User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 22

Why you mindless press undo?
Try read description of changes before do such things, okay? You just blindness retrieve some fake source link, like I even care what in infobox. You can change infobox or just don`t involve in edition if only you can do is press undo and call it a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.245.89 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But you did same thing wtf this "born 2001/2002" shit anyway? You are crazy? She is a PERSON and have date of birth May 6, 2002 https://peoplepill.com/people/emily-alyn-lind/ go to google. If you want add source. I don`t want, but! I did something, but you just press undo. I know your type of people in wiki, you are like a cancer. If you want edit war - you get it. And maybe someone see your vandal and destructive actions.
 * Also answer here, don`t try hide this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.245.89 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I follow Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLPPRIVACY for why we require references for birthdates in articles and why I removed the unsourced date you added. Need reliable sources for birthdates. peoplepill is not a reliable source. Google search is not a reliable source. What we have is an age given in a dated publication, thus the uncertainty of the year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You just another lazy wannabe "professional" wikipedist. If you can undo to FALSE bio with just FAKE source like 6 times, but can`t did one time have good edit - its you a vandal. And actually and don`t give a crap what rules you use for justification your arrogance. If you request blocking for this VPN - okay, don`t forget do undo on this discussion too!

>What we have is an age given in a dated publication, You even don`t read that publication! There is NO DATE like 2001 or 2002 try do SEARCH ON PAGE IN YOUR BROWSER. Why you so stubborn?
 * Oh well, I read history of editing. You are just a troll. Okay. I undo your trolling until admins not block you for this shit.
 * Article said she was 15 on date of publication of article of October 2, 2017. Template used to calculate birth year in infobox from that information gave the year range based on that info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You just trolling many people. Go to your admin account and protect this article or I just keep undo to her REAL born date until real admins not punish you for this trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.245.89 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you actually provided a reference from a reliable source, there wouldn't be an issue here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I am stubborn too. Why I need to do something, when its YOU trolling people with undo her birth date like 6 month already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.245.89 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you actually provided a reference from a reliable source as is required by Wikipedia policy, there wouldn't be an issue here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You can do it by yourself and this undo like many month long don`t even exist! But no. You or troll, or promoter for Glamour magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.245.89 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of people, including me, have looked for a better source than the current one but so far haven't found one. The age stated in a dated magazine article is the best we have so far which is why it is used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Random disappearance of production codes from Walt Disney Television Press
See:
 * List of Coop & Cami Ask the World episodes (Walt Disney Television Press): The production codes for October 19 and October 26 have mysteriously disappeared
 * Gabby Duran & the Unsittables (Walt Disney Television Press): The production code for October 11 has mysteriously disappeared
 * List of Raven's Home episodes (Walt Disney Television Press): The production codes for the October episodes have mysteriously disappeared

So what do we do here? I noticed this last week. Do we keep listing the production codes, or do we remove them as we can no longer source them? And The Futon Critic can't be used as a production code source for Disney Channel series because of the current issues it's having with Disney Channel series. There may be more affected series, but I'm only doing current series and current seasons. Amaury • 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Archived version of the WDTV source for Gabby, at Archive.org, has the missing code for that series (101 for the October 11 episode), though that's the only one I could find there or from the other two series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a general problem with references which drop information. Generally we look in the archives and use that for old information. The information is still valid as it was once sourced so shouldn't be deleted but the source should be appropriately tagged as no longer having the info if we can't find an archive. For future stuff, if we can't source it, we shouldn't put it in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What's unusual here is that Walt Disney Television Press is dropping information from currently airing series. Unless it's a bug. Amaury • 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be a transient problem that will end up getting fixed if we wait a bit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

67.86.56.85
Looks like we'll need to keep an eye on this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Check block log, just off a 1 year one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Separately, we're likely going to need protection on Big Time Rush (band). But I'm not giving the IP the satisfaction of filing the report... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why was this edit on Courage reverted?
I'm curious about your edit here and why it was reverted. The only change was the removal of the word "Animated" from the category title. Courage the Cowardly Dog is an animated series. Shouldn't it fall into this subcategory instead of its broader parent category? Paper Luigi T • C 02:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just undoing edits by a checkuser blocked IP who was using a bot to make massive amounts of edits in a very short period of time. I presumed all those edits were not considered so just undid them. If you think it is valid, undo my edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick reply. I understand your reasoning, and I have undone the edit. Paper Luigi  T • C 02:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE from IPv6
There's been a lot of WP:DE coming from IP(s)v6 editing from 2601:* today. Dunno if they are all related, or if anything can be done, but the pattern seems to be the same – messing with episode tables, episode numbering, series overview tables, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't "Let it Go" a meme?
There's an entire article of the song on Know Your Meme. Plus there are so many videos of it all over the Internet. How is it not a meme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not mentioned in the article as such so WP:CATVER isn't met. Not really relevant what is stated outside the article in other locations for what categories the article is included in. If this were notable and well referenced, there would be mention of it in the article, then a category could be added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don't you make a section about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it matters and is trivia as most "memes" tend to be and I doubt there are reliable sources that support it as being notable. The article covers the popularity of the song quite well. Editors up to this point saw no need to go beyond that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I'll just be done with it. It's still a meme regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't own the article. As long as the information is relevant to the topic and sufficiently sourced - see WP:IRS - it may be OK to stay in the article. I and others will need to see what you add to see if it is appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?
My edit on the article List of iCarly characters keeps getting reverted, even though I cited proof. WowSoCool112 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You removed proof, a cite that supported the information you removed, and added instead your own personal opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the police message likely didn't have her full name as generally a full legal name includes a middle name, which that didn't, and extremely rare that someone doesn't have a middle name. They just used what she was commonly known as. Also this is original research and we have a direct reference that supports Carlotta so we go with that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Frozen Fever
It turns out Hans leaving Anna to die and speeding up what happened to her was just as bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Elsa was the one to cause the deadly curse on Anna, not Hans. What Hans did was evil but not the same thing and he couldn't save her anyway no matter what he did as it turned out. Anna saved herself. Hans actively tried to kill Elsa and Anna saved herself by saving Elsa from that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well. I will point out if Anna wasn't cursed, Hans might have planned a little accident for her too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WDSMP note on 20th Century Fox film pages
Before you start listing your argument against doing this, I’ll add this information for your review and response.

"This film was released by 20th Century Fox, despite Disney’s purchase of them" (this’ll apply only to films released under a specific timeframe)

I understand if you’ll disagree (I hope you don’t, but won’t be disappointed if you do happen to disagree with including that note at the bottom of the page, to not disturb 20th Century Fox‘s position in the infobox, if you can specify either a year or time where including WDSMP in the distributor note on the info box won’t be invalid (my suggestion would be maybe anything after a year has passed since the acquisition or when Disney flat out says 20th Century Fox will no longer appear as the credited distributor, despite them being the production company and wanting control over how to handle their copyright notice, Disney will distribute their films, even if that’s not what you want (as you clearly seem like someone who feels that 20th Century Fox‘s legacy would be ruined if Disney added WDSMP this, WDSMP that) just please give this a long-term thought and potentially try to offer up a compromise to this whole situation as I don’t want to see you annoyed with the anonymous accounts and their insistence of WDSMP inclusion, just please provide a compromise for them so that they’ll stop their inclusion of WDSMP in the info box. I know that’s what you want and that is one solution to the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles need to conform to Wikipedia policy and information in the article should matches references and the credits as a primary source, I care nothing about Fox's legacy, only that the article reflects what we can source. That Disney chooses to label Fox productions with Fox or Searchlight label as distributor is Disney's choice and that is how Fox/Disney creates the films credits and one sheet, what we put in the article. The infobox is supposed to be a compact and concise summary. A footnote with an unsourced statement is inappropriate. A hidden note may be an appropriate way to head off editing issues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would consider the hidden note a good alternative, but I have doubt that anonymous accounts or users will listen to that advice, either way I think we do need some indication of Disney’s purchase on those pages, just not in a way that disrupts the subject or subject-related material on that page. 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They are just as likely to ignore an open footnote too but a hidden note will notify edit reviewers that the edit that goes against the note should be reverted. If we have sourced information that shows for that particular film what Disney's internal process is for distribution of the film, that WDSMP is distributing said film under a Fox label, that should go in the release section of the article as interesting and notable release data about the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The only film (not proven yet) that I potentially see being labeled as a WDSMP release in the credits is Spies in Disguise, the reason for this is that Disney has posted content about the film on social media pages (that may or may not be considered a valid or reliable resource), but that doesn’t come out until December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sydney to the Max
I need more eyes here, please. Disruptive IP refusing to use the talk page and not understanding how things typically work. Leads generally summarize what is mentioned in more detail throughout the body of the article, and there is absolutely no reason to remove said body content on the basis that it's in the lead, so therefore it's redundant, which it's not. Ping as well. Amaury • 08:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it all makes sense. IP geolocates to the UAE, and a report has already been filed, because we know what that means. Amaury • 08:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinion
Care to comment on BLP additions like this? The Vancouver Sun source is at least decent, but in general I'm of the opinion that stuff like this is non-notable unless a BLP/celebrity is particularly known for charitable works. Otherwise, stuff like this always strikes me as either WP:FANCRUFT or as "promotional" and thus WP:UNDUE... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of that is pro-forma publicist driven stuff meant to enhance an actor's image. It would actually be more interesting if she didn't do any of that. It does seem to be an expected part of any actor's bio, though, and given it is adequately sourced by independent secondary sources to show it has been noted, I can't think of a good reason to remove it if general consensus of the article editors is to have it in there. It is kind of like the background information about an actors personal life we put in articles, not really that important but expected as part of a bio. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally believe all stuff like this should just be cut (it's usually trivial fluff, and WP:UNDUE), but in this case I've just trimmed it back to the secondarily sourced material. We should not be using primary sourcing for stuff like this, as it's clearly promotional, and that's not our job... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Just Roll with It
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Just Roll with It. I'll happily accept whichever way this goes, but this requires a stronger consensus than just 2 to 1, and I would be saying the same if it were the other way, so more opinions would definitely be welcome. Amaury • 17:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Fishel
Geraldo, shouldn't this edit be reverted on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF? I don't have an Instagram account, so I can't check the comment that goes along with it, but it's from Fishel's verified account, so it seems like it's legitimate... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on the reversion? – She's still simply speaking for herself and saying she got married. OTOH, I suspect there must be a secondary source out there somewhere for this... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
 * I think so too. She is saying she is married and to whom, personal information about herself. Best to get a secondary source if someone is getting picky about this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ – a high quality secondary source was easy to find for this, so this should never have been an issue in the first place (i.e. should never have been reverted, as per WP:SOFIXIT....). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Would appreciate more eyes here –, an experienced editor who should know better, is disruptively removing the primary but valid WP:ABOUTSELF source rather than discussing it. Pinging, who I believe also watches this article, as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just posted to Talk:Danielle Fishel. Please discuss there. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Still need more eyes on this one – pinging again too. Koavf seems unprepared to WP:DROPTHESTICK... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Substitute (American TV series)‎
Please keep an eye on this. Seems a bit similar to when people kept wanting to include the "controversy" on Bella and the Bulldogs (see its talk page). Amaury • 14:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not worth mentioning at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

IP "resolution vandal" again
The IP "resolution vandal" (see: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 21) – also guilty of WP:OVERLINKing – is now at 174.253.137.152. You've handled the previous reports for this one, so I figured you'll know how to handle it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Watching. Using his phone data connection to bypass the blocks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to be, yeah – the original IP geolocates to North Carolina, and the phone to South Carolina: no way it's not the same person IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also using range as before, 174.243 and 174.250, not sure of subranges yet, checking, found a lot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/174.253.128.0/19 covers 174.253.128 to 174.253.144 currently being used. It is a wireless broadband range and there are are a few other editors in the range making good edits so blocking it would have some collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still wondering whether an edit filter can be designed for this particular vandal – it seems like it should be possible to my untrained eye... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the information is valid if it is sourced in the article. I don't know how a filter could be designed to catch the unsourced cases only. This editor just seems to be adding presumptions or making stuff up. Sometimes he may be right but I've caught enough cases where he is blatantly wrong to doubt he is doing any research. This is one of those annoying things this impacts minor details that few people care about. Broadcast format is one of them. It generally is an attribute of the network, not the series so is just another detail for most readers to just ignore. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Still in the 174.* range – now at 174.250.144.217. Same M.O. – unsourced messing around with resolution, and just wrong removals (i.e. inaccurate) of redirects as per WP:NOTBROKEN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks to be Special:Contributions/174.250.128.0/19 which covers 174.250.128 to 174.250.159 that seems to be used in that range. Verizon Wireless again. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Isabela Moner
It's probably time to ask for semi-protection on this one. But this has been persistent... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked for another protect, last one issued for this expired couple of weeks ago. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Bassett
Need some eyes on this one, as those editing are (re)adding the actor's birthday without any sources to back it. Pinging and. Also, IJBall, does Bassett meet notability requirements? His only main role is with High School Musical: The Musical: The Series and his next known role was recurring, as Aidan, on Stuck in the Middle, so I'm doubting he meets WP:NACTOR. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say it fails notability, for the same reason that Draft:Olivia Rodrigo currently fails as well – it lacks one or two in-depth "profiles" or interviews of the subject. As Bassett currently doesn't meet WP:NACTOR (which Rodrigo pretty arguably does now), the only justification for "keeping" is WP:BASIC, and I'd say this article doesn't meet that benchmark... That said, it's likely not worth WP:AfDing, as I'd bet it wouldn't get deleted there, as the current article gives the illusion that WP:BASIC is met (when it's really not). (Whereas, ironically, Draft:Olivia Rodrigo is caught in "turnaround" at WP:AfC, which once again points up deficiencies in the whole current article creation process...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Help! for a newish wikipedia user
Hi Geraldo, I know I have sought your help before and I must confess I need it now as well. There is a user on "Steve Chen"'s page who is making edits not agreed upon by the Talk page and is not discussing on the Talk page despite my imploring him to do so. I don't want to edit-war. Who is the appropriate person to approach about this issue? I have done all within my power. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Got help from an admin thankfully! I'll let you know if something else happens. Thank you again for all of your help in the past! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hi there.Demond Anthony (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Casagrandes
I am going to need more eyes here, please! Amaury • 20:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

ExtraEditing
This is another one that probably warrants a mass-revert, basically as per accuracy and WP:NOTBROKEN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now at WP:ANI so may get some more official reaction. We are supposed to only list original companies in infobox credits, mass changes due to company ownership changes should not be done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the same user, but I think you should get this. Amaury • 00:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Question from a new editor
Hello! I’m a (decently) new editor and I have a question. Would persopo.com be considered a reliable source? I’m sorry for asking on your talk page, but I can’t find a private message option. Andhw (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say no as we try to avoid public records for bio articles and want to mostly rely on sources with a reputation for fact checking - see Reliable sources and Biographies of living persons. Best place to ask question if unsure about a particular source, though, is Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I refuse to be ignored about my info.
I deserve to have Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures be main distributor of the post-merger Fox films! --XSMan2016 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 74 was the proper place to raise your issues and some editors did bring up what you are saying in the RfC discussion. Consensus is to go with what credits say as is normal for most of the places where we report credits. Continuing to raise this issue on various films and their talk pages and debating it really serves no purpose and is unlikely to convince people to go against the RfC consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I could have added my opinion in the main RfC page, but the caption below said "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion."; and I didn't wanna violate that rule. --XSMan2016 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss it further on the project page you would need to start a new topic on the main talk page. Based on experience and looking over the RfC discussion, I believe it unlikely you will bring up points that weren't covered in the existing discussion and I doubt you will be able to convince film project members to change their minds about this issue now. In general we go with what the credits say for most things and since Disney is choosing to credit a Fox distribution banner on Fox projects we will likely continue to reflect Disney's intent in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Daisy Johnson
Hi, why did you revert this disamb?. It looks helpful to me. Best wishes Anna (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I imagine it was part of a mass revert from a generally unhelpful editor. Anna (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The title of the article was not ambiguous so I didn't see the need. Daisy Johnson (writer) is unlikely to be confused with the Marvel character of the same name and is unlikely to be a search destination for anyone searching for Daisy Johnson. The hatnote at Daisy Johnson is appropriate and necessary though. See WP:NOTAMB for more on this. I didn't revert everything, just the stuff that was unnecessary or wrong. Some of the edits were OK. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Fishel again
Previous discussion now archived at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 22.

Something needs to be done about this user, like pretty much now. Their edits are now WP:DE. Nothing in their discussion supports secondary and only secondary sources. In fact, it seems like it even leans slightly on the side of no harm in including both primary and secondary sources. Amaury • 23:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Big Time Rush and Big Time Rush (band)
Are the latest edits correct? Doesn't MOS:TENSE apply? The only time we use absolute past tense is in the case of a deceased person. Amaury • 01:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds correct to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Amaury • 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey
Sorry about not adding a reliable source.I'm new to Wikipedia so I didn't know.Sorry about the mess up.Please respond

Kind regards Keke Zoë Keke Zoë (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It particularly applies to the type of personal information you added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you Keke Zoë (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Instagram request
Geraldo, I don't have an Instagram account, so can you please check this to confirm that it verifies this edit? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "kellyaoverton Verified Delighted to share with you all that we welcomed our son into this world. He has filled our hearts with so much love! Thank you to everyone who sent us well wishes." Dated Aug 23. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured this out – there aren't scrollbars (that I can see), but I just need to "scroll up" to the top of the comment thread, and I can find the original message there. That worked for both of the Instagram sources that I checked at this article. So hopefully I won't need to bug you about this any longer!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Impersonators
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that there was an account whose username was similar to yours, and that account is blocked. He also made another account similar to the first one. ☶☲Senny☶☲  (☎)  17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS?
Geraldo, can this be considered a WP:RS (for WP:BLP info)? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like a personal WP:BLOGS, and I doubt claims of subject matter expert, so I'd say no. We aren't supposed to use self-published sources for BLPs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

School of Rock
Why was this reverted? Is it not a Category:Live action television programs based on films--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert that edit, should ask the person who did. Looks like a valid category to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Production code problems for Disney Channel series on The Futon Critic
With Zap2it's issues resolved now, what do you can could be the issue with The Futon Critic? This one is even more bizarre as it seems to only be affecting Disney Channel series, at least in terms of the networks I watch. It's not site-wide like Zap2it's issue was. I still never heard back and it's still not fixed. Amaury • 17:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ExtraEditing, part II
They are at this again (contributions), for which they've been reverted before. Time for a mass revert again? It's obvious they didn't take their ANI report to heart. Ping as well. Past discussion: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 22. Amaury • 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs another ANI. The massive category changes should have been discussed first, not just asserted. Changes to distributor in existing series were wrong, we only list original distributor. With changes in categories in article WP:CATVER is no longer met for the distributor categories as they don't match what is in the article any more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When you have some free time, thinking about filing another ANI report on this editor is definitely worth considering. They don't seem to be stopping, and probably need to be blocked, if not indefed, if they don't quit it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be better if it came from you since you're the one who initially ran into them, if I recall. Amaury • 22:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Geraldo, in the same vein – Are these edits correct or not?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like he put the article back to the way it was on the 17th when you last edited it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're right – that just undid ExtraEditing's earlier (Dec. 17) edit... So, again – the problem traces back to ExtraEditing. I think another ANI thread on this editor is needed (though I doubt I'll have to time to put a report together). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Power Rangers
This is probably not something I'm going to tackle, partly because it would require a lot of work since there are 26 seasons and partly because the pages are "run" by people who don't or refuse to understand how things work. However, is there ever an excuse not to order episodes by air date? Look at pages like List of Power Rangers Beast Morphers episodes or List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes, where the Halloween and Christmas episodes are always listed at the bottom, but notice the air dates, especially for the latter. And if you look at The Futon Critic, they have regular production codes—for example, 921 and 922 or 521 and 522—so they're not special episodes, they're just special-themed episodes. There's a difference. They have no effect on the story. In other words, they're "standalone" episodes, in the context that they don't have any continuation of the regular story arc, they're just Halloween and Christmas episodes that should still be ordered by air date and numbered. We don't list the Halloween and Christmas episodes for other networks' series, like Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, the broadcast networks, etc., at the bottom without numbering. Power Rangers should be no different. Amaury • 21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please rollback vandalism
On Mob Wives I'd do it myself, however, I'm not sure how to do it since it's two edits. GUIpsp (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See Help:Reverting for detailed instructions. Easiest way is to just undo the edits separately starting at the latest if there are few. I don't generally follow that show so have no idea if the edits are good or bad, I'll leave that to other editor's evaluation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Distribution
Why is Spies in Disguise mentioned to be distributed by 20th century fox when it has been purchased by Disney. Avinash101297 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that is what Disney, who owns the Fox label, made the credits say as is their right of ownership. We follow the credits in articles. Also see edit history for the article where I explained that, a reply to your message in the talk page of the article where I expanded on it and, to repeat what I said in those two places, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 74 which concluded The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはGeraldo Perezたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2019!
Merry Christmas Amaury • 18:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting others edits
It is not very kind of you to delete edits made by others that are true. Amazingmonkey2006 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

For example, Frozen and Bizaardvark where you and your friends revert the edit of the fact that it is on Disney +. It is true and should be on the page. While it is common sense, I should be able to read an article on something and say, “oh! This sounds entertaining. Oh! It’s on disney plus? I can go watch this now!” Amazingmonkey2006 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed information you added that I considered inappropriate for the articles and gave a reason in the edit summaries. Next step if you disagree is to start a discussion on the talk page and see if you can get a consensus from other editors to put it in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What is in appropriate about the fact that they are on Disney +? Amazingmonkey2006 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just random non-notable information that adds no value to the article. Initial television broadcasts were notable and listed in that section with references showing why. Subsequent ones were not. Also Frozen is widely available now on digital media and download sites, Disney+ isn't special in any way so doesn't merit mention in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand this now. Amazingmonkey2006 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You and your cyber friends delete edits that you don’t think are important even tho they are. Just because It isn’t important to you, doesn’t mean it isn’t important to everyone else Amazingmonkey2006 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why we have talk pages. See also WP:BRD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Angelina Ballerina: The Next Steps and Lily's Driftwood Bay
Geraldo – do you know who the IP vandal is at these two articles? User:Binksternet seemed to think it was somebody named User:Verone66 – do you know anything about this?... And any idea on how to handle this? – They don't seem to be going away... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks to be dynamic on the range Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:9C2::/64 Some of the other IPs used have warnings or been blocked. Best is to report to AIV, note warnings and blocks on other IPs used in range and request a range block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually don't do those, so if I have to, I may be asking for your assistance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)