User talk:Geraldo Perez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Sabrina Carpenter discography[edit]

User:EdgarYLeon just did another unattributed split at Sabrina Carpenter discography. It's probably better if you or someone else handles the reversion of this, as I don't want to look like I'm targeting this editor after their unhelpful, borderline disruptive editing at Sofia Carson. TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Same user: is this OK? Doesn't seem to be as per WP:NALBUM or Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Unreleased material... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And they're still edit warring at Sofia Carson to keep versions of tables that violate WP:ACCESS. No communication. Etc. I'm starting to think this one needs a block, though I'm not sure if they've gone far enough to take to WP:ANEW yet. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: The edits to Cameron Boyce are disruptive as well, then. When I took a look at your diff, I noticed the username was the same. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: There's a wider problem with "Discography" tables in general, esp. at the "Disney TV star" articles – in that they all violate WP:ACCESS in terms of misuse of 'rowspan' (as per WP:DTT) – that we're eventually going to have to tackle. I decided to start with Sofia Carson, and draw a line there, but this issue basically affects all of these articles that have "Discography" tables. I'm putting off taking this issue on more widely, but it's likely that I'll try to tackle it this summer. Hopefully, those of you who watch these various articles will keep an eye on that for me when it happens!... Face-wink.svg --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Geraldo, you may also want to take a look at Descendants: Original TV Movie Soundtrack which looks like it was moved without a clear justification (i.e. I don't see the current title used on the album cover or by any source...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved back to original title. I also added the missing attributions to the talk pages. Trivial easy to do this with edit histories on a split. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: and I don't have permission to do the move when I tried. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: Edit warring on the split reject I have been doing and I have used up my 3 reverts. Needs a edit war warning (so do I I guess), but I will stop. Further recreation needs a PROD for WP:NALBUM and then AfD same reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I can take care of the move on my end. But I want this used blocked first. Let me know if you don't end up filing at WP:ANEW (they are certainly guilty of edit warring now!) – this one's bad enough that I'm tempted to see it taken to WP:ANI, and look for a longer block. This has gotten quite ridiculous... --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind – looks like the user was righteously indeffed... --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SpiringCord7 Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow – User:VICTORiAN 1 too. Look like we'll have to take a closer look at Victoria Justice and Victorious, etc... --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

One for you...[edit]

You light want to keep your eye on Morsocreepy – based on the username and the edit summaries, I don't have a good feeling about this one... --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: You were right to be suspicious of edit pattern. Was blocked as sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The love pony. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP[edit]

Also pinging Amaury and IJBall is adding unnecessary section headings for seasons in episode lists (like this Mech-X4 edit where there has been only one season so far) or changing "Season" to "Series" on U.S. TV series ([1]). Definitely need to keep eye on this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Transient dynamic likely. Also on doing same. Geraldo Perez (talk)

I'll Let You...[edit]

...handle this one... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Bertrand[edit]

You're getting on my nerves. First off how is famousbirthdays an unreliable source. They have a contact page to establish that they are real. Also they have a page on their website that talks about their employees. Take a look they have editors, writers, managers, director of marketing and so on. So explain to me what makes it an unreliable source. I'm just going to keep changing it back. Not to mention two users colluding to undo someones edits is wrong. Also when you google his name, google tells you that March 6, 2000 is his birthday - You don't have access to his birth certificate so I don't know how you think you can verify someone's birthdate AllSportsfan16 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)have

@AllSportsfan16: Questions about reliability of sources are discussed at WP:RSN. Famousbirthdays was determined unreliable in this discussion there. Also see WP:BLPPRIVACY of what is required to add personal birth information to an article. A web search might find something that can be used, but there is a lot of dubious info on the web so need to be careful. False information can get very pervasive and show up on basic web searches. Need a solid reference. If he directly and unambiguously states his birthday on a verified social media site he controls or it is reported by a major news source we can generally accept it. As for collusions of editors, it might seem that way when all that is happening is multiple editors are following the rules. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: You and a couple of users decided that. Some of the comments don't make any sense, the website is not a fan site and you cannot edit it. You're not following the rules you're making them up as you go. Maybe you should take another look at the website.
@AllSportsfan16: If you wish to revisit the conclusion from that discussion, start new one at WP:RSN and make your case there. If something has changed since the last discussion that shows the source is now reliable, it needs to be discussed and documented. Until then I and most other editors take what is at WP:RSN as determinative until and unless it is overridden by a more recent decision. Trying to force the use of a source that has been determined unreliable at RSN will generally just end up with it getting removed by editors who do check there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: Why bother you and the other ones that I've been dealing with will just come to the page and argue against me, there's no point. One editor says It doesn't strike me as a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I'd advise against using it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC). That's not a valid reason that's making stuff up.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@AllSportsfan16: Yes, I'll probably argue against it for the reasons stated in the original discussion. Other people might support you and if enough do then I get overridden and will accept the consensus. A discussion at WP:RSN is the only way to undo a previous decision made there. Famousbirthdays is basically rejected on sight by most editors currently when added to articles, largely because they don't say where they get their information, they do say they accept user submissions and they do not have a reputation for fact checking. WP:BLPPRIVACY is policy and birth info must be supported by solid references. Famousbirthdays isn't one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: Here is social media tweet from DisneyXD wishing him a happy birthday, is that good enough for you (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@AllSportsfan16: That is not a verified twitter account (white check in blue surround) so doesn't look like an official Disney outlet. Even then they support month and day, not year so date is not complete. Best would be Bertrand on his verified twitter account, directly stating his full birth date. If we do get a source for month and day and another one for year, usually a dated news article stating his age at publication date, we would have full information if both sources used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: This tweet from his official twitter account says that his birthday is March 6 and there was already another source on the article that supported the year is that good enough. (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@AllSportsfan16: That should be sufficient, I added it to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced content added and persistently restored at Disney Channel[edit]

A couple of IPs in the last few hours have added/restored content concerning the declining viewership being caused by their revised logo circa 2014, without providing reliable sources to back up their claim [2][3][4][5] (that last one coming in as I'm composing this message). Article needs to be watched (but in light of that most recent edit restoring the content, I'm taking it to RPP). IJBall and Amaury, if you could also watch this article please. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, managed to get the article semiprotected for one year, after taking it to RPP. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Anything for you guys. Likewise, I've just added Beyond (2017 TV series) and Famous in Love to my list and plan on cleaning them up soon. I'll be adding them to my sandbox, so if you guys are interested long-term in watching these this, the more the merrier. That second one especially needs work given that it's incorrectly using the online dates for the original air dates rather than the TV air dates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: On Famous in Love, I would advise bringing that up on the Talk page first, as the "airdates" thing can probably be argued either way, so it's best to get a consensus on what dates to use first... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a guideline GP pointed me to once saying to use TV air dates, though not because I had changed something to online dates, haha! One of the reasons is that we want ratings to match. For example, when the second episode premieres on April 25 and ratings are released the following day, those ratings will be for April 25; having the air date as April 18, but the ratings for April 25 won't make sense. I think another reason might be related to online episodes, in almost all cases, being behind paywalls. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, hey. An IP took care of that for me. For once, I'm thankful to an IP. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: Heh. This doesn't surprise me, but I don't really mind it this time: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Full season online release alongside traditional week-by-week episode broadcast. I've already commented, and if you, Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H are interested in contributing to the discussion, that would be great. The more the merrier, I always say. Everything seems calm so far, and that's always good, unlike with our past discussions there which always kind of seemed to start "heated," so to speak, even if it wasn't obvious—hopefully you get what I mean! Face-wink.svg Not trying to call anyone out specifically, just making a general observation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
And at Beyond (2017 TV series), switch most of those refs to {{cite press release}}! --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)