User talk:Austin012599

Austin012599, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Austin012599! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, I'm El cid, el campeador. I noticed that you recently removed content from WordGirl without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome & Creating references

Welcome!

Hello, Austin012599, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

I noticed you said in a recent edit that you do not know how to add references. You can create references by clicking on the cite button at the top of the page. There should then be a guide or form, and you can then add the reference by entering the relevant data and submitting the form. If you need further assistance, you can ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse, or at my talk page. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia! Jumpytoo Talk 22:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hi, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to WordGirl. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Jeff G. ツ 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll stop adding unsourced content. But, I must disagree with you by saying that what I added on Wordgirl is actual fact.Austin012599 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film)

Hi Austin012599. I wanted to let you know that I have removed the content that you added to the article My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film) because I did not think the source you provided (Equestria Daily) is a sufficiently reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. To explain, our guideline on identifying reliable sources advises that articles should be based on should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website that you added as a source appears to be self-published with little to no editorial oversight. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: The Movie

Hi, Austin!☺ Your doing great job in wikipedia and specifically in mlp articles😀 but I just saw your addition of some reviews for the film, if you don't provide reliable sources for these reviews I'm afraid that some other user will remove it from the article.😯

So you better provide sources as soon as possible.😃 Pure conSouls (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the source thing covered. However, I’m not sure how to exactly make the proof I have fit in just like the other things that have sources.Austin012599 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pictures

Under the "Tools" section on the left-hand side, select "Upload file" and follow the instructions provided there. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Austin012599. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Austin012599. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Austin012599. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, James Hong. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s okay. I can understand if something is wrong with the source.

I’ll look for another one that’s more reliable.Austin012599 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

What problem are you having and how can I help? --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been doing my research, trying to look for a better source to confirm James Hong having a family. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find any other source other than the previous one, aside from Google itself showing it.

I’m not sure what to do.

Do you have any advice?Austin012599 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I searched around a bit and didn't find anything either. This happens to me all the time. It's frustrating, and often I just move on to something else where I can be more productive. When there are any editing restrictions, like for biographical information, I find it best to remove anything that seems poorly sourced and possibly contentious, then work on something else.

There are many resources you can use to get help if you want to keep looking for a suitable reference. The Teahouse is a good place to start. --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Austin012599 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phil Johnston (filmmaker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WordGirl, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s perfectly alright. The only thing I changed from your revising was deleting John Kricfalusi being the police commisioner again. Like I already mentioned, I was wrong about him being involved after finding no mention of him in the end credits.Austin012599 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WordGirl (season 3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Henson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tony Bancroft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been resolved.Austin012599 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Christopher Lloyd, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Austin - Just a heads up that I responded to your message at User talk:Larry Hockett. I don't think I pinged you, so I wanted to make sure you saw it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Applejack, Discord and Jim Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm KatnissEverdeen. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Scoob!, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubie Halloween, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Rollercoaster of Friendship have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Transformers: Rescue Bots characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Ellis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amphibia characters

Please stop reverting the mention of Olivia and Yunan's relationship. In the final episode, Yunan states "You helped us see what was important" before immediately cutting to a close-up of them holding hands. Minutes later, Olivia is talking about settling down together and affectionately calling Yunan "sweetheart". I'm all for independent sources, but when it's treated as an explicit plot point, citing the episode itself like every other epilogue mention on the page is perfectly acceptable. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So?

Those parts in the episode literally don’t mean anything specific. Without reliable sources, we don’t know exactly what they mean, and they could very well mean something else entirely.

All I’m trying to do is work with the guidelines and requirements of the wiki, and if I recall correctly, speculation is not something people should rely on and make into a fact. Austin012599 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's really no ambiguity. This isn't speculation, they're literally spelling it out. Also, Yunan's actor confirmed that's exactly what it meant. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m seeing is that you’re literally grasping straws here. You’re relying on your own interpretations as fact, and aside from that…the word of Yunan’s voice actor doesn’t mean anything compared to that of show creator Matt Braly. Austin012599 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Here's two tweets retweeted by Matt Braly of Yunan and Olivia interacting romantically made in response to the finale. If this wasn't the intended read, why would he be sharing them? (And if I'm grasping at straws, please explain a non-romantic context in which two non-familial individuals hold hands, call each other pet names, and talk about settling down together. Because I sure can't think of ANY.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, the source that’s being supposedly provided is the exact kind someone else was using for some of the characters in My Little Pony’s “The Last Problem”, and it wasn’t until series director Jim Miller commented on Twitter that it was all up to individual interpretation.

I just don’t want that very thing to happen again with Olivia and Yunan. Austin012599 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren’t even his own tweets! Austin012599 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“(And if I'm grasping at straws, please explain a non-romantic context in which two non-familial individuals hold hands, call each other pet names, and talk about settling down together. Because I sure can't think of ANY.)”

Personal experience. And there are several shows I’ve watched where people hold hands or call each other pennames as friends or family members. Austin012599 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "The Last Problem" situation. If it was, why would THE CREATOR OF THE SHOW be sharing fanart of the two together if that's not the exact message all that dialogue was meant to convey? He's never retweeted art of Anne/Sasha/Marcy/whoever romantically involved; why is Yunan and Olivia somehow an exception? Combined with very explicit dialogue and further confirmation from Yunan's actor (i.e. TWO people closely involved with the show), trying to claim otherwise feels like intentional ignorance at best.-- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. He’s sharing those fan arts simply because he likes them. He’s often expressed thankfulness and gratitude towards the fanbase “Amphibia” generated, and it’s been quite clear that he loves how people express their enjoyment of the program no matter the form.

We can’t just take whatever fan stuff he’s been retweeting as his own word. Austin012599 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see we're not getting anywhere with this, so I'm going to be requesting a third opinion to help resolve the matter. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least one source listed by Wikipedia as reliable also is treating them as canon. Braly retweeted it without correcting this. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation is always going to be just that. Interpretation. It should never be taken as fact. Austin012599 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Braly himself actually says that they’re a couple, nothing about what you’re showing or saying is accurate. Austin012599 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To compare to your "The Last Problem" example, Braly has had multiple opportunities to say they're not, much like he confirmed Sasha is bi. However, he keeps sharing things that say they ARE a couple. Why would he do that if it isn't true? There's no subtext here, it's just straight up text. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Personally I know nothing about Amphibia but I think that's okay, shouldn't be needed to judge sources and context for notability and verifiability and such. As for the sources, I don't think there's a disagreement over what the sources say. You both seem to agree that the producer did re-tweet certain fanarts and other content regarding the (perceived) relationship between the two characters. The disagreement seems to revolve primarily around how notable this is and whether this can be taken as a source for inclusion in Wikipedia's articles. Per WP:SOURCE it is policy that sources should (generally) be 'reliable, independent and published'. In my view, the source of the director retweeting fanarts or other content fails at least one of these criteria. It is not published, as it is simply a retweet, which does not in itself publish or insinuate approval to a standard that would warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. As such, I currently think there is a lack of support (policy wise) for including the relationship in the article. However, I do think there is some notion that it may be permissible to include the 'shipping' between the two characters by at least parts of the viewers, as it certainly seems notable enough to include (seeing as directors and many others are (re)tweeting about it). For full disclosure, I'm not sure if there is some policy or behavioral guideline written about this type of thing, and if there is a consensus about it, of course this would take precedence over my lone opinion. Thanks for requesting the third opinion and I'll gladly answer any questions anyone may have about it. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to offer perspective. Should you disagree with my arguments, I will gladly concede the point and drop the subject. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that we should always be sticking by official sources and confirmation, because what the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia are. I do not wish to let the page get compromised from that due to fanaticism and speculation. Austin012599 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberlink420 and Austin012599: I've provided my third opinion above. Hope this helps. As I said there, feel free to ask any questions or for comments. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadeus1999: Thank you very much for your input. One question I ask is whether the actor of one of the two characters explicitly stating the two got together in the last episode holds any weight? Austin has stated that this would not trump creator Matt Braly's word on the matter (which is true and I agree with), but in the absence of anything contradictory from Braly, would that not constitute sufficient confirmation? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input on the matter, Amadeus. I never knew how much an outside opinion would be needed, but it really takes a load off my shoulders.

The only thing that really matters to me is upholding the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, as well as what I’ve learned from my time as both a member and a contributor overall. Austin012599 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I've cited Fazal's tweet as a source for the two being together. Per WP:TWITTER, tweets are permissible sources in instances where:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

As Fazal's tweet meets all five of these parameters, its usage is acceptable. Should Braly make a tweet or statement that contradicts Fazal, that one will take precedence and the tweet will be removed from the sources. However, in the absence of any such claims to the contrary, there is no reason according to Wikipedia guidelines that this will not suffice for the moment. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm confused right now. What makes you think Fazal's tweet means anything?Austin012599 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because she literally voices one of the two characters? Because as someone who works on the show and was directly involved in the scenes in question, she is a primary source? Because according to Wikipedia's guidelines, her tweet meets all the criteria to be used as an acceptable source for statement?

Braly's may be the creator, but he didn't make the show alone. And as long as he doesn't say otherwise, according to Wikipedia's guidelies, there's no reason Fazal's tweet can't be treated as an acceptable source. (Also, with that last revision, you just broke WP:3RR.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly a ridiculous reason for the incorporation. Regardless of what Hazal says, her word hardly carries any sense of weight on the matter. Austin012599 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that, but you haven't given any reason *why* she, as someone directly involved in the scene, "doesn't count". Also, when I directly cited the exact Wikipedia policy that says it's an acceptable source, you ignored it and reverted it, breaking another rule in the process. While disagreements will happen, that does not justify willfull ignorance of Wikipedia policy. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don’t think what you think, for one.

At this rate, we may as well incorporate everything an actor or actress says about the characters they play as reliable sources, even if their bosses say otherwise. Austin012599 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Execpt Braly hasn't said anything to the contrary. Assuming he has is speculation on your part. Also, you just undid an edit that had literally no mention of their relationship, only what explicitly occurred in the episode. I can no longer take your arguments in good faith, and will be taking this to the administrator's noticeboard. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t take your arguments in good faith anymore either. It’s clear to me that you don’t understand what makes a source reliable and what doesn’t. Austin012599 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have a new source to throw into the mix here. Now, Matt Braly just recently retweeted the link to this article published on TheGamer.com discussing the episode "The Hardest Thing". You can both check Braly's twitter to see for yourselves that he did indeed retweet the article. In that article, the writer, Jade King, writes the statement "Olivia and Yunan are also canon gay newts now, with Marcy’s vulnerability allowing them to ignite a romance". Now, I see that you two have been arguing over whether Matt Braly retweeting several pieces of fan art can be considered a source. Now, unlike the fan arts, where the context is itself too up-to-interpretation to be particularly reliable, the TheGamer is a case of Braly retweeting a direct, clearcut statement. It may also be worth noting that (per notes on Template:Cite tweet) a retweet can be considered giving legitimacy to a statement, if the retweeter can be considered a reliable source, and I feel we can all agree that Matt Braly, as the creator of the series, can be considiered reliable. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s something that Cyberlink was already suggesting be made as a source. However, I did not think that page on that website was reliable either. Austin012599 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is in this case, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. Per this list of sources, "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that page was clearly just a fan of “Amphibia”. What he or she says is completely unreliable. Austin012599 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author is the lead features writer of that site, which again, is reliable according to Wikipedia. And again, it was retweeted by Braly. A reliable source retweeted by another reliable source is absolutely a reliable source according to WP:Twitter. Your personal thoughts on what constitutes "reliable" do not trump those of Wikipedia itself. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This all smells a lot like WP:OR to me to be honest. If x then y then z isn't a formula that holds up when it comes to verifiability for inclusion in Wikipedia. There exist several other shows and series where there's a strongly implied relationship between two characters but it's never confirmed by the director, and the community is okay with leaving it at a "probably". I'm not sure why you're pursuing listing it as an absolute when it hasn't been defined as such by anyone noteworthy, and yes, a voice actor in this case is not noteworthy as they don't decide the content of the show. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]