User talk:IJBall

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

List of films based on television programs

Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• See also: List of television spin-offs to do the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) ‎
• And: Lists of actors by television series is another cleanup job... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

95.150.129.201 why ban this person ? Is that action not a bit extreme

Hi,

I noticed that you have banned this person 95.150.129.201 because they wrote something you didn't aggree with on Hanna TV Show. Can you explain why the result was a ban? You reported them for Vandalism? It looks like they wrote something that you disaggreed with twice but I am not sure that would result in a ban. A disagreement between two contributers is not worthy of ' vandalism.' It is a disagreement that should be moderated before such a ban is issued? (~~Saxon~~). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaxonOH (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP(s) in question (either of them) have not been "blocked" ("banned" means something else – see WP:BAN) – I simply left a warning on their page for disruptively adding a character to the 'Recurring' list at Hanna (TV series) that was both too minor to include and also was not technically "recurring" either. However, if they keep that up, it is likely either the page will be protected or the IP might get (temp.) blocked... And, now, what is your interest in this matter, first-time poster? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

[Removed rambling vaguely WP:PA-containing response.]

That's not how any of this works – please review WP:BRD, and also WP:ONUS. Finally, Wikipedia works on Consensus which means that if a change you make is rejected, you have to convince other editors that your change is an improvement (which is what WP:BRD is all about). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 18 November 2020 (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.

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.

---

You issue WP and edit aggressively again.

I notice yet again you have issued WP regarding the Hanna wiki page and contributers adding cadt members.

You are clearly in an edit argument and it is time to ask a moderator to step in.

I am going to redo the edit removed as I agree with the contribution to the page . If you remove it once more I am afraid that you are again bullying your way through Wiki.

Your actions are not helpful to the larger project. We need to get a moderator to observe your choices to WP somebody who has only made a few contributions. SaxonOH (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And you are clearly the same editor as the IP, and are an WP:SPA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And I will ask the relevant question – are you somehow associated with actor Ross O'Hennessy? I will note also that that article almost certainly doesn't pass muster for a standalone WP:BLP article, and should almost certainly be sent to WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have answered your questions fairly in another thread but you must have missed them. I am simply a fan of Hanna and I watch with horror that you delete and remove other people's posts without evidence or good reason. Your tone is aggressive and not helpful towards to wiki family. I have clearly stated that I do agree with some of the previous additions and you keep editing regardless of my wishes or comments. I feel it is fair to ask a moderator to help. SaxonOH (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SaxonOH: It is because I am suspicious of your intent – a new account doesn't suddenly appear out of thin air to back up edits made by anonymous IP edits, unless it is the same editor. But even if I believed that you were not the same editor, the point, which you continue to ignore remains – you seem to assume that any edits an editor makes will go unchallenged, and that is simply not the case: once challenged, the editor is supposed to go to the article's Talk page (in this case Talk:Hanna (TV series)) and make the case for the edit. Neither the IP or you have attempted this, aside from you barging on to my Talk page, and basically making nothing more than a WP:ILIKEIT case – again, WP:ONUS applies: appearing in the guest cast list for a show does not mean that warrants including them in a TV series Wikipedia article. I have already explained why the edit is inappropriate:

1. O'Hennessy did NOT play a "recurring" character – he only appeared in two episodes, which is not "recurring" under any definition, including MOS:TVCAST.
2. O'Hennessy's character is not notable enough to include under 'Guest star' either, as it was basically a bit part. (See: This earlier discussion which is a very similar scenario as this one – and notice how civil that discussion was because DarkGlow didn't show up on my Talk page with a hostile and accusatory tone.)

And with this, I consider this discussion on my Talk page concluded. If you have any further comment, take it to Talk:Hanna (TV series). But that won't change the underlying circumstances here, and I doubt you will find any support for this edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 20 November 2020 (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.

Jenna Ortega

How many episodes seems worth mentioning? RobThomas15 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's unsourced? Infinity... Seriously, anything less than a recurring role is not worth mentioning in more than passing (e.g. "[Subject] appeared in guest roles on television series [X], [Y], and [Z], and did guest voice work on [A] and [B].[source]", and even then it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that it's noteworthy. Otherwise, leaving it in the Filmography is sufficient. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Greenblatt

@Geraldo Perez: Will need more eyes here. Amaury • 22:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Already commented at Talk:Ariana Greenblatt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably a low chance of this happening, but what about page protection on this one (at least extended-confirmed, although I don't know about where the two or so previous users are as far as that goes ... whether they are at the threshold to edit as an extended-confirmed, that is)? Already have seen the redirect changed into an article three times, and every time the redirect is restored, I later see a page curation log entry for the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say if an editor or editor(s) persist in disruptively trying to "recreate" an article on an non-notable subject, then page protection would be appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It would likely have to be full protection, since the most recent user to attempt an article here is extended-confirmed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's see what happens at the article Talk page. If this editor won't drop the stick (and try to create a draft instead), then a request for full protection may be warranted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: If that editor refactors yours or my Talk page comments one more time, you have my full support to report him. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: And he just did it again, deleting my latest comment – please report him! (better if you do it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you meant AIAV, here is the report. Amaury • 23:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Amaury#Edit Statistics

Now that I've finally updated this, can you tell where my activity really dropped? And not just where my activity dropped for this year specifically, but overall in the time (years) we've known each other. Amaury • 06:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bryce Gheisar

@Geraldo Perez: WP:BASIC? WP:NACTOR? Amaury • 20:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On the surface has 2 main role TV series credits so looks like meets NACTOR. The credits listed as main for films look to be not true. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Starklinson was blocked Nov. 8. Coreykai first edited on Nov. 2. Interaction report – they've both edited 3 articles (that seem a little obscure) in common. I am concerned... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we file an SPI? Although I'm not sure if we really have much evidence currently. Amaury • 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly – if you can establish the same pattern of adding poorly sourced content, and inappropriate article creation, that got Starklinson blocked, then, yeah, I think it might be worth it. It might also be worth dropping the Admin who blocked Starklinson, Doug Weller, a note, if that pattern can be established. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hm. [1] Amaury • 00:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Coreykai edited one minute after that. Also, in this edit Coreykai says they have almost 500 edits, but they have less than 275 edits (Starklinson has over 7,500 edits, for comparison). I definitely feel like there's something fishy here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hello – I've just been accused of WP:PAID editing, specifically regarding people signed to a British influencer company called Gleam, eg Zoella and Tanya Burr. The claims are obviously false, and I was hoping that as someone who has known me as an editor for over two years and has seen what editing I am involved in, you would be able to give me advice on how to deal with this. – DarkGlow (✉) 19:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Where is such a claim being made, and who is making it?... Without knowing details, it's hard to say anything. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, it's here. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Random IP makes claims? I wouldn't worry about it. If they actually send something to WP:OTRS, I would imagine Admins would contact you for counter-evidence. My guess is that the IP has no evidence, and nothing will come of this. If they have no evidence, you have nothing to worry about. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I imagine it's someone I've reported and got blocked, or someone whose page I've nominated for deletion. It's a ridiculous claim. What sort of counter-evidence would I even provide in this situation, if it came to that? – DarkGlow (✉) 21:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: It depends what their "evidence" is. But, like I said – I'm guessing they actually have nothing... One piece of advice: if you are getting IPs blocked, especially the same editor at multiple IPs, start keeping a list of geolocations for them – that way, if one of the prolific IP sockers you vandal hunt ever tries something like this again, you'll quickly be able to figure out which one it is, which can help with Admins if you can say, "Hey – I think this is [this IP socker from X] making these frivolous charges in retaliation." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

TBS Television

I understand that you are going to correct the 765 links to disambiguation page caused by your re-linking? Leaving so much incorrect links is not very nice an quite WP:POINTy and disruptive. Fix your own mess please. The Banner talk 21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: This is exactly the kind of WP:POINTy response I'm talking about – rather than being constructive, this is your attitutde. Note that the issue already has been fixed – see here. This is how it should be done – you should go to a user talk page and ask for a WP:AWB solution. Is this so hard?... P.S. It wasn't 765 links, as the linked discussion makes clear. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You made the mess, so it is up to you to clean it up. It is not so difficult to be responsible for your own edits. The Banner talk 21:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, horrible attitude. And, FTR, I didn't even start the original WP:RM – I was just attempting to properly "clean it up". Which you could have helped with, instead of whatever "this" is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear god

Dear god, I'm stupid... Thanks for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

List of Big City Greens characters

As I'm doing something like this for Jessie, which admittedly has been paused for a while now, I don't necessarily disagree with the split, but things need to be done correctly. Just a few things I noticed:

1. Headers need to be Main, Recurring, and Notable guest stars. That's it. Anyone who doesn't fall into any of those categories should be removed. We don't need the seasons sectioned, and each character should be its own heading.
2. Names per credits is not being followed. For example, Remy. Or Dr. Enamel, where the voice credit is simply Fozzie Bear. Prose for character names can contain further name enhancements, but headers should be as credited.
3. Way too many bold violations.

You may notice more things. It's by Voicebox64, so it's not surprising. And who knows? Once those who don't qualify, per my first point, are removed, a split may not actually be appropriate. Add: And even if we split, main cast/characters remain listed on the parent article. Amaury • 05:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rank incompetence as usual – honestly, I'd be tempted to revert. 1) Sections must contain more than just a link to another article – at the least, a list of the four main characters need to be restored to the main article. 2) I don't see any real secondary sourcing at the LoC article – just massive primary sourcing. You're actually not supposed to do this. LoC articles should actually only be split out if they have enough secondary sourcing to indicate that the list-subject is notable. We've been way too lax about this in WP:TV. Bottom line: A discussion should have been held on this before splitting, so reverting on that basis would be justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lonniemitchell22

STILL removing sources/sourced content for no reason whatsoever, as evident in this edit. I honestly don't feel like opening it up myself, and I'm sure you'll have plenty more (+ better wording, lol) to say, but I'll gladly comment/reply on a discussion. Definitely seems like it's time for noticeboard discussion, as they clearly haven't learned from your previous warning. Magitroopa (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Please follow up with Oshwah on this – it will have more weight if another editor goes to Oshwah with the same complaint. Oshwah seemed willing to entertain a block after my last message, and I think it's warranted now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)