User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 30
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
This article seems to need a bit of work – I just had to do a MOS:ETHNICITY fix to the lede (though I question if "Mexican" should even be included there), and the portrait image at the article in Montalbán in character, which were not supposed to do... Just pointing this out to you, and I know you've kept an eye on this article before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Same IP editor (148.101.50.30) is now causing problems here, and at Nathalia Ramos. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- What about the IB portrait image? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It is definitely an image of his character, not him, and should be replaced with a free-use image, if we can find a good one. I looked on the Commons category for him and most of the images there were performance images and promo images. The ones that weren't are not very good quality. There does seem to be some pragmatic flexibility for images of dead people, though, and an iconic performance photo with him in costume may be the best representation we can get of him in the height of his career. I wouldn't delete it from the article as I think this image does add value, but it would be great if we could find a better representation of him, not his character. I do note that the captions is clear that this is him in character so there is no confusion about what the image is showing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
New message from Sjones23
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Coco (2017 film) § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
November 2022
Wasn't sure if that needed a source since the categories list it as such. I put one now. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if we should seek page protection here, or go for a block of the IP – I've just given the IP a Level 3 warning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: He visually identified her in a post credit scene, which normally doesn't count as part of a film anyway, in a director's cut of a film. She wasn't credited in that film, so this won't be considered an additional acting credit for her, she got the only credit she's going to get in the original film. Now as a cameo it could be noted but it should be sourced with a name attached, not an editor making a visual identification. Likely good faith edits, but should be directed to discuss this on the talk page and not edit war. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's no longer "good faith" when I warned them about BRD, and told them to discuss on Talk page (where there's already a discussion against the "Cindy Moon" thing), and then they ignored that and almost immediately re-added in a purely WP:DE fashion. Oh, and they're also guilty of 'rowspan' vandalism of the Filmography. On the general point, I am of the opinion that roles of this type should not be added to a Filmography unless they are (strongly) secondarily sourced – which never happens when it's just "archival footage" as is the case here. But, bottom line: if the IP doesn't drop this, and fails to discuss, they need to be blocked (or the page protected). This looks to me like purely trolling editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: 89.19.88.* made 3 edits today using 2 IPs, not to the point of 3RR. Might be same editor as some of the others adding similar info though. Best way to stop if this continues is RPP stating disruptive edits by multiple IPs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Was someone trying to mention the cameo before? I'll go to the talk page. 89.19.88.149 (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: 89.19.88.* made 3 edits today using 2 IPs, not to the point of 3RR. Might be same editor as some of the others adding similar info though. Best way to stop if this continues is RPP stating disruptive edits by multiple IPs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's no longer "good faith" when I warned them about BRD, and told them to discuss on Talk page (where there's already a discussion against the "Cindy Moon" thing), and then they ignored that and almost immediately re-added in a purely WP:DE fashion. Oh, and they're also guilty of 'rowspan' vandalism of the Filmography. On the general point, I am of the opinion that roles of this type should not be added to a Filmography unless they are (strongly) secondarily sourced – which never happens when it's just "archival footage" as is the case here. But, bottom line: if the IP doesn't drop this, and fails to discuss, they need to be blocked (or the page protected). This looks to me like purely trolling editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that my rationale for the change was this part of the MOS (emphasis mine): "In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion." Am I misunderstanding what it means when it says this? Do we know that Totah prefers her former name for past events. (Will definitely note that in my... whatever's the opposite of defense (incrimination?) because I really should have made sure I remembered the whole chunk when I was actively doing them, when I made the first edits I had reread MOS:GID but managed to only read the first sentence ("use their current name") and yet skim over the latter sentence (provide parenthetical or footnote). Whoops.) - Purplewowies (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Purplewowies: According to the article ref 3 at Josie Totah, she didn't come out with a new name, she was always "been here" and used J. J. Totah as a stage name after she transitioned. She changed her name for credits to Josie Totah and that may have been what one of the Js in her former credit meant. Her actual birth name is never revealed or used anywhere so no deadnaming issues. Her former stage name is not gender identifying so there is no misgendering by using it which is the main goal of MOS:GID. In her case it is just a change in how she wants to be credited, same as any other actor who chooses a new credited name. In the articles that J.J. Totah appear it is as a credit and no further discussion of her is there. In verifying credit data J.J. Totah is what is listed. If we put another name there it wouldn't match the references and we'd have to explain the discrepancy to the reader, and call attention to something not related to the article, in text in that article where her name is mostly a passing mention. Anyone who is interested will click on the link for the credited name and get the full story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- "If we put another name there it wouldn't match the references and we'd have to explain the discrepancy to the reader" My understanding of the guideline, alongside the times I've seen it applied, is that this is what editors are supposed to do (use most recent identification, even if it's not most common in sources), though I skipped the step of providing the footnote when it came to the reverted edits.
- (I also think that "one of the Js could have meant Josie" feels like synthesis, but that's beside the point. My reading of the source you mentioned (which doesn't appear to be referencing not coming out with a new name when it mentions she's "always been here") suggests she started using Josie instead of her former name once she transitioned publicly (specifically, references to the Time article where she came out publicly, which references her current name in a way that reads as connected to her coming out), as well as the phrasing of "But after her Time piece, she came back — not as J.J., but as Josie.") so to me it still feels tied to deadnaming, but you are right that she was out to family/on a private level before then in a way that could mean her former credit name was decided on with that in mind.)
- I suppose I made the edits in part to also try to unify how her pre-(public)-transition credits are described--there was a mixture of ones still using her prior name with zero reference to the change and alongside other ones using her current name with a footnote (what seemed the more correct option under GID). - Purplewowies (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- J.J. Totah obviously isn't her birth name. As a post transition name chosen to keep her birth name confidential there is no restriction on using it in articles. She should be treated like any other actress who changes how she wants to be credited, keep the credited name when listing credits and let the redirect point to the current article. The former name mentioned in GID is a pre-transition notable name and preference is given to the current name over that in articles. It doesn't apply to all future name changes. Her name in all articles should remain J.J. Totah when that is the name used in references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose I made the edits in part to also try to unify how her pre-(public)-transition credits are described--there was a mixture of ones still using her prior name with zero reference to the change and alongside other ones using her current name with a footnote (what seemed the more correct option under GID). - Purplewowies (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at recent edits here, and determine if there's anything to them? Thanks. (In general, I don't like protrait image changes without an attempt to discuss on the Talk page...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Current image looks a bit suspect but uploader on Commons looks legit there even if blocked on enwiki. Line at bottom should be cropped out. I couldn't find anything to indicate it is a copyvio on Commons though. It is a better image than the new one in my opinion. An image with an open mouth laugh isn't a good representation of normal appearance, a normal smiling one is better. Should be discussed before changing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Andi Matichak Birthdate
Her Official Birthdate is in fact June 7 1994 this has been confirmed by people that know her personally. SolidSaturn5663 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SolidSaturn5663: What reliable source reflects that? Otherwise unless she states it directly herself on her verified official social media site, it must meet WP:BLPPRIVACY. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- People that actually know her personally I cited them confirming her birthdate and it got removed SolidSaturn5663 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SolidSaturn5663: The text in blue is links to articles that give explanations. Click them to see what they say. General convention is to point to policy articles for this sort of discussion mostly as the articles have more detail and to show which things are actually Wikipedia policy that we all must follow. WP:BLPPRIVACY is a major one. The only thing we will take as a valid source is an established reliable source or her own (not someone else's) words on the subject on some website proven to belong to her. The point is this sort of info must be either widely published, or stated by herself to show that she is OK with that info being released. Some people want to keep it private and we honor that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- People that actually know her personally I cited them confirming her birthdate and it got removed SolidSaturn5663 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The We Baby Bears hoaxer/vandal looks to be back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Off 1 year range block. Reported as resumed to AIV. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate it if you could keep an eye on this one for a little while – got an editor who is trying to use the |partner= parameter incorrectly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Is Hollywood Life a reliable source for bio info like this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#Hollywood Life commented on that. No clear guidance there but one considered it a reliable source. In my opinion looking at their about page, I can't find a reason to reject them outright but it would be best to get a better source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Contributions of Coimenda
Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well. Please take a look at this user's contributions and keep an eye on them. Besides a series of disruptive/questionable edits, they are creating pointless redirects of episodes for what looks to be every episode of Lab Rats and other series. Speedy deletion requests en masse will likely be needed here. Redirects in the case of episodes are for when an episode will eventually be notable enough to have its own article. These episodes of Lab Rats, Mighty Med, etc. will never be notable enough to have their own standalone articles. Amaury • 16:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Creating pointless categories that aren't useful, as they're currently blank and won't ever reach the minimum threshold of 12 links, and disruptively moving pages. Adding redirects to categories to bloat them also doesn't count. Amaury • 17:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Update: Geraldo, IJBall, and MPFitz1968, account has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of another account. Amaury • 17:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Request
Geraldo, could you please assess the following image, including its rationale? – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vanessa_Ferlito_Photoshoot.jpg
It looks like a professionally taken image, though the rationale is claiming otherwise. For context, please also see recent discussion at Talk:Vanessa Ferlito. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: C:COM:VRT has received sufficient proof that it was released under free-use. Commons Bureaucrat has blessed it. I checked the tag was added correctly by that Bureaucrat and not just copied from another file like sometimes happens when people fake it. Looks like son was at photoshoot with his mom and snapped the picture with his iPhone. Posed set up by the pro so has the pro look but pro didn't take photo. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Hm. This may be a case of an episode that aired as a single showing with a single set of ratings, but was actually two episodes aired back-to-back, like the series premiere of Andi Mack, with the two episodes sold separately on Amazon and iTunes, which are, as we know, the determining factor in how we number things, in addition to the original airing. For this series, both Amazon and iTunes list "The Escape" as two separate episodes, with Part 1 and Part 2 labels. However, DisneyNOW shows it a single entry of 44 minutes. So not sure on this one, as it seems complicated. Amaury • 23:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury: DisneyNOW reflects what was originally aired as it is basically Disney Channel's streaming version. From my brief scan there, there was no mid show break with credits. Futon backs that up too. Lots of conflicting info but what was originally aired is what we are supposed to document. Looks like they sold it as two separate episodes to all other outlets, so the original airing seems like a special exception. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't have time to do it right now, but the rest of this IP's edits will likely need to be reverted – pretty clear attempt to add some kind of WP:SPAM content to multiple LoE articles. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Range blocked for a month. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Velca Design
I hope not to bother @Geraldo Perez, me and other users had to create (for an Educational Project) this draft page: Draft: Velca Design, we have submitted it on 9th of December and we wanted to kindly ask you if you could have a look and tell us how to improve it in order to fix all the mistakes. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraliuc2 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- talk page lurkerThere are many many assertions of facts that are need to be linked to a citation or removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Dylan O'Donnell
Good afternoon @Geraldo Perez! Me and a group of other students are working on creating an article on Wikipedia for an Educational Project. The Draft is the following: Draft: Dylan O'Donnell; we have submitted it for review on 14th of December and we are looking forward to receiving any feedback. Therefore, we would be glad if you could review it, telling us if it needs any improovements or if there are any mistakes that have to be fixed. Thanks in advance for your time!LIUCLucrezia03 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Requesting that you take a look at this, to see if you think it passes WP:NALBUM. Ping MPFitz1968 as well. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I think it does. I checked when the split was done. It actually charted and appears to have significant coverage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting case: John Dye
OK, I have an interesting case for you – the 2011 death of actor John Dye. The crux of the issue is discussed at Talk:John Dye#Stop removing the death information! I can't figure out what the "proper" course of action is here. WP:BDP doesn't shed much light on it – I think WP:BDP is saying that WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply to individuals that have been dead over a decade. So can a death certificate placed on Commons be used as a primary source verification for the cause of death?... There were one or two admins who used to frequent WP:BLPs, like Ponyo, but I haven't seen them around lately, so I thought I'd ask you to see what you think... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: BDP is basically saying that BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply to people who have been dead for more than 2 years. I can see no reason to not use a death certificate as a source of info in this case. An obituary would be better, of course, as a secondary source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to post that to the Talk page of the article? I think it would help if more than one editor chimed in on this, for future reference for other editors...
- Problem is that the obits were published well before the death certificate was (which was released 5 months after death), and no media seem to have followed up with stories about the actual cause of death. So we are stuck with the death certificate. (And, as a sidenote, I'm not even sure how to cite that! – there's no 'cite record' template, so maybe just use the generic {{Citation}} template?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Just a generic cite is fine. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Geraldo Perez: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!
Hello, Geraldo Perez! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Ho ho ho
Mwewwy Chwistmas! (?)
I originally came here to ask you why you reverted my edit here? I believe the consensus is to connect double nationalities with a - ? Synotia (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Synotia: It's absolutely not – see MOS:ETHNICITY. The correct format for two (notable) nationalities is "and". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I may need back up here – editor is performing unexplained change of episode ordering... Yes, this article is already a mess in terms of this (should be in broadcast order, but isn't), but you still need to explain your changes which this editor is making no attempt to do. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Shrek the Third
Look for information about this movie on Imdb or Filmaffinity. 83.54.149.157 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did. He is listed as co-director, not director. Only the person with the director credit goes in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Regarding the edits on this filmography, I feel like there is maybe some confusion as you kept saying "first column only is the header column for the table, not the second" for why you were removing the row scopes. As WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay on style, it merely suggests that the best use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns is acceptable, but rowspan formatting should not be used in other columns - which I agree with as it affects WP:ACCESSABILITY. But FILMOGRAPHY doesn't mention row scopes, only rowspans - which are different. The row scopes you kept removing are per actual Manual of Style - MOS:DTAB. It's been debated whether to put the row scopes in the first or second column as they are for screenreaders and need to be in the row that will pertain the most information which is why you see row scopes in year or title columns sometimes. So thank you for adding them back to the first column, but just know that theres a difference and removing them altogether rather than have them stay in the 2nd column isn't an improvement. Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts :) Thanks! LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Lady Lotus: A recent discussion of the issue is at WT:Manual of Style/Tables#Conflicting guidance on headers. End result was inconclusive, but status quo reflected in table examples at MOS:TABLES and WP:ACTOR for filmography is year in the first column tagged and highlighted as the header column with the scope="row" tag. My reading is there is a tension between what DTAB recommends, what actually is the most important column, and what visual readers expect and find easiest to read. Second column as the header column is confusing and unexpected for some people. Also screen readers were noted as having improved a lot so can handle tables better now. Featured lists for filmography generally follow FILMOGRAPHY, Most have the year first tagged as the header column, some have the title first tagged as header, and some have year first, and the second title column tagged as header. I like to defer to what the projects recommend even if it is essay level guidance in general. They have addressed the issue and chosen to recommend formatting that has some level of consensus agreement within the project. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
— YoungForever(talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
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 Merry Christmas, 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
— YoungForever(talk) 07:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you please add this article to your watchlist (of kid's TV show articles that you watch)? At some point in the more distant past, it looks like someone added "hoax" cast to this series (Lucy Fry and Amy Ruffle) – I can't tell when this was done because the article has also had a massive revision to its history due to a copyright violation. Anyway, the two actresses in question are not listed on IMDb among the "main cast", so I am pretty sure it's a hoax – I removed them yesterday, and otherwise cleaned up that article. Now we have an IP editor (possibly the same one who added the hoax in the first place?) trying to restore the hoaxing content. So someone needs to watch this one. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Ranges
Hi, Geraldo! You're familiar with IP ranges. What ranges do the following IPs belong to? What is the base IP for each of them? As you may have noticed. our sockpuppet Orchomen is back, so I need to request block renewals for these ranges, as these were previously blocked for two years.
Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well so they can follow this. Thanks. Amaury • 19:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Amaury: See list at https://www.whatismyip.com/asn/5384/ All Emirates Internet in United Arab Emirates and includes those 3. Like playing Whack a Mole, could turn up on any of them. If looking for range blocks, look for smallest range that includes the IP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A31.218.0.0%2F16 is off a 6 month block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A37.245.128.0%2F17 was recently blocked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Don't see previous blocks on special:contributions/94.58.128.0/17 Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- The last one might be slightly different from the other ones beginning with 94 (User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen), as, while I'm not a 100%, I'm fairly sure that one's been ranged blocked before. Amaury • 20:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- All activity in last 3 months is 94.58.128.0 to 94.58.191.255 which is special:contributions/94.58.128.0/18. I saw no blocks in the /16, /17 and /18 ranges that covered that. Won't get blocks for anything more than /16 which is 94.58... Other 94 ranges need to be treated separately. 94.56 57 58 and 59 are in that ASNGeraldo Perez (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- The last one might be slightly different from the other ones beginning with 94 (User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen), as, while I'm not a 100%, I'm fairly sure that one's been ranged blocked before. Amaury • 20:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)