User talk:Luigi1090

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have a hate list on it, which I've removed for the second time. This is not an appropriate use of your userpage. Stop adding it.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and also, you say that you want no enemies; such a list will only make you more.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

In the future, keep it on your own talk page. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to List of performances on Top of the Pops. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Peter Loader (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. You have new messages at Talk:List of The Problem Solverz episodes.
Message added 23:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have reverted the edits at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes because youtube is not considered a WP:RS or the best source to use, are there other sources you can find that are better for who directed and wrote what episode? Feel free to revert me if you feel otherwise but if you use youtube please cite the videos you are using official ones from CN I think are okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said your edits were vandalism just that they should be sourced (See also: WP:V). I noticed that you were using the opening for each episode as a source and I do think it is a good idea however you should read: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, under there you see: "YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher." "Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation. In general, unless the video is not clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it." --> In other words using an unofficial youtube page as a source may be in violation of copyright which is not allowed here on wikipedia. Please find another source for the name you give or an official youtube cartoon network page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to provide Wikipedia with false, grammatically incorrect or overall not notable information, you could possibly be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing.--173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PolyGame Master may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''[[Dragon World 3 Special]]'' / ''China Dragon 3 Special'' / ''Chuugokuryuu 3 Special]]'' (2000)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi1090, I reverted your edit here because the references you provided do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. TVTropes.com is a user-submitted site, as is Wikia.com. And so is IMDb, for that matter, as is Wikipedia itself. You can not use these sources to back up claims that you make. You must find established reputable sources that, among other qualifications, are presumed to exercise some clear editorial control. Again, explanations of these rules can be found at WP:RS Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi1090, i just wanted to let you know, that i removed that pilot, The Commentator and i wanted know if there we're any sources for it Aozz101x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aozz101x. I've read your message. For the Cartoon Network pilot The Commentator, I found its only source (because I have not found anything on the web) "directly" from the page of The Cartoonstitute: in that page is findable the name of its creator, as well as its plot. Luigi1090 (talk)

Will I Could Not Find Any Source For It (And Ill Leave It There) Smeens Like It Is True Thanks Anyways Aozz101x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi1090, just a heads-up that when you reverted a recent edit at The Problem Solverz, you missed the vandalism that came right before it. I've fixed it, just wanted to give you a heads-up. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contributor on fr.wiki. I'm looking an information. Where did you find PGM3 spec ? I need reference for the french article and i can't find reference about this !!!

Best regards ffrom France --Archimëa (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, i see only right now the next contribution IP added the spec. I thought you added it. Sorry for this --Archimëa (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK i got it, googled intel atom + pgm3 and found it. http://akihabaraarcade.blogspot.fr/2013/08/knights-of-valour-3-hd.html --Archimëa (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, i saw a mistake on SNK page in en.wiki, but i don't know if you contribute/are interested in arcade games... --Archimëa (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask directly on SNK page for the mess i saw on this page. Thanks for hearing me --Archimëa (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi1090, I reverted your edit at The Problem Solverz, but I wanted to drop you a note to explain why. Though it doesn't always make sense to me, the community expects that series end dates shouldn't be assumed even if it's been years since the series aired. For a show like The Problem Solverz, even though it's been a while since it aired, even though there's no announcement that the series will be picked up again, the WikiProject Television requires a source. Here is one such conversation that re-affirms this. So, it's nothing personal, it's just the way the community decided it wants it. Futon Critic is problematic as a source, since they have no problem assuming that a dormant series is cancelled. Unfortunately we can't use their assumption as a reference. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Luigi, in recent months I've really backed off from your data edits, because I think you do a pretty good job and because my impression of you is that you strive for accuracy with your data. That said, your content edits are still problematic, because you keep trying to assert your POV, when your POV is not consistent with common usage, or with the docs at Template:Infobox television. For example here, you again add micro-information that isn't supported by the template and isn't of much use without prose to explain the details, like the "Mirari Films" stuff and the co-writer credits, which I had previously removed with clear explanation, which you re-submitted with no explanation. And while it seems you really want to fill the infobox with Ben Jones' name, you are oversaturating the infobox. And this was not an improvement: "in fact, he created for them a pilot entitled Neon Knome" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. You have new messages at Talk:Uncle_Grandpa#Writers_sorted_in_descending_order_based_on..what.3F.21.
Message added 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, please don't remove references as you did here and here. Though I understand that some editors remove sources after a show airs, there is absolutely no justification for that, and we wouldn't do such a thing in any biographical article, science article, etc. The episodes still need to be verifiable and references help protect the integrity of our articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me from where Wikia is used as a reliable source?. The section I removed the ratings because there are no references. And until vintages reliable sources, this section does not anger.--McVeigh (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the What a Cartoon! article, should the ending date be 2002 or 2008? On one hand, all of the Cartoon Cartoon segments that aired between 2005 and 2008 were just reruns. But on the other hand, they were anthologized in a way similar to The Popeye Show or ToonHeads, which have their own episodes lists.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop add storyboarders. Per MOS:TV only "writers, directors, airdates, episode title and episode number" should be included, as well as a plot summary and production codes (if they are sourced). Dcbanners (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Saw Forest and Marc Cosgrave (talk · contribs). The IP you reverted may be a sock. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. You have new messages at Talk:Cartoon_Network_Studios#Logo_evolution.
Message added 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, there is still an open discussion here about the inclusion of the Cartoon Network logo evolution section, as it is unsourced, and I don't see the encyclopedic value of including this content. As you know, discussion is the key to consensus. If you don't discuss, you don't have consensus, and since you never explained the re-inclusion of this content, by default it should be removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Little Lulu#Jim and Ellie Tompkins? for discussion including request for source, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Little Lulu characters, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://cartoonmuskaan.blogspot.com/2012/04/little-lulu-is-nickname-for-lulu.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorenSearchBot. Thanks for the message. I've created the page List of Little Lulu characters just because I noticed a similar page in the Portuguese version of Wikipedia. Then I read the web site link that you posted, and I say that I have not copied at all because the descriptions of the characters are those of the original page (Little Lulu), so I just moved in this new page. Luigi1090

Hello, I'm Nihonjoe. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Little Lulu without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, with regard to this edit, we cannot copy/paste or even closely paraphrase content from other sources, like these for example: [1][2][3] Synopses must be written from scratch in our own words. I'm a little surprised that you don't know this, actually. We can provide direct quotations with proper attribution, but only before an episode airs. After it airs, it must be changed because we cannot base significant portions of an article on copyrighted content. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shows were no longer produced under the Cartoon Cartoon brand after 2003 yes, but the brand was still used until 2008.Sonic100jam (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, I don't think you're using the alt_title parameter properly, like here and here. That parameter is for alternative titles, for instance if an episodes had a different title in Europe than in Canada. I'm going to open a discussion at Talk:List of Evil Con Carne episodes about this, but I think a format like the following makes more sense than using the incorrect parameters.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Studios was founded on October 21, 1994 at 7:00am as a division of Hanna-Barbera and was later spun-off as its own studio after Bill Hanna's death in 2001. The only reason you and other people think CN Studios didn't co-produce certain cartoons with Hanna-Barbera is just because of the Hanna-Barbera (CN Studios' parent company at the time) logo being used even though CN Studios still co-produced certain cartoons with Hanna-Barbera when it was still a division of H-B. In short, cartoons like Cow & Chicken, I.M. Weasel, Dexter's Laboratory: Ego Trip, seasons 1-2 of Dexter's Laboratory, seasons 1-3 of Johnny Bravo, the pre-Movie episodes of The Powerpuff Girls, and various 1995-2000 Cartoon Network shorts are Hanna-Barbera/Cartoon Network Studios co-productions. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I'm just letting you know about CN Studios' history before it spun-off from Hanna-Barbera. 24.180.56.157 (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, just a quick note to remind you that per WP:TVUPCOMING we don't use "present" in headings like you've done here and here. The progression is:

• Season 1 - before any episodes air
• Season 1 (2015) - once an episode airs
• Season 1 (2015–16) - once an episode airs in 2016
• Season 1 (2015–17) - if the season airs across three years.

And so on. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some of your edits, like this one, you say the addition is "vandalism." Please note that edits like those are NOT vandalism - rather, they are rookie mistakes made by other editors. The template's name makes it vague as to what qualifies for inclusion in it. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have enough content to create an article for the TV series, so I just added the episodes to the movie one. Gatordragon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 23W 16:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, please stop adding breaks in the middle of episode titles as you've done at least twice here and here. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve, but the result is not constructive. If you have a problem with the way the table is displaying on whatever computer you're using, you should open a discussion on the article's talk page and ask for solutions. One solution might be for you to adjust the table field widths, but please discuss this first. Forcing carriage returns into a field that is parsed by other computing systems, like Google, for instance, is not helpful. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up to this request, can you please explain why you are adding breaks in the middle of titles on Be Cool, Scooby-Doo? I've reverted you three times now, so continuing to make these edits without explanation could be considered disruptive editing and can get you blocked. Thanks Isabelle♥ 01:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, re: your edit here, are you aware that the Writer's Guild of America and the Animation Guild use ampersands to indicate members of a writing team?[4][5] Even if a production is not a guild signatory, or even from the US, this is a standard that is employed widely. You should be aware of that before unilaterally deciding that ampersands are not necessary, as you could be accidentally introducing confusing information. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, please stop adding odd formatting changes to articles before discussing it. Three different editors have now expressed concern with you doing this (diffs below), so you need to be discussing this on the talk page instead of just continually reverting people with no discussion. Thank you. Diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Isabelle♥ 00:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, I've brought this up to you before. Since you keep getting opposed by other editors about the forced line breaks you're adding in articles, you need to open a discussion about it, and I think the best place is at WikiProject Television where the community can weigh in on your changes. You can't keep editing according to your personal whims and disregard the community's input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you said it's legally necessary to put in the story writers. Can you please explain that assertion? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase means that it is in the standard include a feature in the table. Luigi1090

I noticed you made a sweeping change, can you take your new format to the talk-page to discuss? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove {{episode table}} when it's used on a page. It is desirable over wikitable coding as it can keep track of things like WP:COLOR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about your recent edit and the inclusion of storyboarders in general here. Please join. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cartoon Network original programming}} is for programs originally ran on the American network. That CN didn't oversee production of a series isn't important; it's not relveant for inclusion in Category:Cartoon Network original programs either, according to the text. Please don't remove the template or the category from pages on such shows. 23W 21:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Mr. Men Show needs to be in the template for Cartoon Network's original programming, because it was a co-production of Cartoon Network and the UK channel: Five. --SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sorry about the adding, I just thought all 22 minute specials could go there but I guess not. ._. Does that mean We Bare Bears' Captain Craboo won't go there after it airs? (Which BTW, I'm psyched about.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebear244 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi, I've had to fix some grammar errors that you introduced at List of The Problem Solverz episodes. If English grammar is not your strong suit, it might be more beneficial for you to make edit requests than to introduce problematic prose that ultimately has to be corrected. You changed a number of things that were already fine. Also, I don't think that the Start date parameters you added were necessary. I believe a bot may eventually come by to remove them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This time I've inserted the source about the new pilot. Luigi1090 18:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!. SummerPhD^v2.0 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!, I haven't inserted NONE unsourced material to Wikipedia because THEY ALREADY WERE. I simply shrunk brackets. Luigi1090 18:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in What a Cartoon!. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of performances on Top of the Pops, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peter Doherty and Cut Off. 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) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of Johnny Bravo episodes, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid constructions like "Note:" since they are against Wikipedia's style guide. Bright☀ 18:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is against Wikipedia's Manual of Style and just bad writing. Bright☀ 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Loud House episodes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at List of The Loud House episodes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Edits you disagree with are generally not "vandalism". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at List of The Loud House episodes.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Loud House episodes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at List of The Loud House episodes.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi. A number of experienced editors are expressing concerns that some of your contributions to List of The Loud House episodes have been less than constructive. Please try not to edit in a manner that is inconsistent with WP:CONSENSUS. If you are making any major changes to an article it is often best to check on the talk page before doing so, especially if the article has recently undergone major revisions by a team of editors. Disregarding consensus can be seen as a specie of disruptive editing. Thank you for your work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ad Orientem. I've read your message. My edits on List of The Loud House episodes are always NOT distruptive/vandalic (since the first time I worked on it), but a user named Amaury and maybe also IJBall are doing personal attacks against me. And then they see destruptive when there's not: here's the proves [6] & [7], and finally my outburst about it [8] (in the paragraph "Episode titles"). Luigi1090 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pelican VG Pocket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breakout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that MAD (TV series) was the last show they worked on. But, to my surprise, I am wrong! 86.181.127.24 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Specials you're talking about at http://www.adultswim.com/videos/specials/ are covered at List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim#Pilots and specials. Not only are you citing the wrong content, but you're using a primary source to try and define it in the article.

The article is about the Infomercials series - http://www.adultswim.com/videos/infomercials/ . The sources in the article use "short" to describe them., see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/too-many-cooks_n_6161460.html

Please self-revert. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Infomercials are also in short format but, here's an article that I found on Web who confirm that they're all TV specials http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/adult-swim/241381/before-too-many-cooks-looking-at-adult-swim-s-other-infomercials -- Luigi1090 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of that article is "The world recently fell in love with the Adult Swim short, Too Many Cooks," and line #2 is "While many can’t get enough of this short,". The only use of "special" is that these appeared as "SPECIAL" on the television listings. That's not the same thing. Please self-revert. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A TV special (made for and aired on Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc.), doesn't have to be that precise running time because they're anti-limit. Then I've found other links on Web who confirm that they're all TV specials, and this time for some titles (some also confirmed by their "creators/staff"):

* For-Profit Online University http://splitsider.com/2013/12/heres-an-infomercial-for-a-fake-college-written-by-ex-onion-writers-that-adult-swim-is-airing-at-4am/ * In Search of Miracle Man http://www.mattbesser.com/?p=1679 * Live at the Necropolis: The Lords of Synth https://pitchfork.com/news/65229-adult-swim-parodies-giorgio-moroder-vangelis-wendy-carlos-watch/ * Wet Shapes http://www.joosjeduk.com/wet-shapes-1/ 

Luigi1090 12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my reasonable and valid "see also" section on Infomercials (TV specials)? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, because the article doesn't need it. And finally, the show that you inserted (Don't Hug Me I'm Scared), is completely unrelated to it. Luigi1090 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Smurfs_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=843714491 These episodes are based on Peyo stories (for instance "Soup a La Smurf" is based on fr:La_Soupe_aux_Schtroumpfs). The mention (based on a concept by Peyo and Yvan Delporte) is made for several other episodes on the list (to make the distinction with the stories which are strict creation of the series makers), why not for these ones ? Elfast (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elflast. My revert reason is very simple: all the people in this world (also the kids) know that all Smurfs episodes are based on concept/story by Peyo and Yvan Delporte BUT, I repeat BUT, that's not the point. The real point is that all episode titles and writers staff are taken ONLY & EXCLUSIVELY from their U.S.A. TV presentation cards (http://smurfs.wikia.com/wiki/Smurfette%27s_Flower?file=Smurfettes_Flower.jpg). Luigi1090 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you consider that "all Smurfs episodes are based on concept/story by Peyo and Yvan Delporte" then you should remove every "(based on a concept by Peyo and Yvan Delporte)" of the list. As I said (above), some scenarios (the majority) are not based on a Peyo story (for instance, I don't think the second one, "Jokey's Medicine", is), and I think it's the reason why "(based on a concept by Peyo and Yvan Delporte)" has been added on some.

But your second argument is convincing. I think we should make it explicit in the article ("all episode titles and writers staff are taken ONLY & EXCLUSIVELY from their U.S.A. TV presentation cards" should be written in the article (as a reference ? or in small ?)). Instead of "written by" maybe we should write something like "credited to".

And I don't think the expression TBA suits here (there won't be any "announcement").

Elfast (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Despite all the episode are supervised and based on concept by Peyo and Yvan Delporte, this is also confirmed on the original U.S.A. (not International/Worldwide) closing credits (Season 2 [9]; Season 3 [10]; Season 5 [11]; Season 6 [12]), I repeat once again and once and for all: the little note "(based on a concept by Peyo and Yvan Delporte)" will remains forever beacuse, as I wrote before, it's just those original U.S.A. TV presentation cards to credited it (like in "The Astrosmurf" [13]).
• 2) There is absolutely no need of your option "(as a reference ? or in small ?)" for the writers, because all Wikipedia users who work in this article, have known for a long time that those names are correct.
• 3) It's a Wikipedia LAW to insert "Written by" on the table, so nothing "credited to".
• 4) Also that TBA in some Season 1 episodes remains forever because, strange but true, the original U.S.A. (not International/Worldwide) TV presentation cards, writers do not appear while in others yes.

Luigi1090 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"There is absolutely no need of your option "(as a reference ? or in small ?)" for the writers, because all Wikipedia users who work in this article, have known for a long time that those names are correct." that's not how Wikipedia works : you have to give the source of your information in the article. People don't have to trust contributors on parole because "all Wikipedia users who work in this article, have known for a long time that those names are correct"

Could you tell me what is this Wikipedia Law ? And is inserting "TBA" a law too ?

Elfast (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat once again and once and for all: there is absolutely no need of your option "(as a reference ? or in small ?)" for the writers, because yourself or go to IMDb, or see an episode title presentation card on from TV, cartoon streaming websites, etc. And finally, for Wikipedia LAW I meant to say that characteristic (in the case of TBA and "Written by"), you must always use it, and and doing the opposite of this (you proposed "credited to") is a vandalism act.

Luigi1090 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Williams Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FFX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi1090. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that 21st Century Fox acquiring Bento Box means that Lazor Wulf has been cancelled? You added statements saying the show was cancelled, using sources that make zero mention of Lazor Wulf.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lazor Wulf, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple. When a biggest company (like Fox Corporation) acquires a small/medium company (like the animation studio Bento Box), means that small studio work only and exclusively for the main channel of that big company (FOX), becoming accordingly a 1st party studio. And finally, that small company DOESN'T work for shows of other channels. --Luigi1090 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This reeks of insane troll logic to me. Just because a large media company acquires a smaller company does NOT mean that the smaller company suddenly stops producing content for networks not owned by their new parent company. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Victor and Valentino to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Lazor Wulf. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Soft Focus with Jena Friedman a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Also, note that the name of the show is easily verifiable on the show's official website or the opening credits. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Cartoon Network Studios. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeeeeyyyyy!!! You're wrong this time!! I did not do any vandalism and/or distruptive editing on Cartoon Network Studios! I removed those three links because that two titles, Adventure Time: Elements and Steven Universe: The Movie, have "already" been premiered an aired on TV. So, like a new series that premiered its first episode, they're announcement web links no longer needed. Luigi1090 21:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They’re still needed for historical purposes. People may want to know when the content was first announced. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneGeek2002: Also you're wrong! The historical purposes are ALREADY in their official Wikipedia pages. Luigi1090 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a project. You can’t use the project as a source. You have to use a reliable source for this. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amaury is right, you can’t use those sources. ESPECIALLY a pirate site like KimCartoon that’s constantly changing domains. If you have a RS, then we can use that. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Modernponderer. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of What's with Andy? episodes appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Modernponderer (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sources from articles without giving a valid reason for doing so. "It premieres today" is not a valid reason to remove a source. If this behavior continues, I might have to take you to WP:ANI. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to confront him on this as well, how would people be able to confirm its airing today without a source? HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. The sources for Steven Universe Future airing today (7 December) are already on List of Steven Universe episodes. Luigi1090 23:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself is not at reliable source. We need to prove what is being said, and that’s why we need (reliable) sources. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 23:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you added the category "Toy recalls" on the Thingmaker article. As far as I know, the Thingmaker was never recalled. Can you tell me your source for that information? Thanks! -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the web sources for that banned and recalled Mattel toy: [14] & [15]. Luigi1090 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't say that the Thingmaker was recalled; they just say that it was dangerous. I've done some research on dangerous toys for a presentation, and neither the Thingmaker or the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Laboratory were recalled. I think we should only put articles into the "Toy recalls" category if there's a source in the article that actually says that the toy was recalled. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Cartoon Network Studios, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Cartoon Network Studios, you may be blocked from editing. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luigi, my name here is Eggishorn. I saw the discussion at ANI about you. I don't want to criticize you there. I do want to help you understand a problem. You said, "...and I haven't a poor grammar." You also said, "...this user (The Grand Delusion) is only making a plot against me and ruined me trying to make unnecessary alarmism." Both statements use non-standard English grammar. I see similar mistakes in other posts you have made. These may not be "good" grammar because you are upset and typing fast, I don't know. Contributing to the English-language Wikipedia means not just following rules but also communicating well in English. I can guess from these quotes that English is not your first language. If this is true, then you may want to use the Wikipedia in your first language. Here is a list. Using one of these may be more fun and less frustrating. No editor should be working on a Wikipedia where they are not enjoying it. I hope this helps and best wishes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but you've been indefinitely blocked as a result of this ANI discussion. To be unblocked, please see WP:GAB and make an unblock request via {{unblock}}. You will need to address the concerns raised in the ANI complaint, including your English-language proficiency. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Undefined for how many hours, days or months? Luigi1090 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's indefinite, which means it will not time out. You need to make an unblock request if you want to edit. There's nothing stopping someone from immediately unblocking you, as long as you convince them that you have sufficient English language proficiency and understand our policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Luigi1090 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reading all Wikipedia:Disruptive editing I understood and paid for all my mistakes made these days and, seriously, I learned my lesson from this. I can also improve further by giving myself another chance of trust. Luigi1090 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't address the concerns given in the ANI discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Luigi: First of all, while you've provided explanations to some of the questions raised by The Grand Delusion in your ANI case, many of your responses suggest that you don't actually understand normal community editing practices, like that we wouldn't use an unverified Twitter account as a reference, even if they were probably a person involved in a show. The only way that you will be able to be unblocked is if you can explain that you understand the issues raised at the ANI, understand why you were blocked, and provide some sort of plan for how to avoid the problematic behavior in the future. However, since your English proficiency seems to be a major issue here, I don't know how you plan to improve that. You should think about that. I don't mean that to be disrespectful, but Wikipedia requires that editors be able to understand community standards and participate in discussion when necessary, and editors seem to think this is affecting your ability to edit here properly.

Also, just in case you are tempted to evade your block by creating another account, (and I am not saying that you are), please note that this can quickly lead to being permanently banned from the community, which is not what you want, because then, everything you do can be deleted. I'm only mentioning this because sometimes people who edit here for a long time feel a sense of entitlement. So, if I were you, I'd either improve my English skills or edit at a Wikipedia in your native language for the time being. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jammers (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reviews found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since Sept 2016.

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. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]