User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re: Nora "Dershlitt"

I see that you removed the surname of a character on the List of iCarly characters that was added by an anonymous IP. Nora Dershlitt mentioned her last name in the video e-mail she sent to Carly and Sam. The only real dispute seems to be over the spelling of the character's surname. ----DanTD (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked with IMDB for both the show and the actor and found no reference to a last name for Nora. I have been removing a lot a namecruft from articles and am dubious about any non-credited name that does not have some support in some other source - IMDB is somewhat reliable for casting. I would like to see a reference, such as the one you mentioned, to support the addition of the last name - episode name and quote from that episode would be good. At least to show that is not just some made up name. On the other hand, a name mentioned only once is somewhat trivial and really does not need to be in the article as that is not how the character is commonly referred to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(I added a variation of my above reply to talk:List of iCarly characters#Namecruft. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fair use on File:Jade West.jpg

I thought you removed the image because it was licensed for the list of Victorious characters, but not for Elizabeth Gillies. That was why I added the extra FU license. ----DanTD (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied above and replied in context at User talk:DanTD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You can display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello Geraldo Perez! I hope you accept this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the brownie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Email

Got your email. I'm working on cleaning up those edits; thanks for the heads-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Justice

I requested WP:RPP and was denied for not enough activity. I think 2 to 3 vandals a day is enough.?. Right?--intelati^talk 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is judgment call. It depends on who the admin is who looks at the report. It is not so much how much vandalism is happening but whether or not selective blocking of prolific vandals will solve the problem. If the only edits over a period of a week or so are vandalism and vandal reverts and that activity is heavy a protect is more likely. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Liz Gillies photo

Hi. I believe it is difficult to find a free image of this actress. Some may disagree, but that photo is amazing. Is there anyway to save this photo? Or, possibly find a free image, as you claim. Tinton5 (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Difficult does not matter, reasonably possible is all that counts for images of living people. Actresses go to lots of events and lots of people post their pictures on flickr. For example User:David Shankbone, a wiki editor takes lots of pro level pictures of celebrities as well and sometimes a request to him can get a good one. This photo was is an obvious pro photo taken at The Kids' Choice awards and it is unlikely that the pro who took the photo gave the site you got the photo from permission. The license terms on the image page are explicit: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project". Exceptions are extremely hard to justify particularly for people out in public a lot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will make a request, seeing the various photos he has taken and released for public use. Tinton5 (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IP user may blank his talk page

Hello Geraldo. I think that 76.26.176.202 (talk · contribs) should be allowed to blank his talk page so long as he is not contesting his block. See WP:BLANKING. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but according to how I read WP:BLANKING he should at least leave the ISP notice and the last block message (i.e. sanctions that are currently in effect) alone. Your call of course. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is if you and he both continue to revert, what should an admin do? I would not feel comfortable disabling his talk page access if he is only blanking notices. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't continue to revert, of course as I'll go with your judgment although I strongly doubt, based on his edits so far, that he has any intention of asking for an unblock. I'm not going to edit war with a blocked user. I have already assumed that you were going to rejected my block request with the reasons you gave - I have no problems with that result. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I declined the request, and concur with EdJohnston. The ISP notice has to stay, so I readded that. Even the block notices can be removed as long as the user isn't requesting an unblock. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

LWB TV Show

Seems the LWB Wiki article should be modified to be LWB (TV Series) (like most other shows) as the LWB term is more generic and used in a variety of forms. Otherwise the article should be able to note the other usages of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.66.63 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently there is only one article with the name "Life with Boys" so it is not necessary to add "(TV series)" to the name. See NCIS: Los Angeles for example of how TV series are named when there is a unique title. See also WP:Article titles. If some other article with the same name were to be written we would either create a disambiguation page with a short description of both articles under the searched for name or put WP:hatnotes at the top of each article pointing to the other. Generally the first article with a name keeps it and the subsequent ones have bracketed disambiguation terms. This is all open for discussion when there are multiple articles with the same names as to which one gets the common name or if neither do and the disambiguation page gets the name. If you wish to create an article about a blog call it, for now, "Life with Boys (blog)" or some other unique name. Make sure the article meets the WP:Notability and WP:Notability (web) requirements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies in that case. Thanks for the clarification.--24.127.66.63 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: September 2011

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't delete or edit anything. I just added a comment under it. I wasn't vandalizing. Jaxsonista (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the diff [1] - that was a pretty major chunk of commentary, a lot of it mine, removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Added - I assume you edited an old revision by mistake so didn't mean to remove later added commentary. I removed the notice from your talk page based on what you said you were attempting to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Victorious S02E12

The photo I posted as a proof that this is the new episode of Victorious isn't photoshop-made, it was posted yesterday on the official Victorious FaceBook account.

---> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150338531785053&set=pu.127860300052&type=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupewrest (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a promo for the movie Fred 2: Night of the Living Fred, it has nothing to do with Victorious other than Daniella Monet being in both. Check the link for http://www.nick.com/shows/fred/about and http://www.nick.com/shows/fred/characters/bertha.html Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Okay, then this was my bad, thanks for the explanation. ;-) However it's sad that there is no new Victorious episode on 10/22. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupewrest (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Jessie Episodes

Does making the assumption that just because there's breaks between writers makes an episode page bad or doing it wrong? Or just using &'s makes a page better than one that doesn't? Sure a lot of pages are using that, but what if there are 3 or 4 writers, that'll be a pretty big column. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied in context at User talk:Alec2011#List of Jessie episodes Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Left-aligned images

Actually, an admin switched an image I had added to a right alignment and said that was the reason, and I assumed he was right. I have a screen reading browser that I use to check for accessibility issues here sometimes. I checked the page before and after the edit, and it read it confusingly before, so I changed it. However, it also read confusingly after, so I have no idea. I might've been (read: was probably, like I am usually about tech-ish stuff like that) wrong. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Copied and replied in context at User talk:Purplewowies. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the reflinks on the Jessie article. I admit I'm guilty of being lazy and just copy/pasting the original reflinks instead of typing new codes for the duplicates. I just hope you were able to use Wikipedia:AWB. My apologies if you did all that manually. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was all manual - it was easy to do but a bit tedious. Mostly copying and pasting text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Like I was saying - Typing reference codes and then inline sourcing everything is, by far, the biggest time suck when I'm writing articles (although I understand why it needs to be done), so I just keep copy/pasting the full reflink and then usually ask an admin with automated privileges to come in and clean everything up after I'm finished. It's a lot faster for them to do it with the AWB tool than it is for me to sit and type a separate set of codes. Next time you can just let me know when reference codes are getting out of hand and I'll contact an admin about it so you won't have to spend your time doing it manually. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I just find it relaxing to do some brainless repetitive activity on wiki so I work on references a bit, sometimes some other gnomey stuff. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ChaCha as a source of info

Thank you for providing a reference for the information you added to My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series) and List of My Babysitter's a Vampire episodes. Unfortunately the reference you provided does not meet wikipedia requirement as being a reliable source of information.

When I asked the question to Chacha "what is your source of information about Disney Channel programs?" I got the answer "Most of the information is in my head. If it's not, ChaCha finds it on the Web. ChaCha again!". Basically this means we don't know the real underlying source of the info, we don't know who the person who answers the question is, and we don't know the level (if any) fact checking that is done. This means so we can't use ChaCha answers as it is not a WP:reliable source of information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Could i get you to see Talk:Canadians#About redirect before we edit war anymore.Moxy (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch!

Nice catch on spotting the tag team vandals.[2] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they are the same person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Image map request

Hi there. I've just added a cast image to the Kickin' It article and I was hoping you could create an image map for it the same way you did with the Jessie cast photo. I'd never seen the image map on Wikipedia before you made the one for the Jessie photo, so I have no idea about how to create one, but, if it's not too much trouble, it would be great if you could create one for the Kickin' It cast photo since the cast is "scattered" in the image, making it difficult to identify the characters in a standard "left-to-right" format in the text of the file box. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I put an image map at Talk:Kickin' It#Image map for cast with an explanation. The tool to generate the maps is really easy to use, by the way, and I provided links to it if you want to play with it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at the tool and the tutorial, but I'm really bad at understanding that kind of thing (I couldn't even figure out how to load an image), so I appreciate your help. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't even think to make the image hidden on the talk page. I would have left it, but editors (and bots) are touchy about images showing up on pages without rationale (I've even had bots remove images from my sandbox pages while I'm in the middle of editing articles). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had that happen as well for copyrighted images used without a FUR for the use. Good to see the image map get used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for everything! ★♛iluvselenagomez1234♛★ (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shannon Flynn (director)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shannon Flynn (director) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. reddogsix (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. You appear to be correct; as a soft-redirect it would not be eligible for deletion under the CSD under which it was deleted. I will re-instate the article. - Vianello (Talk) 00:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page restoration in progress. I didn't think you'd still want it since it was arguing a now-removed CSD nomination, but I'm fine with re-adding it. - Vianello (Talk) 00:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had some other explanory stuff there about the soft redirect reasons that preceded the CSD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

No problem. You've anticipated me to tag that redirect. Thanks :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 01:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Season Premiere

You've used the 3-revert rule, the information you're providing is TW/OR. That page has no references so anything in that page isn't reliable. These's pages (1 2 use the reference of what the reliable source states by the channel of when the season premiere is. It's not by the "first episode" aired. According to the Wikipedia:Featured lists page, it's standard practice to use the reference of the channel and not the "Season Premiere" linked Wikipedia page. Some pages don't even link that page, it's just bold text (which should be used as that page has no references). EDIT: You also missed the t=fact that this isn't a "Season Premiere" but rather a series premiere which is treated differently.- Alec2011 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied above to Talk:List of Austin & Ally episodes#Season premiere to keep in context with discussion I started there and replied there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Credits

Why does it matter how the person is credited on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not the movie credits, so why not put Duncan at the end of it? Also, since when did you start coming onto the Disney Channel articles and editing? --50.28.142.153 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We put stuff in the article that is supported by the sources used, in this case the episode itself is a primary source reference. It matters because that is what the source actually says. The credits were directly copied from the source. If you don't want the note, include the info in the summary paragraph. There is no restriction on who can edit articles. I saw the episode and added info, that is kind of the point to Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, the sources for A.N.T. Farm say that the first episode is a series preview and not the actual premiere, hence the date I put was correct. --50.28.142.153 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The instructions for the template say date first aired. It doesn't matter how Disney labeled the episode, it is irrelevant to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

'&' and 'and' policy

I need your opinion on the"iCarly" dispute on my Talk page. She's claiming the WGA says "and" is when 2 writers don't work on the script together but separately and "&" is when they work on it together so she keeps putting "and" between the 2 writers. I changed it to "&" because on Wikipedia, the standard is to put an ampersand between 2 writers and "and" between 3 or more writers. What she claims is true but for television purposes, on Wikipedia, we use "&" for 2 writers weather they worked on the script together or not, it's just used to show 2 writers worked on the script. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

lyrics are copyrighted

only exceptions if they appear in the public domain.

well, then, why doesn't wikipedia get permission to have the lyrics posted?

or is that beyond your bailiwick ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmazuji (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied and replied in context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sierra McCormick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land of the Lost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning my WoWp edit

Uh yeah,I didn't add the "bogus link",it was already there Silvershrek (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous anon edit fixed the corrupted wikilink, you reverted the anon. My edit summary was just describing why I restored to the anon's edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So I missed that,sue me. Been preoccupied this week. Silvershrek (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC) And no,I'm not trying to be hostile..so,sorry if thats what my last "comment" was tryin' to say Silvershrek (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Understanding....

So now when Nick says a new season in 2012 is okay but when Austin & Ally says the premiere is on December 4th is wrong (See [[3]])? We have to go by the first air date of the episode. In this case, The first air date of Season 3 was A Christmas Tori. It's the first season 3 episode to air. It doesn't matter how nick promotes when a "new" season will air but by the first air date of an episode... regardless if it's before the final episode of Season 2. You said "Even though Disney states it's premiering on December 4th, the FIRST air date is December 2nd so THAT should be the date of the Season Premiere. But now you say "go with what Nick says." Contradict yourself? - Alec2011 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Different situations, different set of wiki editors as well. I don't see any contradiction in my positions. First issue is what Disney marketing says against the reality of what really happened (my position - reality always wins), second is how Nickelodeon marketing defines things against how Schneider defines things (my position - Nickelodeon wins against Schneider).

We care in all the TV series articles about first airing and last airing of the first run of a TV series. The fact that Disney has their own definition of the word "premiere" that doesn't match normal English usage does not make the airing date of the second episode the first airing of a series. Reality overrides marketing. We reached a compromise on the Disney shows of listing the first airing and labeled it as "Preview" and the second airing and labeled it "Premiere" as described by Disney marketing. The compromise seemed to keep most people happy.

The issue with Nickelodeon and Schneider and who gets to describe when a season begins is pretty well discussed in the Victorious talk page. It is an editor consensus choice as to whether or not a particular article goes with production runs or TV seasons. This is an issue with every Nickelodeon show and comes up at the start of every season of each show. If you think Nickelodeon should be ignored in this issue, argue the point in that discussion, some people already have. The fact that Amazon and iTunes go by production runs is a strong argument to ignore Nickelodeon. On the other hand the article does describe it as Nickelodeon show so there is a strong argument (one that I have made) to go with how Nickelodeon defines things. And yes, it would be nice if the Nickelodeon show articles had some consistency in this issue. Every time the issue comes up a different set of editors work on the consensus so it is not surprising that different decisions are made. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But in realty, the third season has already started on December 3rd, the first airing of the episode. The reference says the season premiere is January 28th however in reality the season premiere was December 3rd. If you look at the That's So Raven list of episodes page, 3 episodes of season 1 aired during Season 2 but are still listed in season 1. We should do the same with Victorious. Weather Nick states the "Premiere" is on January 28th is not relevant it's what has actually happened in reality. I don't get the Nick vs. Dan when i'm not talking about what he states. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Eventually the article will likely be changed to reflect what is on the DVD sets. I expect that is what happened for That's So Raven. The DVD sets are the final say as to what episodes constitute a season and the DVD sets are also a major part of the article. The DVD sets usually follow production runs as do Amazon and iTunes. As of now, though, we don't know what will on the DVD season sets so the best info is Nick promotions.

The reason it looks like a Nick vs Dan issue for now (and it actually isn't) is that Dan has stated that "A Christmas Tori" is the first episode of the third productions run (by giving it a production code of 301) and thereby implied to people who confuse production runs with seasons that it is the first episode of season 3. The issue is - who defines what a season is - and this is purely a definition issue. Producers don't deal in seasons, they care about production orders. Generally they match. Sometimes they overlap. Different wiki articles deal with the overlap in different ways. Tiebreaker is generally what is on the DVD sets when they get released. So far, for Victorious, the general leaning of the editors is to go with what Nick says for now as that is the best information we have from an authoritative source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I did with Austin & Ally but you said in reality, December 2nd is the way to go. This is the same situation. The first episode aired is the Season Premiere. Same with the iCarly episode. nick said "The Season premiere of iCarly on September 10, 2011, however the first episode aired was "iLost my Mind in August." It does not matter what Nick says at this point. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No I basically said a TV series starts when the first episode airs. There is no confusion with this no matter what the network called that first episode. There is possible confusion, however, during changes in seasons that is not there at the start of a whole new TV series. The network is under no obligation to show the episodes it bought in any particular order, or even at all and they can choose what they call a season - it is their prerogative. Their employee producer doesn't get to make this call. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you cannot use this as a reference for a series premiere as you did. The article title is "Season" not "Series." Fine then I get to move Episode 1 of Season 5 of iCarly to Season 4 as that counts as season 4 not 5 as Nick announced the Season premiere of iCarly on September 10th. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just be aware that iCarly has DVD sets and the DVD sets are the final word on everything. As per Season 1 premiere vs overall series premiere, they usually coincide. If they don't then the first episode of a series should listed as a pre-season 1 stand-alone special not part of any season. I would have no problems if you want to do that, others might. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Nick and Disney are way too confusing, you weren't much help either. I was going by what you were saying about Season premiere. I night as well just wait until the DVD to move it to season. Disney doesn't usually release DVD's so the I'm in the Band is acceptable. i wish Nick and Disney followed the major networks in airing their series in order. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried my best. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. I get it now. I know what to do in the future. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Montana Forever DVD?

Since DVD's are the final say in seasons, how would you go about the final season of Hannah Montana? The DVD says "I'll Always Remember You (Parts 1 & 2) on the DD but it's aired as one episode. Does that mean I can add it like iCarly and put episode 9-10 in the episode list as it states (Parts 1 & 2)? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following Hannah Montana for quite a while so am not really familiar with what would work on that show's articles. I personally would tend to go with whatever is on the DVDs and use that as a reference but a lot depends on whoever is watching the article and how the articles are organized. I'd look at the edit history first see who is most active and ask them. I have noticed that sometimes multipart episodes are first shown as a single episode special with no breaks and one set of credits and then rebroadcast and put on DVDs as separate standalone episodes. If you know what happened the article should reflect that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Geek Charming and sockpuppetry

I thought you might be interested in this as you've reverted a few edits made by a sockpuppet that I noticed. The SPI case that I opened revealed quite a few sockpuppets. In short, be suspicious of editors with "cece", "tyler", "tink" or variations in their names, especially if they're making the same edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion Needed

Your opinion is welcome on iCarly episode talk page. I already discussed the DVD release option that it's the way to go but your opinion is always welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec2011 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My Babysitter's a Vampire (season 1)

Just because the series only has one season currently released, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be split into another article. Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness has only one season and is currently split. The episode summaries are becoming very lengthy. Plus a second season is on the way, needing space to add the next 13 episodes. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Then propose a split using the procedures at WP:SPLIT. I won't support a split as the article is too short to be split and we normally need a few seasons for this to make sense. Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness should probably be merged back to a single article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The infobox for the list of episodes contains information about the French version of Teletoon premiering the series on February 28, 2011. This was a sneak peak, not an official premiere. The same with the English Teletoon. Also, there seems to be clean up needed in the episode summaries, I removed the Notes from the summaries because it was all trivia. I've now heard that trivia is not a good thing to add on Wikipedia and should be avoided. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The main article says "the series premiered on Télétoon, in French, on February 28, 2011". I don't think Télétoon does "sneak peeks" like Disney does. As for notes, trivia doesn't belong but make sure it really is trivia and not something important to the episode, best to leave it if you are not sure. Also, please use edit summaries, it is easier if people don't have to guess at what you intended. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

House of Anubis and List of House of Anubis episodes

Thank you for your efforts to keep these articles consistent and up to date with information. They have been often wrought with spamming and vandalism, and for a while, I thought I was the only member keeping an eye on them. I really appreciate the work you've done on them. Avatarfanx2 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Prod. Codes?

I want to put references for the iCarly episodes (like I did for the Wizards season 3 & 4 pages). However the later half of season 2 (that was split to season 3 but now's one section) list them as 300 numbers and they list the real season 3 as 300 as well. Should I just link Season 3 & 4 using Futon Critic? - 02:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick cleanup of 64.90.40.46 - this person is a stalker who's reverting my edits in an attempt at harassment. --GenericBob (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about Miranda Cosgrove

Greetings, I noticed your edits to various pages relating to pop culture. I was wondering if you happen to know if this source is good for Miranda Cosgrove's heritage: [4], and at the bottom, it gives this source: "Biography Today. Detroit, Michigan: Omnigraphics. 2009. p. 26." Would this be acceptable? Tinton5 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The source they used, "Biography Today. Detroit, Michigan: Omnigraphics. 2009. p. 26.", would likely be a good source based on what is stated in http://www.biographytoday.com/about.html. I wouldn't use http://ethnicelebs.com as a reference as they look to be an aggregator of info much as wiki is and are unlikely to be doing any fact checking on their sources. It is a judgment call whether or not we can trust that they copied the info accurately from the source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just checked and the "Biography Today" source is already being heavily used in the Miranda Cosgrove article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. So we should hold off including the information from Bio Today, stating she is of Italian, Irish, Welsh, Russian, and Armenian descent? I am currently looking at other sources to verify this. Tinton5 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bio Today is fine if you can get a copy and can verify what info is in it. To bad there is not an online web copy. It is already being used in the Miranda Cosgrove article for other info (see reference 7) so it is a trusted reliable source there. Don't use ethnicelebs as a source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Unstoppable (China Anne McClain song)

Hello Geraldo Perez. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Unstoppable (China Anne McClain song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the source site has a CC-BY-SA license, so this is not a copyvio. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I know about the license - it requires attribution as a condition of use - no attribution was given so the use is a copyright violation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You have an interesting point there. I can imagine a rather unprofitable time-wasting loop of "Why? It wasn't a copyvio, CC-BY-SA! - Yes it was, you didn't attribute it - OK, I'll repost it with attribution!" and then we're back where we were; or even "See WP:BEFORE, you should have added attribution rather than deleting"; but I've deleted it, and we'll see what happens. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done that with this editor, adding the proper attributions when needed, and trying to get him to do the proper attributions for stuff he copies from other places/articles - so far he has ignored all my attempts at communication and just carries on. I don't mind cleaning up the occasional attribution problem but I don't want to make a career of following behind this editor and fixing stuff he deliberately refuses to do correctly. This article did not meet notability standards anyway so fixing it seemed rather pointless. I was hoping a deletion of a copied article would help get the point across. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, good, agree re notability, let's hope it does get the point across. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC).

Copyrighted photos and page problems

I have no idea how to upload a file without the copyright experiences. If I can get more tutorials about this, I might me able to learn this. I'm sorry for the copyright violations, but I don't know how to get a picture of my own. Everything shouldn't just be copyrighted because if the internet DOES NOT want us to have its picture and claims that its copyrighted, then why should they post them? Sometimes people can get confused and frustrated, but I have NO idea how to get a photo of my own and I really hope that someone would give me some tips and hints about these things. This is kind of like Wikipedia because there is always a catch to these things. Its hard for people out there to get things done if no one has NO idea how to do it, so can someone please help me? And I also wanna talk to you about the pages I've made on Wikipedia because most of the them are getting removed or switched back to a session. There is always a problem with these things and its makes it TOTALLY impossible to do anything on the Wikimedia Foundation sites and I can't do nothing until someone walks me through it. I'm sorry for the complaints, but the people that tries to do these tings needs LOTS AND LOTS of help!! Somehow the page I split, Shake It Up song was a problem of splitting it apart and you taught me how to do that. I split the page 2 times and it keeps getting switched back, but when it got switched back, the page was still there. Please see these two pages: Shake It Up (Selena Gomez song) and Shake It Up song . I'm having lots of trouble with this and I really need someone to check this page and section, so please do and Thank You!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeAntic14 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a section with a lot of helpful info to your talk page. Most of what you have asked is covered there.

• For pictures you upload to commons - don't do this at all unless you took the picture with your own camera. Don't put someone else's picture up on commons and claim it as your own, which is what you were doing.
• A lot of issues with splitting can be solved with just saying what you are doing in the edit summary when you edit a page - you have been requested to do this many times but still don't. Look at the old messages on your talk page - lots of info there.
• Look at the edit history of pages you edit will generally show why your stuff has been modified.

--Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for sending me the getting help guide on my talk page and I will use it! If I ever need anymore help, I'll come to you because you are more better than any other admin! Sometimes I get confused from THIS and THAT, but if I come to you for more help or use the guide, I can make it through the Wikimedia Foundation sites with no problem at all!! Thanks again, see you later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeAntic14 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/icarly/episodes-season-5/289614 That list is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bow-bb (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Luck Charlie Season 3 Premire Date

I've reverted your post here. The reference only states that the baby comes in June in a one-hour special, it does not indicate it's the season premiere nor does it say "Season Premiere" in the reference. I've reverted back to my old reference here. I made that same edit however not realizing that it says "baby coming in June" not "Season Premiere in June." - Alec2011 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism report relating to Skyler Samuels

Thanks for your report. I agree with you, and have blocked the IP address. However, it is worth bearing in mind that a lot of admins don't tend to look back beyond the most recent history, particularly with IPs, so if earlier edits by the same person are relevant, it may be worth the trouble of putting in a brief mention of the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

{{award2}}

PrestonLong

Sorry, I was just upset that Victorious won favorite TV show at the 2012 Kids Choice Awards. I wanted iCarly to win. PrestonLong (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Hi I messed up the Disney Kickin' It Episodes page. I'm sorry im new to wikipedia. I was just trying to add a summary. Could you please fix it? Much love, thanks! Superstar10499 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you! I'm so sorry, I didn't know. But now I added sources for the List of Shake It up episodes! :) Superstar10499 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for telling me more about Wikipedia, but I don't think I will be staying since people keep deleting my edits. So goodbye! :) Your a great help though so you should stay. :) Superstar10499 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Look, i'm just trying to make the page better. If i'm doing it wrong, then sorry. Ok? PrestonLong (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Then don't speculate about the future. It adds nothing to an article to add predictions of what might happen. Wait until some reliable source such as a press release or program guide gives the details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The NOT Reliable Source

It's not fair that the Wikia sources cannot be used on Wikipedia when they're both the same sources, but Wikia gets their information before Wikipedia does and I use it! If I can't use Wikia, then where can I find other sources besides Zap2it, FutonCritic, MSN, TVGuide, or any other non-spammed Wikipedia sources? Wikia should be a reliable source because it isn't in the spam filter of sources!! Please talk to me about this because I'm not feeling Wikipedia because of copyright or unreliable sources. ~ RomeAntic14 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied on RomeAntic's talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Peyton Roi List

Feel free to undo, but I've redirected it. It's a common mistake people may make when wanting the talk page of the article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I was going to put the redirect in after the page was deleted - I didn't think the discussion in the edit history was necessary but it was just a minor cleanup. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So Random

Thanks for this edit. I agree with you although the site isn't reliable, the video in the post itself is reliable. - Alec (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So Random

Look's like JohnDoe98 is doing a "my way or the highway" route. Disney doesn't usually announce if a show is cancelled. The interview clearly states "Hasn't been renewed yet." Is there a way to fix this? - Alec (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See discussion I started on the So Random talk page because of this. He wasn't the only person against declaring the show over. You may wish to argue the point there. kww (talk · contribs) is a respected admin who supports JohnDoe98 and also removed the interview reference for reasons given in the discussion - I made my case there, looks like vote so far is to wait (probably forever) for a statement from Disney and leave article in limbo until then. Nothing more can be done than be convincing in the talk page discussion and see if you can convince more people and create a consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I made my reply on the page. I agree with you about wait for the announcement from Disney. You'll read more in my reply. - Alec (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The show wasn't mentioned in the upfront presentation to advertisers which is likely the most authoritative source for not being renewed because that is where a renewal would be announced. I doubt that there will ever be an official cancellation announcement from Disney. Just need something from a source that meets WP:RS standards that concludes the show is over. Unfortunately fan-sites won't do. I'll keep watching for more info and see if I can find a good source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

They also didn't mention Wizards of Waverly Place in the 2010 upfront when the new season premiered in November 2010 (although there was a Press Release later on). The only show that was mentioned being cancelled was Jonas L.A. but I'm not sure why Disney doesn't announce "Cancellations" however. I feel thy figure they air all ordered episodes and if they don't pick up a series, they air episodes for a few months after then slowly take them off, same with nick. I highly doubt Disney will announce it. - Alec (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. ---- --Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Rainbow Magic Page Edits

STOP IT. All you're doing is not being accurate. The UK website isn't even updated. (The Princess Page, anyone?)Please stop it right now.

-Anoymonous

P.S. I haven't made an account here, and seeing how many flamers and trolls are on here, I don't want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.31.182 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in the article talk page - if you have a better reference say what it is so we can all verify what is added to the article. Absent that, information from an official site is the verifiable and reliable source that is required for Wikipedia article content per policy. An unverifiable assertion of conflicting information that cannot be independently verified does not override that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Talk Page

I was going to restore the sections of the talk page that was unfortunately removed from my simple edit I had no idea caused that. You however interfered right as I was submitting the restore edit. Sorry for the mishap. I'm going to try to re-post what I said but keep an eye out for that happening again. - Jabrona - 15:32, 13 June 2012

No problem. I think I fixed it and included your last comment as well - figured it was a mistake of some sort. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you fixed it and added back my comment. Thanks again. I was rather surprised to see some one on the page just as I had made the mistake. Neither of us knew we were each restoring the page at the same time but you managed to submit your edit first. I'm still trying to figure out what I did wrong. I didn't erase anything. Oh well, no need to worry about it anymore I guess. - Jabrona - 15:41, 13 June 2012

A.N.T. Farm

The edition I did not think this bad for the series that first premiered and I think that should not go for the series and was released in USA.--Dreamingsvoices (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is referenced info that gives history of the series. It should be in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cathy Moriarty

Thanks for that! That IP vandal has been subtly changing the birthdates on quite a few articles, and it's easy to miss all the changes. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been watching this one. Last batch was just after coming off a block so I reported to WP:AIV and he is now blocked for a further 2 weeks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Victorious

Hi, there's information http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/victorious-2012/episode-11-season-3/how-trina-got-in/303439 for "How Trina Got In" and here's the same information http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/victorious-the-squid-and-the-coconut/EP012366370059 for episode "The Squid and Coconut" also this picture http://www.nickutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Victorious-The-Squid-And-The-Coconut.jpg was in TheSlap before renamed as How Trina Got In, so isn't it the same episode? It will stay for only "official guide and a valid reference"? I thinkit's not really for made this mistake. Bow-bb (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably a mistake as Futon Critic, which is usually as up-to-date as Zap2It, doesn't mention it. Generally we don't second guess what a very reliable source such as Zap2It states - evaluations such as that count as original research. On the other hand, whether or not we put something in an article, referenced or not, is an editorial judgment. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomasfan501 (talk · contribs)

Hi, regarding this editor, my plan is to wait if their is one more instance of vandalism (etc) then go for WP:ARV, so that there isn't any doubt about the warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also he is a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user continuing same pattern. Also deletes warnings per pattern - some people don't notice the edit history in the warning progression. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you know? Have you submitted a sockpuppet report? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK and edit histories of the socks at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thomasfan5034. It is pretty obvious after watching this guy for a while. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah seems pretty close to beyond reasonable doubt to me. I'll leave it to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 18:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Shake it up episodes

Hi, were you the one who sent me the message? Anyways, yesterday - 5/7/2012 - I did a big change to the Shake it up season 2 episode page and I felt bad about it. Give me a chance to say that I'm sorry. I was trying to fix an episode info - the new episode about Japan in it or something - but it went wrong. Once again: I apologise. - A Wikipedia viewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.230.100 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Luck Charlie characters edit history

Sorry, I've restored the edit history for the list. --Canley (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Shake it Up Episode Count

So we've run into an issue. We Cannot use the "26 episode count" reference as we have new info that states it will be higher than 26 so that reference is old and cannot use. Since we know there will be more it's uncertain how many. The latest reference for "August Premieres" states the highest (so far) will be 28 but there will be 28 episodes by the end of August so basically it's the last episode but the reference standards. we might as well just keep it at TBA until we know if "Made In Japan" is the final episode. - Alec (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Do what you think is best. I'll leave it alone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean or anything I also want a second opinion. Do you think it's just better to leave it at "TBA" until we know for sure? We can't really use the "Premieres" file as a reference for how many episodes there will be for a season but just for episode info itself. - Alec (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reference shows they committed to 26 last year, later scheduled info shows they actually did more, we don't known yet how many more. The formulation "26 or more" gives valid useful referenced info, in my opinion. However, everything with a reference does not need to be in an article so if you think the info as presented is confusing or not clear or not useful I won't object to removing it. Others might. We will known the real numbers soon enough. The current "at least 28" looks fine as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking but since we have episodes listed past "26" that first reference is outdated so it really cannot be used, isn't that a rule? I was thinking "at least 28" but then it gets "ify" as if there's at least 28 and there's 28 episodes listed, wouldn't the "Made In Japan" episode be the finale since it's listed as "28"? We will probably know the full episode count soon I agree. - Alec (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reference and the commit to 26 eps made last year is not outdated if used to show that they did an early commit to this many episodes. That info can still be useful if used to describe the history of the show. It does not need to be in the table as we do have more accurate later info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see now, that's what I was trying to get at. Use it for history is fine, but in the table it's outdated info. Do you think putting "28 or more" is better or should it be "TBA" until we know the final count? - Alec (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with 28 or more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Production code for Made In Japan? I thought it was a movie? Bow-bb (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference from Disney used for ep in ep list doesn't say if it is a movie or not but does state an out-of-sequence production code of 2-100 so movie is possible. We have lots of other references saying this will be a movie but the latest reference doesn't make that explicit and lists it like an episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a movie but MSN.TV listed as an episode way back when. And Disney has not published anything about it being a DCOM or a movie on DC or in any Press Release. It will most likely be the Season Finale Hour and a half movie event. Even if it airs as a hour and a half, we will still have to count it as one episode so most likely it will be a total of 28 episodes.

EDIT: According to MSN.TV it will be a 90-Minute Special since it's listed as an episdoe and not a movie (Which is why the Production Code is 2-100). - Alec (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We have production codes 2-28 and 2-100. That looks like a total of 29 episodes if the movie is counted as an episode. We are still missing an episode in the list. Either they pulled one or there will be something shown after the 90min event. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well Shake It Up: Up And Away Is "technically" 2 episodes (see production code) so that 'would' be 29 episodes but since it aired as one continuous episode it's only counted as 'one' episode. I have a feel there's 31 all together as Made In Japan is 229-331 but we will end up with only 28 since Made In Japan will air as one continuous episode so we count it as one episode. - Alec (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that covers it then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly but we should still wait for a Press Release for the final episode (I'm sure Disney will release one about the 90-Minute Special. Or a commercial on the Disney Channel Official YouTube for clarification. - Alec (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ratings.

Hi, did you have an idea about why Nickelodeon series ratings gettin' low? Also, I realized mostly American series ratings getting low in this times. Bow-bb (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No real clue, but suspect it is economic conditions making people drop cable and satellite which will be reflected as lower cable ratings. I'm not sure, but I think people like me, who don't have cable but who do watch stuff on iTunes, aren't counted in the ratings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Bow-bb (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

victorious

i just found a script posted on internet from an background actress, can you look for this: http://distilleryimage3.instagram.com/c29ce58acdd411e1b28822000a1c9e1a_7.jpg 78.183.82.72 (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Images are too easy to fake to be used as a reference unless the image is hosted by a site that meets the normal WP:RS standards and that site vouches for that image and the information it contains. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Real World articles

Hi. What is your particular objection to 108.92.141.50's edits to The Real World articles? Is it possible that he changed the order of the producers to either alphabetize them, or because that's how they were listed in the closing credits? (I tried looking for a clip from an early season episode, but couldn't find one, and both people are no longer given in the credits in the current episodes, since Bunim died years ago). Just curious. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the order of credits and try to ignore edits where that is all that is done. What he is doing is adding colored squares below some of the tables with no explanation of what they are for. There is no legend attached that explains them, just the squares. Looks like pointless edits or edit tests. The editor won't communicate his intentions and ignores messages on the many IP talk pages he uses. Also occasionally bolds numbers (has been told about MOS:BOLD) and inappropriately adds "To be continued..." to descriptions in show articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

iCarly episodes

Hey, saw this edit. Just wanted to say "meh" and that's fine by me, absolutely. Allowing blogs etc as reliable sources now seems commonplace and this is just another tiny erosion of the reliability of this website. You, of course, are justified (per "previous discussions") in your edit, but the fact we're all spending so much time fussing over how many episodes of a TV show may or may not be shown in due course is frankly appalling, wasteful and pathetic. We're all guilty of it. What's the point of speculating and using blogs, youtube etc to try to be the one who finally gets "15" right? There's no point. I'm not bothered with this obsession any more, and wish you and those who edit with you luck. This is a total waste of life. Perhaps we can now move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody has some reason or interest in why they edit Wikipedia. Some things are definitely petty in the grand scheme of things but do matter to the individuals involved. We want to get editors involved and encouraged to contribute and some of us don't have the interest or ability to contribute much more than at this level. Some of this a teaching new editors about what is correct or not and some of these minor issues illustrate some more general principles about what is correct in wiki. I personally don't care about this particular fact in this article and it really is minor and trivial. The point is that the editor who added the information DID find a reference and that reference was valid for the use intended. I would like to encourage that. I agree that blogs are presumed unusable but confirmed words from a show runner is useable as a primary source if used directly with no interpretation about stuff he is expert on is a pretty strong exception. (I feel really uncomfortable reverting a bureaucrat but really wanted to support the editor involved ) Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, there's no issue at all with reverting anything I do. When I edit, I'm an editor, the 'crat thing is nothing to do with it so please, please ignore all that. Secondly, I understand that you believe this to be a good way forward, with a blog, and I can't argue too strongly because I'm no expert in the field and just try my own best for Wikipedia. I accept that if the general consensus deems a blog or a youtube ref to be fine, then that's fine. I also respect the fact that you've been here long enough to know as well. So, sorry for me being too judgemental, and sorry for getting too involved with things here I'm not 100% aware of. I hope your way forward is respected and that we can move on. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion Needed

Am I wrong about this? I've had discussions before about Splitting up "List of episode" pages before and they've always ened up saying "It's too early to split." However A user Sandstein has created a Season page already and linked the "List of episode" pages to the "Episodes" section of (Book 1) of the Legend of Korra so a "list of episodes" does not really have a page. They think there's enough info on the (Book 1) page to keep it but the "List of episodes" page was fine before and it's too early for it to be split. They also said that once we get (Book 2) we can re-create the list of episodes page where it tranluces (spelling?) from the season page to the list of episodes page where all you see is the episodes. Main discussion here but there's more here. - Alec (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and you are right but consensus of the group of editors who are involved in that set of articles will drive the decision. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) is the major resister of premature splits and I see he has commented. Once something is done with significant support it is hard to undo even if it shouldn't have been done in the first place. This may require a formal WP:MERGE discussion. Consensus can pretty much override everything except official policy on wiki. This does lead to some inconsistencies that in some sense just needs to be tolerated. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Sorry about that, I have no idea how I put evidence but I do have evidence tp prove it will have 26 episodes. Thomasfan501 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The message I left you gives directions on how to add references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Episode Numbers?

Can't we make the same claim that all the "double" numbered iCarly episodes aired as a long episode and only require 1 episode number (as other sources state as well)? - Alec (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If the episode had one set of opening credits and one set of closing credits it is one episode, no matter how long it was. If they showed the first part with opening and closing credits then immediately showed the second part with its own opening and closing credits it is two back-to-back episodes. I don't know how the iCarly episodes in question where originally aired. Sometimes two part episodes are taped as two separate episodes (two production codes) but merged together for first airing then shown in reruns as two separate episodes. Most list of episodes articles should look to the original airing as definitive but that may not agree with how iTunes and the DVDs present them. This leads to it being a judgment call for the editors if there is a conflict between first airing, reruns airing and DVD sets. Either way an episode should not be listed as 63-64 if a two parter. It should have a table entry for 63 and a separate table entry for 64. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I agree, since the reference lists it as separate 2 parts that's how we should list it. I know for a fact all the episodes listed with "2" numbers (even "iParty with Victorious" and "iGo To Japan") on the iCarly page did in fact all air as one long episode with one set of credits. iTunes & Amazon has it this way as well (not sure about the DVD's). If this is the case, these episodes should only have 1 episode number listed, not 2 (or 3). - 50.36.95.22 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

season 6 icarly

hello, icarly season 6 episodes if it's 15 but isn't support with the source, don't you check it? 78.183.92.199 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DaWarp blog don't say anything about iCarly season 6 episodes. 78.183.92.199 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It says "[...]after a total of "109" episodes[...]" 100 has aired, there's 9 left to air which adds up to 15 total episodes for Season 6. - Alec (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Trace Cyrus

Hey, um, I don't know how to aad a source on wikipedia. It says his birth name is Neil Timothy Helson, as he isn't Billy Ray Cyrus's biological son. But, do I have to put on a resource or is this private information or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystorysforever (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know how to add references, look at existing references in the article and use that as a guide. You will need a web site url, the title of the article and the date published. We must be able to verify what you add. Make sure the source is not a fan site or a Wikipedia equivalent like IMDb. Or just tell me what the source url is and I'll add it if I think it meets WP:RS standards. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Lynn

Although many of that IP's edits were blatantly false or at least unsourced (the last straw was a fake death report on Nanci Griffith), xe seems to have got one right on Oliver Lynn: According to recent reliable reports, Loretta Lynn really was 15 when she married Doo, not 13 as had long been reported. This is discussed at Talk:Loretta Lynn#birthdate and age at marriage and I've added a source for it in the Oliver Lynn article. Thanks for catching all the inappropriate edits! Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

He corrupted the dates in the lede [5] too and didn't change the reference that supported 13. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and in your position (had I not happened to have read the recent articles about Loretta's age), I would have reverted those edits just as you did. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome message. MichelleTheola (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

btvs

Did you watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer? It's so good series you should watch it :)88.238.228.137 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Luck Charlie

Excuse me. Could you please edit the Good luck charlie list of episodes section. I don't have much authority. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.86.136 (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not protected from edits of non-logged-in editors, you have always been able edit it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but you know more than me - 98.202.86.136 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not difficult to edit but if you are more comfortable just add a section to the end of the talk page stating what you would like to change and those us who monitor the page will evaluate your request and may do what you suggest if they agree. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

The IP hopping vandal you have been reverting as 75.194.185.104 (talk · contribs), 75.213.140.132 (talk · contribs), 75.213.45.223 (talk · contribs), 75.250.233.232 (talk · contribs), etc. is a long-term pest dubbed the "Voice Cast Vandal". Please see User:Doc9871/Voice Cast Vandal, where I have added the new IPs. If you've come across other Verizon cell phone IPs that engage in this behavior, it is likely this person. Just a heads up! Cheers :> Doc talk 21:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandal across multiple articles, protecting the project from creeps like this! Now you know who you were dealing with. He's been targeting "Yu-Gi-Oh!"-related things for some time, as this IP from over a year ago demonstrates. Alec Baldwin is another old favorite target; and seeing his pattern was obvious to me, for I have cleaned up after him for awhile. I foolishly thought he had given up, but he obviously has not. Please continue to revert this vandal whenever you see him, as you have been doing. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

68.229.164.58

Hi. I declined to block this IP -- it wasn't clear to me this person was editing in bad faith.

The Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard is for clear-cut vandalism (see the guide to administrator intervention against vandalism). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced relationship info to bio articles is a WP:BLP violation, not a content dispute. Deliberately adding false information to articles is pretty obviously vandalism. Removing it is not a content dispute. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know this person is deliberately adding incorrect information? If I don't know it's deliberate, then I have to consider WP:AGF and WP:BITE. It wasn't clear to me.

See the note that I left at User_talk:68.229.164.58#July 2012. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the note. Be interesting to see what happens. I researched the additions to articles he made looking for any type of indication that his edits were done in good faith and he just missed adding references. The first warning he got from me (L2) were about adding references to info added to a BLP article. The second warning (L3) was also for a BLP violation but I did some checking and the name of the person added as a named actor has no acting credits and ghits so this one I tagged as deliberate falsification of info - looks like self-insertion. The last warning (L4) was for unreferenced fresh info about a deceased actor with an article started in 2003 that I could find nothing that supported the info that included info about names and birth dates of living people. I reported to AIV when he added the same info back again to that article and added the same bogus actor name to the TV show article. I assume good faith up the point it becomes obvious to me it isn't. I understand you did a similar evaluation and came to a different conclusion. I will keep watching. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent development: [6] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Member

I'm not sure how to handle this but This member keeps reverting my edits after I told him why we keep it the way it is and told him not to makes those edits again. I told him twice (here & here) but he still reverted (here, here and here). You can see I reverted here & here giving reason why. How do I give him a warning or report for reverting? - Alec (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

He's adding some invalid info to articles and doesn't want to engage in discussion. You've already attempted to engage on his talk page and he is ignoring you. I suggest adding a section to the article talk page stating that "info in summary list of articles is derived from info in the source articles must match". On reverts I'd use that as a the edit summary. If he continues to add invalid info to articles I'd give the uw-unsourcedx warnings. He generally seems to be working to improve wiki and his edits are not vandalism. You need to be careful of WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR though but if it looks like he is engaged in edit warring, that in itself could lead to a block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help. I will keep this in mind. If he keeps edit warring (I'll give him a couple of chances) how do I go about warning him he could get blocked for a certain amount of time? - Alec (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything is explained in the article at WP:3RR. If using Twinkle the message is at single issue warnings - uw-3rr. Be careful you don't trigger the 3 revert rule with your own edits when in this type of situation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I will be careful. Seems like he hasn't made anymore edits as of now but I'll keep my eye out. - Alec (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Your recent editing history at iCarly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 89119 (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your third revert on that page. I will not revert your edit on the number of episodes any further. But whether you are right or not about what the template says, you have made three reverts to another editor and me within a 24-hour period. You should consider discussing on iCarly's talk page, rather than reverting any further. If you do, to any other editor on the number of episodes (as I am watching the iCarly page), I will consider reporting you to the administrator's noticeboard. 89119 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DTTR for future reference. Discussion is usually a better way to resolve disagreements on interpretation of standards. In this case the template instructions are plain and clear as to meaning and usage of parameters and should require no more justification than what is there. The pointer I gave to the instructions should have been sufficient and not require any further discussion. This is a common error in usage and in previous cases I have run in to about this parameter the pointer to the instructions and the hidden note was sufficient for understanding. I am a bit surprised at getting any pushback at all on this issue after the explanation in the edit history and the hidden note I left on the page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of Victorious episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. I know you've already been given one of these but seeing as I've now protected the page for a week it would be punative to block you which is of course completely unnecessary. Having said that, to any other administrators on here, there have now been 2 final warnings. This is a pattern of behaviour. Please take this into account when reviewing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All suggestions above have been followed already with no response. The pattern of behavior is trying to keep articles consistent with existing references and template instructions not content disputes to be resolved by multiple ignored attempts at discussion. I find the canned message "to work things out" less than helpful and the slap on the wrist implied in the above somewhat demotivating in my attempts to maintain and improve the quality of the project. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Winx Club

I have a question, why does it show the flims and one hour specials in the series overview when theres already a section showing it? I thought somebody made a mistake and thats why I erased it. Thomasfan501 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you had stated that in the edit summary when you deleted it there likely would have been no problems with what you did. I generally try to figure out why things were done but if it is not obvious I see it as just unjustified content removal. A lot of the problems you (and all your socks as well) have is because you refuse to use the edit summary for your edits. Don't understand your resistance to doing this but it does lead to a lot of problems and misunderstandings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

iCarly

I agree with you. They should be listed with one episode number (on both Victorious & How To Rock). Just want to state something. As per iCarly, every other source (TV Guide, iTunes, etc.) list each episode with 1 number not 2. Plus Dan's blog states 109 were produced and MTV Networks International state 108. How should we list iCarly's? I believe all the episodes with 2 numbers should only have 1 number listed. - Alec (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Template instructions say only one episode number per episode so there is strong support there. The iCarly eps should be changed to conform but expect opposition as I am seeing in Victorious. Dan may have produced 109 but MTV Networks International may have only aired 108 - they could have pulled one or Dan miscounted. We will have the definitive answer after the final ep is aired in November and we do a final cleanup of the articles to match what is on the DVDs and iTunes. If there are 108 episodes to be purchased on iTunes after that point then we will have the answer and that should be what is in the iCarly articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'm fine waiting until all the episodes have aired and do the final clean-up. By the way instead of 123 & 124 (on How To Rock) we use 123-124 if there's an episode that used 2 production codes. In the matter for iCarly 217/224 is used since the episodes were produced at 2 different times. I don't think I've seen it 123 & 124 before. - Alec (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually trying to show the productions with those codes were merged and that the eps consisted of production codes 123 and 124 merged. The WP:NDASH used that way is interpreted as "to" or "through". I thought the & made more sense. Don't really care too much about this, was just trying to be more precise with the symbology. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense. I guess a "/" could work as well. Well it technically is 123 through 124 as one episode but now I'm getting too technical, haha. I will keep on the look out for any changes (well I guess on the How To Rock since Victorious is protected until the 19th). You should also let Aussie know since he is also with us about "one-hour" episodes as listing them with just 1 episode number. - Alec (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We are not supposed to use WP:SLASH in anything as its normal meaning is "related in some way" but doesn't say how the two things are related so the meaning is best expressed using plain text. WP:NDASH is fine. I thought about asking AussieLegend for comments but he seems to be avoiding the Nickelodeon shows and sticking with adult and Disney stuff. May do so anyway if these problems continue as he is one of the main people driving the documentation details for the main TV show templates and is one of the most knowledgeable editors in the area. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. hopefully these can be sorted out easily. Some people just want things their way and it's sad they don't take the time to read or understand rules. I'm trying to edit more than Nick & Disney articles but I'm willing to help out anytime since I still kind of follow them (even though I'm 19, haha). If it continues, I'd ask him for an opinion, I'm sure he'll make a comment about "hour-episodes" even if he doesn't follow the show. - Alec (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow the actual shows - I don't have cable and am not really interested in viewing them (sometimes I download from iTunes to verify contentious details). My main interest is in trying to maintain some level of quality and correctness in the show articles where a lot of the editing is done by young fans. I think the adult show articles are easier as most of the editors are more mature and there seems to be more people watching the articles. I hope you continue to watch these show articles even if you don't avidly watch the shows any more. We need all the mature experienced editors we can get in this area. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really follow them or watch the shows that much but I still read info about new shows, etc. I do agree it's getting harder to edit kids shows as the younger audience doesn't know production info and such as much as editors who have been editing. I do try to help when i can and I also edit on older audiences as well. I'm still learning Wikipedia but if there's something that's being fought, I try to talk with them and come to an agreement but again some younger audience think they are right and revert anyway. As always if you have any more problems with any article that need and opinion, let me know. - Alec (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the data because the first season consists of 20 episodes (with 2-part special "Freak the Freak Out") and the second consists of 14 episodes (with "Locked Up" and "A Christmas Tori") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.21.190 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No it didn't. See talk page and TV Guide. The only 2 part special was in the 3d season. Others are just long episodes, not two parters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)