User talk:Geraldo Perez

This is Geraldo Perez's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Why do you keep deleting attributes added to an infobox on TV shows? Is [1] fine to do? Green Eggs and Ham (TV series) has valuable information about the many animation companies used to create it, and it was there earlier today until you started removing additional info on the infoxobes. VGPCVGCP (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VGPCVGCP: Request attribute additions to the standard television infobox at Template talk:Infobox television. "Animation services" was discussed and rejected for inclusion. Using basically a side channel of infobox construction tools to add an attribute that is not in the standard set for a defined infobox should not be done as it goes against the agreed-upon standard attribute set. Addition of the info to the article is fine as long as it is sourced, it just doesn't belong in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you source it when you can easily find the info in the credits? VGPCVGCP (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VGPCVGCP: A released TV show or episode is a primary reliable source for everything it contains including the credits. Generally we don't need to add another source for anything already listed in the credits, just for info labeled "uncredited" and anything beyond the bare credit data. Any interpretation beyond what is in the primary source needs a reference though. For a production section mention it would be good to have a bit more than just the credit info about the animation houses so it isn't just a repeat of the credits, something that gives a reason this info is important and interesting and for that will likely need a reliable secondary source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would this be reported under or given a warning [2]. Also seems to be using another user in the summary as well. I reverted some of her edits on the Thundermans as it wasn't broke [3], [4] and seems to be going under cover with ip's reverting edits on the Alexa Nikolas page [5] as well having issues editing now and in the past. Including attacking a former user [6]. All edits have been reverted, but not really sure what warning to give or bring this issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks Magical Golden Whip (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magical Golden Whip: That recent edit at The Thundermans looks like a subtle personal attack on you at the very least (referring to the June 15 edit in particular), and this should be reported to ANI if they continue with this kind of behavior of disrupting articles just to inject personal attacks or the like in edit summaries. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the diff from their user page as well. Definitely a sneaky type of personal attack with those wikilinks. Worth a warning, and if they continue, ANI. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found the warning for personal attacks and gave then a one time warning as the next time I will take up with ANI. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magical Golden Whip: Based on that edit summary, as well as others, this also seems to be WP:HARRASMENT at this point, and possibly WP:STALKING, with the intention of causing trouble. Some of their edits are along the lines of, "How long until MGW reverts this?" To me, that seems like some sort of personal vendetta against you, that they're butthurt, for lack of a better phrase, over being reverted that they're possibly now just making problematic edits to feel special or for attention. This initially started when they reverted an edit on Alexa Nikolas by our colleague IJBall, who unfortunately no longer contributes here, from well over a year ago. It seems odd to me that someone would go through the trouble of remembering something for that long and, for whatever reason, decide to revert well over a year later. It's long overdue at this point, but now that they've received another warning, if they make one more problematic, I recommend going ahead and filing a report at either WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, as they've also been slow-motion edit warring. However, since it's more than just that, ANI would probably be the better option, where the edit warring can also be mentioned. Amaury • 19:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously reported Marino13 at WP:ANI and administrators did not see it as personal attacks. It was the opposite as they started defending him saying things like "you cannot be mad at a 13-year-old kid" and similar. – sbaio 04:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may require more eyes here. I no longer maintain this article by any means, but it is on my watchlist and normally only touch it to revert vandalism or general disruptive edits, with exceptions like today. Also my talk page due to a personal attack, a serious accusation of block evasion with absolutely zero proof to back up the claim, which I do not appreciate it. Amaury • 20:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]