User talk:Thegreatluigi

Welcome!

Hello, Thegreatluigi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

– Fayenatic London 21:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

March 2016: List of Sasuke competitions

A few days back you made a comment to List of Sasuke competitions that indicated you thought there was an edit war going on. But an IP user came in right behind you and reverted you. I have no knowledge of what this article is about so I didn't feel confident editing it - can you take a look at the last edits on that page? Thanks. -- Krelnik (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to help, but I think you may have misunderstood me very slightly. I was concerned that I, myself, was getting into an edit war (namely me versus a couple of anonymous IPs (who I think may be the same person), and a guy called StealthForce who may have made a genuine error). Before I got to the article, there had already been a hint of an edit war over the same detail, but it'd fizzled out (leaving incorrect information). I sadly didn't realise this when I got into it myself. Thegreatluigi (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Assuming that you're not a teetotaller or under age... for 'fessing up to acting in haste when nominating Lac du Mal for deletion. I'm rubbish at apologising for my mistakes, so...respect! TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AFD Discussion - List of most discussed YouTube videos (2nd nomination)

Seeing that you have participated in the First Discussion, I have created another discussion since the article has been recreated. The discussion in question is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most discussed YouTube videos (2nd nomination). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Kristallnacht: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Thegreatluigi. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Talk:Nazi Party— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This warning was given in error. I can't believe it's taken me nearly four months to finally get round to striking it out... Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User removing messages from their own talk page

Hi Thegreatluigi. Re. this edit, please note that per WP:UP#CMT, users are permitted to remove messages from their own user talk page, so such edits should not be reverted. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't know that rule. Thanks for letting me know. Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the edits, It was getting Disruptive.... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the message. Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not vandalizing

To the great Luigi

I am not vandalizing anything. Me Constanzo is my history teacher at TMI Texas Millitary Institute and is not 420 and never was. I ask you to please change this.

Eddie Eddietheeagle5 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You changed his details to say that he's 3 foot 5 and 699 pounds. I HIGHLY doubt that's accurate... Thegreatluigi (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reported the IP 2001:48F8:26:4E7:657D:91A0:38A0:7E86 as I can see that you and I are both attempting to stop repetitive vandalism from them. Happy contributing! John Maguire (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thegreatluigi. 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)

Rollback use

Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, rollback should only be used for clearly disruptive edits, like vandalism, and not for changes made in good faith. While this obviously has some issues, it's not vandalism. An informative edit summary would normally be expected and is especially important when we have a new contributor who is probably not aware of our content guidelines. Please be more careful with rollback in edge cases like this. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, new users adding what they consider relevant information in a clumsy was is not unconstructive editing. They at least deserve the courtesy of an explanation if those edits are reverted. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: – Joe (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've always been a bit heavy handed with Rollback, so I guess I had this warning coming, but while I'll happily accept fault on that first rollback, I honestly can't see how that second edit I rollbacked could be considered good faith, and constructive. The edit literally changed the bold page title on the first sentence. If I changed the first line of The Simpsons article to read "The is Apu is an American sitcom...", would that be considered a good faith and constructive edit? Thegreatluigi (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I've just checked WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and it says you can use Rollback to revert "Edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". I think it IS absolutely clear why I reverted that... Thegreatluigi (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious to you and me, but follow the thought process of the editor that made it. They found an article describing the Maithil as Brahmin. They consider (rightly or wrongly) that they belong to a different caste. They try to change the article accordingly, but being unfamiliar with our syntax and conventions, and perhaps not fluent in English, make a mess of it. "Good faith" and "constructive" refer to the intention behind an edit, not how it turns out. I see a constructive intent behind this edit and if there is any doubt, we should always assume good faith. If you reverted and explained to them why, maybe they would come back with a source that could be used to improve the article. But bitten by an uncommunicative revert and an unhelpful, semi-automated admonishment, they're unlikely to bother.

It's concerning that I have to explain this. If you already know that you're a "bit heavy handed" with rollback, don't wait for an admin to warn you, don't do it. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it "concerning" that I needed a small brush up on the definition of "good faith", after a full year of reverting vandalism, without a single complaint (as for that "reason for reverting is absolutely clear" rule, I really regret mentioning it, since I brought it up in great haste, and now realise it's fairly obvious what that rule actually means). Furthermore, I said "a bit heavy handed", not "outside the boundaries of acceptable use". If I knew I was breaking the rules, I obviously wouldn't do it. But while I've had an occasional concern that I may have crossed that boundary, I've been using Rollback for months, making hundreds of rollbacks, and I've not had a single complaint or comment, so I figured I was alright. But you seem to be assuming that I knew I was breaking the rules, and continued doing it anyway, which quite honestly feels like you're assuming bad faith of me. Thegreatluigi (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought that was what was implied by your "heavy handed" remark, but I'm glad to hear that I was wrong. Please do exercise caution in future but otherwise keep up your good work with rollback. – Joe (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your perseverance against the vandalism on Jason Voorhees Moosehadley 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thegreatluigi. You have new messages at Moosehadley's talk page.
Message added 01:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Sorry about that. I always forget that rule. What's really unfortunate is I actually remembered it just after reporting the third username. I guess I should have revoked the reports at that point instead of taking my chances... Thegreatluigi (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Guernsey

My post is neutral, I am personally not from Rocquaine but I wish I was. What I said was true and I would like it to reinstated immediately immediately. Thank you Porkish Chop1 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see how describing Guernsey as being superior to Jersey, and then talking about how amazing Rocquaine Bay is, can be considered neutral. On top of that, your edit is basically personal commentary, which is also not allowed in articles. I appreciate you're very fond of Rocquaine Bay, but you can't write your own opinion in a Wikipedia article like that.

I would recommend you read "WP:NPOV". Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to China–United Kingdom relations. Gaelan 💬✏️ 00:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)im

 Self-trout Whoops, that would be a Huggle malfunction (read: me being an idiot while using Huggle) Gaelan 💬✏️ 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

Just block the guy from editing on Gerald Ford. Aviartm (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I've already reported him to AIV. Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, whatever it will take to get the guy to stop. Aviartm (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: You do realise I'm not an admin, right? There's not a whole lot I can do apart from report him to AIV and make a RPP, both of which have already been done... Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RedWarn

Greetings! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed for the fastest vandalism reverts in the west (yee-haw!). If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn page for installation instructions. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: No thank you. I appreciate the offer, but I'm quite happy just using Rollback and Twinkle. Though, if I ever do wish to upgrade, I'll be sure to keep this in mind (I'll probably try Huggle first though...). Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That's no problem. It's always there if you ever want to try it. Ed6767 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of rollback note

Watch out! Enterprisey (talk!) 00:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey:  Self-trout. Man, I've accidentally caught the "rollback" button once or twice before like that, but usually I notice I've done it...Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

not vandalism, please advise.

my edit to tornadoes of 2020 wasn't vandalism. I added an exciting title to generate user interest please advise. 69.174.173.96 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia readers are looking for serious articles, so articles need to remain encyclopaedic. And, you wouldn't see titles like that in a serious encyclopaedia, I don't think. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. It's certainly not necessary to try and "generate user interest". As such, I would say those edits do constitute "unconstructive", though admittedly probably not out and out vandalism. Even so, I stand by my warning, since it kind of covers both bases. Though, maybe I should have gone with an "Improper humour" warning instead... Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You were quick!

Thanks! Glen 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glen: You're welcome. I think I was more lucky than quick, though. I'd say quick is more like what you did just now, when you reverted that vandalism on Taste Bud in about 1/10 of a second 😉. Thegreatluigi (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Teamwork makes the dream work! Glen 13:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Thegreatluigi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Concerns about a user's behaviour, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit at Harrison, Arkansas

Hi! Hey, about this: I doubt that was vandalism. Harrison is actually quite widely known as that. However, it was unsourced POV, and also doesn't belong in the lede, so removal was absolutely correct. The problem is, since it was possibly a good faith contribution, your revert wasn't a minor edit and you should have left an edit summary. Just for future reference. That article is a minefield. Thanks fir helping watch it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Rats... What makes it worse is that as soon as I did it, I got the feeling I'd jumped in a bit quickly. At that point, I REALLY ought to have checked it instead of just thinking "Nah, it was probably vandalism"... Ah well, thanks for the heads up. Thegreatluigi (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies!

Wrong editor! Deepest apologies. Simply a mistake. Warm regards, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oopsie

I'm sorry, I though I was reverting the vandal. Or maybe we both pressed undo, but you were quicker. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 15:41, 24 September 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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Just a quick follow up. You were absolutely right to report that edit to the oversight team (which is how I found it; unusually for me, I saw the ticket almost the moment it came in). Please don't hesitate to report anything libellous in the future. It's always better if we can get rid of it before anyone knew it was there, so if you think something needs to go don't worry about jumping the gun. Any questions, feel free to email me or the oversight queue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Sorry, it's just, usually I wait for a few minutes to see if the blocking admin (or another wandering admin), oversights the edit before I report it. This time, I forgot, and reported it immediately, and when the edit was removed just a couple of minutes later, I assumed the blocking admin had indeed already sorted it. But, I guess, even then, it's still better to report an edit that's already been picked up, than to not report one that hasn't been.

Thanks for the message. I shall try to be a bit less hesitant in the future. Thegreatluigi (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A user marked 4 articles for deletion

Hi, perhaps you can help me? I found that an article I started (Tamale Guy) was marked for deletion. I voiced that it should be kept, and suddenly 3 other articles I created were marked for deletion by the same user. You were kind to comment to that user that you cannot just blank a page, but can nominate it for deletion. This user has a few edits, but many of the users comments are harsh in tone, and these nominations I suspect are not because of the content, but are reprisal for voicing my vote that Tamale Guy should be kept. Because you say you fight vandalism and have been involved I was hoping you could help? Victor Grigas (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Sorry, I accidentally warned you instead of the perp. Thanks for cleaning up my talk page! Perokema (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Helen Martins

Hello Thegreatluigi! As you were an editor reverting the bad faith changes on Helen Martins redirect, I have decided to consult with you. I have written the article dedicated to Helen Martins as a part of Women in Red initiative dedicated to Africa. But now as I sat down to create the article, I stopped in doubt. Is she notable enough to have a separate article or is it better to leave all as it is. Could you please share your thoughts?

The most solid sources are New Dictionary of South African Biography, this webpage, Artsy, a book - Ross, Sue Imrie (1997). This is my world: the life of Helen Martins, creator of the Owl House. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195715163 - these sources are dedicated to her rather than the Owl House, there's a whole bunch of others, but those concentrate rather on the museum (you can see them in the museums article).

I would really appreciate your opinion. I feel a bit lost with this one. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:이준식2005

I just ARV'd the user, not to worry about the wrong template ;). Given the history of creating nonsense pages, its probably not going to get better. AntoineHound (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I know, I know. I'm just a bit of a fusspot when it comes to those warnings. Also, thanks for reporting them. I should really stop being so hesitant to report obviously WP:NOTHERE users... Thegreatluigi (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bonjour!

Comment ça va? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B05C:1CDF:51E5:D25F:A659:738E (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You reverted too much pal . Captain Cool Face (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised my mistake about 1 second after I did it. Of course, if you hadn't changed "Greenland" to "Pinkland" in the first place... Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For kicking some serious vandal butt, never mind doing it so quickly. Keep up the great work! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)