User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 33 |
Happy New Year, Geraldo Perez!
Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— YoungForever(talk) 08:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| A belated Happy New Year and a barnstar for all your contributions to Wikipedia! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
@IJBall: Going to need more or closer eyes here and related articles like the programs by Disney Channel one. MPFitz1968 is already on top of it. Amaury • 19:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
What's the matter?
Please revert your 22 unneeded reversions (way to mess up my very good revert percentage, now 0.9% to, for example, your 1.7%). The page is uppercased, not lowercased (Spider-Man: Far From Home), per NOTBROKEN "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect" (emphasis mine). I've never had this done to me before, please explain why you'd revert 22 perfectly good direct link edits, thanks (I can't think of a reason, what am I missing?). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Spider-Man: Far from Home is tagged as a redirect from an alternative capitalization, not a spelling error so NOTBROKEN applies. It is not a spelling error to be bypassed. The fact that a local consensus in the film article chose to spell the title against MOS:CT applies only to that article and does not set a precedence for any other article to go against the explicit and clear wording about the issue in the manual of style - from is a short preposition that is not capitalized in composition titles. The titles were correctly capitalized and spelled on the articles you changes and the redirect worked, so I reverted your changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- You're kidding me. The name of the film contains the uppercased 'From', this was an RM exception and well discussed (please see the four discussions), in this case the lowercase 'from' is the mistake. Local consensus has nothing to do with uppercasing being a mistake but fixing an error. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: I've seen the RM discussions in the article and am very familiar with the issue. Basically both are used in reliable sources depending on what their manual of styles used and editors of that article decided to go with what they found most common in the sources they examined (production marketing was one of them) for the article title and make an IAR exception to the Wikipedia MOS for article naming. It is a local consensus though, the Wikipedia MOS was not changed to list this as an exception and it directly flaunts it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone is following along, this was the last discussion, a snow: Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 3#Requested move 29 August 2020. You're saying that, if I'm getting it right, you perceive only a local consensus at Spider-Man: Far From Home puts the page at its uppercased name, but everywhere else on Wikipedia the name has to stay lowercased. To me that seems counter-intuitive, and WP:COMMONSENSE would uppercase it at all uses instead of what you prefer, a redirect present site wide. Let's get this discussed more fully with MOS and the WikiProjects (film, etc.), should we do that here or at a MOS page? SMcCandish and Dicklyon, no fans of uppercase, may have some comments or ideas. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- See Spider-Man in film, where Far From Home is uppercased in text and charts throughout, and the template {{Spider-Man films}} where Far From Home is uppercased and not a lowercased redirect. Also the new film Spider-Man: No Way Home, where Far From Home is uppercased in the second sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Yes, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS only applies to that one article. Common sense generally means follow the manual of style as written as that is what we generally instruct editors to do. I've read all the discussions including the last one where people were basically getting annoyed about once again revisiting what they considered a closed issue for that article. As for a MOS discussion see WT:Manual of Style/Titles/Archive 3#Spider-Man: Far From Home naming discussion. Opinion there is result of the RM move discussions doesn't change the MOS which is very clear on this issue. The other articles that don't conform should be changed to the correct capitalization. If the manual of style is to be changed that would require a site-wide consensus to change it. Until it is changed, we should follow it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- That MOS naming discussion you linked above doesn't come close to a conclusion. For this discussion, WP:COMMONSENSE works. It would simply be better for the encyclopedia to keep the name consistent throughout the site. WP:NOTBROKEN says "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected" (emphasis mine). Incorrect casing would be a mistake. Maybe clearer wording could be "Spelling errors, incorrect casing, and other mistakes should be corrected" (@SMcCandlish:, does such wording make sense? Seems to me like excess baggage and the present language already covers this situation). And I want to apologize for being such an ass above. Apparently I have more pride in a semi-low reversion percentage than I was aware of, and reacted badly to the largest batch of red revert tags I've ever seen. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Problem is it isn't incorrect casing - sufficient reliable sources such as Box Office Mojo have manual of styles similar to Wikipedia's and their capitalization rules for titles match ours. Or for actor articles looking for credit info on IMDb. Most we can say is that the article capitalized it the way the majority of sources capitalized it and that is how the article RM discussions chose to keep it. Best is to say it is a valid alternative capitalization as the redirect is currently tagged that does not need to bypass the redirect. I personally don't like changing things in established articles and I don't particularly want to go on a campaign to fix this issue. I also don't like seeing it changed when what was there was correct per MOS. Let sleeping dogs lie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are 1,188 links to the uppercased 'From' name and 69 to lowercased 'from' (actually not 69 but 18 when talk pages and such are removed). It's obvious where the consistency is, and you're saying we should just leave the 18 outliers as is. That makes little sense, but since you asked nicely I'll give the dogs their rest. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: What is in navbox templates tend to magnify the difference significantly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are 1,188 links to the uppercased 'From' name and 69 to lowercased 'from' (actually not 69 but 18 when talk pages and such are removed). It's obvious where the consistency is, and you're saying we should just leave the 18 outliers as is. That makes little sense, but since you asked nicely I'll give the dogs their rest. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Problem is it isn't incorrect casing - sufficient reliable sources such as Box Office Mojo have manual of styles similar to Wikipedia's and their capitalization rules for titles match ours. Or for actor articles looking for credit info on IMDb. Most we can say is that the article capitalized it the way the majority of sources capitalized it and that is how the article RM discussions chose to keep it. Best is to say it is a valid alternative capitalization as the redirect is currently tagged that does not need to bypass the redirect. I personally don't like changing things in established articles and I don't particularly want to go on a campaign to fix this issue. I also don't like seeing it changed when what was there was correct per MOS. Let sleeping dogs lie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- That MOS naming discussion you linked above doesn't come close to a conclusion. For this discussion, WP:COMMONSENSE works. It would simply be better for the encyclopedia to keep the name consistent throughout the site. WP:NOTBROKEN says "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected" (emphasis mine). Incorrect casing would be a mistake. Maybe clearer wording could be "Spelling errors, incorrect casing, and other mistakes should be corrected" (@SMcCandlish:, does such wording make sense? Seems to me like excess baggage and the present language already covers this situation). And I want to apologize for being such an ass above. Apparently I have more pride in a semi-low reversion percentage than I was aware of, and reacted badly to the largest batch of red revert tags I've ever seen. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Yes, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS only applies to that one article. Common sense generally means follow the manual of style as written as that is what we generally instruct editors to do. I've read all the discussions including the last one where people were basically getting annoyed about once again revisiting what they considered a closed issue for that article. As for a MOS discussion see WT:Manual of Style/Titles/Archive 3#Spider-Man: Far From Home naming discussion. Opinion there is result of the RM move discussions doesn't change the MOS which is very clear on this issue. The other articles that don't conform should be changed to the correct capitalization. If the manual of style is to be changed that would require a site-wide consensus to change it. Until it is changed, we should follow it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- See Spider-Man in film, where Far From Home is uppercased in text and charts throughout, and the template {{Spider-Man films}} where Far From Home is uppercased and not a lowercased redirect. Also the new film Spider-Man: No Way Home, where Far From Home is uppercased in the second sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone is following along, this was the last discussion, a snow: Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 3#Requested move 29 August 2020. You're saying that, if I'm getting it right, you perceive only a local consensus at Spider-Man: Far From Home puts the page at its uppercased name, but everywhere else on Wikipedia the name has to stay lowercased. To me that seems counter-intuitive, and WP:COMMONSENSE would uppercase it at all uses instead of what you prefer, a redirect present site wide. Let's get this discussed more fully with MOS and the WikiProjects (film, etc.), should we do that here or at a MOS page? SMcCandish and Dicklyon, no fans of uppercase, may have some comments or ideas. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: I've seen the RM discussions in the article and am very familiar with the issue. Basically both are used in reliable sources depending on what their manual of styles used and editors of that article decided to go with what they found most common in the sources they examined (production marketing was one of them) for the article title and make an IAR exception to the Wikipedia MOS for article naming. It is a local consensus though, the Wikipedia MOS was not changed to list this as an exception and it directly flaunts it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- You're kidding me. The name of the film contains the uppercased 'From', this was an RM exception and well discussed (please see the four discussions), in this case the lowercase 'from' is the mistake. Local consensus has nothing to do with uppercasing being a mistake but fixing an error. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Randy, what do you not like about following MOS:CT? Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
May need more eyes here – IP trying to add Disney+ content which is clearly out of WP:SCOPE for this article. FTR, we are also seeing a lot of this on the Nickelodeon end, with clueless editors trying to add Paramount+ content to Nickelodeon content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? Amaury • 08:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- MadameNoire – so, probably yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Will need more eyes here. See this revert here from IJBall. Of course it's since been readded again with this edit. See also Talk:Hunter Street (TV series)#Names. However, I'm trying to stay back from this article for the time being after the stunt this problematic user pulled the other day (see my talk page). We've had plenty of issues with this editor before on this article, as well as School of Rock (see history, as well as Talk:School of Rock (TV series)#"Series finale"), just to name a couple of articles—there are plenty more. Thanks. Amaury • 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I have gone on to revert the latest edit. That recurring cast list grew from 19 to 31, and while I can't verify any of that ... as I haven't watched the series and, as shown in the article, season 4 doesn't appear to be available in the US ... I'm thinking that might be too many, and very likely that editors aren't aware of what MOS:TVCAST indicates as "recurring". (I mentioned 4-5 episodes are necessary for that label, even though the guideline isn't specific on the exact count; it's definitely way more than one, or two consecutive.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- And they've reverted my revert [1], and I wish not to be further involved with it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I don't blame you. This user is a headache. Perhaps you can help, Geraldo. Obviously, if you don't want to revert, that's fine, but maybe a talk page comment on the article talk page would help. I'm trying to minimize interactions with this user unless absolutely necessary (obvious major disruption, etc.), at least for right now. Otherwise, we can wait until whenever IJBall has the chance. Amaury • 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury and MPFitz1968: I checked IMDb for the character appearance counts and the ones added were generally above 4 so looked valid to me as plausibly recurring. I have no idea about character names, IMDb gives a list but don't know where they came from if not in credits as asserted. I really can't see anything blatantly wrong with the edits, I am unfamiliar with the show and have no interest in watching it. I'll watch the article for a while but so far don't see anything that I can contribute here. Also need to be careful of WP:MEAT. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you're not familiar, that's totally fine. Appreciate you watching the article, in any case, for any obvious vandalism that may appear from anyone. While the edits here may be okay, this user is otherwise a known user with WP:DE and/or WP:CIR issues, as is seen from earlier discussions on the Hunter Street and School of Rock talk pages. Amaury • 21:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury and MPFitz1968: I checked IMDb for the character appearance counts and the ones added were generally above 4 so looked valid to me as plausibly recurring. I have no idea about character names, IMDb gives a list but don't know where they came from if not in credits as asserted. I really can't see anything blatantly wrong with the edits, I am unfamiliar with the show and have no interest in watching it. I'll watch the article for a while but so far don't see anything that I can contribute here. Also need to be careful of WP:MEAT. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I don't blame you. This user is a headache. Perhaps you can help, Geraldo. Obviously, if you don't want to revert, that's fine, but maybe a talk page comment on the article talk page would help. I'm trying to minimize interactions with this user unless absolutely necessary (obvious major disruption, etc.), at least for right now. Otherwise, we can wait until whenever IJBall has the chance. Amaury • 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Instagram images?
Can you just take an Instagram image and use it for Wikipedia like this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It would have been OK if the free-use license asserted to be attached to the image at its source actually was there. It is a verified account of the subject and an image of her, but she might not be the actual photographer. Either way we assume full restricted copyright on everything unless there is an explicit license issued by the copyright holder giving free-use. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Will need more eyes here. Amaury • 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yellowstone episodes
Someone created separate articles for Yellowstone seasons. I mentioned here that I'm not sure if we need multiple pages yet — and if we are going to have separate pages, should we have a main list article also? I appreciate your input. —Confession0791 talk 18:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: Season articles at this point are excessive. I could see splitting out the episode list to a list of episode article at this point. If you disagree with the undiscussed WP:BOLD splits, you could undo them, restore the redirects and the original article and notify the person who did the undiscussed splits to start a WP:SPLIT discussion to get consensus before doing this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged all four season pages for merge. —Confession0791 talk 18:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The page splits were done a week ago by @MrMaster17: who does not seem to know about the template tags mentioned above. @Montanabw: also made a set of edits last week on the article. The page counts for the page splits for the individual seasons has gone done dramatically to less than a quarter of the page count numbers recorded by Wikitools before the subarticle splits, compared to the previous page counts on the airing dates of individual episodes during the season. Were these page splits for covering individual seasons the best approach? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause: I think the page split was unnecessary as there was no real justification for it. Maintaining multiple articles with mostly the same body information except for the episode and rating info doesn't provide any benefit to the readers. What season specific info there is could all be included in the main article. A split out of the episodes list to a separate list of episodes article, however, is more justified and should have been done before season articles were even considered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm all for combining them into a single episode page. I wouldn't know where to start since these articles have so much content, condensing it would be a bit of a job. —Confession0791 talk 19:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: In my cursory look, most of the season article content just repeats what is in the main article pre-split. Only real season unique content is the rating and review info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: All 3 editors here appear in agreement that the page splits were counterproductive and might be better with a rollback to before the page splits being done. If either of you can do the rollback to before the counterproductive page splits and the related AFD/redirects then all 3 editors here appear to be supporting. The original editor who did the splits (MrMaster17) is apparently busy editing other articles over the weekend and not responding here. Rollback seems preferable at this time if either of you can do the rollback. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause and Confession0791: I undid the split and started a discussion on the article talk page. Please comment there about the split proposal I made. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
New message from Amaury
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Girl Meets World episodes § Proposal to adhere to the Manual of Style in the article. @MPFitz1968: The lead will be reworded at this article in order to avoid the issue altogether, but just a friendly notification if either of you are interested in providing feedback there. Amaury • 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Please be aware that per WP:BLANKING, an editor...even an unregistered one...is permitted to remove comments from their talk pages, including block notices and warnings. A declined unblock request may not be removed, but there is no such request on 50.104.22.14's talk page. This edit by you goes against that guideline. Please don't restore those comments. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I may have asked this before, but what makes this a "Canadian" series?! The lede makes clear the show was produced by two American studios (well, I assume Grantray-Lawrence Animation is American – the article actually doesn't say...) – if so, it's American only... Recent edits at the article and the LoE are making it "co-Canadian", but I see no support for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The Krantz Films article considers that entity a Canadian studio and it is listed as a production studio in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but the article itself says "...seasons two and three were produced by Krantz Films in New York City." This seems like a contradiction that needs greater clarity. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The article has changed a lot from what it was in 2007 and a lot of dubious changes made since it was created. Link to Canada was much stronger then but some info supporting that is gone now. IMDb considers it a US Canada production which does reflect the earlier version of the Wiki article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- My suspicion is that the series was actually produced by an American subsidiary of Krantz Films – if so, it's not "Canadian" in any way... But I'm not going to try to "deep dive" this to straighten this out – I wouldn't have access to the necessary sourcing anyway, in all probability (unless there's something in Newspapers.com). But I'm guessing "Canadian" is not right here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The article has changed a lot from what it was in 2007 and a lot of dubious changes made since it was created. Link to Canada was much stronger then but some info supporting that is gone now. IMDb considers it a US Canada production which does reflect the earlier version of the Wiki article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but the article itself says "...seasons two and three were produced by Krantz Films in New York City." This seems like a contradiction that needs greater clarity. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Move discussion at Talk:Joshua Bassett (actor)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: If you guys are interested. Amaury • 09:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Category:Walt Disney Pictures animated films
Hello, I'm ZX2006XZ. Why are you removing films from Category:Walt Disney Pictures animated films? ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:SUBCAT -Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ZX2006XZ: You basically created a container category at Category:Walt Disney Pictures animated films. The subcategories you added to that container were already in all the articles you added the new category to so adding the higher level category when a subcategory already existed was redundant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Okay, I remved the subcategories. Now what? ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ZX2006XZ: Adding Category:Walt Disney Pictures animated films to appropriate other categories making them subcategories is appropriate. Adding Category:Walt Disney Pictures animated films to individual articles was the problem when those same subcategories existed in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Okay, I remved the subcategories. Now what? ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Will likely need a block on 2600:1007:B115:D113:1048:3379:CEFB:9E26 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (range?) soon. Please keep an eye on this. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: One of many IPs. Range blocked for a week. Long term on cellular data network so dynamic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
MGM reversions
I appreciate that you reverted the edits of the blocked IP 173.77.215.131 , but the ones which identified the stuio as MGM and the distributor as Loew's were correct, and should not have been removed. Please go through the edits you made and restore the studio/distributor info. (If you want to confirm that these are correct, just check the AFI Catalog entry for any of the films.) Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I pretty much reverted any edit that added cast to the starring list in the infobox. I tried to leave obviously good edits alone. Generally I looked for references in the article attached to the info that was changed but didn't spend a lot of time looking beyond the starring list additions. Don't trust any of his edits so any changes at all were suspect. I'll go over the reverts I made and see what can be restored, if sourced or obviously correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm telling you that of my own knowledge -- which can be supported by RSs out the wazoo if necessary -- MGM was the studio and Loews was the distributor. Loews controlled MGM. I've worked on and created many film articles. Please fix this problem, which you created by reverting by rote instead of doing so in a more controlled mannerI've done some of them, but "Saratoga" through "30 Seconds Over Tokyo" still need to be done. Copy this text:
| studio = [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] | distributor = [[Loews Cineplex Entertainment|Loew's Inc.]]
- and put it in the infobox. Please do the right thing here and fix your mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I don't have your knowledge. Generally when I see any change to long-standing existing information in any article I expect a reference to support the change or at the least an edit summary statement of why the change was made. Also, for that reason, I feel very unconfortable making changes that I can't source or at least that I know is verifiable. I reverted changes made by an editor with a history of making incorrect and unsourced changes to articles. I will go over my edits and look for any obvious mistakes I may have made but I don't consider reverting unsourced unexplained changes to existing information a mistake. I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of the subject than I have updated the articles with correct info when it is wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've posted at WikiProject Film to aks them to help make the changes. The members there should be very aware of the accuracy of the information.Let me give you an example: the first one of your edits I fixed was for A Night at the Opera. Now, please go to this link, which will take you the American Film Institute page for that film. AFI is the ultimate in reliable sources for American films. There you will find this information:
- @Beyond My Ken: I don't have your knowledge. Generally when I see any change to long-standing existing information in any article I expect a reference to support the change or at the least an edit summary statement of why the change was made. Also, for that reason, I feel very unconfortable making changes that I can't source or at least that I know is verifiable. I reverted changes made by an editor with a history of making incorrect and unsourced changes to articles. I will go over my edits and look for any obvious mistakes I may have made but I don't consider reverting unsourced unexplained changes to existing information a mistake. I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of the subject than I have updated the articles with correct info when it is wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- and put it in the infobox. Please do the right thing here and fix your mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- PRODUCTION COMPANY Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.
- DISTRIBUTION COMPANY Loew's Inc.
- Which is what the IP changed the infobox to say (the parameter "Studio" appears as "Production company" on the rendered page). This will hold true for every MGM film - I ask you to take my word on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, you reverted how many hundred of edits? Don't you think that asking other people to fix your mistakes when they are pointed out is a bit *uncollegial, and not in the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't want to take responsibility, mark the edits "By request of User:Beyond My Ken" and I'll take responsibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The infobox was added in 2005 to A Night at the Opera (film) listing MGM as the distributor. That information was stable until 2022 when a vandal IP changed it without giving justification or sources. This is an article where many topic knowledgable editors, including yourself, were involved in editing yet nobody changed the information knowing what you stated to me above. Now you tell me the IP was correct and I was the one to corrupt the article by restoring it to the state it was in for 16 years. If you wish to go on a campaign and change all mentions of "Distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" (1954 articles in search) to what you proposed above, fine. I'll even help when I can. But the issue is more a project wide one then something that accrues solely to me when this has been ongoing.
I doubt the IP got them all (for example Forbidden Planet is one) so going over my reverts isn't going to fix the issue of its being wrong everywhere. Also some with MGM as distributor such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) are correct per AFI, so this isn't a simple search and substitue process. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- The IP's edit was correct in that specific instance, and your edit -- which I fully believe you made with the best of motives -- removed correct information and replaced it with incorrect information.You probably don't know that "studio" is a fairly recently added parameter to film infoboxes – it wasn't part of the infobox in 2005, when you say an ibox was added to the article in question – so many articles for older films will only have a "distributor" and not a "studio" parameter. In the case of A Night at the Opera, it wasn't the case that every editor who looked at the article examined the infobox minutely and said, "Yes, that's alright", it wasn't changed because nobody noticed it or didn't know that the information was incorrect, since MGM was not a distribuitor, only a studio owned by a distributor. I certainly didn't notice it the last time I edited it, which was fairly recently. I would have if I had been doing a general overhaul of the article, but I wasn't.The fact that an article has carried incorrect information for some period of time is not an argument for not changing that information when the problem comes to light. I have now brought the problem to your attention and as the editor who removed the correct information you really have an obligation to pitch in an help fix your mistakes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: As I stated above, I have found articles where AFI confirms MGM as the distributor and there are a lot of articles with that data. I cannot in good conscience make that change in any article without verifying what sources state for that specific article. I cannot trust that every time that vandal IP made the change it was valid. You may trust him, I don't. Better to leave the article in the last long-term stable state than make changes I can't be sure is correct. I'll work on this as I have time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would be very interested in seeing an AFI page which listed MGM as the distributor. Please provide an example. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: See this Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is a film from the 1970s. All the films that the IP edited are from the Golden Age of Hollywood, when the Studio system was in place. They're not modern or contemporary films, made when the Studio system had broken down. Please show me an example of a film from the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s that lists MGM as the distributor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: See this Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, I do not "trust" the IP, to say I do is a canard. I trust me, my knowledge of films. You apparently trust that the IP is always wrong, but don't care to put any trust in the word and assurances of a fellow Wikipedian of 16 1/2 years service and 280,000+ edits. I told you that you can put the blame squarely on me in your edit summary, that alleviates any responsibility on your part. I can take whatever heat may come my way (which will, I assure you, be minuscule if not non-existent). You're essentially off the hook, and can help to fix the mistakes so that I don;t have to go through all of those hundred of edits by myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I don't presume the IP is always wrong, but he has been proven wrong often enough that anything he does is presumed wrong subject to verification showing otherwise. As to the issue you brought up, there is a lot more to be fixed than just the ones the IP touched and to do it properly, each will need to be verified. I gave a counter example to your statement that MGM is never the distributor. This is easy to verify if AFI is in the article as an external link but really need to check each one. As to your credentials and reputation, I respect that and appreciate your guidance. Still I need to stand behind my own edits and be sure they are correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'm done with you. It's obvious that your actual knowledge about films -- at least films of this era -- is minimal, and that you don't have an ounce of collaborative spirit in your body. You really should be ashamed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: A bit disappointing that that is your opinion of me. Still, I am unable in good conscience to just restore dubious edits made by a vandal IP without personally verifying that my changes are correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't ping me again unless you've changed your mind and are going to help fix the mistakes in the edits you made, largely using rollback. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Just note, I didn't refuse to help but I won't make edits I can't stand behind. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is not rrue. Anyone reading the above discussion can see that you adamantly refused to help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I choose not to follow your given orders to me as stated. Doesn't mean I won't work to fix articles where I determine the information is wrong. Anyone reading the above can make their own conclusions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is not rrue. Anyone reading the above discussion can see that you adamantly refused to help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Just note, I didn't refuse to help but I won't make edits I can't stand behind. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't ping me again unless you've changed your mind and are going to help fix the mistakes in the edits you made, largely using rollback. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: A bit disappointing that that is your opinion of me. Still, I am unable in good conscience to just restore dubious edits made by a vandal IP without personally verifying that my changes are correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'm done with you. It's obvious that your actual knowledge about films -- at least films of this era -- is minimal, and that you don't have an ounce of collaborative spirit in your body. You really should be ashamed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I don't presume the IP is always wrong, but he has been proven wrong often enough that anything he does is presumed wrong subject to verification showing otherwise. As to the issue you brought up, there is a lot more to be fixed than just the ones the IP touched and to do it properly, each will need to be verified. I gave a counter example to your statement that MGM is never the distributor. This is easy to verify if AFI is in the article as an external link but really need to check each one. As to your credentials and reputation, I respect that and appreciate your guidance. Still I need to stand behind my own edits and be sure they are correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would be very interested in seeing an AFI page which listed MGM as the distributor. Please provide an example. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: As I stated above, I have found articles where AFI confirms MGM as the distributor and there are a lot of articles with that data. I cannot in good conscience make that change in any article without verifying what sources state for that specific article. I cannot trust that every time that vandal IP made the change it was valid. You may trust him, I don't. Better to leave the article in the last long-term stable state than make changes I can't be sure is correct. I'll work on this as I have time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- The IP's edit was correct in that specific instance, and your edit -- which I fully believe you made with the best of motives -- removed correct information and replaced it with incorrect information.You probably don't know that "studio" is a fairly recently added parameter to film infoboxes – it wasn't part of the infobox in 2005, when you say an ibox was added to the article in question – so many articles for older films will only have a "distributor" and not a "studio" parameter. In the case of A Night at the Opera, it wasn't the case that every editor who looked at the article examined the infobox minutely and said, "Yes, that's alright", it wasn't changed because nobody noticed it or didn't know that the information was incorrect, since MGM was not a distribuitor, only a studio owned by a distributor. I certainly didn't notice it the last time I edited it, which was fairly recently. I would have if I had been doing a general overhaul of the article, but I wasn't.The fact that an article has carried incorrect information for some period of time is not an argument for not changing that information when the problem comes to light. I have now brought the problem to your attention and as the editor who removed the correct information you really have an obligation to pitch in an help fix your mistakes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The infobox was added in 2005 to A Night at the Opera (film) listing MGM as the distributor. That information was stable until 2022 when a vandal IP changed it without giving justification or sources. This is an article where many topic knowledgable editors, including yourself, were involved in editing yet nobody changed the information knowing what you stated to me above. Now you tell me the IP was correct and I was the one to corrupt the article by restoring it to the state it was in for 16 years. If you wish to go on a campaign and change all mentions of "Distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" (1954 articles in search) to what you proposed above, fine. I'll even help when I can. But the issue is more a project wide one then something that accrues solely to me when this has been ongoing.
- If you don't want to take responsibility, mark the edits "By request of User:Beyond My Ken" and I'll take responsibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, you reverted how many hundred of edits? Don't you think that asking other people to fix your mistakes when they are pointed out is a bit *uncollegial, and not in the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is what the IP changed the infobox to say (the parameter "Studio" appears as "Production company" on the rendered page). This will hold true for every MGM film - I ask you to take my word on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, you say that to fix the problem you would have to check a reliable source such as the AFI catalog about the distributor/studio information. Well, OK, go ahead and do that. Fix the errors you caused by checking to see whether the IP's edits in those fields were incorrect or not. I don't care what process you use in order to fix your mistakes, as long as they are fixed.And, speaking of that, am I to take it that you didn't check to see that the information the IP inserted in the infobox was wrong? I mean, checking the names in the "Starring" field is easy, you just have to look at the poster (if there is one). Did you do that? Did you check anything about the IP's edits, or did you simply assume that they were all wrong and hit "rollback" repeatedly? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did sufficient checking to verify that the starring credit additions were wrong and that was the main thrust of the IPs edits. Mixed in with those edits were occasional other changes you told me were correct. All the IPs edits were unsourced and unjustified changes to existing informations which could normally be reverted just for that reason alone with a talk page message referencing WP:BURDEN particular for editors where most of their edits were provably incorrect. I was cleaning up after a vandal who was adding vast amounts of incorrect information to a large number of articles and gave their edits all the consideration they were due. As I stated, I will look at the articles, verify with the AFI link in it if it exists and make the changes that I can justify. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was the main thrust, but it wasn't the totality of them, and you clearly did nothing to prevent collateral damage. Following that up with a refusal to help fix that damage is really bad form, especially from the alternate account of an admin. I think you really need to reassess your committment to collaboration and collegiality -- but I rather doubt that you will. Goodbye. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Collateral damage was returning articles to a pre-vandal state generally one that existed for years. Minimal compared to removing newly added misinformation. Also collaboration and collegiality goes both directions and I have tried to be as accommodating as I am able to be. I just refuse per WP:V to add info to articles that I didn't or can't verify. I'll work on this as I have time - it is not a high priority. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Don't bother, I've fixed the problems you created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Collateral damage was returning articles to a pre-vandal state generally one that existed for years. Minimal compared to removing newly added misinformation. Also collaboration and collegiality goes both directions and I have tried to be as accommodating as I am able to be. I just refuse per WP:V to add info to articles that I didn't or can't verify. I'll work on this as I have time - it is not a high priority. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was the main thrust, but it wasn't the totality of them, and you clearly did nothing to prevent collateral damage. Following that up with a refusal to help fix that damage is really bad form, especially from the alternate account of an admin. I think you really need to reassess your committment to collaboration and collegiality -- but I rather doubt that you will. Goodbye. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did sufficient checking to verify that the starring credit additions were wrong and that was the main thrust of the IPs edits. Mixed in with those edits were occasional other changes you told me were correct. All the IPs edits were unsourced and unjustified changes to existing informations which could normally be reverted just for that reason alone with a talk page message referencing WP:BURDEN particular for editors where most of their edits were provably incorrect. I was cleaning up after a vandal who was adding vast amounts of incorrect information to a large number of articles and gave their edits all the consideration they were due. As I stated, I will look at the articles, verify with the AFI link in it if it exists and make the changes that I can justify. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
AN/I
Without specifying you by name, I have inquired at AN/I about the propriety of an admin operating an alterate account without publicly identifying what the admin account is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This has been brought up before. As required I notified the arbitration committee with my reasons for keeping the link confidential and I have been granted permission. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If there's anything else you would like to add, feel free to revert my closure, but the discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere as the user in question either does not understand things or refuses to understand. They're also trying to blame you, when they're the ones not following MOS:CT. The film article should be moved since from should not be capitalized, but the current, albeit weak, consensus there does not apply to articles linking to it. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. Amaury • 09:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Some weirdness is going on...
Two IPs – 49.196.219.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 49.196.67.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – who I assume are the same editor, have been doing some questionably editing of two articles I watch: Xenia Goodwin and Cariba Heine. Somebody may want to check the ranges here to see if there's more to the story... Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Mass reversion likely needed
Once again, we have an editor – FlapjackRulez – erroneously and anachronistically changing categories at various TV articles. We don't change the cat just because a production company or network changed their name after a TV show has finished airing! Doing this completely destroys the purpose of categories!
I don't understand why there is a population of editors insisting on doing dumb stuff like this. I can't figure out if it's just abject ignorance, or a very subtle attempt at vandalistic sabotage. Either way, it needs to be rolled back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ping Amaury, as they seem to know more about what may be going on here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I only took care of edits from today. All other edits appear unrelated. I just noticed their edits to Backstage and decided to look around. Ping MPFitz1968 as well, as they reverted on Backstage. Amaury • 20:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall and Amaury: I dropped some instructional notes. Looks good faith but sometimes people doing the wrong thing for good motives can cause as much damage as deliberate vandalism. Appears to be receptive to guidance though, so that is good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Tarzan (1999 film)
Hi, why did you say I was over-linking? I always thought it was good to have links to other articles so that people can find more information. Also it seems lots of people don’t seem to know the difference between apes and monkeys and use the terms interchangeably, so they may incorrectly assume gorillas are monkeys. I thought if there was a link to the gorilla article it might clear up the issue. - Milesjolly1997 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Milesjolly1997: Some key links are good to increase understanding of uncommon concepts and rarely used words in context. Too many links just tend to get ignored and aren't really useful. In the context of this story is it something that anyone will really want to click a link to for understanding? It is mostly just common animal names that most English speakers think they know sufficiently to understand the plot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. Yes, I see your point. Milesjolly1997 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Heads up about a vandal
Hi, it has come to my attention that an anonymous user has been vandalising Quest for Camelot and 1492 Pictures. He keeps re-adding the false information that states that 1492 Pictures is involved in the film, which we clearly know that isn't true. Could you do something about the anonymous user who keeps on vandalising the two pages? Many thanks. --TPercival (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TPercival: IP needs more warnings including a final warning on his talk page before anything can be done. I'll watch the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert again, because it would likely be edit warring... But the author of this draft keeps submitting the same version of the draft that was previously declined by WP:AfC, having made zero changes to it. This is a waste of WP:AfC's time, and is frankly WP:DE. If you can figure out a better way to handle this situation, please feel free. (FTR, the article's subject may or may not be notable by now. But this draft sure doesn't make the case for that...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I'm willing to file a report as this user should quite frankly be blocked, but I don't know if WP:ANI or WP:ANEW would be better. Amaury • 23:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury: WP:ANEW is always better, but unfortunately this would be an WP:ANI case – so expect nothing to be done... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall:: Trying WP:ANEW first: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CJ337 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Amaury • 23:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury: WP:ANEW is always better, but unfortunately this would be an WP:ANI case – so expect nothing to be done... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I don't even know how to respond to this. It's full of nothing but lies. Amaury • 01:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP question
Would you consider this WP:UNDUE, especially considering the current length of the article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Seems pretty impactful on her life so is something that would likely be included in any biography. Growing pains for stub articles (per talk page tags) to have information out of proportion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I am giving you a heads up about this editor. Recently, they have been mass-adding 'rowspan' to 'Awards' tables at various mostly U.S. & UK actor articles, including several "Golden Age of Cinema" actors, and including several articles that are WP:FLs, WP:GAs or WP:FAs (which should pretty much not be done!).
I have reverted their edits back to Feb. 8–9, but there are substantially more from Feb. 8 that I haven't gotten to reverting yet, and which I may not get to today.
Note also that I strongly suspect this editor of already socking – see their Talk page. (And this is just recent socking – rowspan obsession like this is the hallmark of one or more longer-standing socking editors, so it's possible this is a more recent sock of a longer-term socker...).
Pinging Amaury here too, as I know they've come across some rowspan vandals lately, though I'm not sure this case is related to that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- And an almost certain sock of 112qw34er as well. This will almost certainly merit an WP:SPI report, though I am probably not going to have time to work on one before Wednesday... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- This latest sock was still at it, as of last night, after you got to some of these. There's probably 2 dozen more than need to be reverted – I likely can't get to them until later today (too much work stuff to do...). Definitely looks like an WP:SPI is warranted here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: He is making complex edits much faster than would normally be possible with manual editing. Timestamps show sometimes 2 per minute. Looks like he is using a bot to do the edits that quickly and at the very least just making mechanical edits without any consideration. Both editors follow same pattern. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/112qw34er. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- This latest sock was still at it, as of last night, after you got to some of these. There's probably 2 dozen more than need to be reverted – I likely can't get to them until later today (too much work stuff to do...). Definitely looks like an WP:SPI is warranted here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Got another rowspan-obsessed editor with Beehivexo. Not saying it's the same editor, though the timing is certainly suspicious... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Yellowstone
It's been a month, should we proceed? —Confession0791 talk 03:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: I commented in the discussion. This is not something I currently have time to do, but if you or someone else want to actually do the split, go for it. I'm willing to help if needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I mentioned in the edit summary that we should do something about the season colors for contrast purposes. The ratings colors on the main page would be sufficient for that. —Confession0791 talk 03:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Credit changing IP
I know you reverted this edit on Glitch Techs, as we go by how they are listed in the credits. The IP did this on other articles, which have all since been reverted. However, what would you say about this? Should it still only be the credited name, or is this fine? Magitroopa (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa: I disagree in principle as the actual credits reflect what the person wanted to be credited as so that person was obviously OK with it, but footnotes or parenthetical does conform to MOS:GENDERID. I will generally revert or fix any name changes that don't reflect the names of companies and people as shown in the film or episode credits at time of initial release but this is a permitted alternative per MOS. It is also how IMDb handles it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa: Looking at the example you gave, the info about a name change wasn't sourced which it needs to be to support that formulation. The actual credit, on the other hand, is sourced in the episodes. Any bio info, particularly contentious, in any article needs to be supported by references. IMDb supports it but we can't use IMDb for bio info. Basically the person isn't notable enough to have an article so we have nothing to back a name change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
May need back up here – editor trying to add a clear (undue) WP:BLP violation to the lede. They don't seem to be dropping the stick... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- They are persisting – next stop looks like it might be WP:ANEW. But three different editors (4 if you include ClueBot) have reverted this editor, so they're definitely in the wrong here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: At the very least
heshe should start a discussion on the talk page about this and gain consensus for the addition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)- It's an WP:UNDUE BLP violation, especially in the lede. But they seem uninterested in discussion, likely as they know the edit is wrong, despite professing ignorance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: No question that it doesn't belong in the lead. Isn't even covered in the article proper with good sourcing so appears to be somewhat unimportant, let alone lead worthy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's an WP:UNDUE BLP violation, especially in the lede. But they seem uninterested in discussion, likely as they know the edit is wrong, despite professing ignorance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: At the very least
And reported to WP:ANEW. I mentioned the obvious sockpuppetry in the report. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Borsycle1. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I also added a request at WP:RPP due to the socking and BLP violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Requesting comment
Care to comment? —Confession0791 talk 18:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: I saw the move. I'm fairly neutral about it, move wasn't really necessary but result is benign. Keeps the ep list title consistent with he main article title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I mean the color changes. —Confession0791 talk 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: As long as the colors conform to MOS:COLOR it is an editorial choice of what to use. I have no opinion other than they need to meet assessibility guidelines as to what should go there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- They don't meet MOS:COLOR. The other editor reverted it to promotional colors, which won't work here. The page is not watched by very many people, and I'm not going to edit war over colors, so trying to start a discussion. —Confession0791 talk 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: I don't like getting into color issues either. Best way to handle it without edit warring it is just fix the existing non-conforming colors to ones that do conform to MOSCOLOR but stay closest to what was there. Edit summary referencing MOS:COLOR as justification should head off any problems. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- They don't meet MOS:COLOR. The other editor reverted it to promotional colors, which won't work here. The page is not watched by very many people, and I'm not going to edit war over colors, so trying to start a discussion. —Confession0791 talk 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Confession0791: As long as the colors conform to MOS:COLOR it is an editorial choice of what to use. I have no opinion other than they need to meet assessibility guidelines as to what should go there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I mean the color changes. —Confession0791 talk 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
New message from Amaury
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zombies (2018 film) § Stylization and Hyphenating the title. Amaury • 01:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury, can you please explain this invitation, because it looks an awful lot like canvassing to me. — HTGS (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:APPNOTE. In particular,
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
. We edit in a lot of the same topic areas. Furthermore, the invitation was completely neutral, as it was just a simple invitation to a discussion. Nothing else. You may wish to read what you're linking to before accusing or attempting to accuse others of such things. Thanks. Amaury • 21:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:APPNOTE. In particular,
I'm confused here. If it's none, does that description template even need to be there? Amaury • 17:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just noticed that it's a bot doing this en masse, as I just noticed the same thing at List of Happy Tree Friends episodes. I'm still confused, but yeah. Amaury • 17:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Appears valid per WP:SDNONE. Removes from category articles needing the template. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read that, but it wasn't helping much. But, basically, even though there's no description, the template is still needed, if I'm understanding you right. Amaury • 17:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is basically used by the bots so they know that the no display is intentional and not something that needs fixing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Amaury • 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is basically used by the bots so they know that the no display is intentional and not something that needs fixing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read that, but it wasn't helping much. But, basically, even though there's no description, the template is still needed, if I'm understanding you right. Amaury • 17:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Appears valid per WP:SDNONE. Removes from category articles needing the template. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Need Some Assistance, re: List of American television programs currently in production
Geraldo, can you take a look at this article, in regards to this persistent recent edit, which is clearly out-of-WP:SCOPE, being made by several different IPs?! Page semi-protection is too "broad" a remedy, with significant collateral damage, so I'm thinking a range block is the only possibility, but I've seen at least 2 different IP ranges used, so I was hoping you could look into it. If a rangeblock won't work either, any suggestions?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The range is 102.159.0.0/16 based in Tunisia and the whole/16 range is assigned to that ISP. I've also seen that editor on other ranges from that region as well. See AS 37705 - actual range is 102.156.0.0/14. General strategy to get a range block is drop warnings in enough IPs in the range to establish what the range used actually is, then request a range block based on that usage. Basically watch the article and warn whenever that out-of-scope crap is added until there is enough warnings to support a block of the range. I'll watch the article as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've done that – left warnings at multiple IP talk pages, at least 2 or 3 of those were Level 4 warnings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- If they are on the same article could get a block restricting that range from editing that specific article only. Easier to get than a general range block. They've used 102.156, 158, 159 which is larger than /16. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Absent a semi-protect, what we are left with is watch the article and revert when the out-of-scope stuff is added. Build a case for a an article block for the IP ranges that editor uses and get assistance at WP:ANI to make it happen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've done that – left warnings at multiple IP talk pages, at least 2 or 3 of those were Level 4 warnings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Still at it, now at 41.62.227.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I believe is the other IP range I've seen before. FTR, it looks like they're editing more than just List of American television programs currently in production and I couldn't tell you what kind of damage they are doing to these other articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I thought I had read about this somewhere... came across an IP doing similar editing, which looking now, is in fact in the same range as the IP mentioned above: 41.62.187.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Magitroopa (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Unexplained revert on 2011 England riots
I do not understand this reversion: [2]. I have reversed it. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Sweet6970: That IP is dynamic in the range and general long term abuse pattern is ignoring manual of style with respect to MOS:NOPIPE and WP:OVERLINKING. Makes changes to and adds unnecessary pipes to links without explanation. Generally disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Another problematic IP
Another problematic IP editor at 189.120.72.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – every edit of theirs has been reverted, and already blocked once in February. Bears watching. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I am quickly going to need backup here from an edit warring IP 62.1.246.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is removing content repeatedly without providing an explanation even after warnings. Based on their Talk page, they are likely quickly heading for a block. Ping Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Awful colors
A long time ago (2019) you and I were part of a discussion and eventually an anonymous IP editor stopped adding awful colors to the Reception tables in List_of_Pixar_films but editors have seen fit to apply this awful garish color scheme to the article again. (Also List_of_Blue_Sky_Studios_productions but I was able to fix that already[3]) I would have done the work already and removed the coloring if the article wasn't locked, but I very much intend to do it soon after the lock expires. I would very much appreciate if you could again comment at Talk:List_of_Pixar_films#Awful_Colors to help discourage any editors who might actually believe adding this coloring again was a good idea. Thanks in advance. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Somebody needs to do something about this – it's not going to be me. But this almost certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG, and it's at the wrong title/disambiguation. Probably should be (page) moved, and converted to a redirect for now. Ping MPFitz1968 as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring
You are in danger of being blocked for participating in an edit war at The Return of Jafar. Please stop it and encourage other editors to discuss on the talk page. You may be in the right, but, to be frank Bob Schooley is the title of the article you are fighting over, so please explain your position by starting a thread there. I will be blocking the other IP user for their part in this, but I also expect better of you, please. Many thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: Long term abuse and block evasion by an editor ignoring MOS:NOPIPE, that is the latest IP being used, others can be seen on that page doing the same. Likely an IP sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry the house. Left general messages on the current IP being used, he is aware but continues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I do realise that. But the edits themselves were not vandalism - just disruptive, and I would have hoped to see a clear explanation of the issue from your part, and not a tit-for-tat repeat of the edit ad nauseam. I looked online and couldn't see definitively that 'Robert' was the name on the credits, yet 'Bob' is the title of the linked-to page. So I might also have been tempted to fix that issue, and wonder why someone was reverting me every single time. Communication is always key. But thanks for reporting the IP - another admin has addressed a block. Of course, I completely agree with you that no pipe is needed, but I don't see why Bob Schooley isn't acceptable.
- I suggest if you believe there is a good case for 'Robert' that you either clarify this on the article talk page immediately, or fix the issue with an invisible note inserted next to the name to alert future editors of why 'Robert' needs to remain. What I don't want to see is disruptive editing continuing in that manner over such a trivial issue without a clear explanation. I shall be monitoring the article for a few months. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: IMDb and long term article history supports that name being used so it is likely correct absent reverifying it by looking at the actual film credits. Generally names in the infobox should match what the credits say per infobox instructions - I don't consider changing correct info to be incorrect a trivial issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, you surprise me. I assumed you knew for certain the film credits were to 'Robert'. IMDB isn't a reliable source, as you well know, so it seems a fairly trivial issue if the target article hadn't been changed and if the target article name is 'Bob'. Stil worth you raising this on the talk page if you want to avoid future issues, in my view. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: Sigh, now you went and made me go watch the movie for the credits. Yeah I know IMDb isn't a reliable source although they usually transcribe credits correctly. They blew it on one though so I fixed it to match the actual credits. I dropped a hidden note, if it comes up again I'll mention it on the talk page. I've found hidden notes better as reviewers see those when checking changes but will miss talk page comments. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, you surprise me. I assumed you knew for certain the film credits were to 'Robert'. IMDB isn't a reliable source, as you well know, so it seems a fairly trivial issue if the target article hadn't been changed and if the target article name is 'Bob'. Stil worth you raising this on the talk page if you want to avoid future issues, in my view. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: IMDb and long term article history supports that name being used so it is likely correct absent reverifying it by looking at the actual film credits. Generally names in the infobox should match what the credits say per infobox instructions - I don't consider changing correct info to be incorrect a trivial issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
IP immediately off a one year block is back adding improper categories (e.g. violating WP:SUPERCAT). Suggest immediate report to WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I have had to revert two edits in the last hour or so which added her ethnicity into the lede of the article ... with them changing the wording from "American" to "Filipino-American". Need more eyes for this, as my revert count in the last few hours is at the limit ... been also keeping an eye of her wins and nominations at the Grammys. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
User Agentgrailcooper and a different user overlinking on Andi Mack
Pinging MPFitz1968 as well for this. With regard to the user, they are adding a bunch claims or allegations that are, at minimum, unsourced and, at most, defamation. One of the "sources" they used was The Root, the same source someone tried to use when we had that lengthy discussion regarding the made-up controversy over on Bella and the Bulldogs a long time ago.
With regard to Andi Mack, if you could please review the latest edits by a different user. They are WP:OVERLINKING many common words or terms that do not need to be linked. They claim it's only six links, but WP:OVERLINKING doesn't actually have to do with the amount of links, but whether a word or phrase is common. The other edits could be argued whether they are improvements or not, but the bigger issue here is the overlinking violations. Amaury • 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- They have posted to Talk:Andi Mack about the issue. I am staying out of this, as I avoid this article, but I would say 5 out of the 6 are almost certainly examples of WP:OVERLINKing; the sixth one is debatable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Out of curiosity, why would holding hands be debatable? Amaury • 18:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- You figured it out – magnet school is not a "common term", IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I was confused because you said the sixth one, which was the holding hands one, unless I miscounted. But yes, that is the only one that should be linked. Everything else is common. But with me being on the verge of taking the article off my watchlist, it may make the Andi Mack part of this discussion moot. I don't know. Amaury • 19:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- You figured it out – magnet school is not a "common term", IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the user mentioned in the heading is different from the one who's making the Andi Mack edits. As for the user mentioned, I did notice their edits at Danielle Fishel, and that part is pretty contentious and not fully sourced (especially the part about Fishel not commenting about the various abuse charges levied on her husband). I almost reverted them, but didn't quite get to it. Thanks, Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: You're welcome. Yes, I'm talking about two different users here. I clarified it in my second paragraph above, but I'll clarify it in the header as well. Amaury • 19:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury: You could engage with me on the talk page rather than, it seems, telling on me to an administrator as part of a completely unrelated discussion about a different user? And no, the other edits could not be argued whether they are improvements or not. "closely" is simply not the right word there, and the other two are also transparent typos or grammatical errors. Regarding the links, I'm sure the case can be made that three of them aren't necessary, but they're also helpful and not distracting. The other three (coming out, magnet school, and Ultimate), I think, are definitely not WP:OVERLINKING. Dylanvt (talk)
- @IJBall: Out of curiosity, why would holding hands be debatable? Amaury • 18:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am generally avoiding that article too. As to the links, only hand holding is blatant overlinking as it is both self defining and commonly understood by everyone. I am watching the user mentioned in the header. Not watching the article mentioned. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am on the verge of removing it from my watchlist as well. It's a former series, anyway, and doesn't appear to have any major problems with vandalism. I am done with people just randomly showing up and turning articles into a mess, with a bunch of unnecessary things, like overlinking. If people want to make it a mess, they can have at it. Amaury • 19:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Just a heads up that this is being attempted to be created again. Amaury • 07:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Converted this back to a redirect. But anyone could have done this – when you have an article that consists largely of IMDb and J-14 "sources", and which is created by an editor known for trying to create bad articles, you should just convert it to a redirect – you don't need me or Geraldo to do it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury and IJBall: Generally I treat redirecting an existing article a bit like PRODs. If the redirect gets undone it is time for an AfD discussion and close with either a delete or redirect decision. If an article redirect is undone after an AfD decision, the redirect should be restored and the redirect protected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Reverted edits
Hello, I am new to this and still learning the ropes of editing. I was just wondering why my edits have been reverted and when it is appropriate to create a new article, for example my WP:SPLIT attempts in List of roles and awards of Troian Bellisario, List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo and Other works of Jane Fonda, and my attempt to create new people articles like Ethan Wacker and Shawna Hamic.
Would love to hear your opinion and advice?
Main questions: When is it appropriate to create an article? and What is considered reliable referencing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelloveslennonstella (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Samuelloveslennonstella: Bold splits are generally OK but when they get reverted you need to start a discussion about the split on the source article and gain consensus for it. That you haven't done. I gave my reasons for reverting the splits in the edit summaries, mostly because they weren't needed based on splitting out content from small articles. Read the article at WP:SPLIT particularly the parts about when to split and what do do for split discussions. For biographical articles just make sure the article meets at minimum the notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with references meeting WP:RS. There are specific guidelines for actor articles at WP:NACTOR that should be considered too. When starting out it is best to start a draft article in draft space and when you think it ready submit it for inclusion in article space. The submission evaluation will look over the article and see if it meets the article requirements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am somewhat questioning the sincerity here, as this editor has received warnings for at least a month for doing these kinds of things, and only now are they asking for advice?... For now, I will assume "better late than never". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Definitely a mess made in naming this article. I attempted to move it to Sofia Carson (album), as the 2022 disambiguator is completely unnecessary, but it wouldn't let me because there's already an article with that title. Or more accurately, a redirect to the above article. I'm not even sure it should be called an album; Napster has it as an EP (though I'm not sure about the other streaming services).
Geraldo, I noticed you put a PROD on the article earlier, but it was removed, and I noted what you said about it not being on any country's chart. (Definitely not on the US Billboard 200 right now.) There's an entry about one chart it's on (US Apple Music albums), but I don't know if that qualifies per WP:RECORDCHARTS. Is it time to take this to AfD? Pinging IJBall about this as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I noticed the WP:SINGLEVENDOR guideline, and I think that would be the case for the US Apple Music albums list. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I imagine IJBall should be able to move it to the correct location with his powers in the meantime while it's decided whether or not it should even exist. Amaury • 07:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm leaving it, as I suspect it's more likely to be deleted this way. Also, can somebody check to see if User:Dhiego Allvez is related to the account who recreated this bad article? I find the name, and their recently adding the link to the bad article, suspicious... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Current location has a PROD that is likely to be honored. Linking to a deleted article will get the other titles deleted too. The number of moves the editor made is a bit ridiculous. I think I got most of them pointed to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The Fairly OddParents — Matthew W. Taylor a.k.a. Maddie Taylor
Could you please review this edit? Another one of those cases where someone goes by one name in the series, per credits, and later goes thru a gender change (or gender-identity change). The editor does cite MOS guidelines pertaining to this, and yet MOS:TVCAST states All names should be referred to as credited...
. I revert the editor on those grounds [4], but then they revert me back [5], and go further with the MOS:TVCAST wording (... or by common name supported by a reliable source
), and say that the MOS guideline they cited takes precedence. Which is right? I'll ping IJBall for this as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Annoying. My opinion is that we should always go by the names as credited at the time. I believe there was even an RfC from several years back that came to the same conclusion – basically that, for example, in the context of the 1976 Olympics it only made sense to refer to "Bruce Jenner". But the woke warriors have been roundly ignoring this RfC result multiple places. Unless you can get the backup of other regular editors at the article, it's a battle probably not worthy fighting, as the historical revisionists are likely to not give up and will do things like report you... But, in this context, I am of the opinion that is clear that MOS:TVCAST is saying the credited name should be used in situations like this. At worst, a note can be added noting the current name of the individual. But the original credited name should be listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gender change is special and overrides every other rule. Yes, I believe you can't rewrite history. But I won't push it to the point of being permanently banned from Wikipedia, as some editors including admins have for going against the mob who pushed the change in Wikipedia policy. Generally revert once per TVCAST and if undone, drop it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did add a "credited as" note, that should be OK as the old name is mentioned in the actor article. If it had been erased from there we couldn't even do that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly how I look at it to both of your points above. There was no "Maddie" at the time she, then he, voiced Sparky. We had the same issue when the same news came out about JJ Totah changing to Josie Totah. Even the user's own argument of "or by common name" doesn't actually help them, as back then, they were commonly known as Matthew. Anything else that I have IJBall has summed up well. Amaury • 17:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Source for relationship of Kate Bosworth and Orlando Bloom
Even in the infobox of Kate Bosworth, there is no source provided. It is provided in the article.
If that's the case, no source is provided for Katy Perry and Miranda Kerr in the infobox. So, they should be deleted from the infobox as well. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Shkuru Afshar: Article says "on-and-off relationship". That doesn't meet infobox instructions for that attribute which state:
"partner" here means unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership
". Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Another cat-obsessed IP to keep an eye on – I've just reverted at Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for reverting a lot of vandalism! LucasKannou (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC) |
Serial vandalism
Greetings @Geraldo Perez:. After making a couple of minor edits at the page for the 1943 film Girl Crazy I noticed you had reverted the edits of an IP user who added a whole roster of cast names under the heading for stars in the Infobox (here).
Evidently the same user made the same changes to that page a week later, here - which I reverted today.
It appears they continued using the first IP address through Feb 2, 2022 (and you continued reverting their edits at that IP here). However, the edit I reverted was by the second unregistered IP address (above), which has demonstrated the same pattern of sustained Infobox vandalism here. It certainly seems like the same user. I thought you might be interested in sorting it out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Need feedback for Biography
Hello, I need some feedback and suggestion for adding the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zo%C3%AB_Belkin. This is a biography of : Zoë Belkin, who play Rebecca Harper on The Latest Buzz. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reg.AmPm (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
Geraldo Perez, why are you keep doing this? Stop removing shows that you think it's unsourced but it's not. Another IP has added that show Becoming a Popstar since it was produced by MTV Entertainment Studios. So you got to stop reverting them and prove it at once or you will be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.127.103.129 (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No article at link, no source that it even exists.
Yes there is. Check here: Becoming A Popstar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.127.103.129 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Another IP changing without explanation, and presumably anachronistically, the distributors of various former TV series (in contravention of WP:NOTBROKEN). I have no idea if this one is related to the others that do this, though it seems to be a relatively narrow niche of unhelpful editing and I can't imagine there are too many editors (IP or otherwise) pursuing it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- And another "bad cat" IP potentially at 98.152.119.174. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia user 108.60.190.159
Hi, there's a user named 108.60.190.159 who keeps adding false info (mostly about two non-existent anime/video game series Fritz the Dolphin and Watchdog as well as non-existent Nick Jr. cartoons such as Calamity the Crocodile) on the Wikipedia articles Robert Towers, Billy West, Harvey Atkin, Blake Foster, List of Konami games, Konami and List of anime distributed in the United States. Can you block him/her permanently, please? ArthurRead1976 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ArthurRead1976: Reporting to WP:ANI with evidence is the best way to solve this sort of problem. However last edit by that IP was 2 weeks ago so blocks are kind of pointless now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, it looks to me that CJ337 and CK121119 are very likely the same editor, the latter being an undeclared sock of the former. Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Likely same person but no overlap in editing times so far and didn't change accounts to evade a block. Could have abandoned the first account. Edits look good faith so far but no indication season 8 of series has been released, just ordered, so casting for that is dubious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- FTR, that is no longer true – CJ337 has resumed their WP:DE at Draft:Trevor Tordjman, so it can no longer be claimed that the earlier account has been "abandoned". At this point, I think a warning is in order, and it's likely to be more effective if coming from an "uninvolved" editor like yourself. My $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CJ337 opened, after the latter account tried to create Draft:Trevor Tordjman (dancer) in bad faith. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- FTR, that is no longer true – CJ337 has resumed their WP:DE at Draft:Trevor Tordjman, so it can no longer be claimed that the earlier account has been "abandoned". At this point, I think a warning is in order, and it's likely to be more effective if coming from an "uninvolved" editor like yourself. My $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, what would you advise doing with this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: redirect it to Dark Oracle#Characters. Article as it stands doesn't meet WP:GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also redirected Cally Stone for same reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
IPv6 Unexplained Removal of Valid Content
An IPv6 user at 2A01:CB11:20:1900:557F:EFB2:8CBA:A520 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – it's actually the range – has been WP:DE removing valid content from filmographies – they've now been at this for several days (actually, looks like it goes back to January), and I've already caught them at Daran Norris, Jess Harnell and even Madeline Zima. I suggest a mass revert, and possibly a report to WP:AIV on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Range is Special:Contributions/2A01:CB11:20:1900::/64, they've been blocked before. I'm watching the range now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with this edit – do we need a WP:DABPAGE now? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Yes and neither is primary so also needs the Danger Games (disambiguation) redirecting to that page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- How would one do that? – I don't think I've ever seen a WP:DABPAGE with a redirect link to a TV show episode like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I took care of it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- How would one do that? – I don't think I've ever seen a WP:DABPAGE with a redirect link to a TV show episode like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
LTA IPs
Given that they're back at yet another IP again, figured I'd point you out to WP:ANI#Long-term disruptive editing from IP(s) (I had planned to send this to you after I had initially created the discussion- no clue why I didn't...) Magitroopa (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, who wants to clean up the Madeline (TV series) article?!! – Separate 'Character', 'Character Review' and 'Cast' sections all need to be merged into a single 'Cast and characters' section. I probably don't have time to get to this right now, so I'm bringing it here in case another editor sees it and wants to give it a shot... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Citation Barnstar |
| For defending List of Dinosaur Train episodes against lack of sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
IPv6 Vandal Is Back
The IPv6 vandal that I recently pointed out to you – see this, in your archives – looks to be back, at 2A01:CB11:20:1900:CC78:755D:F184:B233. Same behavior, so should be blocked again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Still watching. Hasn't passed the threshold for a report that would be acted on, in my opinion, as the edits are not obvious vandalism, just disruptive in aggregate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Still at it. This is pure WP:DE "deletion" of content. I think they (i.e. the range) should be reported now. They've been previously blocked, so it's clear they're WP:NOTHERE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked 6 months. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Still at it. This is pure WP:DE "deletion" of content. I think they (i.e. the range) should be reported now. They've been previously blocked, so it's clear they're WP:NOTHERE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Soul Movie – Rv of My Edits
Hello, I am VickKiang. For my edit, which you have reverted, you believed that the term "critical acclaim" is WP:Puffery. There are several issues with this essay, the first aspect being it not thoroughly vetted by the community, and thus could not be a widespread norm. Further, there are numerous animated movies with lower critical scores than this that uses the term "critical acclaim" on WP. See the articles for Turning Red, The Wind Rises, and Encanto, which all are lower or equally rated on both RT and MC. IMO those should not be changed to "positive reviews", but you could if you would prefer that descriptions instead. I am also confused by what you mean by "a specific reviewer", as both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are aggravators considered reliable on RSP, they also form the basis of the previous claims (the RT consensus is "A film as beautiful to contemplate as it is to behold, Soul proves Pixar's power to deliver outstanding all-ages entertainment remains undimmed.") To me, this is not minor, besides, the article seems to concentrate negative reviews not according to WP:DUE, as an entire paragraph is for negative reviews (with refs) that account for 5% of the total according to RT. If there is a further dispute, please let me know and I could potentially start an RfC. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @VickKiang: It is not my belief, it is a fact that the term "critical acclaim" is a unnecessary peacock term used only to puff up the importance of a film. The essay at WP:PUFFERY just expands on what is in the Manual of Style at MOS:PUFFERY which is pretty clear that words of excessive praise serve no encyclopedic purpose. That the fairly clear statement in the manual of style is being ignored in other articles is no reason to ignore it in this one. As for the label that Metacritic places on films that meet a certain threshold of positive reviews, that is a mechanical classification system they use and has no meaning outside the context of that particular publication. It does not define the term for general use and does not override the Wiki Manual of Style. Review aggregators are reliable sources in that they accurately do their job of aggregating and summarizing what the reviews says, they are not reliable sources for critical reviews and aren't used as such in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Therefore do you believe all of the critical acclaim designations should be changed for the dozens of articles? VickKiang (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @VickKiang: Yes, I believe all the articles should follow the Manual of Style. MOS:PUFFERY gives some guidance on how to do fix ones that don't conform to this one. Rarely those words may be appropriate applied to a few subjects and the fact a subject is widely classified that way is notable in itself, but only if it is well and very widely supported by good sourcing. Not just the mechanical opinion of a review aggregator. For example see Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and advice! I would personally disagree, as the usage of this term is standard in film articles, but could try to tweak some wordings if possible. Still, to me there could potentially be a better discussion. Thanks and have a nice day. VickKiang (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Therefore do you believe all of the critical acclaim designations should be changed for the dozens of articles? VickKiang (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Fuck U
What the fuck is your problem guy... This is the 2nd or 3rd edit that i did you have reverted... Cut out the bullshit. LikkleBwoy (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @LikkleBwoy: Read the edit summary I left, it explained the reasons. The changes you made were not improvements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes they were and you know it... You're just abusing your authority as an Admin... I suggest you fucking refrain from being an asshole. LikkleBwoy (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @LikkleBwoy: If you disagree, start a discussion on the talk page of the article proposing your change and get a consensus to change the image. Also keep discussions civil. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Another one...
Please take a look at Special:Contributions/174.235.48.163. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my edit on Sabrina
Somehow I didn't notice I was typing my search query into the HotCat box. Oops. KaraLG84 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest IP rowspan vandal
Geraldo, latest most recent IP rowspan vandalism (etc.) of WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables is coming from 85.134.225.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you take a look at the range for this, and tell me if other edits in the IP range have been similar, and if there has ever been a block of other IP's in this range?... Thanks. Also pinging Amaury because I know he has taken more of an interest in this behavior as well lately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Was previously range blocked for 1 month as Special:Contributions/85.134.128.0/17. I reported as resumed from that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)