User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 24

Bubble Guppies vandal is back
At IP 60.54.1.169. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Malaysia again. Won't be on that IP for long. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Cites in leads of WP:BLPs
Geraldo, there have been at least one or two instances where you have done a good job of explaining why things like DOBs in WP:BLPs should be cited or referenced in the lead. I don't suppose you know where to find one of these? I thought you'd left at least one on my Talk page, but I couldn't find it after a very quick search of my archives.

The context is Nick Wechsler (actor) where an editor is trying to (disruptively?) remove referencing for a full name and a DOB from the lede, despite these not be sourced/referenced anywhere else in the article. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall where I talked about it before. Things like what you mention must be sourced in the article somewhere per BLP rules, I like to see a source in the lead as well for BLPPRIVACY stuff, even if not strictly necessary. It makes verifying changes easier if I can quickly verify or refute a major BLP change without searching the article for a source every time someone changes something. Things like presuming a full name for an apparent nickname, changing names or changing birthdates. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you try explaining this at Nick Wechsler (actor)? I am already frustrated with this editor as they're just blindly reverting, and if I try it won't go well – maybe if you try explaining this, it'll get through? But after their latest reversion, the full name and DOB isn't even sourced anywhere in the article, so there is zero justification for their edits, and MOS:LEADCITE fully supports referencing here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They mentioned LEADCITE but obviously haven't actually read it. At some point removing required references when told they are needed is at least DE and at most vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * JESUS CHRIST. I can't for the life of me understand why IJBall didn't raise this issue on the Nick Wechsler talk page, or mine for that matter. The two sources removed from the lede are found in the section directly below in "early life". I did not invoke LEDECITE; it was mentioned in this edit summary, again by IJBall. If IJBall, an experienced (?) editor, had started a discussion on the appropriate talk page instead of running to his buddy to do it for him, then this issue would've already been dealt with. KidAd (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Source must be attached to the information being sourced. That information is not mentioned in the body of the article and must be sourced where it is stated. That the source supports some other piece of information is irrelevant to this requirement. The potentially contentious name and birthdate information must have an obvious source where it is stated in the article. WP:INTEGRITY applies here. And WP:LEADCITE supports that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear explanation. It's a shame your friend couldn't manage the task. KidAd (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a shame you couldn't be bothered to follow WP:BRD and post to either the article Talk page or my own first before reverting, bother to follow WP:STATUSQUO, or bother to read either WP:LEADCITE or WP:INTEGRITY when two different editors tried to tell you that you should (or WP:BURDEN for that matter), and that you insisted upon removing referencing on a purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. Don't pretend like I was the problem here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly were the problem. Instead of taking a few minutes to type up the above comment and placing it on a talk page, you let your frustration get the better of you and called in some rand-o to do your job for you. That's not on me. KidAd (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. You were the entire problem here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Recriminations tend to create hard feelings, please, everyone, just drop it. The issue is resolved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cadetrain is back...
is back at IP 2600:1010:B113:B87C:AB38:99D5:377D:E153 – clear from the focus on Draft:Cooper Barnes and crimes and shootings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at 73.185.54.224. I've reported both to WP:AIV, though I wonder how much they can do about this, short of semiprotecting articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And I've likely done all I can today at Draft:Cooper Barnes, so if you or want to help out there, that would be great. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexa Vega
Hello, I just became familiar with WP:NOTBROKEN, so naturally your reversion of the IP "fixing" the valid redirect to Alexa Vega was correct, and I apologize for reverting you. Feel free to revert me back. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:That's So Raven
QuasyBoy just tried adding the episode lists to the template for Raven's Home and Cory in the House. No personal issues with the user whatsoever, but I've reverted per previous discussions/consensus. If the episode list for That's So Raven is also there, it should not be, as per your edit here. Only the parent articles should have a franchise template, if they exist—for example, That's So Raven—but as we've discussed before, as the That's So Raven franchise isn't the only one it's happened with, they are not appropriate on episode or character lists. Pinging as well. Amaury • 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cat question
Geraldo, is this a valid category?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Lists of Disney television series episodes looks to be appropriate for this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Robosa1999
New date vandal to keep an eye on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Liv and Maddie
Which ever sock/SPI case it is that attacks Liv and Maddie (hopefully you remember who that is) is back, and will likely need to be dealt with. So you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * now blocked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk: List of Jimmy Neutron characters
Hi there Geraldo. I have been creating and reassessing character pages which have been previously rejected specifically these two on the aforementioned NickToon since Monday via the apparatus of Articles for Creation since the anonymous cannot create them directly from main-space. All of them look sufficiently sourced and I completely eschewed from using the show’s Fandom wiki or a similar fan-site as one. As you explained here last June in your descriptor “if it can meet the GNG.” They definitely do meet the guidelines 100%.

Sweet dreams,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Milo Manheim
It is in here – fourth paragraph down. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed it when reading it originally. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I need some help with Wander Over Yonder please
Some anonymous jackass keeps vandalizing the WOY articles and the problem is I can't pinpoint them because they keep changing IP adresses on the fly as to avoid being blocked (I assume). I know this isn't particularly important but it's driving me up the wall and I don't want to keep reverting this person's edits over and over again and they've been doing this for days now. Can you lock the pages down or do something regarding their multiple IP adresses please? TucLen (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I put it on my watchlist. If it gets excessive WP:RPP is the place to request page protection. Usually when editors use multiple IP addresses it is not deliberate, they just get a new one from their ISP whenever they connect to them. If it is in a range of IPs the range can be blocked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I know it's hardly an important matter but anonymous vandals piss me off to no end. TucLen (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Scatman007
I would advise a closer look at this editor's recent contributions, because they're adding a lot of unsourced content that looks to be based on assumptions, and thus are often anachronistic. Pinging and  here too, as this also involves articles they watchlist/keep an eye on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Copy. Sorry I haven't been very responsively lately. Not so much all work related, but also preoccupied more now with video games and such when I'm not working since 1) summer vacation, even though it in a way started back in late March/early April since the entirety of my spring quarter was online because of the COVID BS. And my college has decided to do online only through the rest of the year, which means I'll be starting a new year college year with fall quarter being online only as well. Amaury • 07:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed, mostly unsourced assumptions, some of which were blatantly wrong such as a company that came into existence in 2019 distributing shows first aired before then. Sort of why we want references in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Geraldo, please appraise this edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of his reasoning. For stuff originally released as a broadcast, home media release isn't the original release outlet which is what should be in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the change of "Nickelodeon Movies" to "Nickelodeon Productions"? – That should be whatever is shown in the production card... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever that was I guess, but I didn't see either mentioned in the references which is all I can go by now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues at DuckTales (2017 TV series)
Stupid conflict about WP:FICTENSE and an editor who thinks the MOS is wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Two more reverts and they're past WP:3RR. If it happens again, ping me here, and I'll take a look at it – but they're both edit-warring and in the wrong, so it shouldn't stand. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still at it! Amaury • 22:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably time to apply for page protection. I don't watch this article, so I'll let someone else take this to WP:RfPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind the ping, but if you agree, can we get semi-protection here? Feels like it's more than appropriate now, in my opinion. The IP is obviously not going to stop, so maybe a block as well? Whatever you feel is best. Amaury • 22:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Page protected x 2 weeks I'm not going to issue a block since the only IP that's edited recently enough has not received any formal warnings. But it does look like most of the IP edits over the last few weeks have been unconstructive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Socking query
Geraldo, do you think this is a credible socking case? The similar edit summaries, and the date of their first edits being within a week of each other looks suspicious to me... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks suspicious to me too. Likely a sock. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And now I'm seeing Livingstone Imonitie too (also Interaction report for all 3 – not quite as strong...). I'm really torn on filing this (because, for one, an SPI is a bit of a time-sink) – this case is purely circumstantial, but I personally think the odds of socking here are quite high. I guess if you're alarmed enough, I'll file the SPI... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The fairly identical edit summaries are fairly persuasive of their being the same person. The interaction history doesn't show much though. Comments on their user page indicate the same Nigerian location. I am fairly certain that they are the same person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexxis Lemire
Passes WP:NACTOR? WP:BASIC? Amaury • 14:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Appears to have 2 references showing significant coverage and 2 major roles in films. Squeaks by in my opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mallory James Mahoney
Ping as well. I need more eyes here due to persistent unsourced date of birth additions. Amaury • 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Constructive Edits
It appears that when I make edits to certain pages, major or minor, nobody seems to accept them, apparently because they are not "constructive". Do you have any idea on what the definition of constructive is?--Sstanford2 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Constructive means, in general, improves the article in the opinion of the person making the comment. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not everything anybody does will be agreeable to other editors. I generally try to leave an edit summary with more specific reason when I revert apparent good-faith edits. WP:TONE is sometimes an issue if it looks like the changes are not encyclopedic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Cadetrain
I remember seeing this at some point. I've recently been having trouble with a disruptive IP range continuously disruptively editing over on articles like Ollie's Pack. I'm not 100% sure, but could this be a Cadetrain sock IP range? Has been constantly disruptive on multiple articles over the past few months, and tends to edit a bunch of shooting/attack/mass murderer/stabbing articles like Cadetrain... IP range in question is 2804:D49:4925:F800:0:0:0:0/64. Magitroopa (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That IP range is from Brazil, I don't think it is related. There are a number of problematic editors (or possibly one editor) editing using Brazil IPs in various ranges. IPs I've seen editing same articles as Cadetrain seem to be US IPs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Little mermaid
One Hundred and One Dalmatians was the first Disney film to use Xeroxing, Sleeping Beauty was the last Disney film to be hand-inked. So I made the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamsDreams (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Big Time Rush (group)
Geraldo, please double-check recent edits here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted the most recent edit. I couldn't see anything in the reference they provided to support the added record label. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I originally left it as it matched what was stated in the lead and article. Also seemed plausible to me as that is what Nick Records does so might need a tag. https://www.allmusic.com/album/big-time-rush-mw0002043789/releases supports it and so do the album articles for the group. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Billy Unger
Will need you here – IP seems insistent, but I suspect all of this is WP:UNDUE... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ExtraEditing
...is at it again, improperly changing categories anachronistically (e.g. ). I dunno if something can be done here, but this editor has being doing stuff like this for long enough that they should be blocked for this nonsense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dropped a note on his talk page. If this sort of behavior persists may have to get a discussion going at WP:ANI. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE/"#Episodes" IP vandal is back
This time at 73.235.14.165. Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from IP range
Geraldo, the IP you reverted this morning at Game Shakers – 41.114.34.13 – seems to be operating over a range, and still seems to be at it: e.g. 41.113.126.57. We may need to do something here. Pinging &, as I believe they've come across this same IP editor as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just filed a request at WP:RPP, for the LoE article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wireless broadband from Johannesburg South Africa. Same person, of course, as rare to get anyone from that location but still it is a huge /15 range at least to consider a range block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, now I see them messing around at The Thundermans (both main and LoE articles). MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

While 41.113 is still in the middle of serving a one-month range block, more disruption in the last couple of hours from the 41.114 group at articles we're watching:. Just an update - I am aware the third number in the address is quite varied, and going with a range block is unlikely per WP:COLLATERAL. Still, they are evading the range block. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon Sushi
Not IJBall, but you may have to start adding this MTV animation series to your watch list in case of further disruption. All contributions regarding over linking and WP:TVLEAD were done in good faith.

Good night,

67.81.161.226 (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Whoa! What are the details here?!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Detroit 1-8-7 vandal is back
The vandal that hits Detroit 1-8-7 (among other articles – can't remember the name of this vandal) is back, now at. (Was at before – still blocked at this IP.) Just so you're aware. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked 3 months as Special:Contributions/2601:201:280:1020::/64 Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Source question
Geraldo, do you know if behindthevoiceactors.com is a "reliable source"? (I don't see much of anything on this at WP:RSN.) It was just used at Jess Harnell to verify Filmography content, and it's unclear to me if it's good enough. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this one. It is used a lot for voice actor credits and looks to be well-researched and reliable. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/faq/ is encouraging. It would need to be discussed at WP:RSN but I don't see any red flags to exclude it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I won't challenge the edit then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Beakman's World
Geraldo, so this is an old fave of mine that I've known has been a bit of a mess of an article for a long time. Today I started clean up on it. But I don't trust most of the airdates at the article at all – I suspect this has been a long-term target of date vandals. I've started to add TV Guide as a source for air dates, but it doesn't match for season #1 (and, here, I'm not sure I trust the TV Guide air dates, which are probably compromised by the show being syndicated in season #1), and there is no season #3 in the TV Guide listing at all... But the bigger concern is that it doesn't look like the season #4 air dates at the article match TV Guide at all. Unfortunately, this show is not included at EpGuides, so trying to track down additional sourcing to verify airdates is going to be a challenge.

In addition, I tend not to trust some of the other info at the article – e.g. what's in the infobox for things like distributor.

Just making you aware of the situation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Lonniemitchell22
I've already given this editor a Level 4 warning in the last few weeks – other editors have recently left Level 3 & 4 warnings – but they persist with disruptive contra-MOS edits. (Unclear if it's pure WP:DE or WP:CIR, though I'm not sure whether it matters either way...) Is there any option here besides WP:ANI (that I really don't want to deal with)? Pinging and  as well, as both have dealt with this same editor in the recent past. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV looks appropriate as has gone past final warnings multiple times and seems to be ignoring on purpose messages about MOS. Best if the last final warning is recent though and continues after that fairly soon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, though this is now three Level 4 warnings in a row. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly, a disruptive editor from time to time. — Young Forever (talk)   06:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor still fails to cite press releases correctly (like I warned here), still using  and   instead of   for Futon Critic citations specifically- also not even using  ... (see latest example off all that here, see a previous example here).


 * Also likes to have  preceding , but that's not really that big a deal- but they've even messed around with an already-present citation before with the way they want it.  Magitroopa (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenna Ortega - author?
This edit from a few days ago had me scratching my head, on her being classified as an "author". It concerns a book that is scheduled for release sometime next year according to the current version of the article. Looking a little further about this book, per this source, it appears it'll be an autobiography or something like that.

Aside from the fact that this book won't be out until next year, should Ortega be classified as an author on this one book (and the fact that it's likely an autobiography)? I may have this question about a lot of BLP articles here, where they identify the person as an author, among other professions. IMO, Ortega shouldn't be classified as an author, at least yet, as she's most notable as an actress (with earlier versions of the article also saying "social media personality"). I think she needs to be author of a handful of books, fiction or non-fiction, and probably about non-autobiographical content, before she is notable as one.

Where I don't have a problem with author (or similar wording) being listed in a BLP's lead is for actress Danica McKellar, who is also noted for having written a number of books about mathematics. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is similar to people who do other things than what they are notable for. Unlikely to meet WP:AUTHOR so worth mentioning in article if sourced but definitely not as a notable occupation in the lead or infobox unless this becomes an actual notable occupation. This looks to be more a self-published book that nobody would care about other than being by an actress. Might reconsider if whatever book she wrote gets a Wikipedia article written about it that met WP:NBOOK. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

73.180.39.229
Just so you are aware, this IP is back from their recently block, and is again back to editing contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. My guess is that reversions (and another block) are in the forecast here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

109.98.166.139
Needs reverting. I may not be able to get to it right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Zendaya
I suppose you meant the lead addition. Fair enough. Though I don’t see the harm of adding the link of the new article of the character. Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem with the piped link as long as the displayed credit in the article matches what the film credits say. For the lead I just thought it unnecessary as her character name was not listed for the other film. Also she had different credits for the two MCU films she was in, neither of which was shown in what was added to the lead so made the article inconsistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. I see your issue. She is credited as Michelle. I get that. You were aware there was an article of Michelle Jones (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and not just a redirected link...correct? Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have bypassed a valid redirect anyway per WP:NOTBROKEN. I didn't know about the article. I linked MJ in the article as well as I don't consider it WP:OVERLINKING due to the different display name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I know about the not broken part. Just doing my part of making a new article not an orphan. I assume you understand. Happy editing. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Undid Correct Revision
As you know, I made an edit on the page about the Phineas and Ferb episode "Phineas and Ferb Get Busted". The edit was in the Plot Summary section, about Candace going to rescue Phineas and Ferb. I edited it because it is only Jeremy that comes along with Candace, but Stacy doesn't go with them like it implied. Why did you undo that edit? If you want proof that my edit was correct, you should watch the actual episode.

I don't mean to be rough on you, but I just wanted to figure out why my seemingly good contribution was undone. I will probably put my edit in again. For future reference, please just make sure you have your facts straight before editing. Thanks. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally assume info that has been in the article for a long time is likely correct and am dubious about recent changes of factual data. Also replacing "her friends, Stacy and Jeremy" with "her crush Jeremy" makes it more dubious to me as that was more of a change than just deleting a name as was stated in your original edit summary. I would have accepted the change, though, if all you did was what you said you did in the edit summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I saw what you did. I think that's a fair enough compromise. Thanks. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi
How do I use my sandbox? I didn’t know I was actually editing Poboxholepokemon (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At the top of the page in the menu bar for the page is a item called Sandbox. Click on that to edit your sandbox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox Television
Geraldo, I've been going through some of the same TV series articles you have earlier today, and I am noticing a troubling trend of people anachronistically changing 20th Century Fox Television to 20th Television (in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN) for series when the latter wasn't even a twinkle of an idea yet. (In the same way people do stupid things like change Buena Vista Television to "Disney", etc...)

We need to keep a better eye on this, because ignorant editors are going to keep persisting in this nonsense, so we need to be vigilant... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Dove Cameron
Are the recently added categories appropriate/defining? Article states she is openly bisexual. No dispute. She is an American singer. No dispute. She is from the state of Washington. No dispute. But saying LGBT singers from the US is what I'm questioning. Likewise for LGBT people from Washington State. Does her being bisexual have to do with her becoming a singer? Or vice-versa, did being a singer help her in coming out as bisexual in some way? Pretty much the same thing for LGBT people from Washington State. Did being in Washington State lead her to be bisexual in some way, I guess? Basically, the bisexual/LGBT and singer categories individually by themselves are correct. My question is whether they're correct combined—LGBT singers from the US, for example—per what I stated earlier. Hopefully I'm making sense. Amaury • 23:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Self declared bi in the first place with no documented evidence in her personal life section of its being a major factor in her life or even that she practices it. If she had a dating relationship with a woman listed it would be more believable to me. I suspect she is not really in actuality, but wants the credit. Not really defining in any meaningful way for any of the categories. However, this is a sensitive area where people will get upset if you remove those categories. These categories are more lists, then anything that is defining for most of the people in the categories. Best to leave it be in my opinion even if they should be removed per normal standards. I personally try to avoid contentious areas of Wikipedia, this is one of them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned, it's probably best to leave it; however, is Pink News even a reliable source? I note that's what's being used to source that statement. However, in reading the source, there is actually nothing that really confirms that she is bisexual. The most we get is this: The 22-year-old star, who came out last year by liking a tweet asking her to "like this if bisexual..." Emphasis mine. That doesn't seem to be good enough to state she is openly bisexual, at least not for Wikipedia standards. And there could be a plethora of reasons she liked the tweet. Despite what the tweet asked, she and many others could have simply liked it as a general like without any meaning behind it, not because they were admitting they were that sexuality. They could have simply liked that the question was being asked, even though they're heterosexual, for example. Again, a plethora of possibilities. It doesn't seem to be enough to state she is bisexual. Amaury • 00:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the supporting reference for her being bi is exceedingly weak. Without an explicit statement where she directly states it, it shouldn't be in the article at all. An implication by liking a single tweet is too much WP:NOR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Happy Tree Friends episodes
More eyes needed here.

I am sick of random IP's changing dates on the internet shorts. It's time for someone to provide an actual SOURCE for the "premiere dates" for the internet shorts, rather than just capriciously changing the dates with a "Because I know it's right!!" edit summary (or no edit summary at all). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jodie Sweetin
This is along similar thinking as I had last month concerning Jenna Ortega as an author.

Regarding Sweetin, there recently was an addition to the article about her involvement in political activism. While her involvement with the #RefuseFascism movement appears decently backed in the sources (though something other than just YouTube videos may be preferred), I question the part about her being a "political activist" as a profession. Like with "author", whereas anyone can be an author, so too is the case with being an activist, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are notable for being one. I removed that from the lede, as well as the added "Political views" section, where the opening sentence said "Jodie Sweetin is a political activist."

I think more eyes are needed at this article, after seeing an IP restore the part about her being an activist in the lede. Thoughts? Will ping and  about this, too. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * She's not Alyssa Milano – it's not what she's notable for at this time, and thus doesn't belong in the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Political activity in an election year. Sourced info about her beliefs and part of her personal life. Not shown to be a notable activist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Original research" and Anna (Frozen)
Sorry to ruin your day but these youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhf9dekzyq4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QRliFvOC0

Please explain how THAT is original research. :) {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 11:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The opinions you added didn't have a source attached to them so they appeared on the surface to be your opinions as you didn't attribute them to someone else. Thus falling under WP:NOR. As for using YouTube as a reference, see Reliable sources/Perennial sources as to why we generally do not use most content published there as references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that the channel is a well established ch annel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2761:4E0:E1CA:A902:C078:211D (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then explain how Youtube is not a good reference {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 02:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as I pointed to above. Read the summary for the YouTube row. Follow the links in the list column for the discussions. It is fairly clear why. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You hate me? {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 15:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Snow White (Disney character)
May I ask why you deleted the international voices section on the Snow White article? On the Anna and Elsa articles, charguiou seems to be an acceptable source.KevinBartholomew (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)KevinBartholomew
 * I stated in the edit summary that the reference for everything that was added is a fairly obvious self published source. I looked at the source. It is build on the free website builder weebly.com, obviously a red flag in itself. Social media accounts related to the site are not verified which means they don't know who it is. I found no identity for who the real person who created the content was. Who is the person who created this, what are his credentials? Why should we accept this person as a recognized expert in this area as is required for accepting a self-published source as a reference. We shouldn't be using this source anywhere as a reference until and unless those questions can be answered. Better to find better sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't we remove the international voices on the Anna and Elsa articles? KevinBartholomew (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)KevinBartholomew


 * In my evaluation this should not be used as a reference anywhere per WP:SPS unless the requirement of recognized expert can be shown. Some of the content in those sections use other references so those are likely valid. Pinging for another opinion. If removing this source is contentious, may need to raise the issue at WP:RSN. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! In my experience, linked website proved to be a reliable source, as it can now be easily verified thanks to Disney+. The best thing about it is that it gathers information that would otherwise be scattered on several sources in many different languages, like DVDs/BDs credits or Disney+. I have often double-checked their statements looking at said credited sources, and realised that they match (e.g. statement about Tatiana Angelini being Walt Disney's personal favourite voice of Snow White is actually confirmed ; or credits from the Sami dubbing of Frozen 2 correspond to credits given by the Nordic BD which I own). The downside of that website is that it's not always updated, but all information provided is correct, or at least I've never found any mistakes in it. This is my opinion about it, hope it can help. Ninahi8 (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll leave it be for now based on your input. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

70.161.184.41's vandilism
Hello, I was viewing 70.161.184.41 contributions and noticed after being warned multiple times, he has still vandalised about 3 days after you gave him his 3rd warning. I'm not sure on how banning works on Wikipedia but I think this means he should be banned since he has been given multiple warnings, I would do it myself but I'm not sure on the rules, or if I even can, or how I could do it. Also, how many warnings can be given before someone can be permanently banned, either when logged in or anonymous? LuckyMiner01 | I'm new here, so if i make a mistake, please tell me, here, so I can learn from it. 21:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See block log, was blocked for that, and hasn't resumed after block. Generally gets blocked if resumes after a previous block or after getting a final warning. IP editors don't get banned, just get increasing longer blocks if they continue getting blocked. See procedures at WP:AIV for how to report for blocks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't know this tool existed and that IP editors only get temp banned, also I got my months mixed up, I thought it was the start of September for some reason, thanks for informing me. LuckyMiner01 | I'm new here, so if i make a mistake, please tell me here — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyMiner01 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

122.2.103.82
"Picture resolution vandal" (or one of them, at least) is now at 122.2.103.82. Will need to be mass reverted, I expect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Different geo location. Have seen lots of issues with editors from the one this IP is from though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Duke Remington
I suppressed their edit-summary at Pocahontas (character). DMacks (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

79.12.87.28
If this IP edits any of the Sharnado/The Asylum suite of articles again, I would advise going for the block – it's pretty clear this is a WP:VAND-only editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Last warning was the final warning. Can go to AIV on next instance of vandalism. AIV is somewhat picky about getting that final warning. Vandalism only editor generally only gets applied to logged in editors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Tree Friends (TV series) and List of Happy Tree Friends episodes
I'd appreciate it if you would keep a closer eye on these articles – we have an IPv6 doing day after day of "gnoming"-type edits, but many of them are either pointless or wrong, while others are harmless. I would like it more eyes on this just to make sure something funny isn't going on. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

2606:A000:F8C5:CA00:5818:2B56:AED5:AEBD
Looks like another IP in need of a mass revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See . Reported as resumed after 6 month block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And blocked for 1 year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding logo info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Little_Bear_episodes This prompted me to edit articles to add info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.241.5 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Info about logo changes belongs in the main article. It has nothing to do with the content of the episodes, who was in it, and who made it which is the main purpose of a list of episodes article. I don't watch that other article, if they have this sort of info it should be removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass rollback over redlinked cat
I don't quite understand your use of rollback against on the 18th. This was an IP editor making a series of good-faith edits, which your own comment on their talkpage seems to acknowledge; so I would politely submit that rollback was inappropriate here. And as far as I can tell, the IP's edits were not just in good faith, but indeed correct and entirely policy-compliant, suggesting that reverting at all was inappropriate, when the only issue was a technical one. Is there a reason you didn't just create the category yourself? Surely that would have been faster than the six minutes you spent reverting, and would have helped welcome someone who seems able to be a productive contributor.

I don't mean to sound hostile here. It's hard to critique someone's use of a tool without it coming off as a personal criticism, but that's not at all what I intend. I just make a point of flagging questionable uses of rollback against new or IP editors, and this really jumped out at me. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 02:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC) What edits of mine and what category are you referring to? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I explained why here on the editors talk page. It is inappropriate to add non-existent categories to articles and there is a process for IP editors to request a category to be created. I was using rollback to clean out articles that were added to that non-existent category. As for good faith the editor is well-aware that he shoudn't do that and persists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that. My question is, when an IP editor's made a mistake in the course of good-faith, constructive edits, why take the route that involves six minutes of rollbacks rather than a minute of creating a category? (Which I'll note is exactly what BrownHairedGirl seems to have done, although I'm not sure if the IP asked her or if she did so of her own initiative.) Why spend more time on removing valid content and WP:BITEing a constructive editor, rather than spend less time on fixing a purely technical issue with said valid content?
 * Furthermore, even if the revert was reasonable, it still wasn't a valid use of rollback. Under WP:ROLLBACKUSE, the only category this comes close to fitting into is #5, but these edits weren't unhelpful to the encyclopedia: They were helpful, with an easily fixable technical flaw. No different than an IP who adds a well-written paragraph to an article but screws up the reference formatting.
 * (Post up to here was before your edit): What do you mean "persists"? The category exists now. The edits are completely valid. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 03:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin, what exactly are you saying that I spent 6 minutes on? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps I worded that unclearly. I was referring to Geraldo, who spent a total of 6 minutes between the first and last revert of the IP's edits. My guess is it took you less time to create the category? My point being that the reverts were justified by neither policy nor efficiency. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 03:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin, you're making heavy going of this.
 * Sorry! If you look at the reverts I linked in the top comment here, you'll see the edits I'm referring to: A series of edits by adding Category:Films scored by Mark Watters, which at the time was a redlink, but you have since created. Geraldo mass-reverted those edits and left a templated warning to the IP (edit: and then subsequent custom warning 03:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC) ). I contend that this was both an unjustified series of reversions, and policy-wise an inappropriate use of rollback, but it's not like I pinged you to demand your opinion on that aspect; just because you happened to create the category in question, the thing I argue Geraldo should have done instead. Sorry again for the confusion. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 03:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, @Tamzin. But it should not have taken two requests from to get an answer to the central fact which you should have made clear even before you pinged me.
 * I completely endorse the actions of @Geraldo Perez. A huge amount of avoidable cleanup work is created by the actions of a small set of editors, mostly IPs, who systematically populate non-existent categories contrary to WP:REDNOT.  I happened to have recently created a similar category, so I had the format ready in my clipboard, but otherwise I might well have just used cat-a-lot to empty the category.
 * I am disappointed to see that you are putting lots of effort into sniping at Geraldo Perez, rather than reproaching the IP for their disruption. Those doing this sort of cleanup work need support and assistance, and its is very tedious to have to deal with sniping from editors who choose not to put their own time into this tedious slog, but apparently have lots of time on hand to critique those who actually do the work.
 * For the record, the flood of redlinked categories is now running at about 1,000 per week. If Tamzin believes that they can do the job better than those who are currently cleaning up Special:WantedCategories, then please Tamzin, go ahead and put in a couple of weeks at it — it will take over 30 hours week to handle the lot — and enjoy the sniping from others who demand their idea of perfection from those doing the cleanup, but offer no reproach to serial disruptors, and somehow struggle with even the simple task of linking to the page in question when making a complaint. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'd gotten a response like this from Geraldo from the beginning, I think this conversation would have gone differently. You've laid out needed context for why the reverts were reasonable; I'm not sure I agree, but I also feel that my position has actually been listened to and responded to. Instead, what actually happened was that I—someone raising an accountability question about the use of a tool—was basically told, "No, this is how I do it." I'll note that the snarky comment you referenced was not directed at Geraldo, but rather at IJBall, who seems to be of the opinion that, as I said, edit count exempts one from accountability. As I also noted to him, I do do cleanup work. I'm not online 24/7, but when I edit, the main thing I do is dealing with disruptive editors. I pride myself on finding vandalism that's slipped through the cracks of RCP.
 * I do appreciate the work of people who spend more time on here than I do. I don't think that that makes it inappropriate to question edits they make. It doesn't have to be a grand drama. Most of what Geraldo has said about his reverts, and all of what you've said about category-space issues, was completely unapparent. I don't understand how I'm the villain for having failed to guess a history between Geraldo and the IP, nor a state of affairs in a namespace I don't much interact with, a few weeks after having returned from a years-long semi-retirement. This was the first significant discussion I've started with other editors in that time, and it's left me much more pessimistic about the state of the encyclopedia.
 * Finally, I would reiterate: I pinged you because you were involved in the chain of events. It seemed rude to mention you and not ping you, but no part of my initial posts were actually directed at you. If the context was unclear, it's because the person whom I was addressing already knew the context. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 04:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin, it seems to me that you still do not in any way grasp the problem with your conduct here.
 * You offer no reproach to the disruptor, but demand perfect explanations from those doing the cleanup ... yet you yourself did not even bother to follow the very simple step of actually naming the category that you made the fuss about, and only finally did so three rounds after you should have.
 * You now acknowledge that you didn't understand the context ... but instead of asking a question of Geraldo (why did you do x?), you came barging in with an assertion that that rollback was inappropriate here.
 * I am sure you mean well, but the whole way you have gone about this is thoroughly uncollegial. Asking a question is fine ... but making accusations without establishing the facts is not fine. Repeatedly failing to clarify basic info is not fine. And after all that, your failure to simply say "sorry" is also not fine. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless I overlooked something, Geraldo hasn't said he had any confusion as to what category I was referring to. If he was confused by it, then I do owe him an apology for that lack of context on my part. But I don't think I'm the one who was giving insufficient context here. The chain of events on the IP's talk page and in Geraldo's contribs left no way for me or any other editor to see why Geraldo was taking such a hard line on edits that appeared to be mostly constructive.

I could have used a better tone in my initial comment. I got upset thinking of past interactions where experienced editors have blatantly misused rollback against IPs and newbies and refused to be held accountable, and I inappropriately projected that here. That was a failure to AGF on my part. I stand by the impression behind the post, though, or at least stand by having had that impression based on the information available to me. So, Geraldo Perez, I am sorry for failing to assume good faith.

I do nonetheless think there's too much of an attitude that experienced editors don't have to explain themselves because their judgment is presumptively correct. I remain upset by the parts of this thread that reinforced that impression, or that implied that I wasn't participating in good faith. And if we're doing apologies, I think I'm entitled to one from IJBall, but if I don't get one, I'll live.

BHG, I'll re-read this thread in a day or two, and try to see how it looks from others' eyes. I'd encourage you to do the same; I think at least one of us will see the other's side better, and—sincerely—I'm not sure if it will be you or me or both of us. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 04:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin, there is more I could say in reply, but you have had far too much of my time already. --04:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have interacted with this editor on other IPs used and he is well-aware of he need to add only existing categories to articles. I consider it disruptive to add non-existent ones and consider rollback an appropriate way to quickly undo disruptive edits. There is a process to request category creation which he refuses to use. That other editors choose to create the categories is their prerogative. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that the edits are adding useful, encyclopedic information to Wikipedia, and that you could just as easily fix the technical issues as revert them? Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 03:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll deny it – editors who knowingly make edits that are out of process are prima facie disruptive. The rest of us are under no obligation to fix the mistakes of editors who purposely make them. So rather than hectoring long-term editors who are doing a service, why don't you spend you time trying to "school" the disruptors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors are also under no obligation to revert disruptive edits. If they do, though, one would generally hope it's because doing anything else would either be ineffective or too time-consuming. Neither is true in this case. But sorry for forgetting that edit count exempts you from accountability. Please forgive me for forgetting my place. I'll get back to what I usually do... Y'know, reverting disruptive editors. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I choose to revert disruptive edits and tell the editor making them why I have done so. This I have done with this editor and he has decided to continue making disruptive edits anyway. It is fairly easy to clear out a non-existent category and I generally do so when I encounter one. Other editors may choose to create a category if they consider it appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Geraldo Perez, I admire your patience with Tamzin. Yes, you are quite entitled to revert disruptive edits ... and you are also entitled to end a conversation with an editor who prefers to snip at cleaners rather than disruptors. If this was my talk page, Tamzin's snarky reply of 03:44 would be enough for me to close the conversation. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To explain more why I don't just create the category, I generally consider "something by someone" categories WP:NOTDEFINING if that someone is not mentioned in the lead. The appropriate place for a list of credits is in the person's article, not in a category list. Other editors have different opinions about this but if the category does exist the appropriate place is WP:CfD to discuss it and I will use that forum when I feel it necessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Geraldo Perez, the long-standing guidance at WP:CATDEF seems to support your view.
 * In a situation like this where there is an established series, I haver between upholding COPDEF and doing whatever seems like the least work to solve the redlink problem ... but it is very unfair that you should be subjected to this sustained, timewasting criticism from an editor seems unaware of a bunch of categorisation guidelines, including WP:REDNOT and WP:CATDEF. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Jet Jurgensmeyer
I'm going to need your assistance here – newish editor does not understand that not just any sourcing can be used for bio info (esp. in terms of WP:BLPPRIVACY). Maybe you can do a better job of explaining this than I can. See my Talk page, for one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Amaury • 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Whisker Haven
Please check recent edit here – I can't tell if it's valid or not. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Creator Britt Allcroft is per what IMDb says and was originally added March 9, 2016 by . I assumed it was from the credits but I checked some episodes I found on YouTube and couldn't confirm. It is not mentioned in any existing reference in the article either. Usually IMDb is correct for aired credits but there should be something to back it up, which I couldn't find. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

69.123.149.118 and 74.89.57.202
Geraldo – IP 69.123.149.118 whom I just reverted at Fast Layne and another article appears to be the same editor as 74.89.57.202 whom you reverted at Fast Layne in July and who was 6 month blocked at about the same time, based on the similarity of the edits. We probably need to keep an eye on this, and be prepared to submit this to WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Same ISP, same city which is, unfortunately, a very large New York City. This may be a temp IP, I'll watch. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael Corcoran (musician)
Do you think this should be AfD'ed, or not?... To me it looks too thin to justify a WP:BLP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he meets WP:NMUSIC at all. Also WP:GNG as only references in article are about his marriage to a notable actress, mostly about her, and basically passing mention of him as he was the groom, and a Spotify list with no personal info about him. I think it reasonable for AfD based on that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I may look at doing that after my work calms down in a few weeks. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

PickleAndPeanutFan
A number of problematic edits from this one today. I'm not liking what I'm seeing. Bares watching – another "time out" may be needed if this keeps up. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Side Hustle
Bit late requesting this, but with the page now being a live, a couple more watchers would be great. Amaury • 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Harassment
Hello, Geraldo,

Would you like your user page and talk page to receive semi-protection for a while? Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be useful. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks like your user page has had protection for a while. This vandal is very persistent. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Filthy Rich (1982 TV series)
So, does somebody want to explain to me how a show can be both monaural and stereo?!

I'm guessing these should just be removed from the IB as unsourced?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Unsourced and is pointless to have in article as it gives conflicting information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically stereo FM, which NTSC uses, is both, but that is pointless for the article as what matters is what is available to the show watchers. See if you have any interest in the details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Gadon
I would like you to take a look at recent edits here. I have two concerns: removal of sourced content without an adequate discussion, and a new editor that may well have a WP:COI. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some minor edits. Saw nothing that showed a long-term committed equivalent to married life-partner status in sources. Nothing talked about current. What is sourced is that they dated in the past.Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

William Daniels and List of Boy Meets World characters: Problem with a bot
A bot is changing a link (or anchor, as it puts it) found at List of Boy Meets World characters in the article William Daniels - see this edit - because of an edit made here that was later reverted by you here. I attempted to correct the link at William Daniels but the bot reverted me, and the affected link becomes broken under the bot's change. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to still be at it? Has someone posted to the bot's Talk page or the bot owner's Talk page about this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just posted the problem at the talk page of its owner @ User talk:Kanashimi. I placed it as a subtopic under another topic where it was talking about the bot changing talk page comments and closed AfD discussions, since all of these are bugs. (Wasn't sure about placing this as a topic all its own.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I went over the inbound links to the character article and reverted the mess the bot made. Looks like the bot has a cache and ignored the recent revert to the anchor name changes. Headers are anchors - an anchor is any named location in a page that can be directly linked to. Bot seems to only be looking at header anchors, not the additional ones, as being valid which confuses things. The bot is a good idea like the bots that fix redirects, but isn't very good at it and seems to only catch some stuff and ignore others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

htf episodes
I don't see why I shouldn't remove the templates on htf's episodes. if they can disappear in the middle of season 2's listing, then why should it be an issue when I remove them? in my opinion, they're pretty pointless since you can easily make a page for all seasons of the show and put in plot synopsis like how south park does it. why should they be added in an entire page with 5 seasons, a TV show, shorts, and even online games? if there was like less seasons I'd understand, but that's just me though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilMarcoW (talk • contribs) 01:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What you did was not helpful, and it was definitely disruptive. As it is, I can't even figure out what your point is, but if you have one, you need to make your case at Talk:List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Someone took the time and effort to write episode summaries for those episodes. The fact that summaries were not created for other episodes does not justify removing the ones already there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock farm
Geraldo, I think we have a (mild) sock farm at Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! – all of, , , and look to be the same editor. (I have no idea why they keep creating different accounts for a small number of edits...)

Anyway, this doesn't seem worth an SPI case (or is it worth it to Checkuser?) – Is there a SPI-regular admin (now that Bbb23 has retired) that you can suggest this be forwarded to? What do you think? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is worth it for SPI and request a checkuser to look for sleepers, likely in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by : Sockpuppet investigations/Jetsons Lover. I've added to the report. Note that this SPI will likely be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Justin The Osmosis Jones Fan if it checks out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And ✅, and blocked! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already filed a RFPP on Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! for persistent sock puppetry as it may prevent further disruption. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2605:E000:1315:4075:9405:CF14:4CEB:633E
Another IP adding basically frivolous categories. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just off 6 month block for block evasion as Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1315:4075::/64. I reported as resumed from block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

67.218.119.176
The edits from this IP today also all looks suspicious – things like added protection templates to pages that aren't protected, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Molly.anderson0110
I'm wondering if you think anything can be done about this new editor. 95% of their edits have been nothing more than WP:DE addition of rowspan to various tables at mostly WP:BLPs, a substantial portion of which were perfectly correct before. (IOW, making these tables far less readable.) Despite being reverted on this, they've now gone back to some articles a second time to persist with this nonsense. I've already given them two Level 4 warnings, and they have persisted in the over 24 hours since this. Is there any point in taking this to WP:AIV? Admins at AIV show a definite unwillingness to deal with pure-WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE cases, even if properly warned (and I'd argue this editor is basically the latter, as nearly all of their edits are rowspan, and nothing substantive). No matter what, I'm not going to bother with WP:ANI, which is nearly always a dry hole on cases like these... So I'm wondering what you think can be done. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If it gets to the point of edit warring can be reported for that. Otherwise ANI is the appropriate place. Worth trying AIV if past level 4, depends on who is clearing the queue at the time as to how it will be handled. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were filing a report a WP:AIV on this, how would you phrase it to maximize its chances? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For AIV just basically what you told me above. At this point looking at her (based on name) talk page there needs to be a fairly explicit message stating just what she is doing wrong. For the nonce, presuming new editor, needs a message pointing to the the MOS sections she is not conforming to on her talk page. Will need that if she starts edit warring any of this. Also this is what AIV will likely result in if not done already so should be in place before AIV report. I think it extremely likely this is a sock, though, based on new editor jumping in to complex stuff immediately, but I can't identity who it is, maybe someone else could. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that the edit was just blocked for 48 hours for this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep – just like that, blocked by Nick Moyes for 48 hours, who also did exactly what you suggested – left a note explaining why their edits were bad. I think I may leave a note myself. Anyway, this will be helpful going forward now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

And they're back again, with the improper rowspan use at Becky G. Their recent edit history, following the block, also shows similar disruption at Victoria Justice and Gregg Sulkin, among others. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have let Admin Nick Moyes, who blocked them the first time, know that they simply resumed their WP:DE. I am hoping for an indef this time for WP:NOTHERE, as we've all seen this show before and editors with rowspan obsessions like this simply won't drop it and do any useful editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And blocked for 1 month now. My guess is that they'll be back in a month, and will get an WP:INDEF at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Kylie Cantrall
Absolutely no way this passes anything, but I will wait a bit to see if anything more is added, though I doubt it will change anything. Amaury • 09:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of questionable edits from this user, who started editing back on November 10. If you guys want to go through this user's edits in-depth, feel free, but I'm not going to, at least not right now at 1:17 AM. However, I did redirect Kylie Cantrall and tag the Fisher pages for speedy deletion. Amaury • 09:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any editor that ignores an existing Draft to create their own immediately loses any presumption of "good faith" by me. I do remember from several years back an editor that eventually got blocked (don't remember for what – it was either for WP:DE or socking) for edits to Disney-related articles including creating inappropriate WP:BLPs. I don't remember the name of that editor, and I'm not saying this is necessarily that editor – but I am saying we've seen this kind of thing before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've left a strongly worded message on their Talk page, and note that they have yet to post to a Talk page. In regards to the other editor I was thinking of, it may have been Disneylandlover2006, but it looks like they didn't create any WP:BLPs, so I may be thinking of some other blocked editor with "Disney" in their username, possibly DisneyLover41/Bambifan101... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Tiger Cruise
I've recently improved this article – please look it over, and see if you can suggest anything else to be done here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Vast improvement, only issue I have is the "Inconsistencies" section. It is tagged, but still this sort of thing is mostly unsourced WP:OR trivia and I don't think it adds anything of value to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That section I will likely remove at a later date. I've tagged it, so now the clock is ticking on it. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

148.0.123.95
Geraldo, please look at the edits from this IP when you get the chance? I am skeptical that any of this is necessary, but the resume padding at Dana Snyder is completely unjustified, and I've reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect "expert"
Geraldo, I need a "redirect expert", as I want to ask them about the Gibby Gibson redirect, and about whether it should be at Gibby (iCarly) instead (on WP:COMMONNAME grounds). But I'd rather talk to an "expert" first before seeing if this needs to go through WP:RfD. Do you know anybody?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is just a convenience redirect for a name that might reasonably be searched for. No reason to change or delete it. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really apply to redirects, usefulness is the main reason to have them. This doesn't preclude also having a redirect at "Gibby (iCarly)" though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Gibby Gibson should necessarily be "deleted" (as WP:Redirects are cheap). But I am saying that it's a terrible redirect, because >95% of the people looking for "Gibby" will not know that "Gibby Gibson" is the person they're looking for. So the "primary redirect" (not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT!) should be at Gibby (iCarly), and then the name "bolded" at List of iCarly characters should just be "Gibby...", not "Gibby Gibson..." There is no chance that "Gibby Gibson" is the WP:COMMONNAME over "Gibby", and redirects are obviously most useful at the actual WP:COMMONNAME, not at some perceived "full name" that is never used on a TV series or is used just once! That's the point I'm trying to make here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion enough people may search for "Gibby Gibson" to make the redirect useful. That is "known" by fans as his name. However at Gibby there is an entry for "Gibby Gibson" that should be changed to "Gibby (iCarly)" so that redirect needs to exist as well. "Gibby (iCarly)" should be the one tagged with indicating that is the common name to use if an article were to be created for the subject.  For completeness "Gibby Gibson" should be tagged with  pointing to "Gibby (iCarly). Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 'kay. I have to do grading stuff tonight – I'll try to get to this tomorrow... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help with a potential range block request
Geraldo, can you please take a look at the revision history for List of Victoria's Secret models, and tell me if there's possible range block request for that IPv6 2a01:c23... editor that is hitting this article? I've left effectively final warnings here and here, but this editor is at a different IP every time, so my only options are "range block" or "semi-protection". Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Range is vastly too large for a range block, protection of the article from a dynamic IP is best bet here. Looks like range is used for mobile phones and editor gets new IP each time they connect. Also there are some IPv4s from same general location, likely same person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ellen Page
This is going to be another minefield, like Caitlin Jenner – people going around and retroactively changing the previous name to the current one. My understanding is that the upshot of the Caitlin Jenner situation is that people should not go and "retroactively" name-change. But I can guarantee you that some editors are going to start going around and doing this – at least one already is!

Just giving you the heads up. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting but not something I will be getting involved in. I find working on this sort of article annoying and not enjoyable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not referring to the article itself – I'm referring to all of the links to that article that people are going to want to start changing. But, again – my understanding from the Caitlin Jenner-related RfC's is that editors should not starting changing links to "Elliot Page" because it's a historical anachronism, and because it will not match the name used in sourcing. (We saw a much smaller example of this situation with the whole Jules LeBlanc/Annie LeBlanc thing...) So this is what needs to be kept an eye on – people changing the old links (as per WP:NOTBROKEN, etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand and will watch for that. NOTBROKEN shouldn't be contentious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nathaniel J. Potvin
I don't think this one appears to be meet BASIC or NACTOR. Amaury • 18:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two TV series as main cast meets minimum for NACTOR. Light on significant coverage though so doesn't meet BASIC. I'd leave it and tag it needing more sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: Amaury • 19:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd bet it doesn't pass WP:BASIC. In its current form, I think it would go down at WP:AfD. The issue is there's no obvious redirect target, so converting it to a redirect is out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about names per credits
If someone’s name was spelt wrong in the credits of a show by mistake and a reliable source confirmed that the correct one was supposed to be used, would it still apply or would the correct name be used? -- JamsterYT (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not including a last name is not a spelling mistake, that is a production choice of how to credit a character. To say the credits were wrong a reliable source would have to explicitly and directly state that the credits were wrong, not just give some other name. It is extremely rare that listed credits will be misspelled. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Owen Joyner image
OK, certainly needs to be tagged on Commons, as there's no way that is "own work" – it's an almost certain WP:COPYVIO. But I know not the ways of Commons, so hopefully you or somebody else does... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, I just wanted to pop by and say thank you for reverting my edit here. I actually hadn't realized that was an issue, so I really appreciate you letting me know and directing me to the exact policy of why it was. :) Cheers, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  20:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect question
Geraldo, I don't know if you can answer this question, but is a redirect from Wikipedia space to Userspace appropriate, or does that violate some rule?

I'm thinking specifically of the case of WP:READABILITY – an essay on this subject in WP space is actually a good idea. And it may even be based what this editor has there. But this is a failed policy proposal, in userspace, and I don't think there should be a WPspace redirect to it. (Though I guess converting the redirect into a draft-essay is a possibility...)

Any thoughts? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as I know only redirects from article space to other spaces are discouraged and even then there are some exceptions such as dummy edit. What is not permitted is redirects from article space to draft space or anything that might confuse readers as being valid article content. This one looks OK and useful. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So probably needs to be converted into an Essay in WP space. OK, will add that to the list of things I will probably never get done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Television series created by Steve Marmel
What is the process to have a category deleted? This one only has three pages in it (it did have four before I reverted on Mech-X4), and if I remember correctly, for a category to exist, you need at least a dozen pages where you can say that anyone looking at them would definitely agree that they definitely qualify for that category. Note that the user in question is known for disruptive edits, with a plethora of warnings, including this year, and two blocks. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to call them a vandal, but for the most part, they appear to be disruptive as I've reverted them before. Ping as well. Amaury • 19:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SMALLCAT would apply but that is qualified with no potential for growth which might be argued for an active person. Proper location for deletion discussion is at WP:CfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ben Savage
Geraldo, I'd like your opinion on Ben Savage – all of the awards listed for Girl Meets World are for the show itself. My guess is that someone added these because Savage was a frequent director on the show. But none of the awards listed are for Savage himself, as either an actor or a director. Savage (as well as Danielle Fishel) is credited as a "co-producer" on the show – but "show-level awards" are generally credited to the producers or executive producers not someone on the "co-producer" level.

IOW, I think all of the Girl Meets World awards listed at this article should be removed. Agree? Pinging and  here as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Any award where he isn't named should be removed. Co-level people are assistants and are not generally given awards. Also producer-type titles for actors and writers are generally honorary anyway and don't involve any real production work, just a way to give them more prominence in the credits and a bit more pay. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?
Hi, I'm here to ask your opinion on something that's striking me quite hard. Basically every edit I've done since I started editing on Wikipedia 5 years ago has been wiped away all at once by Binksternet, and now they're targeting every edit I'm making, basically barely looking at what they say, just blindly undoing them, like. Do you think that what they're doing is correct and justified? If that's the case, I'll of course accept it, and since I guess I'll have nothing more to do here, I'll step down and leave Wikipedia for good. For the respect you've gained from me in these 5 years, I'd just like to hear your opinion on this situation, if you want to give me one. Ninahi8 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unhappy with how you are being treated and I think you have been making valuable edits to Wikipedia in the time you have been editing here. I thought your edits related to internationalization wesere uful, informative and appropriate so appreciated them. Binksternet obviously disagrees and this has become a question of what belongs in an article. You were doing the proper thing by asking questions of him but I think this has reached an impasse. As he is a very experienced editor who as been here a long time, it is hard to question his evaluations and opinions and I would normally defer to the opinions of an editor significantly more experienced then I am. It is unfortunate this is coming to a head after all the work you have put in. I can't really suggest any actions to take other than the general WP:DR processes, but I think that will end up being futile. I hope you don't choose to leave the project over this and that you can find other ways that interest you to contribute. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I realised we are talking about some "big shot" here, and that's why I gave their name, not to point fingers or anything. I understand what you mean by "futile"; as you once said, editing here is a pastime, and when it becomes something more demanding than that, then it's not worth insisting. This is a battle I'm surely not willing to fight. Personally, I think that on English Wikipedia there's a structural problem that must be faced sooner or later (but I guess today is not the day): the majority of its editors and the vast majority of its readers are not English natives, while most of its admins and most qualified editors are. English Wikipedia is a reference point for people allover the world for the simple reason that English is the most studied language in the world, and this makes this variant of Wikipedia the encyclopedia people from every corner of the world will refer to when seeking information of any kind. This was the main reason behind my edits: I was trying to give my contribution to take English wiki out of its all-native-English-speaker view to bring it to respond to the more international role it already has, but that most English native editors can't quite see. This kind of awareness will require a radical change in the rules (what's considered relevant and pertinent and what not), and I believe someday this is going to happen. Just not today. I don't know if and how I can keep on contributing, especially on the English variant, we'll see. BTW, do you know if the warnings I've been officially given here apply to other languages too? Because I might well keep on working at least on the Italian, French, and Swedish wikis, but do you know whether these warnings will affect me there too? Ninahi8 (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Any warning messages on your talk page here only apply to the English language Wikipedia. Each language Wiki project runs with its own rules for inclusion, sourcing, and style and the rules are set by the involved editors in those projects. The projects are fairly independent of each other. From my observation most of the major contributors to the enwiki are unilingual native English speakers who won't find much value in content that applies to other languages and would prefer to see that content in the appropriate other language wikis. Also people who are familiar with other languages are really encouraged to enhance the wiki projects for those languages, enwiki is the largest, but the other language projects are important and deserve support. If you contribute effectively to the other projects you mentioned, it would be valuable to them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wish Upon a Star
This surprised me, but I just did a fairly thorough search, and I can't find any contemporaneous coverage of this movie. My guess is that Disney Channel TV movies, pre-DCOMs, basically got no press coverage. (Now, there may be separate contemporaneous ratings coverage, but cable TV ratings from 1996 are not going to be readily available from the internet, or the places I can look!)

Since 1996, esp. in probably the last 10 to 15 years, the movie has seemed to have gotten some "looking back" coverage, at least in terms of Katherine Heigl. But even that coverage is light, and it would be a weird case where the topic became notable(?) sometime after it originally happened.

Anyway, for now I've tagged the article with More citations needed. But if it doesn't get more sourcing added soon, it may not justify keeping it as a standalone article. Just putting this out there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
 Happy Holidays text 2.png

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Young Forever (talk)   06:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Christmas 2020
I guess this is the part where I say merry Christmas. Amaury • 20:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Grande Discography
Hi Geraldo, you are the owner/creator of singer/songwriter/producer Ariana Grande's discography, there's an a unregistered user vandalizing the page so would you semi-protect the page so only Wikipedia users can edit it¿ Thank you. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not an article that I watch or am familiar with sufficiently to make informed contributions. My original contributions were just creating redirects to a section in the main article, nothing substantive. To request a page protect, see WP:RPP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


— Young Forever (talk)  is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be . Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive . This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.