User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 33

Happy New Year, Geraldo Perez!

Happy New Year!

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)

Sydney to the Max

@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)

Randy, what do you not like about following MOS:CT? Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

zzzzzzzz

List of Disney Channel original films

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)

That's So Raven

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)

Hunter Street (TV series)

@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)

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)

Jacob Bertrand

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)

User talk:50.104.22.14

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)

Spider-Man (1967 TV series)

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)

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)

Oh. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:1007:B115:D113:1048:3379:CEFB:9E26

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 manner

I'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:

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Talk:Zendaya

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)