User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse

Hello Geraldo Perez, I would like to inform you about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse an investigation of a highly disruptive sockpuppeteer which has been running frequently since it was started last month. I see you also suspect some user accounts like User:Volkovp56 as a sockpuppet. I have reported all these accounts on the sockpuppet investigations page. You are free to give your comments and provide more evidence and information about more sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses if any of them have been missed out or are unknown to me. If you would like to talk to me in private first about some sensitive matter, then feel free to E-mail me. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Volkovp56's likely IP socks are not from the same geo location as you have identified for the others so dubious he is related. Pattern of edits by the editors listed seems to be non-English competent speaker editing Wiki and having difficulty understanding and communicating in English. IPs located in Turkey and Russia support that conjecture. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

STOP GETTING IN PEOPLE's BUISENESS

You be blocked for getting in my buiseness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.54.247 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

MOS:DTT Question

Do you have to use this on a List of Episodes page or Episodes section? See the discussion of edits here between me and TBrandley. He says according to the rules the priority level is high so we have to use it but I don't see it on a lot of episode pages anyway and if the "Section" title "Episode list" or "Episodes" I don't see the need for it. He says this is correct and this is wrong (where the "revolution" episodes text is above the chart/list). What are your thoughts? - Alec (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If the section header is identical to the table caption I can't see how this adds anything to accessibility and the reference used at WP:DTT to support the use of table captions, H39: Using caption elements to associate data table captions with data tables, seems to support reasonableness - Example given: "If a table is used for layout, the caption element is not used. The purpose of a layout table is simply to control the placement of content; the table itself is “transparent" to the user. A caption would "break" this transparency by calling attention to the table."

I think we are losing the intent of the guideline with a too strict interpretation. I see the caption being really important when there are multiple tables in a section and good writing practice has always required a table captions in those cases. If the only thing in a section is the table, the section header is the required table caption and an additional caption used here is redundant. We could use the table caption instead of a header but then we wouldn't have a table of content entry. What really should be done, per good writing practice, is to have a paragraph after the header that describes what the section is about then have the table with its caption following the intro text.

In the example you are using, I suggest adding some intro text after the header that describes/summarizes "Series overview" and "Episodes" and then have the appropriately captioned tables. What is there now looks awkward. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He also has it on the Grey's Anatomy list of episode page as well. Apparently it's been discussed here (if you scroll down to comments there's a discussion about it. If it's just for "Featured Episode Lists" it should be mandatory for ALL episode list. i think he's looking too far into it. When I read it, I read it as if there's no "Section" title then we add it. I even mentioned "It's clear you can tell what the table is for by the section title. There's no point in adding it. If it was a table randomly placed in the article we use it if there's a section title, why add it?"

TRLIJC19 also mentioned on the Grey's Anatomy list of episodes talk page here, he states " captions are a requirement per MOS:DTT. They are there so that the tables are accessible for the visually impaired." I get that but if the table is randomly placed in the article. We don't need Grey's Anatomy season 1 episodes above the table when there's a section header titled "Season 1 (2005)" right above it. It's even worse when you get into the "Season" page (here). It doesn't make sense on "Episode" tables so I think the "MOS" should be re-written to exclude certain tables and not "all" tables. - Alec (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like a requirement that will be enforced for featured articles, it doesn't look there there is much choice but to do it, ugly and redundant or not. At least on the Grey's Anatomy list the caption is significantly different than the header to not look too redundant. That may be key to making this work. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I also did some more reading at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial where this issue was also discussed, including the redundancy issue with headers. Looks contentious and it looks like it is being forced on us whether we like it or not by some "accessibility expert". The better examples of this being done use the caption to be more descriptive of the table content then what is in the header thus making it less redundant. Looks like we'll have to do this, no real choice. But there are ways to do it well that we should follow. As of now I'm not going to do this on any articles I follow but I won't be able to object if someone else adds the caption and I'll try to make that caption mean something more than just duplicate the header. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I brought up a discussion with The Rambling Man (as he's part of the editors in-charge of picking Featured List Articles) and you can see the discussion here. He states we DO NOT have to have them if it's directly under a section header, the captions are apparently for screenreader and such. I'm assuming an iPad or tablet of such. How do the tables look on those type of things? I do not own one but can you still see the section title and the table under it? - Alec (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The Rambling Man was one of the people who seemed to oppose using captions after headers in the discussion I linked to above. Seems he wasn't convinced. He also was questioning the credentials of the anonymous supposed accessibility expert used for the guidelines. Doesn't look as settled as WP:DTT makes it look. As a featured list editor (and also incidentally a wiki bureaucrat) his opinions hold a lot of weight. Still he did recommend making the caption in the example you used more descriptive so that is looking like the compromise position. From the way he wrote the reply to you he basically said you don't logically need it but they should still be there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also visually impaired means people who have a text to voice page reader. They only hear the contents of the page. Most of the rules are for that purpose. If table are done poorly they have a hard time understanding what they are hearing when the table is spoken to them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "seem to oppose" them, I did oppose captions, I didn't really understand how important they were to partially sighted people using screen-readers. I've since educated myself. However, I still question "anonymous experts", sure I do. Why shouldn't I? It seems perverse to accept the comments of a so-called expert who refuses to provide any credentials. However, your summary is spot on, logically if a table stands alone in an article, directly after a heading, no need for a caption. But there's no actual harm in a caption, especially a descriptive one which assists our other readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Geraldo, that's what I was thinking. I've never had to use one but people who have a voice page reader, does it read the section title? I mean does it read (Season 1: 2011-12) Then the table in order?

The Rambling Man, I feel if we have to add these, it should be for only certain tables not ALL tables. Can't there be a rule for that? I mean if a Voice page reader reads the section title For example the "Revolution" example I showed you, you want it to read "Episode list" then "Revolution episode titles, writers, directors, air dates, prod. code, etc." then read the table? I mean If I just heard "Episode list" then it started reading the table, I'd understand that. There should be certain exceptions where we should and shouldn't use the caption title. - Alec (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding from reading other articles including WP:DTT and Screen reader is that the software treats tables as special and permits the user to navigate in a somewhat random manner through the table as desired. I think the attempt is to include the caption in the table object itself so it is easily available when in table reading mode. The readers seem to interpret the underlying HTML code that generates the table, not just the visual appearance, to generate its output and to allow navigation in the table.

I think the time has passed to argue this issue. The caption is not needed for sighted people as it is redundant at times but it does seem to have some value to people who can't see. It is visually awkward but generally harmless and can be made more usefull if the caption is chosen to add value. I don't see much likelihood in getting any exceptions added to the MOS for this issue as I'm sure our point of view has been argued extensively and rejected already. I think we'll just have to live with it and made do the best we can. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

why is it that I'm just seeing this take into affect now but it was discussed in 2010? I mean it could have already but I am just now seeing it take affect in List of Episode pages and TV pages. Has this been discussed elsewhere? - Alec (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because people don't want to do it, think it is unnecessary and are mostly not familiar with this part of the MOS. It seems to be one of the checklist items for featured lists and that is the point where it is most likely to be brought up. Only people familiar with featured lists seem to be pushing it now and I expect it to filter down more from them. The Rambling Man seems to be intimately familiar with this issue and would known more of the history. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Victorious season 4

Hey Geraldo, thanks for your message. I know about the three revert rule, as thats the reason why I didn't revert the users last edit. I was already in trouble because I reverted four of the users edits. As you should see, I added a comment a moment ago. I was just wondering what you thought about it, thanks. --Webclient101 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We were editing at the same time so overlapped. I know how easy it is to lose track of reverts when on an edit history based debate. I've commented on the talk page after your note there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Victorious

I want to ask you about this. [1]. The episodes are correct for the Show Season 1 has 20 Season 2 has 13 and season three has 27 episodes. I know we have to follow the episode guide, but do you realize that most shows on wikipedia do count hour episodes as two. For example, Lost, The Middle, Full House, Drake and Josh, Zoey 101, iCarly, Suite Life, Wizards of Wavery Place and others. All have episodes that have hour episodes but are counted as two episodes. I think victorious should be put back the way it was. Also tv.com counts the episodes as two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP Editor 2012 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See comments at talk:List of Victorious episodes#Number of episodes in the series. Dan said there would be 60 episodes, TV Guide and also the article which uses TV guide for support shows 45 so far and and Dan says 15 more to come. If you disagree, please add to the discussion on the article talk page. As for the other articles I believe they are wrong for counting long episodes (single set of credits) as two when they weren't aired as two separate episodes but I don't have the energy to debate the issue for those articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that when there actually is a two parter (each part has its own set of credits), the episode list should have an entry for each part. As is shown in List of Victorious episodes#ep42 and List of Victorious episodes#ep43. An episode number in the form or 42–43 doesn't conform with instructions at template:Episode list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think we should just leave it as it was. If I have time I will bring up the issue on the template:Episode list or the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. if that is not the best place let me know. Most pages here and sites I have seen count them as two part episodes, regardless of the time and credits.Also if you look Dan said there are 60 episodes, so that means there should be 20 in season 1, 13 in season 2 and 27 in season 3 and that adds up to 60 episodes. If we go the eisode list rules that would be 19 in season 12 in season 2 and 26 in season 3. that adds up to a total of 57 episodes. Now that does not match what Dan, Nick, or [2] says.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please add to the discussion I started at talk:List of Victorious episodes#Number of episodes in the series instead of debating the issue here so that others can contribute. template talk:Episode list would be a reasonable place to get other people's comments about the issue in general or they may point to a better place. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Twitter accounts as references

Hey Geraldo, I totally agree with you. I was I bit hesitant to add this information due to the fact that there are many fake twitter accounts and that the image could be easily fake. I will re-insert the information once it is really confirmed. --Webclient101 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there really is no hurry. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jessie

Hey Geraldo I am sorry for my edit on Jessie Season 1 but Peyton List updated a status on facebook say Season 1 season finale will air September 7 Miguel1369 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then use that as the required reference including a link to the actual comment. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gillies

Hey, I'm sorry about that. I used a script, but it was still my responsibility to check for problems. Thanks very much for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits I made to Ozawa page

Geraldo,

Rather than have an edit war I thought I would message you directly. I didn't set up a link to a fake twitter account, I deleted the one that was already fake and added the real account. I am new to wikipedia so I didn't think much about proving veracity (let's face it, there was already an unsourced account linked on the page), but I can easily edit the page with links from her official ameblo blog (that is already accepted on the page) where she states that she is opening a twitter account and gives the address.

If that's not OK with you, please tell me what you need to prove it's real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectSpam (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the twitter account would add much to the article per WP:EL but best would be if she gets the account verified by twitter. There would be no question it was hers because twitter would need proof to give it the verified status. It would then be usable as a reference in the article as well. The blog should not be used as a reference in the article as it is also just an assertion of ownership like the twitter account. What is needed is some source that meets the reliable source standards that verifies the blog is hers before we can trust it to give further info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I do feel that people interested in her would perhaps like to know that they are accessing the correct blog/twitter, though. Here is the link where she announces her twitter account (the one I added): http://ameblo.jp/ozawamariaa/day-20120224.html

You can see it's her official blog. It's where you can sign up for fan mail etc. Funny thing is, she complains that there are too many fake accounts of her on twitter and facebook, lol! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectSpam (talk • contribs) 11:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course she's the only one who can get her accounts verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectSpam (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

This Brownie is For Sending Me A Nice Message :) Megan2012OneDirection (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the brownie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Victorious - Wanko's Warehouse

Hey, that Wanko's Warehouse episode airdate, writers & directors and production code references is not supported by this source: http://tv.msn.com/tv/episode/victorious/wanko%27s-warehouse/ Brooks53 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

True, removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

BrBrLeJa

This "new" user is not listening to me on the List of Dog with a Blog episodes list. I've made several edits, used the Edit summary and wrote on their talk page. What do I do now? The user is: BrBrLeJa - Alec (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor is new and not familiar with the Manual of Style. Seems to be receptive if pointed to the appropriate style doc such as WP:SECTIONCAPS in edit summary and on editor's talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New vict episode

Look at that two sources for that upcoming Victorious episode: http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/victorious-the-hambone-king/EP012366370055 & http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/victorious/tv-listings/303439 78.183.65.10 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Season 7

According to this, the new episode iShock America, Nick is promoting as a new season as seen here. If you look in the sidebar (where the videos are) and scroll to the bottom, it says the new season is coming. I made edits to the Wikipedia page. Could you help me stop vandalism? - Alec (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland

Hi Geraldo! According Soundscoun as of Agoust 2012,ù Here I Am of Kelly Rowland has sold about 238,000 copies alone in US but I don't have relieble sources --Music&Co (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to do some vandalism repairs so don't normally watch this article. If the info you want to change doesn't have a reliable source you shouldn't change it. If the old info doesn't have a source it should be tagged as citation needed {{cn}} or removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

but you has changed the number of sales of this album. You must write in my talk page --Music&Co (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Hambone King

Victorious episode The Hambone King' ratings here: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/02/sunday-cable-ratings-real-housewives-of-new-jersey-wins-night-dexter-boardwalk-empire-homeland-breaking-amish-long-island-medium-more/150970/comment-page-3/#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.247.201 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by anonymous people don't count as reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Victorious

Victorious 4x03 "Opposite Date" episode will air in October 13, 2012. Source: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/victorious/tv-listings/303439 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.50.164 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2012 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive197#User:Geraldo Perez reported by User:89119 (Result: Stale)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hey your work is truly loved loved i say Charliebro8516 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Season 7 or 6b?

Perhaps you would be interested in this discussion going on in the List of iCarly Episodes page, iCarly (Season 7) page, and the iCarly (Season 6b) page. A user identified by the username ElBarco2011 changed Season 7 to Season 6b for no good reason. Nickelodeon made it clear as crystal that iShock America started the FINAL season of iCarly, thus making it Season 7, not Season 6b. I know that both seasons have the same production line, but this still can't be done because that would mean Season 3 would be Season 2b, and Season 4 would be Season 3, etc. This user even went so far as to blank out the Season 7 page and create a Season 6b page and make these changes on the List of iCarly Episodes page. This must not continue. Please leave comments below. - JaciFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaciFan (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dog With a Blog

OZODOR recently moved Dog with a Blog to Dog With A Blog without explanation.[3] He also moved the episode list article. Does this seem right to you? The Disney press release uses both capitalisations,[4] so it's not entirely obvious which is correct. When in doubt we usually defer to Wikipedia conventions, which would actually be Dog With a Blog. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disney uses every variation that is possible it seems. Logo says "dog with a blog". We went through the same issues with Sonny with a Chance and finally settled, I think wrongly, on that capitalization and move locked the page. See Sonny With a Chance history and Sonny With A Chance history. I agree Dog With a Blog should be the title and that is backed up by Zap2it and TV Guide who probably made the same decisions based on Disney's lack of consistency. I suggest moving the article to Dog With a Blog an tagging all extant redirects as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved the page and tagged the redirects. If it gets moved again we will need to start a discussion to see if we can get consensus and will probably end up move locking the page anyway. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

iTunes spells it "Dog With a Blog" as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Season 7

It seems we have a problem here and I wondered what you had to say about this. I wrote what I'm about to tell you similarly to JaciFan on the talk page of the show's episode list that she wrote down above as well, so things rather copied-and-pasted for the most part. Okay, now I still don't think Nick should have marketed the last batch of iCarly episodes as a new season. There was only 15 (or 13) episodes made to not even split off. Surprisingly it doesn't seem to have been taken literally after all as it was with the Season 2 split. That split actually made sense and sources and the cast and crew themselves defended it and stuck by it. In this case with "Season 7", other websites are still counting these episodes as part of Season 6 as they should: www.aceshowbiz.com/tv/icarly/episode.html, [5], [6], [7], and the show's official Facebook page still has the show's status being listed in it's sixth season despite the promotion description of "iShock America" being the season premiere: [8]. I expected Dan to have changed the opening intro of these episodes due to Nick's marketing only to be rather surprised when I saw "iGet Banned" and the opening was the same as the other S6 episodes (iShock America's was altered a bit since it was a special). Plus, a clip from the episode was already featured in the opening. Under these circumstances, I feel the need that we should probably make a revert to there being only six seasons rather than seven. I'm worried this may jeopardize the split of S2 production episodes, but I don't think it would to an extent of what we have here. What do you think? - Jabrona - 23:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter has already been expressed on the article talk page when this issue first came up. How other sites choose to format their articles is their choice and does not override what Nickelodeon explicitly stated. What Nickelodeon marketing states is pretty definitive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but I just had a bit of a feeling regarding this case here seeing how things were handled. I just felt a bit off how we were pretty much like the black sheep here and thought if there was a need for an exception. But if nothing can be done, then I guess it's settled then. - Jabrona - 07:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a good argument but I like to keep these types of discussions on the article talk page. I haven't decided how to respond yet to the latest info presented there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned this on the talk page as I stated above, but I wanted to inform you on this in case you didn't go there for a bit. I'm not sure of when you last went there so I decided to mention what I stated there on here. On that note, I'll leave you to figure out how you're going to respond to this all if you come to it. - Jabrona - 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

iCarly (season 7)

So are we still listing "iShock America" as 1-2 or are we reverting it back to just 1? That seems like the consensus on the Talk Page. - Alec (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a larger issue with respect to all the other long episodes of the series being misclassified as we have discussed previously. Keeping it at two is consistent with how all the other similar eps were mishandled in this particular series. When we had a single production code we had a stronger case. Don't want to fight this battle now so I'd just like to let it go for now. When the series is complete we should revisit the whole issue and see then if we can convince people to do it correctly. As I said in the comments, adjusting established episode numbers is a major undertaking as they are also named anchors to that table entry and if they are changed we need to find all incoming wikilinks and fix them as well. Lots of work, no tools to help so the articles need to be stable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps after the series is done. It's just going into the iGo to Japan page and edit that page, I can help if you need it. - Alec (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series)‎

Hi Geraldo, I'm involved in some work at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series)‎ and another contributor has been very involved in making sure that everything is referenced, but the problem I'm experiencing, is that the show is new, there's not a lot a ton of third-party write-ups available yet, and the editor insists that every aspect of the show be backed up with citations. And that includes credited voice actors to various details in the character synopses. Not sure how to do that to his/her satisfaction. For example, on the show, there is a race of aliens called The Kraang. If you watch the show, each Kraang refers to the other as Kraang. They are clearly alien. No distinction has been made between any of the Kraang. Further, "Krang" was a character in the 1987 incarnation of TMNT. The editor feels that direct observation of the show doesn't count as suitable attribution. I think it does, on the basis that facts can be included even if they are not attributed, as long as they are "attributable". In my opinion, the fact that Nickelodeon is telling a story that the Kraang is an alien race, doesn't require an outside verification. What's your take on this? I'd like to make sure that I understand the rules and consensus as it pertains to TV edits. Further, under this pattern, it seems that unless some reliable outside party has written about a specific aspect of the show, that specific aspect of the show doesn't deserve inclusion unless accompanied by a glaring Citation Needed tag. I find that proposition to be ludicrous. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What has been shown in aired episodes of a TV series is considered a primary reliable source. See WP:PSTS for some more about this. Basically the show itself can support any information, as a primary source, that is non-interpretive. You can use what is shown but can't synthesis new info or make any sort of interpretations. Pure descriptive info about a character, plot descriptions, credits are covered. Any character analysis or analysis of what the plot means or conclusions not obvious to everyone must be supported by a secondary reliable source. I would say that what you described as an example is supported as non-interpretive and obvious. It is a bit of a grey area though. At least the person is tagging it and not removing it outright. The only thing to do is just work with the editor involved and work something out. I think he is being overly strict, but that is just my opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I appreciate your guidance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wizards of Waverly Place

Can you look for that: http://www.whosay.com/greggsulkin/photos/239314 movie or episode? 85.101.209.62 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a script cover that says only "Table Draft (BLUE)" - info at bottom of cover was cut off. Looks like a draft script for a stand-alone special and an unfinished work in progress. Episode scripts usually have production codes on them, this one doesn't. Also image is not hosted by a reliable source so info in it can't be used in wiki. Images are too easy to fake even though this particular image is extremely likely to be valid and unmodified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disney XD's Kickin' It edit

Thank you for your explanation on why my edits were removed. Following the thread of edits did not make any sense to me, so your explanation that the article format had become corrupted really does make sense.

Thanks again.

Charleyrandall (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Date Ranges

That makes no sense. On some pages (Hannah Montana) where a season stretched more than one year, some will be listed as such:

2006/07
2007/08
2008-10
2010/11

As listed on the MOS page, it only lists "Sports Season" or "financial year", it does not mention television years. Some pages will look weird with everything not the same and cause confusion. There should be an exception with TV shows and to be honest 2011/12 looks awkward. - Alec (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks strange but that is how the MOS is written and we are supposed to conform to the MOS even if we don't like it. The examples given are listed as examples and not a complete list, they just illustrates the concept. 2011/12 is a period less than 12 months, 2011–12 is a two year period. The place to raise concerns and objections is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. See also discussion at User talk:Kwamikagami/Automated archive#Date ranges where I first questioned this. (also guys been around 8 years and has 216,000 edits - he has lots of credibility) Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, since Kwamikagami is one of the main editors of the MOS, I did check to make sure this was not a recent change he made to the MOS that justified his TV show changes. The MOS has been this way since 2007 and this section has mostly been ignored by everyone. I expect to see this implemented in most TV series articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Purplepower2012

Just in case you didn't see it, he was silly enough to attack you after you gave him a final warning,[9] so I reported him to AIV - Clearly enough was enough so he's been blocked for 7 days. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Good. Looks like that sped things up a bit and I hope it cools things down. Don't known what to do with this editor long-term though. He seem to have a single issue he feels a need to push. From other edits of his [10] it looks like he may be personally involved with inside information and wants to get the story, a.k.a. the WP:TRUTH, out there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Bin Weevils Page

There is a popular virtual world named Bin Weevils: http://www.binweevils.com/ It is very known well and it hasn't even got a page for it on the Wikipedia. It deserves a page! If I make one, you will send a automatic message saying "it will be deleted" can an admin do this please so? Also, however, there may be reliable links we can rely on to check if you are sure to add it to the wikipedia. Contact my talk page for reply please. Thank you for your consideration. --ForeverBoriSeddie187 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied where requested. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --ForeverBoriSeddie187 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Bin Weevils Page

I tried to make it but this keeps coming up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bin_Weevils_(Virtual_world) Could you help me please? Thanks. --ForeverBoriSeddie187 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

copied and replied in context on your page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Victorious edit

Thank you so much for fixing the page. I do not know why everything was deleted when I only edited a certain part of the article. Could you help me on that? Sorry for what happened. I don't know why it happened and I was freaking out. Thanks. --thecoolkids13 —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If something bad happens like that, or you see something like that, you can always edit and save the last good previous version in the edit history to fix the problem. I removed the warning on your page as this looks to be edit glitch of some sort that was not intended. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You are now a reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

BrBrLeJa

Could you please provide some evidence why you think those BrBrLeJa is the same as the IP I blocked? I don't see the similarities; the IP was insisting on a certain capitalization of that title, while BrBrLeJa removed the phrase entirely. Couldn't that be seen as an attempt at a compromise (albeit a wrong one)? Are there other edits that you think are similar? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going by general edit patterns. Same set of articles edited. General interest in adding well-referenced viewing info. Removal of content without explanation. Also this edit and this edit. I figure the IP is his logged-out account and only tagged as sock because the IP was blocked. I generally don't see a problem or worry about an editor who forget to log in. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the change from lowercase to caps in that BrBrLeJa edit. Good catch. I'm going to block them now as obviously the same person. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest making the blocks for the two accounts congruent – he likely was unaware of the concept of block evasion. This is a generally productive and useful editor who is also annoying and disruptive at times. I hope a 24 hour block will be sufficient to drive home the fact we DO have standards we try to follow without discouraging his future good contributions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct--I misread the time sequence. I've reduced the block on the named account by a day. Thanks for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: you don't need to warn anymore. If after the block expires the editor again pulls the same disruptive edits, just tell me and I'll reblock immediately for longer. Once someone is blocked for a certain type of edit, and it's clear that it's still the same actual person on the IP, they don't get more warnings-just escalating blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

70.190.10.219 and BrBrLeJa

Are User:70.190.10.219 and User:BrBrLeJa the same person? The recent edits at List of Good Luck Charlie episodes seem to point to that being the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably, see above discussion. Both blocked for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel so silly. I came to your talk page, clicked "New section", created my post, saved and then raced off to the shops. I've just returned and only then noticed the discussion. Doh!! --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured that something like that is what happened. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to post inaccurate information, as you did on List of Austin & Ally episodes, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. GLCFan1 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You got the wrong person with this warning. Everything I have added to that episode is backed up with references including using the aired episode itself for info about its contents. I request you remove this warning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of Austin & Ally episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So, first of all, thank you very much for telling me about the "new" editor. It caused me to look into the matter in more detail, and found out that not only is BrBrJeLa and Scream4Lover1 the same, but, in fact both of those belonged to an older user, GLCFan1...and he had another account waiting that he hadn't used yet. All of them are now blocked, though it would not surprise me if the editor shows up again as an IP or under a different user name. If that happens, you can still revert once or twice, but don't get yourself into trouble by continually reverting. There's some pretty clear signs that make this person stand out, so if they do show up again we can file another report and get them reblocked. Note that reverting a blocked user is not, itself, an exception to the WP:3RR rules, so you still have to make sure you don't go too far. Basically, it's better for the articles to be wrong or malformatted for a short while than to have you and the bad user get into a war over it. So, please feel free to let me know at any time if you suspect a new user of being this person returning. I'm going to put one or two of the main articles on my watchlist, but not all of them. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As I suspected, thanks for clearing this up with the SPI. I should have done the SPI myself instead of getting into an edit conflict with a bunch of socks, I actually do know better, just got caught up. I wouldn't have thought to ask about sleepers though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

TfD

The mere nomination of a template at TfD doesn't mean that the template is actually going to be deleted. TfD is short for "Templates for Discussion", not "Templates for Deletion". The nominator has now withdrawn the nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It looked like it was trending towards delete when I looked. Glad to see the discussion in the proper place now. I figured if I was going to have to keep fixing the mess that SporkBot was making with broken links I'd just fix it for good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised the issue with SporkBot's edits at SporkBot's talk page and they are being reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

{{TV.com}} should have a tag like {{tv.com show}} has now that says the template is deprecated and leads to instructions how to correctly change to the replacements. This would also be a doable task for a bot as the process is fairly procedural, at least for the ones I looked at. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/MetapointBot is all ready to go to do just what I would like to see done. Too bad this is being held up with all the template delete drama. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Have you considered archiving your talk page, rather than simply hiding the conversations? Your talk page is at 159kb now, and is only going to get larger. Archiving will keep the page to a manageable size. Just a thought. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably archive it at the end of the year. Haven't decided how yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it's easiest just to let MiszaBot do it automatically and using LegoBot to automatically index the archives really helps when searching. --19:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into doing it that way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Kitten hug to you!

Thanks for pointing out my imperfect patrolling! Kitten hug to you!

Cawhee (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Awwww. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Zendaya edit

I wanted Zendaya wikipedia page to be like a biography page just compare Zendaya page to Miley Cyrus or Demi Lovato some stuff witch happen in her career is not even on their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickikennybiggestfan (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as the information is well-referenced it is good to have in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)