User talk:Amaury/2017/January

2017 Archive Index: January • February •  March •  April •  May •  June •  July •  August •  September •  October •  November •  December

Happy New Year from Apparition11
Happy New Year! Hello Amaury: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 15:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

User Caedite eos
On my end, I'm inclined to let this play out longer. (One issue is that I myself am sort of on vacation right now...) Also, most of their recent edits seem to be improvements. While obviously in technical violation of their block (assuming it's Orchomen), if they stick to this and move on from heavy contribution stalking, I'm inclined to WP:IAR and let it go if they actually stick to trying to improve the encyclopedia... However, it is quite likely that they won't be able to stick to this, so we should all continue to monitor this to see if the situation spins out of control again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind keeping an eye on them for a bit longer, but for me personally, I'm at the point where they don't deserve to make any edits whatsoever, regardless of what they are. It's not so much because I can't let it go, but more so that they've lost all of their edit privileges from the major serial sockpuppeteering they did and are still doing, and I can't just ignore that, if that makes sense and doesn't make it sound like I'm contradicting myself. I feel like I'd basically be saying, "Oh! What you did is now okay!" Although please note that I'm not trying to imply or say that this is what you're saying with your opinion. I'll still leave the re-reporting you. And it's like you said, they won't be able to stay constructive, anyway. It's in their blood. All of their edits so far have been to articles all of us in the group are watching—me, you, Geraldo, Michael, and Nyusika. We're all mostly watching the same articles, but, of course, there are some that one of us is watching that someone else is not. Have fun on your vacation! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And another one bites the dust thanks to Rob! Of course feel more than free to re-apply edits I reverted that you thought were a net positive. Responsibility of such edits should go to someone constructive, such as yourself! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

100 Things to Do Before High School
I just noticed this old edit, where you changed the "Henry Ditman" credit which was a mistake in the credits to say "Henry Dittman". I'm not convinced about this, but at some point I was told that mistakes in the credits should not be corrected. Though we already make minor changes per MOS:CT, and MOS:PMC does say insignificant typos like this can be corrected without noting it. There is an argument to be made for source integrity, and on the other hand, the fact that these are obviously just insignificant mistakes, not necessary to note, like WP:BLOOPERS. Also pinging, and. – nyuszika7h (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Geraldo Perez will say that typos in crediting need to be left as is, and I am inclined to agree. In the actor's specific Filmography, you can then note this with a "credited as [XXX]" in the 'Notes' column. In fact, there's a very specific example of this at Olivia Taylor Dudley. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see any mistake there, only leaving out the middle name, which is a different case. Also, in this case the typo is only in one episode's credits, they credit him correctly in the other episodes. So I don't think that's noteworthy for the filmography, at least. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of Olivia Taylor Dudley, I'm taking about the very specific entry for The Mindy Project. (In fact, it would be great if somebody could double-check this one!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was only looking closely at the film section, as I didn't notice "as" credits on a quick skim of the television section. I'm not familiar with that show, but I'll try to find the episode and verify it. Also, with appearance in just one episode (unless she has co-starred in other episodes), it's hard to tell if it's a mistake or intentional, although it's more likely a mistake especially if the name doesn't appear anywhere else. Press releases are also worth checking if they list her, but if we decide to preserve typos, then only the actual episode credits matter. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be preserving obvious and blatant typos but credits get a lot of scrutiny by both the production team and the actor so I would be very wary of "correcting" what is essentially an official document without some reliable source that directly addresses the mistake in the credit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed that she is credited as "Kolivia Taylor Dudley". However, it's only a co-starring role rather than a guest starring one, so I'm not sure if it's notable. (Screenshot) – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a credited role, so that still gets listed under an actor's Filmography – it just wouldn't be enough to get her listed in the episodes list summary. P.S. Thanks for checking on that!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Pymble, New South Wales
Hey Amaury, just a friendly note that you may be running afoul of WP:3RR which could result in you being blocked for edit warring because of your recent reverts with at Pymble, New South Wales. I can't see that they are obviously vandalism, and they just seem like reversions about a comma. Perhaps let it be for a day, and if no one else has reverted it, you can and they ip will probably have left. Thanks for your contributions! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I made the final revert of that IP there. IP user is evading a block of User:Orchomen, which is exempt under WP:3RRNO. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More information here which also contains a link to the extensive sockpuppetry cases. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, wonderful, well, for us not for them. I wasn't aware of the block evasion, but I'm glad you both are on top of that. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling the group!
,, ,

You guys may remember this discussion I brought up last year in May. Well, to make it even easier, I just added some additional columns to my sandbox here, and I was wondering if you guys would be willing to indicate which articles you're watching as well, for both current and ended series, and if there are any there that you aren't currently watching, perhaps you could consider watching them?  So you guys may end up watching everything I'm watching, haha! IJBall, for you in particular, I know that you really only temporarily watch articles due to some conflicts you've had with other editors in the past, if I'm remembering correctly, unless that's changed now. Anyway, you guys can just replace the hidden note placeholders containing your name with this: Do note that not all of the articles I'm watching are listed there, just those that I'm majorly contributing to, but that can be changed if needed. You guys are also more than welcome to post a list of articles that you're watching or majorly contributing to in my sandbox to make collaborating even easier. Let me know, or just go straight to the sandbox and fill it out, but if you guys could at least thank me for this edit so I know that you saw this, that would be great! Thanks! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your additions to the Current Series section, . I could have sworn you were watching more than that, such as Bunk'd, but perhaps you did a clean-up a while ago, haha! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added mine over at your sandbox, . MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added basically all of them, I was already watching most, and I added a few accidentally missed ones, and the rest is not so much so I added them to my watchlist too. That reminds me, I recently watched The Haunted Hathaways, I'll correct the credits there soon. And I don't know if you've seen that one, it's an older series, but a really good one, House of Anubis. The third season and the movie never aired in Hungary, they weren't even dubbed, and I didn't remember exactly how the story of the first two seasons played out, since back then I didn't properly watch shows in order, just whenever I saw them (and it wasn't an episode repeated for the millionth time, like for SpongeBob SquarePants), so I re-watched the whole series in English and finished it recently. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw some of The Haunted Hathaways, but never really kept up with it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 09:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just remembered that I forgot to do this, so I just added mine... In general, I don't put many current TV series on my watchlist. I have just a few older series on my watchlist. Mostly I have actor articles (and a few rail-related articles) that I am watching – I assume that most TV series articles, esp. for current series, have plenty of watchers already, and so I usually feel that I don't need to watch them myself. I do however tend to notice (eventually) when you guys start running into difficulties at the articles you are watching though (I check some of them semi-regularly myself), and you can always drop me a line about an article on my talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you stalk us? #SorryNotSorry Face-wink.svg Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So thank you,, , and for providing your watched articles. Of course thank you to you as well, , but is there any chance you would be willing to double-check what you marked in my sandbox, or, I guess, what you didn't mark if that's more accurate? Obviously, I'm not trying to doubt you or second-guess you or anything like that, but I don't know if you just kind of rushed through it or if you recently cleaned up your watch list or what, because it seems like there should be more marked on there from you than what you currently have marked. For example, I brought Crashletes and its episode list to your attention on your talk page a while ago last year as it needed more watchers, which you thanked me for, so I assume to watched them, haha, but that's not marked on there. Nothing is marked under Ended Series. You have Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything marked, but not the episode list even though I just saw you revert over there yesterday. It's the same or similar case for some other series such as Bunk'd or Girl Meets World, the latter of which I'm referring to the characters list not being marked. Then there are ones where you have nothing for that series marked at all, such as K.C. Undercover, Stuck in the Middle, and Make It Pop, even though, again, I've seen edits from you there, that last one being from quite a while ago, but it still exists.


 * Again, I'm not trying to doubt or second-guess you or anything like that, but I mean, we're only human, am I right? Face-wink.svg I just want this to be fully accurate so we can all use it to its full potential. That and if I'm gone for an extended period of time, I know I can count on you and the others who have X article watched to deal with otherwise disruptive editors, vandals, or even, yes, sockpuppets as you guys know the history of these articles and know what's correct. Someone just swinging by on Huggle and seeing an edit where someone inserted a last name may not necessarily see it as bad, even though it is, and move on. Again, thank you, everyone! Also, as I said earlier, if you guys want to add articles you did not mark to your watch lists, please—and remember to update the sandbox. Heh. That would be most appreciated. The more the merrier, right? I'm not including Nyuszika in this as he's already watching everything there. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

,, ,

Just making you guys aware that I've gone ahead and mass updated all of the articles in my sandbox, except for the character lists for obvious reasons, that had absences and removed the absence tallies for each season table. That does technically fall under WP:TVCAST, and we all seem to be in agreement there, I'm pretty sure. It's now also consistent with how we handle guest stars because we never had, for example, Jama Williamson guest starred for eight episodes. under season one of School of Rock. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User Notthatone
I have reported them as a sock of Orchomen (see Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen). I had my suspicion after seeing edits at List of Henry Danger episodes and your sandbox. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have requested extended page protection for Amaury's sandbox and the SPI page. I now fear Amaury's user page will be next, so I will watch it closely as well as Amaury's contributions for anymore sock puppets. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you watch Amaury's sockpuppet list, you'll notice that I have added two new accounts. Just thought you guys should know. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  20:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Absent" cast members on Episodes lists at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
I will also ping, and  regarding this:

User:Wikipedical has started a discussion over there after attempting to remove the absence info from List of Girl Meets World episodes and List of K.C. Undercover episodes. I also looked at, and one editor over at that discussion referred to, the "Absences" topic in Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes, which didn't look like any consensus was achieved with that discussion almost a year ago. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've commented over there. As usual, the WP:TV regulars seem determined to try and remove content that our actual readership considers to be important or vital. If you care about this, I would advise leaving a comment over there, or the WP:TV regulars are likely to get their way "officially" (even as TV-series regular editors are likely to continue to ignore them...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, it's funny. We basically already discussed this to death when it happened over on K.C. Undercover, and it ended up not being a problem because it's basically along the same lines as guest stars, but, of course, someone always has to stir the pot and revive a non-existent issue. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're a major contributor to TV articles like the rest of us in this small group are, but if you have an opinion on the matter and would be willing to discuss this over there, the more the merrier, or at least that's what they say. Face-smile.svg Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've pretty much had it with WP:TV. This is definitely the danger of the WikiProjects – that the regulars get it in their heads that what they think is the "right way", and that they alone get "decide" what the readers "should" see. This is probably one of the bigger long-term threats to Wikipedia – it's not editor attrition that's the issue: it's when the long-term editors around here stop offering what the readership wants: that's when the readership will start going elsewhere to get what they want. That's not in the best interests of the encyclopedia, but you just can't tell people this – they're too set in their ways... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just brought this up on the discussion after several edit conflicts. It definitely just seems like many of them, though not everyone, of course, seem to care more about guidelines that are just that—guidelines—and are meant to be general practices than what our readers want, the whole point of Wikipedia. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After a few years, I'm definitely starting to think that the secret to not burning out on Wikipedia is to avoid most (if not all) "governance discussions". (These all ultimately boil down to "politics", which I absolutely hate!) My imposed-work-semibreak from here was good as it forced me to mostly stay away from these types of discussions. I'm increasingly thinking that I may try to make that style of editing permanent on my end – stay away from ANI, stay away from the Wikiprojects... I may even drop RfA voting. (I don't I think I can stay away from AfD, though, which is partially unfortunate...) Just stick to editing, and article and user Talk pages. But after a while, I can see why a few longtimers around here left their registered accounts behind, and took up editing as just anonymous IPs – editing that way is actually easier and less stressful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As frustrating as this is, please don't let this stop you from editing Wikipedia or self-impose restrictions on yourself. Although I'm sorry to hear it seems to have gotten to the point again where editing Wikipedia is not fun for you. Obviously, this is just my two cents and the choice is ultimately up to you, but I still wanted to say it, my friend. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I doubt very much I can stop editing Wikipedia. (If I was going to stop, I would have done it before now...) But I can definitely stay away from the parts that I don't enjoy – and that tends to be the "political" parts. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Liv and Maddie episodes
The message below from Noneofyourbusiness is a response to a message I posted at User talk:Noneofyourbusiness: Re: List of Liv and Maddie episodes

That's okay. Just next time, having a look at the actual page, rather than the wikitext, would show that the words were italicized not in quotes (and one was in quotes before that, which I removed when I made it italicized and was what I was referring to). Also, I had also corrected a "can" to a "could", which went when you did a full revert. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Requests for page protection
The message below from Callmemirela is a response to a comment I made at WP:RFPP

Anytime ;) Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  20:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User Orchomen
Can you give me a complete list of editors Orchomen is following around? ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Other than me, I believe the top targets are, , , and . Other targets include and . For Nyu, if memory serves, they were really active with him back before all of us got involved and they were only targeting Nyu and IJBall, but I don't think Nyu has been in the line of fire much, if at all, since. Geraldo was reverted once or twice, I think, when he was reverting unsourced additions from another IP back in, I'd like to say, November. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I seem to have dropped off his list – I don't seem to have been contribution stalked by Orchomen in a few weeks. He really seems to be focusing in on you, Amaury, lately... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those edits are no longer possible. If any edits do make it through, please drop by my talk page and provide the diff(s). It likely means he's using a webhost, in which case I'll block the webhost ranges for 2 years. Cheers. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Orchomen had a period of reverting any editor through their contribution list. I remember receiving notifications that my edits were reverted by the same IP, who never touched those articles. They gave up and are now focusing their attention on Amaury. However, when they are reverted by any user, they will revert that person. I don't know if this helps? Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some security through obscurity in what I'm doing, so I'm not going to describe it exactly. Orchomen will find himself unable to go after Amaury in the same way he has been. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Bizaardvark
Out of curiosity, how do we know that this Friday's episode was the season 1 finale? Is it that Disney advertised it as the season finale? Or is it that season one was reported to have 20 episodes produced? Just wondering... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stalker! You're not watching that! It's no longer there, but this had the finale tag originally. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The Thundermans: "Orange Is the New Max"
Hi, I saw that you updated the episode listing for this episode. However, the date seems to be intermittent, going to the page, http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/the-thundermans-orange-is-the-new-max/EP018076450099?aid=zap2it, in incognito mode seems to load the Feb 18 date. I've created an Imgur post, http://imgur.com/a/xIDJC, and as seen the Feb 18 date has a synopsis while the Feb 23 does not. Also, Feb 23 is a Thursday so it's not a regular timeslot. So, it might be an error on Zap2it's part. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, different day doesn't necessarily mean incorrect by itself. Remember part of season three aired on Wednesdays alongside Bella and the Bulldogs and part of season two was airing daily. Face-smile.svg However, February 18 is most likely correct in this case. This is certainly strange, and I'm getting the same thing as you are. I'm willing to bet that what's showing in incognito mode is the correct version. This is also affecting Henry Danger, where its February 11 entry is now missing, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, where its February 11 entry is now missing, and Game Shakers, where its February 11 entry is now missing. However, in incognito mode, all these entries are showing fine, and in the case of Game Shakers, incognito mode is also showing an entry for February 18 that wasn't there yesterday when I updated the episode list. Additionally, clicking on the links here on Wikipedia for the missing entries when not in incognito mode leads to an "oops" page, whereas in incognito mode they obviously work because the entries are there on the main episode list on the Zap2it site. I know had some issues yesterday with the Henry Danger episode list. Inviting  as well if he has any comments, but I'm guessing it's some technical issue with Zap2it. Why it's fine in incognito mode compared to not being in incognito mode may have something to do with caching—probably on their end—but I don't know. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I get Feb18 when I go to the page normally. Looks like local caching may be a problem. It should settle out soon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's been weird with Zap2it this week, likely due to caching though it has been already 12h since I first discovered the Feb 18/23 problem. Thanks for your response! :) ~ Appleseed w (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after clearing my cache and everything else like I do every weekend, everything's still not right when viewing The Thundermans and the other mentioned series on Zap2it normally, but it's all still fine when viewing in incognito mode. Hm. Must be a different kind of caching issue. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , it's working again for me under normal viewing!, how about you? Although funny enough, incognito mode is now screwed up, at least with some shows. For example, I can't see the two February entries in incognito mode for this. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , works for me too under normal mode, and it also shows up in the episode guide, http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/the-thundermans/episode-guide/EP01807645. For Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, it seems to show all 16 episodes for me in both modes. Face-smile.svg ~ Appleseed w (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

K.C. Undercover
Please read MOS:LEAD to understand what introduction is. And do not revert an edit more than once, please take it to a talk page next time to avoid edit wars. Thank you. Mymis (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue has already been resolved by ; there was no need to bring it up here. Second, I only reverted you once. is the one who initially reverted you, and per WP:BRD, the onus was on you to take it to the talk page at that point, not reinstate your disputed edit. In this case, it turned out to be fine, but under other circumstances, the one edit warring would have been you. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The specific guideline to quote is actually WP:TVLEAD – that specifically mentions premiere dates and finale dates as appropriate to include in the leads of TV series articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)