User talk:IJBall/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, IJBall! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
— YoungForever^(talk) 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Alexa Nikolas middle name

Actually, Alexa really DOES have a middle name. For proof, search it on Google. Websites say the middle name. Trust me, they're no joke. Chidie345 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Google searches are worth absolutely nothing. All bio info must be sourced to a Reliable source – either media coverage verifying the info, or a social media post directly from the subject themselves verifying it. Otherwise, it stays out. Please review WP:BLPPRIVACY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm gonna disagree with you saying Google searches are worthless. That is FALSE. Alexa does have a middle name and it's true, NOT false. Websites don't lie. I'm not listening to you and that is final. Chidie345 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed Alexandra Breckenridge's citation added by inkedceleb.com

I added a quote about Alexandra Breckenridge, but you permanently deleted it. So I would like to know why you did not accept that information. And what do I need to do? You can check the citation information from here, looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJatInked (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should go to Talk:Alexandra Breckenridge. I personally think it is non-encyclopedic, trivial info that is likely WP:UNDUE – i.e. she is not notable for her tattoos. The question is whether other editors agree or disagree. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you research that conclusion yourself? The number of news searches about her tattoo every month is not small (nearly 8 thousand monthly searches, according to statistics from Ahref). So this is definitely news that many people are interested in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJatInked (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, IJBall!

Happy New Year!

IJBall,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— YoungForever^(talk) 08:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Kevin Quinn

Is this appropriate? Amaury • 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely no – we need to hold the line on "no Discographies for anybody who hasn't legitimately charted". Nearly every "entertainer" has released songs or even albums (via the internet). But it's not notable unless they actually chart for real somewhere. Basically, we should be following WP:NSINGER on this – otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE. Basically, only the People source there is legitimate enough to use, but even that single should be mentioned only in prose using that source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Girl Meets World episodes

I may need some eyes here. Amaury • 21:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely should not be changing credited names, esp. as WP:NOTBROKEN applies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It reminds me of when something similar came up at Talk:Game Shakers#MOS:JR. As per the message left on my talk page, this seems to be another case of someone thinking either guidelines are top-down binding rules or every single little thing needs to be in a guideline. Amaury • 21:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Kickin' It episodes

IPs back at it with adding nonsensical trivial notes that belong on the Wikia. Amaury • 03:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And going to need more eyes on Candace Cameron Bure. Amaury • 05:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexa Nikolas's baby

Is a female. She said it on her instagram here. Can we change "her child" to "Her daughter" or is it fine as it is? MichaelFansz (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelFansz: That doesn't look nearly specific enough – we would literally need a caption/comment like "Here is a picture of my daughter"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Secrets of Sulphur Springs

May need eyes here. Trivial notes being added. Amaury • 09:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's trivial. But it likely does need to be properly sourced. Also, there's a question of whether the U.S. dates should just be listed regardless as it is an American TV show – I would argue that it is the U.S. dates that should be listed, and "non-U.S." premiere dates should be restricted to the notes. The alternate would be to use an AltDate column. Probably needs a Talk page discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Zoey 101

Is this acceptable for the page if it’s just alleged/Alexa’s word on it only? Yes or no? MichaelFansz (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelFansz: I have reverted that. IMO, it is clearly WP:UNDUE. I have had to revert similar types of additions to Alexa Nikolas for similar reasons – they are basically WP:PRIMARY allegations with no objective, secondary third-party coverage of what's being alleged. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Instead of removing the topics from the show's page and Alexa's page, why don't you try to improve the sections. They clearly deserve to be there. As is stands right now it just looks like you're trying to cover up all mention of the allegations. Saturday Night Live has a controversies section, 60_Minutes has a controversy section too, they both go into detail about feuds and incidents that happened on set. Just look at Chevy Chase and the literal fighting on set of SNL with Bill Murray. The events have been mentioned by Alexa, and now Jamie in her memoir and 100% need to be accounted for on Wikipedia. So instead of deleting them, why don't you help improve the sections.Chrisisreed (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that's not it at all. Take a look at Alexa Nikolas – it clearly states that she was forced off the show due to conflicts. That is secondarily sourceable. That is all that needs to be said. We absolutely do not need to go into a bunch of first-person claims and counter-claims in a "she said/she said" fashion.

If you want to create a 'Production' section with casting info at Zoey 101 feel free – but it needs to be done responsibly, not with a WP:GOSSIP approach. This is an encyclopedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Poorly Referenced

"Poorly referenced?" what are you talking about. None of the info I said was false. What do you mean by "poor information?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Paw (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Saint Paw: You offered no sourcing at all for your additions – sourcing is pretty much required for anything added to a WP:BLP article. (And even then it might be considered WP:UNDUE – but including sourcing is the minimum requirement.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources? Dude I just made this page lmao what do you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Paw (talk • contribs) 22:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Source of Cancellation News for "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire-cancelled-no-third-season-for-abc-game-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5496:9C8C:1073:413A:C31A:7AF5 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, TVSeriesFinale is considered to be WP:NOTRS, and the Jan. 20, 2022 Deadline piece they cite actually is clear that the show has only been put "on hiatus", and has not been officially "axed" yet. So it's not cancelled, as of today. Ping Magnumtropus to see this as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: Check this out as well, please – next time somebody tries to quote or cite TVSeriesFinale, remember this example as the rebuttal: TVSeriesFinale is claiming as "cancelled" a show Deadline is clearly saying is not cancelled yet. That's definitely WP:NOTRS territory! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Zoey 101, 'Production' section

Sorry if I keep annoying on your talk page about Zoey 101 stuff but you said that anyone is free to create a Production' section for the show on it's page. I wonder if my edit is acceptable or not now that I created it. I know sourcing wise, it's not the best but I tried. MichaelFansz (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelFansz: It's an OK start, but I would like to see some stronger sourcing there. My guess is that the Nylon cite can be replaced by a better contemporaneous WP:RS on that development deal, and we would want something much better than YouTube for the casting announcement. I would check The Futon Critic, under Zoey 101 first, to see what they have – Futon may also be able to help you find some better contemporaneous (secondary) sourcing for this info too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit under FA review

I have nominated Quatermass and the Pit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Next Step Live: The Movie

I am working on making a page for The Next Step Live: The Movie and need photos. Since you are an amazing TNS editor, I was wondering if you could get a photo submitted on Wikimedia Commons so I can add it. I am not personally able to do it and it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for all your wonderful edits! CJ337 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I would advise against this. The movie is almost certainly not independently notable. As per WP:NOPAGE, a section on the film at The Next Step article should be sufficient to cover this topic. (A redirect would likely be justified, though.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. If I make it a section, with all the credits needed, would you be able to get a photo added to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again! CJ337 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@CJ337: I cannot – you would need somebody, a) with access to the film (I do not have that – someone in Canada or the UK might...), and 2) who can grab screencaptures from the film itself (I would not know how to do this (well) either). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I have screen recorded the entire film and can take screen grabs myself. Would that count as my own work? Thanks again for all your wonderful help. It means the world! CJ337 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@CJ337: I'm really no expert on this stuff, and you have to be very careful about copyrights, etc. I would refer you to first look at WP:TVIMAGE, and then maybe try to track down somebody who is more of an expert about this stuff (i.e. pulling images from TV shows, and when that is appropriate or not, and in what context), esp. somebody who also frequents the Wiki Commons, and see if they can help you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. You've been bunches of help. I'll find someone that knows a bit more!CJ337 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with Marcus Lemonis article

Hi IJBall. It is nice to meet you. I see that you are an active Wikipedian and a participant in WP:TELEVISION, with a particular interest in BLPs for television personalities. As the host of an American T.V. show, Marcus Lemonis is a television personality; I would appreciate your help on his Wikipedia entry. Please see the request I posted at Talk:Marcus Lemonis to address a reoccurring issue of WP:UNDUE and to add some new content to the article. I would be grateful for your assistance and intervention. StephanieAtMarcusLemonis (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bureau of Magical Things

Assuming you're still watching this, please review the latest edit, because it is also listed as a comedy by other reliable sources, like The Futon Critic and others. Can't just say that because one source says it. If one source says one thing, but another says something else, we stick with the WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus is reached. That and it's been like that since I cleaned up the page back in September 2018 without challenges. Amaury • 08:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article's current sourcing, I don't really find enough support for "comedy". I also don't think there's enough support for "drama" either. I basically saw "kid's show", and maybe "adventure", mentions. But genre sourcing looks light in general here. However, I don't care enough to revert. I would agree that it probably shouldn't be called "drama" either (WP:UNDUE?). There's should maybe be a discussion about whether any genre should be listed here, and if so which... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

and just like that revision

my bad, I'm still getting the hang of this, no offense was meant Porksweats (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Porksweats: None taken. As "incorrect edits" go, yours was a minor one. (But you may want to read WP:FILMOGRAPHY, if you haven't already.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I will, I appreciate the advice. Porksweats (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael D. Cohen's birth date or month confirmed

Since his page have yet to add his birth date or month, I wonder if this post is source enough. It is from his account and is verified, so it seems legit. If not the exact date, we could just put "Born November 1975" MichaelFansz (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelFansz: The issue here is that post from Cohen doesn't really verify day-of-birth. And, at the least, it would have to be combined with a second source for year-of-birth to get a true "WP:DOB"... I'd advise bringing this up at Talk:Michael D. Cohen (actor) and see what other editors think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership - Toronto issue

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

---

I don't understand why you revert my edit. The APTA report is either using false data or just not talking about metro system. It is simple to check the values for toronto by checking the official statistics of the TTC. So why reverting the data ? Is it better to have false data as long as they all come from the same (bad) source ? Even the Wiki page for the Toronto subway use the TTC statistics which exclude the Scarborough RT (only 4.2 million rides in 2019). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.157.213 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The article uses the APTA source wherever possible for apple-to-apples comparison. How APTA counts ridership is not necessarily how others count ridership, which is why the APTA numbers must be kept for direct comparisons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The APTA source is ... the TTC ... do you even care about the truth ? This page is not about the APTA report it's about the list of north american rapid transit systems. So I guess you decide what is the truth. Well, at least spreading fake news like this one won't hurt. You win, I don't want to lose more time on that, but in case you would like to check the actual official numbers from the TTC here they are: https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/Operating-Statistics/Operating-Statistics---2019/Conventional-System

Passengers by Vehicle Mode Mode Passengers Bus 235,391,765 Subway Trains 231,710,270 Streetcars 54,147,243 Scarborough RT Trains 4,220,839 Total 525,470,117

Even if you count Go Transit, which is not included in the TTC report you would not reach the APTA numbers.

The toronto street car system wiki page also report fake data from APTA (165 millions annual ridership while the official report says it's 54millions) but who cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.157.213 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty sure I know who you are: the Toronto transit vandal – so we are done here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Reference formats being screwed up

See here, which is also linking common words or phrases, against WP:OVERLINKING. I'll leave this one to you, but I already had to fix this same issue on Kirby Buckets: [1]. I'm not going to mass touch anything, but I'm only focusing on articles you or I or both of us watch. Amaury • 05:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the name parameters, they're also incorrectly changing parameters. For example, they are changing "work" or "publisher" incorrectly to "website" or "agency." I don't know what the hell the latter is for, but "website" is and should only ever be used when the website doesn't have a name. Add: Even stranger, they are also removing valid content. They removed an entire section on Kirby Buckets and now removed a reference on Cameron Boyce. Amaury • 05:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted on the basis of changing ref author style in contravention of WP:CITEVAR... 'agency' is to be used for things like Associated Press. 'Work' to 'website' (or vica versa) isn't worth reverting, though 'work' -> 'publisher' is usually wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User Ruairi halpin

MOS:ACCESS violations. Amaury • 17:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You and DarkGlow look to have gotten most of it. I got the rest. I'll keep an eye out. (Note: There's always a chance that this is a sock of one of the prolific rowspan vandals, though the name would seem to indicate otherwise...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is why I lost ground

Hi, the source date and and the "access-date" of the DCOM page were the same when I began editing in wikisource mode. I only did the source date to the actual date and left behind the "access-date" because I dozed off whiles editing and simply lost ground on it and didn't finish. I wanted to thank you for the correction, but I would have either done both if I spotted it/them myself or not touched it/them at all; it's as if I've got to get everything right here. Like in this quote in modern association football "When you create numerous chances to score and you don't take them, you'll soon get punished and will blame no one but yourself/ves for that." That was what happened. Polygork (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Fungies!

Feel free to chime in if you'd like, Talk:The Fungies!#Final Season?. Not a show I watch myself, but the show has supposedly been cancelled with the only source being the creator's unverified social media account. I've tried explaining it, but seems like it's just WP:DONTGETIT at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so personal attacks are okay now?--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Commented on the Talk page. (And that's not a "personal attack".) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, now at ANI. Magitroopa (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Should have taken it to WP:ANEW – WP:ANI is a graveyard where problematic cases continually get buried with no substantive action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

2601:49:C201:7820:78C8:1704:298D:7704

Can we please block this troll? This person keeps on changing the age (very false, as well) on articles like Jamie Lynn Spears and Jerry Jones before I had to revert them. Or at the very least give the account a warning. MichaelFansz (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Process is always the same here – you need to leave a series of warnings, up through Level 4, after which you can then report to WP:AIV. I have left a Level 2 warning on the IP's talk page, but it looks like they've stopped editing (at least at this specific IP...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The Endgame

I created the article since I went through edits on List of programs broadcast by NBC (I watch it, though mainly updates for Law and Order or upcoming seasons of Game Shows on there) and you said on this edit that someone should make the article so I did. Let me know if I did anything wrong as it is my first time creating an article and I didn't find must sources when it comes to the series... Of course its WIP. MichaelFansz (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelFansz: Article should go at the base title, where the redirect is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I created a Draft last month which now is in the mainspace. What MichaelFansz created is a duplication of what I created and added nothing new as his creation only have a sentence. I guessed MichaelFansz did not bother to check if there is a Draft already. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

My Girl (film)

I'm having a problem with an editor concerning this article. I recently made significant changes to the plot of that film to reduce the word count. They have since been making other changes to the plot, putting back in some of the problematic stuff I addressed on the talk page. After I warned them about their changes on their talk page, they have been blanking the plot completely several times in recent days. I'm getting fed up at this point and am going to report them to AIV next time they do it, but I'll need more eyes at that article in the meantime. They just did this again in the last few hours, and only now have I reverted their removal. Pinging Amaury and Geraldo Perez as well about this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Added. Amaury • 06:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Peyton Elizabeth Lee

Is this image acceptable? I ask because she is not staring directly into the camera, and I was under the impression that for images used here, people should be starting into the camera, though I'm not sure if it's explicitly in a guideline. Amaury • 23:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: The bigger issue there is that the "new" image is almost certainly a WP:COPYVIO. Pinging Geraldo Perez so that they can take a look at the image... If it's not a copyvio, then a Talk page discussion should be held about which image is preferable – it will be a "better composition portrait image" versus "more recent (adult) age image" debate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: What usually qualifies a copyrighted image? Is it one that doesn't have information from where it's from and all that stuff? Seems a little more complicated than dealing with copyrighted episode summaries, which are usually easier to comb through and see if they're copyrighted or close enough parallels. Amaury • 04:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: Pretty much all images are copyrighted by the photographer by default. What we are looking for is a valid free-use or public domain release that allows Commons to host the image. That is usually at the image source stated or the photographer could upload the image and give a release as part of the upload. Lots of uploaders upload pictures they found somewhere on the net or extracted from a video and therefore their release is invalid as they obviously don't own the image as they claim. Need to investigate a bit to see what is going on. Pictures from services like Wireimage and Getty Images are never released free-use and if that is the source, we can't use them at all. The image in question was hosted at IMDb with no free-use release at the source and a named photographer who wasn't the uploader. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"Future events are not ledeworthy"

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

---

Until you can actually cite your statements, please do not revert. Because it sounds like you're making up policy on the spot to suit your preferences--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPs cannot be notable for future events. It's commonsense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Solely future events, sure, but projects that continue what they've already worked on is what they are. Therefore do not violate.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, you're making stuff up. Does it belong in the article? Absolutely – you've already added that, sourced. Does it belong in the lede? Absolutely not – ledes of WP:BLP are supposed to summarize what a person is already notable for, not "for what somebody might be notable for in the future... maybe". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What have I made up? You are strawmanning my argument, while refusing to actually cite anything--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The "strawman" is you continuing to talk about "citing" – this isn't a WP:V issue, this is a WP:BLPLEAD issue: it's about policy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You do not know what a strawman is. You have to stop edit warring. You keep saying it's about policy but haven't cited it. And you don't get to determine who the edit warrer is when your justification is under scrutiny. You are not immune from the rules--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

List of The Next Step Episodes

You reverted the change I made to Season 2, Episode 4 regarding why Stephanie was late to the auditions. I changed the reason from "Acting audition" to "acting classes" I watched the section of the episode again upon seeing this statement and used the phrasing spoken by Samantha Grecchi. Is it possible for this to not be changed again? Thank you! --CJ337 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would need to watch the episode again. But I'm skeptical that Stephanie would miss a TNS audition for anything less than another audition. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please watch it again. I reviewed the scene seconds before making my edit and she said, "acting classes" so that it specifically what I typed to make sure it had the most continuity to the particular scene. CJ337 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Then make the change again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Peyton Meyer, child

You said on edits that his ig source is insufficiently sourced. However, with a https://www.justjaredjr.com/2022/03/14/peyton-meyer-welcomes-first-child-with-wife-taela-see-the-first-photo/ posted on the news and with his ig post (plus verified account), is it enough? Or is Just Jared Jr. generally a unreliable source for wikipedia. MichaelFansz (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just Jared is a teen gossip rag, and should not be used. If there a source from something like People that can be used. Something like Us Weekly would be borderline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Article was released on people (https://people.com/parents/peyton-meyer-welcomes-first-baby-wife-taela/) and I added it as you said People is a acceptable source. Hopefully it brings closure to him finally having a child. MichaelFansz (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Mike Caron

Ugh. Newly-created draft just the other day that Bernie Parker decided to move out of draftspace, despite the information currently in the article not enough to justify it to be an article, with 0 citations at all. Magitroopa (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

And given that Bernie just *suddenly* reappears immediately once this draft is made, I wouldn't be surprised if these two accounts are related, also given the fact that both made the same '[]' mistake ([2] [3]). Magitroopa (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Disrusificationtroopa19?? There's no way this is not a sock. Find your favorite friendly Admin, and please report that someone is almost certainly socking with an account based on your name. (Best guess is it might be Simulation12, but it's just a guess...) But there's no way this is kosher. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Draftspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I honestly originally thought the same, but brushed it off. However, after checking Google, this seems interesting, including a created article about a previous Sim12 sock. As well as this, with interaction from two previous socks as well ([4] [5]). I'll bring it to SPI.. Magitroopa (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12#21 March 2022. Sadly seems like this has brought back a stale account, but I'll let checkuser do its thing first. Magitroopa (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Cook Partisan Voting Index

Moved to Talk:Cook Partisan Voting Index § District of Columbia in table?

 – --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

TV infobox - website parameter removal

Amaury as well, see full discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Website parameters: If you hadn't known yet, it appears that the website parameter is set to be removed from the infobox, in favor of the external links section. From what I've seen, most articles I edit/come across are the opposite of Favre's comment, with the infobox containing the official website link, and the external links section only having something like IMDb and nothing else.

Anything that can/should be done about this in advance? Or should it just be handled by editors manually as the bot does its work? Seems like smaller articles/shows that don't get much attention will be losing its official website link altogether unless/until someone is checking through the history of the article. Magitroopa (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming they'll get a bot to handle it. FWIW, I probably agree with this decision, and I always wondered why it was in the infobox, when official sites links should be in the 'External links' section. (Of course, there are plenty of other IB's that do contain links in the IB...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears to have begun. Should we wait until the bot gets to them, or just do them ourselves now (regarding what I mentioned above about articles that don't currently have the official website link in the EL section)? Magitroopa (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that is up to you. Personally, I have no plan to make these kinds of edits. If others or a bot want to handle it, great. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I started doing a few; already done so for a few Disney shows on my watchlist. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot- even after the bot goes through an article, some articles will still have the website in the infobox, thanks to data in Wikidata. This should be fun... Magitroopa (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Apologies for pinging you at WT:TV, just was a good example of what I was talking about. :P And P.S. I noticed you've only been removing 'website' in your recent edits, 'production_website' is deprecated now as well. Just a heads up. Magitroopa (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Thanks. Just picked up on that when I got to High School Musical: The Musical: The Series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Disney XD original series and Template:Former Disney XD original series

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: I may need more eyes here. User making WP:OR claims that Disney XD no longer has new programming. There is currently no new programming, but there is nothing at this time to suggest there won't ever be new programming again. Disney XD may end up becoming like Boomerang, which is all reruns of old Cartoon Network programs, but we need more than WP:OR claims for that. Amaury • 23:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There will likely need to be a wider discussion about Disney XD soon. There are manifold rumors that Disney will soon discontinue/shutter the channel. If/when that happens, at the very least, it is arguable that some of the Disney XD templates, and maybe the Disney XD article, will need to go away, or be radically altered. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Do these not count as 'new programming'?... Specifically regarding G.O.A.T., Eye Wonder, and Roman to the Rescue (and yes, I understand that they aren't that notable-enough shows to warrant an article, hence not being included in the template).

Apart from those 3, I don't believe there's any current original programming (IIRC, Howie Mandel's Animals Doing Things & Out There with Jack Randall are both original to Nat Geo Wild). Magitroopa (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ruairi halpin

Just reverted one of their edits at Jules LeBlanc, which was for improper rowspan use (they have done it at least twice at that article), and then went to warn them (level-2). But then I saw your level-4 warning on their talk page from yesterday. Wasn't going to report them right now, but up to you on whether they should be. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: For what it's worth, I've brought them up here before: User talk:IJBall/Archive 38#User Ruairi halpin. Same issue. Amaury • 18:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone please report them – I'm at work right now, but they've gotten more than enough warnings that they're now just a rowspan vandal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Amaury • 19:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: For reference, here. Amaury • 19:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And blocked from editing WP:ARTICLESPACE (user's talk page). That should do it. Thank you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Girl Meets World

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 13 § Template:Girl Meets World. Ping Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968. As we've done this before, when I nominated Template:Danger Franchise, I went straight to the nomination before here. Amaury • 04:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Re:

In English please? 72.38.51.152 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me keep it simple for you: DON'T USE ROWSPAN IN TABLES IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Ok? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, IJBall, your message to them seemed very French. ;) Amaury • 21:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Danger Force

I went to hit submit on the revert, only to find there was a conflict with you. My summary was so much better. As Stephanie Tanner would say, "How rude!" :3 Amaury • 20:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I realized after reverting that the episode wasn't even about COVID (it was a "gas leak"), so the cat was completely wrong no matter what. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Amaury • 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For moving the page With All Due Respect (TV program). Sahaib (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 205.122.215.106

Please keep an eye on them. Changing images just so that they're up-to-date, which we don't do, and all of which are likely copyright violations. Add: This is now the second time they've done it. Amaury • 19:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping Geraldo Perez as they should be aware of this as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Images I checked were from a free-use YouTube video so screenshots from that are free-use too. However they were images of fictional characters, not natural appearance of the actors, so shouldn't be used in actor bio articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, 90210

Did you solve the problem and make Wikipedia better? 109.70.40.55 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Drive by tagging", driven by what one IP editor thinks is "correct", certainly does not do that... If you don't like the source, find better ones. Surely, TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly back-issues would likely have the same information in a more reliable and understandable format. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive by tagging is your opportunity to fix the problem. Drive by reverting certainly does not help... Initially I tried to lift the term from the relevant wikipedia article. Do your accusations fix the problem? 109.70.40.55 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

One named user mindlessly applying a rule doesn't address the problem. 109.70.40.55 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering you don't seem to know the difference between a Nielsen "rating" and "share", you shouldn't even be editing on this topic at all. And considering you are now Edit warring on the subject, you should either revert your pointlessly WP:POINTy recent edit, or be blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE IPs

FYI, they're already blocked at 197.238.79.76 and 197.244.0.0/17 and possibly some other IPs/ranges. If this keeps up (which I find likely to happen...) I'd say page protection would be good here, especially on usual targets like List of American television programs currently in production, List of teen sitcoms, List of teen dramas, etc. (two previous AIV reports: [6] [7]) Magitroopa (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Punky Brewster 2021

A user moved the article about the revival of this series from "Punky Brewster (2021 TV series)" to "Punky Brewster (season 5)". This is completely incorrect, as revival series are separate from their original runs (other examples being iCarly and Saved by the Bell, each of which have revivals as well), so this should be reverted back. I'm not sure how to do move reverts, and I don't want to mess this up. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I made a technical request at WP:RMT. Also, the user just made a significant edit at the original series article to combine the revival into it [8], and I just reverted it. Article may need further watching if this continues. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

[9] Is the rationale in this edit summary valid? Seems like WP:OSE argument to me. Anyway, I reverted again, and implored user to discuss their reasons for this kind of merging on talk page. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Think I will ping Geraldo Perez and Amaury to this discussion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Editor has commenced some discussion at an existing talk page topic Talk:Punky Brewster#2021 Revival. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: The new iCarly and Saved by the Bell lasted multiple seasons, so separate pages make sense, while Samurai Jack (season 5) and Twin Peaks (season 3) were revived for single seasons a similar amount of time after their original series ended, with the same level of cast changes, but Samurai Jack and Twin Peaks remain the main pages, with new sections dedicated to the revivals and most of the information on their season pages. Pumpoffed (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Those are good points above. Why not tell me that on my talk? Pumpoffed (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Punky Brewster#2021 Revival – bottom line: this is a "controversial page move" and should be reverted until a thorough discussion can be held about the issues involved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please look at my Talk item for Isabel May

“Make a Career section…” Her Stub BLP needs work. I’m close to finishing watching 1883, and she’s pretty amazing in it. Taylor Sheridan credits her for breaking his writer’s block on this Yellowstone prequel. She’s going places. Room for expansion on that Article!

   Thanks for any feedback, and for all you do for the encyclopedia!! 

Cheers, Left Central (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Cooper Nick Barnes

I'm doubting the Henry Danger star (with middle name added, though unsourced) is notable at this time. Definitely does not meet WP:BASIC ... very little information outside of acting roles, and poorly sourced. And even WP:NACTOR - I don't think this is even meeting the minimum requirement. Two or three series, but all related, and he's portraying the same character(s), so I would discount NACTOR here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: This is an attempt to get around Cooper Barnes (actor), which is a redirect to the characters section. Likewise for Cooper Barnes, though the redirect target was changed to the current attempt with the middle name. CSD it with A7 and explain the sneaky attempt to bypass things. Amaury • 17:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ping Geraldo Perez as well, as he is familiar with people who keep trying to create this bio article. Still does not meet either of the things you mentioned. Amaury • 17:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Was reading A7, and I don't think this article would apply under that, since a credible claim of importance about the subject was made (his role on Henry Danger). Was this article AfD'ed before? Might qualify for G4. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MPFitz1968: I don't believe so. We've just kept redirecting the attempted creations to the characters section of Henry Danger, but there can only be so many redirects before they become useless/confusing. Amaury • 17:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to be around much today, but WP:G5 this – Geraldo likely remembers more, but I believe this is Simulation12, or one of the other sockers, who keeps trying to recreate this. Look into previous edit history at the Cooper Barnes redirects – that should show which socker it is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello IJBall,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 847 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Tiffany Espensen

IP has been making a large number of edits in the last hour, and I have decided to remove the article from my watchlist temporarily. I don't have time to be seeing my watchlist keep telling me another edit has come up, and showing the same article being edited. Aside from that, the IP appears to be making good-faith edits, but is still disruptive, given the number of edits, those edits being mixed with unsourced content and red or disambiguation links, and the fact that you and I have now reverted that article at least once. Article definitely needs watching; pinging Geraldo Perez and Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for temporary semi-protection at WP:RfPP, though there is no guarantee it will be granted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Tiffany Espensen has now been semi-protected for a few days if you want to put it back on your watchlist. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Walker

Hi IJBall,
This is the wrong use of ampersand. For my understanding, MOS:RANGE applies to seasons on cast and characters section when a cast member left the TV series just like Legacies when Kaylee Bryant left Legacies. Thoughts? Pinging Geraldo Perez and Amaury who are familiar with MOS:&. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. An ampersand is incorrect. It should be an en-dash (which isn't a hyphen). Seasons 1–2 is correct. Amaury • 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Maya Hawke

I don’t understand why you undid my edit that she is a singer and wrote “no” because she’s on Spotify (with 73,532 followers), and on a recent interview with Buzzfeed Celeb where the Stranger Things cast plays with dogs, she said that she’s a singer (talked about her songs). GamerKlim9716 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Occupational notability is based on independent secondary coverage, and/or in the case of singing, charting. Spotify is not a metric for notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:CreecregofLife

Pinging Amaury and Magitroopa – a head's up that I am having issues with this editor again, after reverting them on the perfectly reasonable grounds of WP:CITEVAR. If they keep reverting, I may be taking them back to WP:ANI again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You’re already there. You haven’t been reasonable at all, conflating personal preference with the format provided by the template CreecregofLife (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

How many times are you going to get warned about edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND until you take it to heart? You are going to get WP:INDEFed if you don't quit with this nonsense. The stuff you are edit warring over is both neeedlessly WP:POINTy, and ultimately pointless. You really don't seen cut out for Wikipedia editing. Find something else to do with your time is my advice to you. And that is all I intend to say on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are the one changing things to your personal preference here. If an article already has an established citation style, that's what you need to follow instead of adding a citation with some random formatting that doesn't follow what's already in the article. Citation formatting is to be uniform in articles. If you want it changed, then gain a strong consensus. But you have no interest in doing that and all you are interested in is edit warring and being disruptive, as usual. You've been to ANI at least three times now, where you repeatedly play the innocent "poor me, poor me" victim. As IJBall said above, your time is limited here. Amaury • 02:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You both confronted me, and you take no responsibility in this. You are literally yelling at me for using Wikipedia templates and calling it “personal preference. You constantly scold and berate others. You treat others as you originally perceive them with no ounce of room for change. You use your power to smother out people who call out your bad behavior. You don’t even try to be civil to other editors, directly in conflict with WP:CIVIL. You couldn’t even bother to call good-faith edits good-faith because you were too busy being backhanded. CreecregofLife (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The original reversions of mine were civil. And you still ignored them, as is your pattern. But, again, you can stop commenting here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI- the latest ANI may be Simulation12... [10] Magitroopa (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles for The Villains of Valley View and Ultra Violet & Black Scorpion

Hey IJBall, @MPFitz1968:, @Amaury:, would any of you happen to know if anyone is working on drafts for these two shows? I couldn't find them anywhere in draftspace, but I know in the past we've had people working on them in private sandboxes. I want to know if you've seen any before I start one.

Both shows premiered yesterday.

Thanks. — Starforce¹³ 18:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of anything... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starforce13:: User:Amaury/sandbox/Ultra Violet & Blue Demon. I'll get it updated. And I just created User:Amaury/sandbox/The Villains of Valleyview and will get it going. Amaury • 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If so, Ultra Violet & Blue Demon needs to be moved into mainspace ASAP, as the series has already premiered, apparently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting it all ready right now. Amaury • 18:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury:, thank you for confirming. I'll check back later in the mainspace.— Starforce¹³ 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

IJBall, Starforce13, UV & BS in mainspace now. Amaury • 19:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Amaury:.... and while we're still here, should we start including these with both Disney Channel and Disney+ as original networks? Most of the episodes are going to premiere on Disney+ weeks before Disney Channel. For example, the first 10 episodes of UV & BS will be released as Disney+ originals next week... and Villains the following week. Disney seems to be moving in this direction even for DCOMs like Zombies 3. (we can move the discussion elsewhere too, if needed) — Starforce¹³ 20:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Starforce13, IJBall, The Villain of Valley View now in mainspace. @IJBall, Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Magitroopa: What do we think about Starforce's question above regarding the networks? I'm neutral on this right now until I see more opinions. Does an online service count as a network, for example? Amaury • 20:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on that, I would categorize them as "Disney+ original series" (only). The articles should mention that they get rebroadcast (later) on Disney Channel. But they don't qualify as "Disney Channel original series" if they don't premiere on the cable channel... Re: Zombies 3, I still want to see how it's branded and covered in independent coverage before removing if from "Disney Channel Original Movies". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They are also premiering on Disney Channel as well, though. I would consider this akin to Backstage, where we listed both the Canadian and American networks. Amaury • 21:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If the premieres were within a few days within each other, then maybe. But if they not airing on Disney Channel until weeks or months after premiering on Disney+, they are in no way "Disney Channel original series" then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

See also [11] and [12]. Amaury • 21:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep both for now since some episodes like the first 2 are premiering on Disney Channel first while others are premiering on Disney+ weeks before Disney Channel. So, it's hard to use one over the other. And even with the articles Amaury provided, especially the first one, it recognizes VVV as an original for both. — Starforce¹³ 21:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Jenna Ortega

109.78.196.165 and 109.76.194.186

I may need more eyes here. IP seems to know way too much for only having started editing on June 6—even though what they "know" is likely wrong—as 1) they are already abusing more than one "account" and 2) their edit summaries scream sockpuppet to me, at the very least. Of who? I don't know. But this isn't just someone trying to "improve" things. I've already left them a warning. Ping MPFitz1968 and Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury • 15:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Their actual edit was mostly not objectionable. I have simply replaced their unnecessary use of the template in the tables. Their attitude is suboptimal, but their edit likely shouldn't have been reverted, just fine-tuned in a followup. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Their abusing of multiple accounts is still wrong, and if they turn out to be a sockpuppet, then I guess it'll make this moot. I just don't believe they're a new, innocent IP just trying to "make Wikipedia better.' Amaury • 16:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If the IP's are dynamic, they aren't "socking". And some IP's are actually experienced editors. At least this IP is trying to explain their edits. Based on geolocation, I don't think this is one of our usual problem editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not, and it's why I specifically avoided saying something along the lines of "I think this is X, Y, or Z." But if we combine the contributions of the two IP addresses, they had one random edit in May 2013 and then randomly started editing on Monday. Some IPs may be experienced editors, but I don't buy that this particular one is. Although I guess if this IP is ultimately an editor trying to get around a block or whatever, we'll find out at some point. They can't hide forever. Amaury • 16:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

How

Where are you getting the idea that mentioning who someone dates is gossip? Further, we've never talked before. You may be out of line in your suggestions and inferences.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Tell you what – why don't you go to WT:FILMBIO and see if you can get them to agree with your idea that including dating WP:GOSSIP is appropriate in a WP:BLP Wikipedia article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Slow down the train. I'll put it on the talk page. It's fine that you like to edit tables and such. Stop assuming anything.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Diego Velazquez (American actor)

What do you think on the notability of this actor? Looks borderline on the WP:NACTOR guideline. I see unnecessary disambiguation, and there is a redirect to The Thundermans for the one without "American" in the disambiguator. The latest, with "American", was just moved from draft space. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Honestly, I'm worried this might be a Cadeken sock. Diego Velazquez (actor) already exists as a redirect, so this looks like a clear attempt to Game the system to get around what has already been firmly decided is not a notable subject. Additionally, Draft:Diego Velazquez (American actor) doesn't come anywhere close to clearing WP:BASIC, etc. Please let me know if whoever this is tries to move this back into mainspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

From the draft's log - not sure you checked - User:D Vela 125 moved it into mainspace and then eventually moved it back. (I'm thinking Amaury's revert here sent them the message, though I have the feeling this won't be the last of their trying to add a BLP about the actor to mainspace.) D Vela has been pretty disruptive at The Thundermans over the past week and change by adding and readding a link to the actor. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Tyler Sanders (actor)

This is an actor who was in the Amazon series Just Add Magic: Mystery City, and recently died. From what I could gather on his acting career, he likely wouldn't have met WP:NACTOR, with his role in JAM:MC being his most significant. And I'm doubting his death would make him notable now, per WP:BLP1E. Tempted to go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD for this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Suggest converting to a redirect to Just Add Magic: Mystery City. Seems very unlikely subject can pass WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Will leave my diffs at that page here and here. Needed to create an anchor at Just Add Magic (TV series) with the way the section headings (for Mystery City) are currently worded - both the Plot and Cast and characters sections are using similar subheadings and only one (anchor) is being recognized (the Plot one) for directing to the particular section. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Ana de Armas nationality

Hi there, I See that on Arma de Armas's wiki page, every time someones writes that she is both Spanish and Cuba, you keep deleting the "Spanish" part and you keep the "Cuban" part. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Ana is both Spanish and Cuban. She is Cuban by birth and nationality and she is also Spanish by blood and by nationality because she got the Spanish nationality from her grandparents. So she has dual citizenship, so I'm not very sure why you keep deleting the "Spanish" part. It's a fact and everyone knows that. There are sources about that too and Ana herself confirmed that she has both nationalities and is proudly from both countries. Here are some sources that you can have a look at.

<https://trinikid.com/ana-de-armas-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-no-time-to-die-star> <https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/ana-de-armas-44631.php>

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlindarlin7777 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Darlindarlin7777: Did you check Talk:Ana de Armas? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)