience for the info, but ultimately everything can be verified by viewing the credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Assistance

Hey! COuld you take a look at the recent edits by an IP on the article Shrek (franchise)? I'm not exactly sure if they are constructive or not (I mean, I know removing the width parameters is unconstructive as it breaks the layout on smaller screens) and would like a second opinion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Image captions at WP:BLPs

Geraldo, we have at least one editor (and one or more IPs?) that have been adding "location" details to the portrait image captions of WP:BLPs lately – e.g. this edit. In general, I know that only the year the image was taken matters, and other info like this in the image caption is considered extraneous. But is there an actually guideline on the subject?! I couldn't find anything specific after a quick search of WP:Caption and WP:BLP. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: From Template:Infobox person for caption "Caption for image, if needed. Try to include the date of photo, some context". Sort of editorial decision as to what matters here. For a generic image of the person where taken and specific date generally is irrelevant. Year is always important as people change appearance. Location makes sense if something about the location impacts the appearance of the person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Faceless Lover

• Muchas Gracias to your help ! Good Friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Betabum: Please see MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and don't use flag icons in the infobox. Just name the county, no more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Andi Matichak

I'd appreciate more eyes here (I'd ping Amaury and MPFitz1968 as well, if I thought they were fans of the most recent Halloween film series!) – see the message I have left on the talk page of the editor in question (note: over 80% of this editor's edits have been to this one article!). But this looks like months worth of attempts to add low quality content to this article. I fear an intervention of some sort is going to be required here (possibly WP:RfPP and a WP:ECP?...). Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looking at edit history looks like a fan with a WP:SPA targeting this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I think page protection is probably the best approach here if their editing continues like this. I think I may watchlist this page for a while... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'll watch it for a while too. Edits aren't vandalism, but young fans editing tend to be vexing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm at 3 reverts here now, so you will have to get the next one if they add back poorly sourced stuff again. Also, if they do do it again, we should think about going to WP:RfPP as discussed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

And this is not encouraging. Definitely think a page protection request is in order. Let me know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Makenzie Vega

Could you please review recent editing here (and at the talk page). Note that this will have spillover to Alexa PenaVega as well – issue is whether, 1) PenaVega is notable as a "singer" (personally, I've never heard anything about her being a notable singer, but apparently it's in the lede there (I haven't checked, as I don't edit that article)), and 2) even if she is a minor singer whether mentioning that at the article on her sister is even necessary. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Alexa has been listed as a singer in her article since about 2007. Originally just an actress, then added occasional singer, then dropped the occasional. All her singing is in soundtrack albums for films she acted in, nothing notable independent of that. She should never have been listed as a singer in the first place for that, it is just an adjunct to her acting career. Serves no purpose to call her a singer in her sister's article, she isn't known for that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've made extensive changes to Alexa PenaVega due to this discussion – and I fully agree that the current article content there (which is also substantially undersourced) doesn't justify the inclusion of "singer" as a career. I've also (again) removed that from Makenzie Vega. If it's added back again, I'd appreciate a reversion on your end due to WP:3RR. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the same editor at Alexa PenaVega, though I am not going to keep doing that because it's not an article I watch (or am particularly interested in). But the "singer" stuff should be kept out of that article IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

And now they've reverted again at Alexa PenaVega. If you start a Talk page discussion on this there, I will comment, but outside of that, I'm not touching this any further at that article. But this editor is clearly disruptive – indeed, if they revert again at Makenzie Vega they can and should be taken to WP:ANEW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

There is further discussion about this at User talk:NowLaterorNever which you may be interested in. This editor appears to be more interested in WP:WINNING, and may try to ignore the consensus at Talk:Alexa PenaVega. But I intend to restore my edit after several days for the reasons outlined in the linked Talk page discussion. If they revert again, I think a report to WP:ANEW will be in order. Also, note their conflict with a second editor at a second article, so this is looking ike a pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

And now blocked for socking. I am going to restore my edit at Alexa PenaVega shortly. Pinging Pgbrown as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: The IP in the discussion was him too per stuff at the SPI page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks for the ping - I concur with your restoration at the Alexa PenaVega page. Thanks also @Geraldo Perez pgbrown (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Warped! and Side Hustle.

Just a heads up that a random IP, whom I suspect is one of our disruptive editors abusing logged out editing, based on their summaries—they are far too familiar with some things here to be "new"—has decided to mark these as over. The TVLine article states the following: Indeed, I hear that Nickelodeon will not be moving forward with a third season of Side Hustle or a second season of Warped! Emphasis mine. While the source being used is otherwise a reliable source, we cannot use this per the reasons we discussed here: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 13#Henry Danger. So just something to keep an eye on. Amaury • 01:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Going to ping IJBall, MPFitz1968, Starforce13, and Magitroopa as well. For Side Hustle, I think we can report it as over as there appears to be consensus for that on the article's talk page, but it would be using the tweet mentioned on the talk page, not the TVLine article. However, we definitely have nothing to use for Warped! Anton Starkman removing the series from his Instragram confirms nothing. Amaury • 01:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes "I hear" is used by reliable sources as an alternative way of saying they got the information from an industry source close to the subject. However, the way this article is presented as a Q&A, it's hard to tell whether "I hear" here means their industry source or rumors they've heard on the internet. If it were presented as an actual news article reporting the cancellations rather than answer prompted by a question, I would consider it more credible. — Starforce¹³ 13:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Character linking question

Is this linking OK? I would guess "no" – while the role is based on that character, the Once Upon a Time version is different than the movie version. Yes? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I don't like it but it is mentioned in that linked-to article and the Once Upon a Time character article links to the Frozen characters as well since they were derived from them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

73.29.227.204

Aren't there one, or more, persistent IP vandals that hit the Thomas and the Magic Railroad suite of articles? If so, this IP may be one of them. (And they're editing more than just Thomas articles, including Holly Hobbie (TV series) where I just reverted clear vandalism from the IP.) I would advise keeping an eye on this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

And now blocked for 1 week. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

24.153.41.117

Another IP either clueless about, or deliberately ignoring, WP:NOTBROKEN. Mass revert likely needed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing Article Guide

Thank for your message sir i would love you to put me through on editing Articles sir@Geraldo Perez

Ssamson1 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sweetie Funk

Capron and Rydel now have a baby daughter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHyaiEcZzJY . I don't have access to her birth certificate. knoodelhed (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Any differences between "favorite" and "favourite"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have no idea why you changed "favorite" to "favourite" on the "Toy Story" page. Toy Story is an American film, not a British film (or a Canadian film). I would say someone should definitely put "favorite" instead of "favourite" on the "Toy Story" page. "Favorite" is preferred in the United States; "favourite" is preferred in the United Kingdom (or Canada). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6445:9FF1:31EF:D3D4:102F:668F (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted solely because of WP:SURNAME and large number of inappropriate first names added. . Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Toy Story is an American film. The Toy Story page should have had "favorite toy" insteated of "favourite toy" because Toy Story is an American film, not British; "favorite" is preferred in the United States, while "favourite" is preferred in the United Kingdom. 2603:8000:6445:9FF1:31EF:D3D4:102F:668F (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It helps understanding if you actually read my edit summary and my reply to your first message. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Mm, for the wording, "favorite" is American; "favourite" is British. 2603:8000:6445:9FF1:31EF:D3D4:102F:668F (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you don't read what I write, this whole "conversation" is pointless. Stop pestering me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Young Hollywood a WP:RS?

This is regards to this edit. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Dubious as a reliable source and definitely doesn't support the categories added. Bio info looks to match what is in her IMDb profile and likely came from that. Site does have a Wiki article but I wouldn't trust it for bio info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Keystone18

Still having problems with this user (for previous history, see, for example, this) who seems to be, based on their name, a semi-WP:SPA account in terms of Pennsylvania-related topics editing. Current issue is overlinking at Alexandra Chando. Based on their user talk page history, they're now a fairly perennial problem editor. Any suggestions here?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Most edits I looked at are OK. Some WP:SEAOFBLUE issues breaking single links into two separate ones which shouldn't be done. About only thing that can be done is drop a message on his talk page about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

FTR, they just did the same thing a third time at Alexandra Chando, so I've left a detailed Level 3 warning at their Talk page. But I am not wrong – if they keep this up, eventually somebody is going to take them to WP:ANI, because it's been months and they are still doing these same kinds of edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Frankie Grande

See this]. I think it is dubious and not noteworthy. Just because the Grandes have sometimes asserted this in interviews does not make it noteworthy. "Today, many well-known celebrities have popularized a New Age pop-psychology distortion of Kabbalah that has more in common with the writings of Deepak Chopra than with any authentic Jewish source." ""The main danger in the popularization of Kabbalah is the belief that it has nothing to do with traditional Judaism or that one does not need to live as a Jew in order to engage in Kabbalah," she says. "Kabbalah is an integral part of Judaism and cannot and should not be wrested from its Jewish moorings." The popular version "has nothing to do with genuine Kabbalah." Kabbalah "is very demanding, and it requires a purity of soul and personality that Madonna just doesn't have." What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: "Pop Kabbalah" and seems a fad for a lot of celebrities. Need a pretty strong direct statement from the subject about religious beliefs. Don't see that in the sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you kindly make whatever correction you think appropriate in the Frankie Grande article? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Katie Findlay

May need back up here – IP editor has been edit warring for months for the inclusion of trivial content (and also unjustified changing of "pronouns") that as far as I can tell has not gotten any substantive secondary source coverage. They're at it again today. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Even her instagram list includes "she". Still it is a primary source not picked up or reported by any secondary source and not even expanded on. I'm for keeping the article easy for normal English readers of any level of competence to understand. Readers are the target for articles, not the person the article is about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Gromfun

I am just leaving a note here that this editor, who Geraldo reverted last night at Isabela Merced, may be another one of these problematic WP:FILMOGRAPHY "rowspan vandals", in addition to their adding a 'Directors' column when they were previously told not to do this, and worst of all removing valid sourcing from Filmographies!! I have left a detailed warning message on their page about all of this, and if they persist with any of this from this point forward, they can be considered a disruptive editor, with all that that signfies.

One note – they do not appear to be a sock of User:Mickeydee15 (or, if they are, there is no solid evidence to show this). If not, that, at least, is a relief. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cartoon Network people

Is this even a valid category?! – It really seems to me that this needs to go to WP:CfD for deletion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: It doesn't look to be defining for most of the people listed. Might be OK for network executives and major long-term employees where the link to the network is an important part of their notability, but seems pointless for people who just had some credits on some show that aired on the network. Same for a lot of the other "<corporate name> people" categories. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it seems like the name of the cat should be changed – perhaps to Category:Cartoon Network executives?... What I would like to know is do other categories similar to this exist for other networks? (CBS? ESPN?) Or is it a weird Cartoon Network-only thing?! If the latter, the cat should probably just go... But it seems like it needs to go to WP:CfD one way or the other. It's just that that's not my "beat"! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Category:Disney people for one is very well populated. This type of category seems accepted but should be purged of articles where it isn't defining for that person. Doubt CfD would delete them based on precedents. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Paul Butcher (actor)

Just giving you a heads up that I've made a substantial change to Paul Butcher (actor). I believe it is justified, but there may be pushback from IPs, etc. FWIW. Also, in general, I don't believe notability is demonstrated here – even a WP:NACTOR claim seems to rely on only Zoey 101. I intend to {{Notability}} tag this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Descendants (franchise)

May need backup here – see edit history. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Still getting problematic edits from IP here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you not watch the video? It's the exact same short, except they gave it an actual title. I included the timestamp and everything. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP may actually have a point that this section is sourced to just WP:YOUTUBE videos, which don't cut it as proper (secondary) sources. I would be in favor of just cutting this section from the article. Let me know if you agree. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

YouTube videos are fine as references if the channel is official. I looked at the YouTube description and saw nothing that indicated it had anything to do with Descendants. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Please watch the video itself at this timestamp. As you'll see, it features the exact same short as the original citation. The difference is that at 11:56, it includes a proper title card for the short, which the original YouTube upload did not have. As this is the title that appears within the short itself, it should be treated as the "proper" title for the purposes of the wiki. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I did watch it and it is included as part of another video. Who knows what changes they made to make it fit in that one. The original source is direct and clear and also authoritative. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite these supposed changes? Because I sure don't see any beyond the additional title card. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What we know is the episode was released with the title "Date Night at the Museum". The release title is the official one. They might have had something else as a working title or a former title but that is not the official release title. What showed up in the video embedded in some other episode doesn't reflect what they initially released and anything that shows up there is not "official", might be an old pre-release version for all we know. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not pre-release; this is an official upload of an episode of the Chibiverse compilation show which aired on Disney Channel just a few weeks ago, with a title given within the content of the episode itself, while the YouTube upload did not include one outside of the video title (which, I'll note, often differ from the official titles; see this official upload of Big City Greens S3E10, for example. Regardless, perhaps there can be a compromise via a cited footnote acknowledging the different titles, similar to my previous revision that you removed. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The initial release title is the "official" title. If the title changes in a later release, which this video is, it doesn't change the title it was released as. It is not uncommon to create works under one title and decide to release as something else. We go with what was released. The version that was initially released, minus the title card as they changed the title, is the official version. That the deleted title cards are include in a compilation video is basically trivia for the level of coverage in this franchise article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the section belongs. It is about a derivative work that is not produced as part of the franchise. I say remove it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I will not object to the section's removal if need be. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Section removed as WP:UNDUE. Might merit a mention in the article if there's secondary coverage. But doesn't merit a whole section regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Please revert more carefully

The IP disruption had already been cleared up when you did this. You restored an older, less accurate version of the page. SS451 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

220.236.41.151

Geraldo, please take a look at this IP's recent cat edits, and make sure they are legitimate, and that this isn't coming from one of the frequent IP cat WP:DEs/vandals. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

About the Disney's Aladdin characters pages

I'm real sorry for editing Aladdin, Jasmine, Genie, Jafar, and Iago pages like that. What I did was very wrong. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I replied on your page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

H2O: Just Add Water (2011 soundtrack)

Does this merit a standalone article?! (I already know the answer.) Ping MPFitz1968 here as well. I would strongly advise a bold merge-and-redirect to H2O: Just Add Water in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM as sourced or written. No significant coverage that isn't marketing and no evidence it charted. Unnecessary to merge as content in TV series article about the music is sufficient. Just redirect it to the section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I have converted both H2O: Just Add Water (2007 soundtrack) and H2O: Just Add Water (2011 soundtrack) articles to redirects – as neither was anywhere close to passing WP:NALBUM – and moved any relevant sourcing to H2O: Just Add Water. Pinging MPFitz1968 as well, so they are aware. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alaya High

@IJBall: Just an FYI: I just moved this to draftspace as it fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Very few sources, and the ones that are there are WP:NOTRS. Amaury • 22:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up some. The sad truth is that I bet the current version would survive at WP:AfD (though it still needs cleanup, and I have no idea why Ref #10 is in there!) – though the article should almost certainly be at That Girl Lay Lay (with the TV show moved to That Girl Lay Lay (TV series)) not where it is right now (which is not her WP:COMMONNAME). But if really needs to be edited down, as there's a lot of junk in there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

Maybe you should read it before coming up with your novel interpretation. If you had, you would know that the first sentence says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. WP:BLP is a serious concern and requires highly reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth per WP:DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And you're an admin? WTF? Time to self revert there dude. Toddst1 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Toddst1: The info there is well sourced. Day and month is sourced in one place, year in another. There is no original research or synthesis involved there at all. Also trivial calculations are excluded from being considered per WP:CALC. The info and sources meet the requirements of WP:BLP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh no. WP:BLPPRIVACY trumps your opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of the separate pieces of information there are well sourced. There is no indication BLPPRIVACY is violated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What account do you use that is the administrator? WP:ADMINACCT applies here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not using any admin tools to edit nor am I acting as an admin. I will provide that info by mail to any admin who requests it, otherwise it is private. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've sent you an email about this if you want to discuss it privately, but nothing in WP:SOCKLEGIT allows for incompetence in your alternate account from being obfuscated from connection to your administrator account. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed. per WP:ADMINACCT. You don't get to hide problematic editing behind your WP:SOCKLEGIT to protect your admin status. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I find this digression irrelevant to the issue at hand. Attacking me for incompetence because I disagree with your interpretation of policy is bordering on WP:NPA. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of WP:NOR does call into question one's competence to be an admin - it was not intended as an attack. As you suggested via email, I've opened a discussion about this on ANI - not about competence, but about secrecy. Toddst1 (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

fan fiction

This wierdo who did Marvo The wonder chicken is back! "2800:200:E880:1AA:31A6:B4E1:3007:E2EE" has hit again with more trash fandom. 27.32.22.145 (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Spliced (TV series)

Need more eyes here. Still being (long-term) attacked by IP editor changing content disruptively without comment. May need semi-protection (or a range block?). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Really thinking we need to apply for page protection at this point... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: 2601:18C:0:390::/64 Seems to be the main culprit so protect of article would be excessive when one person is causing the problems. Need more warnings on the various IPs used including a final warning on at least one before going for a range block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just gave a Level 3 warning. One more, and then after if can be taken to WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Blocked 3 months. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Your recent editing history at List of programs produced by ABC Signature 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.
Please take it to the article talk page Equine-man (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't realize I hit this article too many times in process of undoing bunch of disruptive and sock edits by those IPs. Couldn't self-revert as IP already reverted my edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to keep you safe. Equine-man (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Equine-man: I understand and also I took no offense (WP:DTTR#AGF). Basically you warned both of us identically and it seems fair to me to be treated the same. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Equine-man: Don't template the regulars. Come on, man. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall:, I know, I know. I was on my iPad and being lazy. Equine-man (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweet Valley High (TV series)

Need assistance here. Already reverted 3 times now. Other editor also edited while logged out. Check the edit history for issue. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'll watch for a while. Disputes about what belongs in an article should be discussed on the talk page. Might be worth starting a discussion about it and pointing to that when it gets added back to the article. Person adding the disputed info is supposed to do that when reverted but anyone can start a discussion. In my opinion if it is not specifically about this TV series, it doesn't belong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

See also what I said at User talk:KıpçaK. It definitely isn't relevant at the article. Now, if the show were available on a streamer currently (which it doesn't look like it is), that might be worth mentioning in the article (if properly sourced). But we never discuss current "distributors" at articles like this, and even if we did we would need a far stronger (secondary) source than what they are using. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Gingy puss in boots

Hello my name is reedJenkins1234 i’m the guy who made the change that you removed I would just like to say that the change I put in is correct so I think you might’ve made a mistake if you look up on YouTube gingy in puss in boots the last wish you will find out that the change is true I just thought I’d send you a message about it I’m sorry if I seem rude I’m not trying to be 2601:18D:67F:5D0:F5F6:436F:D546:9CC (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not listed at https://www.dreamworks.com/movies/puss-in-boots-the-last-wish#about and isn't sourced in article as uncredited but in film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/shorts/mSFOjXUq5-U?feature=share here is a link to a video that shows footage that you made a mistake if it does not work let me know Reedjenkins1234 (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw no mention of Conrad Vernon in that video which is the info you added. The official site for the film is a reliable source we can use, a YouTube video on an unverified account isn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My edit on Turning red

Encanto did 256 million on a budget of 120-150. Turning red did poorly at the box office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.50.123 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sofia Carson

Re: This edit – Is an Instagram post from an actor enough to verify that filming on a movie has begun? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I read the Instagram message and didn't see anything that directly stated filming has started on the film. Maybe some implication I missed but can't see it. I note the film article exists with same sources to support WP:NFF. One source in film article about planned shooting schedule but the confirmation filming has started is that instagram message. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up Question

Once again, is this kosher?!... (FTR, I vote "no"!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Based on the category inclusion criteria in the cat page. Disney seems supported and is mentioned a lot in the article so CATVER for that met. The other cat isn't supported. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:That's So Raven and Category:That's So Raven

Just an FYI, it is again being attempted to include the episode lists here—and then adding the template and category to said episode lists—when the template and category belong only on the parent articles. See edits at List of Raven's Home episodes and List of Cory in the House episodes. Ping IJBall as well. Amaury • 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents character list article

I will continue evading my block to continue the edit war until Vicky is officially in the Villains section. Even if the page gets protected, at the end of the day, once its protection is lifted, I’ll resume edit warring again. Thank you. Have a happy almost Halloween. 208.83.112.200 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

23.112.129.172

Continued addition of unverified, etc. cats, and there are more than enough warnings here (over a long period of time) that I suspect they've been blocked before. Probably time to look at taking them to WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: No previous blocks. Last final warning of many was 3 months ago. Needs recent final warning and related edits past that to report to AIV. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Violett Beane

Is the addition of these two cats kosher? The second one especially doesn't look to meet WP:CATVER to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has already reverted these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTDEFINING. Not notable for her personal lifestyle choices. Did one stunt surfing off her actress celebrity. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

136.158.46.223

IP just came off a 3-day block, and resumed the same hoaxing at various articles that got them blocked in the first place. If they do any more edits like that today, I suggest reporting them the WP:AIV immediately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Blocked for 2 weeks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bella Poarch

In the last few hours, several instances of unsourced content were added to the article, including the insertion of what appears to be this singer's real name. I have made three reverts to the article during that time, all to remove unsourced material, so I should hold off on any more per WP:3RR. (I'm tempted to use #7 in the exemption list for 3RR, especially for the unsourced real name part, but I think I'll hold off.) If you could keep an eye on the article, I'd appreciate it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)