This is an archive of past discussions with User:MPFitz1968. 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
The sources are not independent, and so do not establish event notability.
There is also an article in article space on American Music Awards of 2021 which appears to have been copied from this draft. I have proposed it for deletion. This draft can be reviewed with additional sources after the copied article is deleted.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:American Music Awards of 2021 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:American Music Awards of 2021, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, MPFitz1968!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Fair enough. I clicked on the review button at the draft article, probably prematurely, just as the existing mainspace article that it was intended for was being changed to include the content that was in the draft, and a little more. If I had checked the mainspace article first (and waited a few minutes from when I clicked the review button), I likely wouldn't have had the draft sent for review. When I saw the mainspace article being changed from the redirect that was there, I initially reverted and left in the edit summary that there was an existing draft, alerting the user who was making the changes to check the draft and merge. Possibly issues with attribution credit and perhaps copyright (an entry in the potential copyright violation log had been made), but hopefully I made note (in another edit at the mainspace article) that the content from the draft was being merged. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: OK, just checked the mainspace article; that's the one being proposed for deletion. We can stick with the draft to address your concerns, and when it's ready, it can be reviewed again. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Need to be heading to bed soon. A report at AIAV has already been filed, but need help in the meantime. Amaury • 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Geraldo Perez and IJBall: We have this now, which is a reliable source, but it appears to mostly echo what actors said. However, the way it's worded, maybe we can use it? The cancellation was first revealed by series stars Nathan Lovejoy, who played Principal Swift, and Callan Farris, who portrayed Jeremy, Gabby’s first babysitting assignment, on Instagram. Both gave a heartfelt thank you to cast, creators, writers and crew. You can read their posts in full below. Emphasis mine. Otherwise, this reminds me of when Game Shakers was canceled, but we couldn't use Deadline Hollywood at the time for Henry Danger's fifth season, since the article at the time just had an "I hear" type statement for that. Amaury • 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I just saw the Deadline source, after I had reverted at the templates regarding Disney Channel series. (My reverts there have since been reverted, so I'm now OK with that.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have seen two edits in the last couple of weeks at different articles that have me concerned that the so-called WP:& vandal is back. This edit at Thundarr the Barbarian seems rather blatant. Please be on the lookout on your end for any signs of this – if they're back, we may eventually need to start looking at a range block, if applicable. Also pinging Geraldo Perez so they are also aware of the situation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
There was either a user or an IP a while ago who would make non-improving edits with very short or one-word summaries—for example, if they added an unnecessary word to a sentence like "very," their edit summary would be "very"—and I'm confident this user is that same person, making edits that are not improvements. Amaury • 22:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Western film vandal
Thank you for your reverts at Arrow in the Dust, etc. It looks as if the Western film vandal LTA is back in town: text such as "Laramie Mountains in 2017" is characteristic. I have most likely targets watchlisted, and make other checks locally, but I'm not in their timezone so help is very welcome. Certes (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Wish I had a track record of those IPs. Been a bit busy IRL (including preparing to change apartments in the next few weeks), so I'm not sure I could track them down right now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Searching for "WP:&" (with quotes – without the quote returns no results!) brought up only this from your Talk page archives. I feel like this vandal has also been discussed at my Talk page and Geraldo's, but searching "WP:&" didn't turn up anything obvious, and I'm not sure how else to search on it... The two IP's geolocate to different places in the United States – as they are a few months apart, I'm not sure this disproves any linkage, but it certainly doesn't prove they are the same editor either... But I wish I could find more of the earlier discussions about this. Otherwise I will be forced to search my own edit summaries for it, and that won't be easy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Was remembering Best Friends Whenever, but hadn't checked the LoE today (and forgot that it had been merged and redirected). No doubt plenty of my edit summaries there regarding WP:&. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Adding a person's official social media accounts to external links section
Hi,
you made a change to an article I edited. I wanted to add official social media accounts to the external links section of Danielle Fishel's wikipedia page. You cited "Not allowed per WP:ELNO, #10" for your removal, yet when I read the entry at the very top it said, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". All of the changes I was making were to add official accounts to her page. I also see on other people's wikipedia pages, links to Twitter have been added. Why are these official websites being prevented from being added?
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:
...
10. Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups), Usenet newsgroups or email lists.
Only one link associated with an official site is allowed, and if it's separate from the social networking sites mentioned in #10 above, then none of the social networking sites (including Twitter) can be added as well to External links. What other Wikipedia articles show, regarding the addition of social networking sites to External links, is irrelevant. If they are violating the WP:ELNO guideline I cited above, then those pages should also be brought into compliance. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I have tried adding an official social network account to the page of other people who do not have any other official sites listed, and because of the twinkle program that has been enacted I am being prevented from doing so. Why is this happening? 108.36.193.88 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Prepare for a big dropoff in quality when it gets to season #3! (A similar thing happened when Henry Danger got to season #5, though there were more extenuating circumstances in the case of HD...) It's not that all of the episodes are bad – it's just that season #1 especially, and season #2, were overall more solid. Season #3 has some episodes that are just "blah...", and others, like the Friends and iCarly episodes, that are just incredibly self-indulgent.
In light of how season #3 turned out, I ended up being less bitter about Nickelodeon cancelling the show. (Unlike Victorious, which was screaming for a proper "series finale"!)
I have wondered if there would ever be any interest in a followup Game Shakers movie though. I don't think anyone has talked about doing one, but I could see it possibly being viable.
@IJBall: Trying to prepare myself for those later seasons (I'm still in the middle of season 1) by watching a lot of Nickelodeon clips of the show on YouTube (a lot under the channel "Nickelodeon UK"). Definitely can say that Cree Cicchino ("Babe") sure grew up fast in those 3 or 4 years. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but I'm pretty 'Affect' would mean something like love or admiration, while 'Effect' would a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause, which is why I replaced the 'a' with an 'e'. But I'll review the three links you gave me. Xfhxzf (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yep, yep, yep-- thanks for giving the old tires a kick. It's good to know when one has gone off the rails, like those vibration strips on some rural highways that as they are crossed, wake, shake, rattle and roll an errant driver drifting for whatever reason, out of the lane, and most sadly off of the road. Much appreciated. WurmWoodeT05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I may need back up here – WP:DE IP adding an unneeded infobox (with an incorrect image use), and a not-notable "career", to this article. I'm now at three reversions so the next one needs to come from someone else. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, they switched IPs on me in the middle of their latest edit string – that's how I missed reverting the whole thing. Thanks for that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope not to bother @MPFitz1968, 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.Fraliuc2 (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Dylan O'Donnell
Good afternoon @MPFitz1968! 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) 19:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
While reviewing reports of disruptive editing and also requests for page protection I briefly lost track of which user page I was supposed to be looking at and accidentally blocked you. This was immediately reversed with a notation in the log that the block was an error. I deeply apologize for the mistake. Your page has been protected per your request at RfPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: No problem, it happens. And thanks for the page protection(s). Definitely a series of IPs originating from the UAE (very likely socks of the blocked/banned user User:Orchomen) that has been targeting me, User:Amaury, and several other editors for a few years now, off and on. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
See latest edits. Default sort is completely unnecessary here, right? I've removed it before in these instances, but it's been quite a while, so just need a refresher. Default sort should only be used on list articles and on articles that begin with a preposition.
@Amaury:, I think in these cases, it's not, because of the "&" – you'll notice the defaultsort is using "and" instead of "&". So it may make a difference.
Meanwhile, I'm confused about the LoEs and LoCs defaultsorts – to my mind, it should be in the form of, for example: Girl Meets World, List of characters, not Girl Meets World characters, List of. I think they're often done the latter way, which seems just wrong to me... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
It is technically correct to have it sort with the "ands" instead of the "&". I doubt wiki's sort considers them the same. However, practically, unless there is some other "Austin" or "Coop" in the list it will make no difference in how sorted things are displayed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there - Is there a rule that you can't link an actor's name more than once on an episode page? Many of the actors I was linking were only there once, but when I saved it I lost them all because you had reverted my other changes. Chitown B (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chitown B: The guideline I cited in my revert, MOS:REPEATLINK, states Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. What is considered "helpful" can vary, and may need consensus on the talk page to resolve, but in an episode table, it's usually OK to repeat if it's across different seasons of a TV series, but more than once in a single season table may be excessive, and quite a few times within the same table is excessive. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I was caught up in the sudden burst of reversion by the LTA. After undo their revert on my edit and leaving them the template, I notice that they were already blocked by an admin. Decided to do a mass rollback on all their edits and follow up thereafter, and you got onto the action. – robertsky (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your reversion of my photo add due to the file being nominated for speedy deletion. The nominator was correct about the location that the photo was taken, but I took it myself, in the studio, before that segment of that TV show began taping. I don't know too much about the photo upload process or rules (it's the first one I've ever done) but I don't think it's a copyright violation just because I was on the set. I would appreciate any other advice you have. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Wes sideman: I don't know how the process works itself, but you might want to talk to the nominator of the speedy delete or another editor and see how to indicate your credit on the photo as well as any other steps necessary to satisfy copyright. My reversion was ahead of its being deleted, because the bot which removes the photo entry from the article infobox afterward doesn't restore the old photo, and I (or someone else) would need to dig thru the history to restore. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Please take a look at recent edits here. I've already tangled with this editor enough, so someone else should take a look. But doing stuff like adding parentheticals, should either be reverted or reedited. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you think of this? They replaced the American part with Brazilian, though I'm not sure if the source meets WP:RS standards. Amaury • 10:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Amaury: Their edit just added the artist Anitta (a Brazilian singer) to the list of her musical influences - no replacement of any artists that were already there. The source appears to be from the Brazilian version of Glamour magazine, and I'm inclined to believe it's reliable from the magazine's overall reputation (not seeing any flags at WP:RSP), but I'll ping Geraldo Perez to make sure. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
If everyone could rationally explain things and explain why like you do, we could avoid headaches like this. Those fixes make sense, but things like "deep below which he meets Ray" don't make any sense. Amaury • 17:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Villains of Valley View § Plot summaries. If you want to try tackling this as you have the time, that would be appreciated. There was an edit that outright completely removed the offending summaries, which is not the way to deal with this at all. They are salvageable and just need to be trimmed. Rtkat has gotten back into their bad habits of writing summaries that are too long. There's one at 833 words! Even accounting for it being a double-length episode, where I say 200–400 words is okay (double the normal range) instead of just 100–200 words, that is still way too long. Amaury • 09:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Ping Jkudlick. I'm not sure if the above went through. I messed up the ping the first time. I fixed it, but don't see a notification saying it was sent. Amaury • 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@Amaury: I've made my comment over there, and decided as far as The Thundermans article goes, to remove the disputed award's entry. Without any sourcing present, I feel this was the right move. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the decision. If only the IP could have thought of that and had a talk page discussion on the matter, but no. Disruptive like virtually all the others. Honestly, even keeping in mind that we already restrict things so only awards for the series are listed, with actor rewards on the actor pages, if they exist, this is why I feel we shouldn't be including awards for children television networks at all. It's just difficult to source them. For a major and much more known series, like The Big Bang Theory, yeah, absolutely. But it's already difficult enough when Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, in particular, don't announce season premieres and finales, except in a few rare cases. They also don't have the same traditional schedule that other networks like the broadcast networks do, such as late September through mid-May, which is fine, but announce your season premieres and finales. As for awards for actors on children television networks, I don't know how well sourced info comes about there. Amaury • 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
YoungForever has given you a turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! — YoungForever(talk)21:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have requested semi-protection, but would appreciate some more eyes in the meantime. Ping Geraldo Perez as well, who I think is already watching it. Amaury • 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Half of our problems could be avoided if people used edit summaries and preview. I completely missed all the edits adding the series as over with an WP:RS. Although the "and final season" stuff other editors insist on making needs to stay out as 1) we didn't know that at the time and 2) that's not what the source says. I know that wasn't reversed, just making a statement. Amaury • 21:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
