User talk:IJBall/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Draft:Side Hustle

This page shouldn't even exit. My page clearly has precedence, and them going around that by bypassing it by creating a draft is disruptive. I just don't have the time right now. Magitroopa can verify the information, in any case. Amaury • 07:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Draft:Side Hustle has corrections and updates your page doesn’t have, also you wouldn’t allow me to edit your page. SportsFan007 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you not stalk editors. I don't trust random editors who randomly change names, especially to URLs, since even if the credited name is different, it doesn't change what a URL is. Showing up to randomly change a name, especially without using a valid edit summary, is typical vandal behavior. Note that I'm not directly accusing you of such, but the point stands. Nothing needed to be "corrected." The page could have been updated once I moved it to mainspace. Don't bypass valid pages just because you don't like them. @Magitroopa: I will be moving the page to mainspace. I will leave the verifying of credits to a trustworthy editor like yourself. Amaury • 08:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, looks like I will need your magic. I cannot move User:Amaury/sandbox/Side Hustle‎ to Side Hustle since you created the page as a redirect back in February. Amaury • 08:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury:  Done – now that this article is in Mainspace, anyone can edit it. @SportsFan007: What you did here was not OK – you knew of the existence of Amaury's draft, and knew it had precedence, and rather than try to work the issue out with Amaury, you attempted to WP:SNEAKY circumvent his draft by creating your own. At best, this is Disruptive editing. Don't try something like this again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: How does it have precedence? SportsFan007 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He created it six months ago. Bottom line: You knew Amaury had already created a draft, and you tried to usurp it. Do not try something like this again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: I wasn’t trying to usurp it, I was just trying to make the appropriate corrections. SportsFan007 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: You didn't even attempt to discuss the issue on Amaury's Talk page. This tells me that you were trying to be WP:SNEAKY rather than above board. Similarly, you just made edits to the article that reversed edits I purposely made, so I'm about to revert you there. You need to start doing things right. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Starklinson

Hey, look. Finally got a block. Amaury • 20:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nickelodeon's The Astronauts

Per my talk page, it's ready for you. User:Amaury/sandbox/Untitled scripted space series‎. Don't need a redirect left. @Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: If you guys want to add this page as well, that'd be great. Amaury • 21:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There's already a redirect at The Astronauts (TV series) so I will be forced to leave one. I'll do this now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant that it's ready for your magic, and I don't need my sandbox link to be a redirect to the live page. Sorry for the confusion. Amaury • 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And, what I mean is that I pretty much have to do exactly that. But I think I'll put it at User:Amaury/sandbox/The Astronauts (TV series)‎ rather than at User:Amaury/sandbox/Untitled scripted space series‎. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury:  Done. If you don't want to keep the redirect at User:Amaury/sandbox/The Astronauts (TV series)‎ (or, really, any redirect in your userspace), just WP:CSD it under WP:U1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

95.150.129.201 why ban this person ? Is that action not a bit extreme

Hi,

I noticed that you have banned this person 95.150.129.201 because they wrote something you didn't aggree with on Hanna TV Show. Can you explain why the result was a ban? You reported them for Vandalism? It looks like they wrote something that you disaggreed with twice but I am not sure that would result in a ban. A disagreement between two contributers is not worthy of ' vandalism.' It is a disagreement that should be moderated before such a ban is issued? (~~Saxon~~). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaxonOH (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP(s) in question (either of them) have not been "blocked" ("banned" means something else – see WP:BAN) – I simply left a warning on their page for disruptively adding a character to the 'Recurring' list at Hanna (TV series) that was both too minor to include and also was not technically "recurring" either. However, if they keep that up, it is likely either the page will be protected or the IP might get (temp.) blocked... And, now, what is your interest in this matter, first-time poster? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

[Removed rambling vaguely WP:PA-containing response.]

That's not how any of this works – please review WP:BRD, and also WP:ONUS. Finally, Wikipedia works on Consensus which means that if a change you make is rejected, you have to convince other editors that your change is an improvement (which is what WP:BRD is all about). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You issue WP and edit aggressively again.

I notice yet again you have issued WP regarding the Hanna wiki page and contributers adding cadt members.

You are clearly in an edit argument and it is time to ask a moderator to step in.

I am going to redo the edit removed as I agree with the contribution to the page . If you remove it once more I am afraid that you are again bullying your way through Wiki.

Your actions are not helpful to the larger project. We need to get a moderator to observe your choices to WP somebody who has only made a few contributions. SaxonOH (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And you are clearly the same editor as the IP, and are an WP:SPA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And I will ask the relevant question – are you somehow associated with actor Ross O'Hennessy? I will note also that that article almost certainly doesn't pass muster for a standalone WP:BLP article, and should almost certainly be sent to WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have answered your questions fairly in another thread but you must have missed them. I am simply a fan of Hanna and I watch with horror that you delete and remove other people's posts without evidence or good reason. Your tone is aggressive and not helpful towards to wiki family. I have clearly stated that I do agree with some of the previous additions and you keep editing regardless of my wishes or comments. I feel it is fair to ask a moderator to help. SaxonOH (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SaxonOH: It is because I am suspicious of your intent – a new account doesn't suddenly appear out of thin air to back up edits made by anonymous IP edits, unless it is the same editor. But even if I believed that you were not the same editor, the point, which you continue to ignore remains – you seem to assume that any edits an editor makes will go unchallenged, and that is simply not the case: once challenged, the editor is supposed to go to the article's Talk page (in this case Talk:Hanna (TV series)) and make the case for the edit. Neither the IP or you have attempted this, aside from you barging on to my Talk page, and basically making nothing more than a WP:ILIKEIT case – again, WP:ONUS applies: appearing in the guest cast list for a show does not mean that warrants including them in a TV series Wikipedia article. I have already explained why the edit is inappropriate:

1. O'Hennessy did NOT play a "recurring" character – he only appeared in two episodes, which is not "recurring" under any definition, including MOS:TVCAST.
2. O'Hennessy's character is not notable enough to include under 'Guest star' either, as it was basically a bit part. (See: This earlier discussion which is a very similar scenario as this one – and notice how civil that discussion was because DarkGlow didn't show up on my Talk page with a hostile and accusatory tone.)

And with this, I consider this discussion on my Talk page concluded. If you have any further comment, take it to Talk:Hanna (TV series). But that won't change the underlying circumstances here, and I doubt you will find any support for this edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jenna Ortega

How many episodes seems worth mentioning? RobThomas15 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's unsourced? Infinity... Seriously, anything less than a recurring role is not worth mentioning in more than passing (e.g. "[Subject] appeared in guest roles on television series [X], [Y], and [Z], and did guest voice work on [A] and [B].[source]", and even then it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that it's noteworthy. Otherwise, leaving it in the Filmography is sufficient. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Greenblatt

@Geraldo Perez: Will need more eyes here. Amaury • 22:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Already commented at Talk:Ariana Greenblatt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably a low chance of this happening, but what about page protection on this one (at least extended-confirmed, although I don't know about where the two or so previous users are as far as that goes ... whether they are at the threshold to edit as an extended-confirmed, that is)? Already have seen the redirect changed into an article three times, and every time the redirect is restored, I later see a page curation log entry for the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say if an editor or editor(s) persist in disruptively trying to "recreate" an article on an non-notable subject, then page protection would be appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It would likely have to be full protection, since the most recent user to attempt an article here is extended-confirmed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's see what happens at the article Talk page. If this editor won't drop the stick (and try to create a draft instead), then a request for full protection may be warranted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: If that editor refactors yours or my Talk page comments one more time, you have my full support to report him. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: And he just did it again, deleting my latest comment – please report him! (better if you do it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you meant AIAV, here is the report. Amaury • 23:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Amaury#Edit Statistics

Now that I've finally updated this, can you tell where my activity really dropped? And not just where my activity dropped for this year specifically, but overall in the time (years) we've known each other. Amaury • 06:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bryce Gheisar

@Geraldo Perez: WP:BASIC? WP:NACTOR? Amaury • 20:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On the surface has 2 main role TV series credits so looks like meets NACTOR. The credits listed as main for films look to be not true. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Starklinson was blocked Nov. 8. Coreykai first edited on Nov. 2. Interaction report – they've both edited 3 articles (that seem a little obscure) in common. I am concerned... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we file an SPI? Although I'm not sure if we really have much evidence currently. Amaury • 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly – if you can establish the same pattern of adding poorly sourced content, and inappropriate article creation, that got Starklinson blocked, then, yeah, I think it might be worth it. It might also be worth dropping the Admin who blocked Starklinson, Doug Weller, a note, if that pattern can be established. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hm. [1] Amaury • 00:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Coreykai edited one minute after that. Also, in this edit Coreykai says they have almost 500 edits, but they have less than 275 edits (Starklinson has over 7,500 edits, for comparison). I definitely feel like there's something fishy here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas IJBall
	Hi IJBall, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hello – I've just been accused of WP:PAID editing, specifically regarding people signed to a British influencer company called Gleam, eg Zoella and Tanya Burr. The claims are obviously false, and I was hoping that as someone who has known me as an editor for over two years and has seen what editing I am involved in, you would be able to give me advice on how to deal with this. – DarkGlow (✉) 19:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Where is such a claim being made, and who is making it?... Without knowing details, it's hard to say anything. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, it's here. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Random IP makes claims? I wouldn't worry about it. If they actually send something to WP:OTRS, I would imagine Admins would contact you for counter-evidence. My guess is that the IP has no evidence, and nothing will come of this. If they have no evidence, you have nothing to worry about. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I imagine it's someone I've reported and got blocked, or someone whose page I've nominated for deletion. It's a ridiculous claim. What sort of counter-evidence would I even provide in this situation, if it came to that? – DarkGlow (✉) 21:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: It depends what their "evidence" is. But, like I said – I'm guessing they actually have nothing... One piece of advice: if you are getting IPs blocked, especially the same editor at multiple IPs, start keeping a list of geolocations for them – that way, if one of the prolific IP sockers you vandal hunt ever tries something like this again, you'll quickly be able to figure out which one it is, which can help with Admins if you can say, "Hey – I think this is [this IP socker from X] making these frivolous charges in retaliation." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

TBS Television

I understand that you are going to correct the 765 links to disambiguation page caused by your re-linking? Leaving so much incorrect links is not very nice an quite WP:POINTy and disruptive. Fix your own mess please. The Banner talk 21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: This is exactly the kind of WP:POINTy response I'm talking about – rather than being constructive, this is your attitutde. Note that the issue already has been fixed – see here. This is how it should be done – you should go to a user talk page and ask for a WP:AWB solution. Is this so hard?... P.S. It wasn't 765 links, as the linked discussion makes clear. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You made the mess, so it is up to you to clean it up. It is not so difficult to be responsible for your own edits. The Banner talk 21:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, horrible attitude. And, FTR, I didn't even start the original WP:RM – I was just attempting to properly "clean it up". Which you could have helped with, instead of whatever "this" is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear god

Dear god, I'm stupid... Thanks for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lonniemitchell22

STILL removing sources/sourced content for no reason whatsoever, as evident in this edit. I honestly don't feel like opening it up myself, and I'm sure you'll have plenty more ( better wording, lol) to say, but I'll gladly comment/reply on a discussion. Definitely seems like it's time for noticeboard discussion, as they clearly haven't learned from your previous warning. Magitroopa (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Please follow up with Oshwah on this – it will have more weight if another editor goes to Oshwah with the same complaint. Oshwah seemed willing to entertain a block after my last message, and I think it's warranted now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Magitroopa (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've filed an ANI report on your behalf in regards to Lonniemitchell2. When you're able to, please respond to the discussion and add any details, information, and diffs that you can provide that you believe are relevant. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Commented, and WP:INDEFed. Thanks for this Oshwah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

List of Big City Greens characters

As I'm doing something like this for Jessie, which admittedly has been paused for a while now, I don't necessarily disagree with the split, but things need to be done correctly. Just a few things I noticed:

1. Headers need to be Main, Recurring, and Notable guest stars. That's it. Anyone who doesn't fall into any of those categories should be removed. We don't need the seasons sectioned, and each character should be its own heading.
2. Names per credits is not being followed. For example, Remy. Or Dr. Enamel, where the voice credit is simply Fozzie Bear. Prose for character names can contain further name enhancements, but headers should be as credited.
3. Way too many bold violations.

You may notice more things. It's by Voicebox64, so it's not surprising. And who knows? Once those who don't qualify, per my first point, are removed, a split may not actually be appropriate. Add: And even if we split, main cast/characters remain listed on the parent article. Amaury • 05:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rank incompetence as usual – honestly, I'd be tempted to revert. 1) Sections must contain more than just a link to another article – at the least, a list of the four main characters need to be restored to the main article. 2) I don't see any real secondary sourcing at the LoC article – just massive primary sourcing. You're actually not supposed to do this. LoC articles should actually only be split out if they have enough secondary sourcing to indicate that the list-subject is notable. We've been way too lax about this in WP:TV. Bottom line: A discussion should have been held on this before splitting, so reverting on that basis would be justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But we seriously need to re-evaluate notable guest stars, because we seem to be listing everyone under the sun. On February 17, 2019, this is who I had as notable for clear reasons. For example, Jenna Ortega being main cast on Stuck in the Middle clearly makes her notable. We also have characters listed under the recurring section who have only had four appearances, if the guest stars listed at the episode list are correct, and, as we know, you need a minimum of five appearances to be considered recurring. So they should just be removed. A person like Raven-Symoné is clearly notable because she is main cast on Raven's Home, among other things, so she can just go back under the notable guest stars section, where she was originally, instead of being removed completely. But in general, again, I doubt everyone listed under the notable guest stars section now is actually notable. To respond to your comment from User talk:Amaury/2020#Big City Greens (11-20), per our discussion at User talk:Amaury/2019#Big City Greens Q, the first 26 episodes are verified, per this. If I get a chance, I'll verify the rest by skipping to the end credits for the currently aired episodes from the 27th episode onward. I've created a new sandbox page: User:Amaury/sandbox/Big City Greens guest stars by episode. I'll be listing everyone I have so far for the first 26 episodes, as well as their total number of appearances to that point. That way you can always go there for reference since you know I do things right. I'll let you know when it's done for the first 26 episodes and also keep you updated on it. Amaury • 20:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I've updated my page with everything I've verified so far—the first 26 episodes. If anything I have disagrees with the episode list on the first 26 episodes, the episode list should be fixed. I'll verify the rest as time permits. Note that because this is a cartoon and an actor can voice more than one character, in terms of determining who's recurring—five or more episodes—I am going by the character appearances, not how many times an actor is credited. For example, at least in the episodes I've verified, Colton Dunn may be credited five times, but that's between two different characters: Brett and Russell Remington, neither of which is recurring since they have only appeared three and two times, respectively, so Colton Dunn should not be listed. Obviously, that'll probably be different once I verify everything that's aired so far, but I'm just using it as an example. Also, I have parentheticals on my page next to the character names to show what number of appearance that is for the characters. For example, the 25th episode has Remy (19) since that is his 19th appearance in the series. It'll come in handy when we need to verify if a character is recurring or not. But yeah, that list should work nicely for you. Amaury • 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Post a link to your Draft from Talk:Big City Greens (I'd start a new topic on the LoC's page attempted split). Also, go ahead and edit the current 'Character' section to add the Greens' last names from the end-credits, as per the Talk page – I trust you to do this right, not the others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

2021

For 2021, I need to remember to make sections unique and descriptive as they are posted—mostly when they're not—so I'm not having to go back through and do things like this or this (I still haven't updated the formatting for my 2017 and earlier archives to the new formatting I started with 2018—the navigation bar and getting rid of the show/hide stuff!), and for the ones where it's not obvious, trying to remember what the discussion was about in order to give the section a descriptive title. I also need to remember to remove bot or user notices, like the ArbCom ones or the ones inviting me to discussions at other pages, as I don't consider those discussions. Now, if a discussion is started on the latter so it's more than just the notice, for example, like our iCarly one last year, that's one thing. And I guess the sections that have the OP, but never receive a response from me before the month is archived, like what's on my talk page now, would technically not be discussions, but I will leave those in. Only exception being that one in 2019 that was nothing but a section and a signature. Amaury • 00:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Mario Lopez

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I was just wondering more about the rationale for this edit. Is there a particular reason why you removed the rowspan? Heartfox (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Heartfox: I can probably answer this, and IJBall can elaborate if I miss anything. Using rowspan violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, though there are some small exceptions. You can use rowspan for years if they're on the left side—in other words, the very first column—which appears to be the case with Mario Lopez. However, it is generally preferred to not use rowspan. So in a case like Mario Lopez, if you want to add rowspan to the years, which is acceptable, it's just a matter of establishing consensus since the current status quo is no rowspan. Amaury • 00:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It no longer "officially" violates MOS:ACCESS, but the second part of your answer is spot on – addition of 'rowspan' is a pure WP:ILIKEIT edit, that at best only half of editors will agree with (and a majority of WP:FILMOGRAPHY editors probably disagree with), and as per WP:STYLEVAR should be discussed if reverted on. Frankly, many tables, and most WP:FILMOGRAPHY do not benefit from the use of rowspan. But, bottom line: it's a unsubstantive edit, and as per WP:STYLEVAR should not be made if there is an objection unless there is consensus demonstrated for it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello IJBall,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Astronauts (TV series)

Besides them being wrong, like with the Nicktoons airings since sister network airings are irrelevant, and even putting the discussion itself aside, this seems incredibly suspicious. Amaury • 19:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Maryland IP? Can't say I recognize this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked that, too. I don't know if it's necessarily "our friend"—most likely not—but it still seems incredibly suspicious. Very, very little contributions, and they already happen to know how an RFC works? (Putting aside that you had to move their comment.) Amaury • 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

While I obviously can't make direct accusations without proof or even say this with 100% accuracy, I am having concerns this could potentially be one of the commenters editing logged out or just on a different IP in general to try to boost the votes. For example, the timing of the edits between the credits being added on the article (4:56 AM) and the comment being made on the article talk page (5:12 AM) could either be innocent or could mean something. I don't know. Again, I can't make any direct accusations without proof, so these are just concerns right now because of the possibility of it being true. Amaury • 19:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

User:PickleAndPeanutFan

Their games have gone on long enough. I have left them a final warning here. Next time they make a disruptive edit, they should be taken to WP:AIAV for a block. Ping Magitroopa as well, who reverted them on Danger Force. It's clear this user is suffering from either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. Amaury • 03:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Unleashed (TV series)

You do actually have a genuine typo in your second to last sentence at the beginning, though. Amaury • 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Amaury/2010/February

You may be aware I'm doing a huge overhaul of my archives. I just got done with February 2010, and I just wanted to ask if video game titles follow the same guidelines as television series/program titles? Do we italicize them as well? See the section title for section 6 in that archive. Amaury • 03:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on WP:NCVG, it looks like yes... I find it interesting that this and WP:NCTV never actually state that the titles should be italicized – they just show them italicized. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess they figure that just showing whatever italicized means users should obviously know to italicize them? I dunno. LOL Amaury • 04:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

About Special Guest Star

Hi IJBall,
From your experiences, how to you deal with a main character on the Cast and Characters section who was credited as part of the starring cast only on the pilot episode, but as a Special Guest Star on the episodes they are only? For example, an actor is credited as part of the starring cast on the Pilot episode, but is credited as Special Guest Star for episode 2, is not even credited at all for episodes 3–5, and is credited as a Special Guest Star on episodes 6–7, and not even credited at all on episodes 8–10. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about Big Sky (American TV series)? Because, if we are, I would say the way it's being handled now is correct, for this series. But the answer to this will vary from series to series – for example, we did something else with Henry Danger, and I can imagine there are still other series where something else again may be the best course of action... But my general view is that cast that is credited as "main" only during a TV series' pilot episode should be handled on a case-by-case basis – this is one area where strictly following WP:TVCAST robotically is not the best course of action a lot of the time IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your opinion on it. MOS:TVCAST says nothing about cases like that. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

TVCAST basically implies that even if someone is main cast credited just once, in only the pilot, they should be listed in the main cast section. While I agree that is the correct course of action with some TV series, I don't think it's the correct call in the case of all TV series. This is one of those things that should be discussed among editors, and a consensus reached, esp. if one course of action or the other is controversial. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Big Sky (American TV series), I think a note would be sufficient like it is now. I feel like without the note would be misleading. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Or "(pilot only)" for actors that only appear in the pilot... But there are some stranger cases – like "main" in the pilot, but just "recurring" after that. So, what do you do in those cases? – Pretty sure Amuary came across a case like that, and there was conflict as to whether the cast member should be listed under 'Main' or 'Recurring'. I think in those cases, the answer will vary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Detailed cites

Hello – on the Eubha Akilade article, a user added a collection of references to verify the information in the filmography table, a few of which I filled with extra details as they were lacking certain bits of information. They reverted my edits twice, edits which I considered fine, but they are claiming to be "unnecessary crap". Could I get your opinion on my changes? Are they unnecessary? Bear in mind, this user is claiming on their user page to have "rescued" said article (which I created, pretty well, if I do say so myself)... – DarkGlow (✉) 02:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Care to comment? Between the edits from both of you, some of it looks optional – personally, if there's a separate 'Refs' column, I prefer the sources to be centered with |style="text-align:center;"... But DarkGlow's cite episode edit looks correct to me (basically follows MOS:TV) – why was this reverted? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, All of this happened 1-2am UK time so headed off to bed. Anyway I've never really seen a benefit to having centered refs so remove these when I come across them - I don't really see the need for them all to be centered ?.

The cite episode to me is filled with "unnecessary crap" - Things such as Writer, Producer, Director wouldn't be included in a normal cite so don't really see why it would need to be included here (ofcourse they'd be included on the credits part of that page but they wouldn't be in included in the cite web parameters which is what I'm getting at),

I'd be happy to allow citeepisode providing the director/writer stuff's all removed as they're not relevant to the subject. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: In a "normal cite", by which I assume you mean web/news, the author of the piece is advised to be included. So why should that be different for an episode? I also agree with IJ that a reference column should be centred, hence why I centred those refs – this is also backed up by WP:FILMOGRAPHY, where all of the example references are centred. – DarkGlow (✉) 12:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I did and indeed I include those, Because I'm not seeing the relevance here - Ofcourse a news piece should include first/last name / author as well as website name or publisher because they're all relevant and informational whereas Writer, Director and Producer aren't, The general reader isn't going to care who wrote, directed or produced the episode although if they did they'd only need to head to List of Casualty episodes...

FILMOGRAPHY is an essay not a policy or guideline - Like I said I'm not seeing a benefit to having these centered - that's just a preference thing.

Given we're clearly not going to agree on this maybe it'd be best to start an RFC ?, –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is too "small ball" for a RfC IMO. I advise more discussion, either at the Talk page, WT:FILMOGRAPHY, or possibly at the Talk page for {{cite episode}}. If only the two of you comment, it's a stalemate, and WP:STATUSQUO would apply. But hopefully other editors would comment and some kind of consensus can be reached. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing's too small for an RFC, Discussions won't lead anywhere and truth be told they've not lead anywhere here either other than further polite disagreements, Atleast with an RFC outsiders can look in and decide for themselves. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Apparition11 § What constitutes a discussion?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Apparition11 § What constitutes a discussion?. It's a lengthy discussion, but I only need your opinion specifically on the messages I've posted today. You can disregard everything else. Amaury • 07:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Created articles

For the "Created Articles" section of my user page, including the drafts, I've been ordering them in alphabetical order, but I'm wondering if I should order them by date created. What do you think is better? Amaury • 06:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think chronological order would be better – it's how I order mine, anyway. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Either way is fine, though I personally go with chronological as DarkGlow suggests (though I don't create many articles myself these days – my standards have gotten too high!!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Amaury/sandbox#Unsigned Template Dates and Times

I just added this to my sandbox. I thought it'd be helpful for you if you ever need it. You'll just need to adjust things accordingly for your time zone, and I mention that in the section as well. And, obviously, I'm not going to put every single time in there. I only put every hour on the dot, and you can just adjust the minutes accordingly as needed. You may need to click edit on the User Code and IP Address Code sections to view the code properly since once I publish it, it appears to be convering things, even with the no wiki tags. Amaury • 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I usually use {{Unsigned2}} and {{UnsignedIP2}} templates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was actually just looking at those, but I don't quite understand the difference. Amaury • 03:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, these ones let you enter in order of date/name, where as the "1" templates require the proper name/date signature order. The advantage of the former is that it matches how 'Revision history' pages list this info – in date/name order – so it's easier to just "copy and paste" from a 'Revision history' page using the "2" templates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of I Killed My BFF

The article I Killed My BFF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF, covered by a few content farms, but not by reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 18:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Response at Talk:I Killed My BFF#No Objection to PROD – the LA Times source is not nothing, but it's also not nearly enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello IJBall, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays!

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Christmas 2020

I guess this is the part where I say merry Christmas. Amaury • 20:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

User Twins Serrano 68

Looks like they've been updated to auto-confirmed, so worth keeping an eye on more, as semi-protections won't do anything if they ever get disruptive enough. Amaury • 04:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Legacies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You did not need to be rude in your response when undoing my edit. I honestly did not know Spoiler TV was not a reliable source. That's literally all you had to say when you originally undid my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxrquez (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My reversion edit summary was literally but "WP:NOTRS". There is absolutely nothing "rude" about this. If you think this kind of edit summary is "rude", I'm going to suggest that editing Wikipedia is probably not for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

you responding with "We been through this several times already. Please stop your disruptive editing!" is very rude. How am I to know that my editing is "disruptive" if I truly didn't know Spoiler TV was non reliable. That's literally at you had to say without being so snappy. There are ways to correct and educate someone without being rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxrquez (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mxrquez: That was YoungForever's reversion, not mine. But considering it was your second reversion (after mine) for the same thing, YoungForever's edit summary was not out of line. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it, because again, I thought it was a reliable source. And the edit summary was out of line to me because telling me I'm being disruptive when I was just genuinely trying to help, was not okay at all. There are ways to talk to people without being snappy. Had someone told me that is was not reliable source the first time WITHOUT claiming I'm being disruptive, then I would've truly understood and accepted it. I just did not deserve to be talked to like that, no one does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxrquez (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mxrquez: You have deliberately restored the same exactly edit when IJBall reverted you and clearly said WP:NOTRS. FYI, giving you a level 1 warning is not rude nor an insult. My edit summary wasn't even an insult nor rude, too. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what "WP:NOTRS". I would've loved to be educated on it than snapped at. Your response was rude because I was not trying to be disruptive as you assumed. I, again, was just genuinely trying to help. If I did it incorrectly then that should have be communicated without any angst towards me than ridiculing me. Whether you meant your comment to be rude or not, that's how it was perceived. It was my very first time editing something on that page and I just did not deserve to be spoken to like. You don't always have to speak down to people in attempt to correct them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxrquez (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christy Carlson Romano

Apparently, your ego is more important than facts. It really shows. There is NOTHING to prove that jta.org is telling the truth. 3 vs 1 source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FacelessEntity86 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@FacelessEntity86: First, do not engage in personal attacks – you can actually be blocked for this. Second, go to the article Talk page to discuss this, as I instructed you to. Third, the "sources" you tried to use are crap – see WP:NOTRS. But do not respond here, please – go to the article Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My Talk page watchers – please also see this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @FacelessEntity86: Nothing what IJBall said were even remotely considered as personal attacks. IJBall was talking about the content. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User Tom.Reding

I am intentionally manually reverting and am not pinging them, as I have no interest in crossing paths with them. This is because they are a good-standing editor, but these particular edits they are making right now are appearing to be disruptive. Please keep an eye on them and (manually) revert as needed, at least on the articles we watch. I'm not going to bother going through all of their edits (that would be contribution stalking), so I am only looking at the articles I have watchlisted. If they want those edits to stick, then they need to be providing a very descriptive edit summary explaining why they're doing that. "Enum 1 author/editor WL; WP:GenFixes on" explains nothing. This has been going on for a few days now. Amaury • 17:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: I've seen these edits, and have been tempted to revert, but I'm not seeing anything in the guidelines for the citation template {{Cite web}} suggesting that use of author-link is wrong. In fact, in the documentation here, it's saying numerous times not to wikilink the author's name, and to use author-link instead. I'm probably missing something and may need some discussions where this was talked about. You're saying that author-link is reserved for Twitter accounts, but I'm scratching my head. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Please see the {{Cite web}} template documentation on this – it does indeed say to use author-link now, so you should not be reverting Tom.Reding on this. I don't know if this is a recent change or what, but the template documentation is clear on this point, and Tom.Reding is simply carrying out what the template docs instruct. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Then he needs to link to the page or a discussion regarding it. Per above, "Enum 1 author/editor WL; WP:GenFixes on" is insufficient and explains nothing. I shouldn't have to dig for this, or have MPFitz1968 link me to the page because it's why he thinks the user is doing this, and I am well within my rights to revert for insufficient explanation, as it is borderline disruptive. In any case, I hope your new year has been good so far. Amaury • 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

— YoungForever^(talk) is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reverting edits

Hello user! I saw that you reverted my edits to Olivia Rodrigo, saying that it was promotional and that "this isn't a fan site, but a historical record." My edit was verbatim, becoming Rodrigo's first number one single across all major streaming platforms, which is not failing any of the comments you made about my edit. This is a simply a fact, that is sourced and important for a reader of Rodrigo's page. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia and know what it is and isn't. Please keep in mind that you cannot own a Wikipedia page, and you shouldn't revert perfectly informational and proper edits, as the goal of Wikipedia editing is so that everyone can. Please consider reading WP:DONTREVERT, as my edit was not promotional and from a neutral point of view, like you said it was not. Also, this fact is already written in the song's Wikipedia page, anyways. :) Coreykai (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for the lede of a WP:BLP no matter how you slice it. What goes in the lede of a song article, and what goes into the lede of a WP:BLP are totally different things – WP:BLPLEAD is very clear The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. (emphasis mine) Trumpeting what is happening this week is very much the definition of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. So, no, I have no regrets here at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth place

Would you consider this bio of Rodrigo from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, whom Rodrigo is a panelist for, to be an RS in regards to confirming she was born in Temecula? – DarkGlow (✉) 01:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Yes – that's almost certainly from Rodrigo herself, and the institute is a real thing so it should be a WP:RS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I'm probably at my limit at this article. But a bunch of recent changes have been made, including removing the very source you're talking about, and again adding inappropriate stuff, so you may need to revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

TEŽ

Can I add Tatra Electric Railway to this article? It fullfiles some features of tram/light rail systems! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ping Yak79 2.0 here, to solicit their opinion. I don't know enough about this system, but it looks like it might be a "light railway" rather than a true light rail system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of Big City Greens episodes#Proposed rearrangement of Season 1

I've already commented, but... Amaury • 08:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Fox News

As I've been watching this a lot lately, particularly the primetime lineup, shouldn't we be holding off on this until it's actually Monday? Amaury • 02:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, technically, it should wait until the new lineup actually airs. I have no idea why some editors insist upon jumping the gun like this – it's pointless. But it's also not worth reverting in a case like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Anatole (TV series)

Anatole technically is a preschool show. Why else would it air on Treehouse TV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerstar Productions (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It matters not a bit unless WP:RS's refer to the show as such. All genres must be sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Legacies (TV series)

I actually had a look at that. The website does not currently have the titles for the third season episodes. All it has is Episode 3.1 and Episode 3.2. Amaury • 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, you can revert if you like. But the WGA is definitely valid for episode titles when they're in there, and that edit summary implied that it wasn't. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It should eventually update and fill out the titles, and it's why I chose to just give you the heads up rather than revert. Amaury • 03:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Lab Rats

I get what you mean when you say that the episodes should be in order of how they were first aired. But, if two production codes are for one episode, then shouldn't this account for two episodes, even if it was aired together in its first run? Not 100% sure how this works! - --Anthony hello123 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If two episodes are originally broadcast as a single episode, we list in in the episode table as a single episode, even if subsequent reruns split them up. IOW, we go off what is broadcast, not production codes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Coop & Cami Ask the World

Remember how long people kept claiming that the second season of Bunk'd was the last? Then the third? And finally the fourth? And they got proven wrong on each one. Same thing is going to happen here, or a year will pass without new episodes, and then we'll update as needed. But based on Disney Channel's record with things, such as the silent renewal of Bizaardvark's third season, it is way too premature to say the series has ended now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

While I personally think that in this case it is likely that the show is done (I thought season #2 was a huge step down in quality, and it wouldn't surprise me if Disney felt the same), it doesn't mean anything without word from Disney. It's called Wikipedia:Verifiability for a reason, and if you can't provide that you have no business changing article information. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for signing the above. I'm on my laptop right now while I wait for my HDMI to VGA adapter to arrive. My new computer doesn't have a VGA port, only HDMI ports, and the HDMI port on my monitor isn't working. Plus, I don't feel like hooking everything back up to my old computer, only to have to move everything back over to the new one tomorrow. Long story short, the key with the tilde is smaller than the number keys, unlike on my desktop keyboards, where it's the same size. Amaury • 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: If it's already on your watchlists, please just keep a closer eye on this series' article. Likewise for the related articles, like the episode list and the programs articles. As we know, unless a year passes with no new episodes or we have an official announcement from Disney Channel, the showrunner, or a reliable source, the series is still airing (new episodes) and is just on hiatus. People kept claiming that the second, third, and fourth reasons of Bunk'd were the last, sometimes citing unreliable sources like Premiere Date, and look at what happened there. We are now on the fifth season of Bunk'd! Amaury • 19:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

They need to look to reliable sources, like a Disney press release, before concluding a series has ended. The fact that there haven't been any new episodes in a few months, or that a page at Disney's web site gives a 404 "not found" error (like the case with Disney Fam Jam), isn't enough to make that conclusion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Born a Champion has been accepted

Born a Champion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It actually wasn't "my creation" – I just resubmitted it – but thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for catching my silly mistake. :D WeißFocusRS (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)