User talk:BaldiBasicsFan

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|BaldiBasicsFan}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

You guys say "Disruptive editing" too much. It's getting old, I get it, it's your job, but try using other phrases too cause it gets old and repetitive after awhile. Not trying to sound rude but just saying.

• Sorry but per WP:WARNING. It is just the templates not us. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's okay, your apology is accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pong3SouthFrieza34 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syndication.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Link fixed. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the date range shortening is too much, but, whatever. Are you going to combine the other episodes for the season and the other seasons that use the similar weekday segment broadcast? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I will. I know what you did is too simplified as I said, but its just my opinion. Fine if you disagree with me. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is per WP:BRD, if you have sources then do the work and provide them or discuss this at Talk:List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes. You are edit warring to get your way which never is a good thing to do on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your edit summary to me. “The theatrical release is still there”? The source, from Deadline Hollywood, says “He’s currently part of the cast of Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods and has Cruella upcoming for Disney+“. This is in support of this earlier report that it was moving to Disney+. Please revert your edit and restore the Disney* information. Rusted AutoParts 14:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your right about the theatrical release being cancelled. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure I explained this to you already. We have two sources that identify the picture as going to Disney+. Some combative IPs stating “google and IMDB still say this” doesn’t change that. Google and IMDB aren’t sources, Deadline is a reliable source saying this. Please stop indulging these editors and revert your edit. Rusted AutoParts 04:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney in the investor day event, which took place AFTER this Deadline report chronologically, reiterated that Cruella is still a theartical movie scheduled for May 28. The whole event is accessible on official website of Disney. You can check. They shifted two of the three movies mentioned in the Deadline article on Disney+, But not Creulla. Also this deadline report is speculating that these movies will go to DIsney+ back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:230B:BA52:70FE:F6DB:3D30:AE37 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The investor day announcements are likely WP:OR; just saying. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the episode description was copyrighted? I wrote the description in my own words. kpgamingz (rant me) 20:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that they were pasted from other websites. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BaldiBasicsFan! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:57, Tuesday, March 2, 2021 (UTC)

I know I've mentioned this many times, but can you stop removing the distributor section just for the vague reason you give? The infobox rules do not specifically say "Network" because that's what the original network part of Infobox Television is for. Please stop doing this if that's okay with you because it makes the distributor part unnecessary if both had the network in unless it was a separate division of the parent company.

If you want to, just go on the talk page for the infobox and ask about what the distributor part is for. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 😓 Sometimes users may disagree with you. Networks can be distributors you know. Look at the article Mystery Science Theater 3000 for an example of what I mean. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Even then, the article lists home video distributors as well, as I look... Maybe just ask someone and say what's the real purpose for the slot in the infobox, because I hopefully want this confusion to stop. Luigitehplumber (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I will try to find ways to see how to get used to confusion on Wikipedia. I did make a note on the List of The Loud House episodes to make sure that crybaby Loud House fans would stop complaining. They need to read the WP:CRYSTAL and MOS:TV guidelines. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated, but I had to revert your recent edit on Johnny Test. I checked out the official press-release from Cookie Jar about the show from 2006 and the company refers to Coliseum (not Coliseum Entertainment, just "Coliseum") as an "action-adventure brand", not as a subsidiary. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me tell you, that brand name is listed in the credits but it is still Cookie Jar. As said in the production section of the article, Cookie Jar was involved with the first season. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of My Little Pony: Pony Life episodes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. It doesn't matter if you think you're in the right. It is disruptive to continuously revert content that is not inherently vandalism. I've given the article a week of full protection, which should hopefully calm the waters. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just gonna move on anyways since giving me the edit war notice was unnecessary to me since you have already protected the article, but thanks for the protection anyways. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!!! I provided a source that supports my case. Isn't that what you wanted? 2600:1700:2120:DF90:D8BC:1040:3A66:B7FA (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You thought that 20tb Animation produced the animation, if so, you got what you wanted. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your outsourcing notes, the fact that nearly all western animation production is like this should warrant a section of its own for simplicity reasons. The "Animator" section is rarely used (if at all) for individual South Korean animators, and I believe we should seek public consensus to establish an easier route of information regarding the actual primary animation service team(s).--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm seeing if we could get anything done about this at Template talk:Infobox television. You could also voice your own opinion on the topic and let's see if we can propose a consensus change on this system to streamline it.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your going for, but it bothers me because it being used on animation studios rather than being used on people. Maybe at the bottom of the company table, there could be an "outsourcer" table. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: Yeah but here’s the problem with that Baldi: have we ever seen this line get used used before for what it was originally set up to be? And on top of that, it would be too many animators to list and we still wouldn’t see the company on a line. We should have the line created in similar likes to how animanga has anime studios listed. I know it’s a different production cycle, so another title would be warranted like “Animation services” or “outsourced animation” or what-not. I’ve tried to get the ball rolling with the discussion on the template but so far nobody replied.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GalaxyFighter55: Well that table could be obscure and is what most Wikipedians aren't familiar with, but I did an edition on the 101 Dalmatian Street article, where I used the table to insert an actual animator rather than a studio, in this case I put the lead animation director on the table. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to your edits on 101 Dalmatian Street and Cruella, your a 101 Dalmations fan. Nice! – ChannelSpider (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 101 Dalmatian Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bubble.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was this edit on Baby Shark's Big Show for? The edit summary confused me. Maybe it's just because I'm not too good with tables?

P.S. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you should assume good faith more often. It might be just me, but your comments sometimes sound crude. I know how vandals can make everyone mad, but I still think we shouldn't insult the vandals. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I did the revert is because I don't prefer the shorts to have their own section of episodes. They are listed on The Futon Critic and Zap2it as with the regular and special episodes from the series. I did see people spitting the episodes and shorts from other shows, most Disney shows and It's Pony being some examples. In the case with Baby Shark though, this situation is different. I might make a topic related to this situation on the talk page. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Perhaps we can split the episodes and the shorts into different sections, like on List of Big City Greens episodes and other episode articles of shows with separate shorts? wizzito | say hello! 22:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm stupid. You already listed that situation and said it's different with the Baby Shark article. I really need to stop skimming over things.. perhaps going to the talk page would be a good idea, though. wizzito | say hello! 22:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advertising this more widely. Dunno if that means WT:TV or WT:ANIMATION, and/or both, along with other forums... But this is probably worth advertising some. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope there will be more people supporting the split. However, opinions my vary, if they want the article split or if the new series is a "seventh season of the original". Regardless, the split should hopefully work in execution. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this edit on Baby Shark's Big Show! for me? Not too familiar with the show and just want to make sure it isn't vandalism or improperly sourced as it's a pretty big edit..

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_Shark's_Big_Show!&curid=64485323&diff=1030717286&oldid=1030586302

wizzito | say hello! 23:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the edit, and I find it to be vandalism. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen hear me out. Just because it has a separate page doesn't make it a brand new show, Netflix did that in past before like with Justin Time and Captain Underpants, not to mention many people call it season 7 even official articles (example: https://www.bsckids.com/2021/06/johnny-test-new-series-on-netflix/), there is also a call back to one of the previous seasons, some sources also say it's another season. Just because it's separate doesn't mean it's a different show.

• Please read WP:OTHER. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's true.. it's just another season. Please stop.
    • Your seriously getting reported, especially since your making false claims that are not even true. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they're not, why won't you listen you me? Please, I'm being honest. I gave you sources and you still don't listen, You aren't even providing actual sources yourself other than the Netflix listing..
        • Netflix still lists the reboot as a separate series, even the trailer according to YouTube also says so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMNyvySXocc BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it's not a reboot tho, no sources call it that, it's a new season/revival. Just because it's listed as a new series doesn't mean it is.. Listen, I'm sorry if I got a little aggressive earlier, I just angry easily. But I'm telling the truth I swear, mean other revivals like Doug, Samurai Jack and Beavis and Butt-Head are all listed as the same show so I think for consistency, Johnny Test should get the same treatment... I mean the Nick and Disney versions get listed as different shows sometimes too.. I'm just saying.. And please don't bring up WP:OTHER, I know it's like a rule thing but can't you say like a simplified version of WP:OTHER cuz it's hard to understand it.
            • "But it's not a reboot tho, no sources call it that", except Netflix calls it that. Look, I wish I could help, but your making up claims that not all users won’t get. I'm sorry too, but you have to suffer the consequences, also WP:NOTRS. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my friends would like to discuss something on Discord with you if that’s fine, https://discord.gg/nFCbkFRa

@BaldiBasicsFan:, the reason Netflix does not have the first six seasons of Johnny Test on their platform is the same reason they do not have the first three seasons of Lucifer on it. The seventh season is really not a reboot, it is a straightforward revival. There are no reintroduction to characters as with Ben 10, and the episodes have referenced events from the previous six seasons, so it is the same continuity. As with Samurai Jack, there is a new opening title sequence, but the rest of the show is the same. 21AndSon (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:OTHER. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid response. 21AndSon (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the summaries I added to The Chicken Squad are definitely my idea, and not copied from somewhere. In fact text copied from another source would contain words that are opinionated and not neutral. If my text are copied, where do you suppose they might have been copied from? 104.172.119.172 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2021 (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 My Little Pony: A New Generation, 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. Pamzeis (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm YborCityJohn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Simpsons have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:7BeerInchTitleCard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your recent edit to the article "Star Trek Prodigy". In your edit summary you wrote "Were not going by production order; were going by release per Paramount+"

If that's is what you are going to do, then could you please make a note of it on the article talk page and make sure that the consensus to do it that way is clearly understood. If I can point to a clear consensus discussion on the same talk page as the article (not just an edit summary with a link a to a discussion buried in an archive somewhere) then I think we will be all good. But if there is not something I can easily point new editors at then there is a high possibility of a long slow back-and-forth edit war over it.

The other thing is that several of the old Star Trek shows listed on Wikipedia started their seasons with a double episode and counted those double-episodes as 1 and 2 and the next weeks episode as 3. So what you've done seems a little inconsistent with what WP:WikiProject Star Trek has done before. I just want consistency and I'd like it to stay one way or the other.

I would greatly appreciate if you could start that discussion on the talk page. -- 109.77.207.230 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And so it begins...

Without a discussion to clearly establish consensus people are going to change it back and forth. With consensus it will still happen, but less often and other editors will help to put it back to whatever way people agree to do it. -- 109.77.207.230 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you undid the edit on the Rick and Morty S1 page. You said it was an OR case, but it wasn't, it's just stated in the episode I used as a source, as I said in the edit itself, stating my source. I can understand the different viewpoint on the matter, but tagging it as an OR and saying "vandalizing" is something not true, when undoing an edit maybe one should first understand the reason of the edit itself. It's fine undoing it because one can consider the show itself isn't reliable, but the vandalizing part and the OR part are a misinterpretation of the edit itself and kind offensive for a legitimate edit. Have a nice day. --PersiaF (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't seen the credits before they aired. Xeditboy (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Credits are credits dude. I just have to wait before episodes premiere. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never edited on The Chicken Squad page or got involved in it's edit wars. That Wikipedia link you provided me is saying is stating that you want the full episode details on the episode section. I did once talk to you about the episodes of The Rocketeer where I left some advice for you. Is that what you want on any page that you often edit on? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You just have to follow the MOS:TVPLOT guidelines. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy note, I removed an inflammatory comment from an ipuser. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was also violating WP:GRAVEDANCING as well. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But can you still keep my edits. They are actually real. 72.28.15.26 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You need a WP:RS to provide your information. The episodes do not air until 3 PM. If they were released online early, I need provided links. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ongoing series like Case Closed, so there's going to be a season 21. Plus, the link is hidden until Wano is over don't worry about it. SpectresWrath (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• But do you have a WP:RS for season 21? You know that not all shows last forever. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you follow One Piece? There's more to the story after Wano ends and Toei won't cancel a series that bringing in a ton of money for them. They're not like Netflix. Even Oda himself said there's a few more years left before it officially ends. So there will be a season 21, don't stress over the link that's hidden until further notice. SpectresWrath (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2022 in animation, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. The Owl House will have a natural ending and is thus listed as ending. Please do not change it again.--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell other users to shut up. I recommend getting another user involved instead of engaging with an uncivil tone. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was just angry at a disruptive editor. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that the two of you are involved in a simple content dispute at 2022 in animation as opposed to anything deeper. To that end, here is my advice to both of you. Take some time and get yourselves calmed down and composed. Then put together a message at the talk page on the merits of your source at your position. When the other one posts theirs, take the time to read it. Engage in constructive conversation. If you can't make progress, reach out for a third opinion. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we have to work together to make it work. Cheers and happy editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try being calm on the talk page. Besides, I don't wanna hurt anyone. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I try to approach it too as I have been burned in the past. Historyday01 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:2022 in animation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This talk page message goes far beyond the acceptable in comments made about other users. It also invites the question of, if you are not acting in good faith in your interactions on talk pages, are your edits also being made in good faith? —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know that what CreecregofLife is unacceptable, but I must have gone too far. I think he doesn't care about the LGBT community, because of what his editing style suggests, but I didn’t mean to get into bad faith. I know that I could get heated easily, and I do support LGBTs, but CreecregofLife loves jumping to conclusions, which is what other users like me try to avoid. I will make page protection request if this becomes more unstable. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, you doubled down and continue to act in bad faith. You literally jumped to conclusions about me by saying I "love" to jump to conclusions. You were told to stop the personal attacks, yet you continued--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith or not, everyone is literally NOT perfect! Everyone can have flaws and not be perfect, read WP:NOTPERFECT. Also, your warnings are not effective at all, as you continued to do disruptive edits. Also, you used the “Oh my god!” term, which is buzz language, and not mature language. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you WP:NOTPERFECT while I'm "disruptive"? You are trying to set the terms for the discussion in a manner that makes you look better--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was a user here since 2018, so I do learn mistakes over time. You on the other hand, have been editing since last year, thus don’t have as much experience. If you haven’t learned what this site is yet, please read WP:WINARS. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So because I haven’t been here as long that makes me disruptive? Because otherwise you didn’t answer my question. It doesn’t matter how more experienced you are, you do not get to talk to me in such a condescending manner. You’ve afforded yourself luxuries you won’t afford me. And what does WINARS have to do with anything? Including what the site is about. CreecregofLife (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2022 in animation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your also edit warning since your obvious claims make you look disruptive. Also, don't scare me with your warning. This is not how you place a warning. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If my claims are obvious then they make me correct. Not disruptive. And yes, this is how to place a warning. You don't get to tell me how to deal with you. You're trying to handcuff me. CreecregofLife (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You need a consensus in order for your claims to be correct. Don’t have one, your not here to build an encyclopedia. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So about that consensus...--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did recently put some actual consensus from a post on Twitter that a verified account retweeted. Sure the source may not seem reliable at first, but Mat Braly, whose account is verified, retweeted it. Yes the third season is officially the last, but do you have a consensus and reliable source about the show ending on May 14th? Sure, it is listed at the bottom of an official title reveal from Disney Channel, but it does not say it is the finale or anything. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider the previous seasons' length, how many will have aired to that point, and why if there were more episodes left would they leave it off the board if it were close enough, or if it were too far away, isolate it from its leadup episodes and kill momentum--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If each season has 20 episodes each, Season 3 (and the whole show, since were at the second half of season 3) would probably conclude on May 28th. If Season 3 really only has 18 episodes (still a good amount for a television season), then the show would conclude on May 14th. Interestingly, my birthday is on May 21st, so the show could end before or after my birthday. It depends on how many episodes were ordered for season 3. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It’s looking like it will be a 3-part finale, aired all at once like DuckTales, bringing it to 20 half hours. Now, obviously that part will be waited on until it premieres. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Series finale airing in May or not, there still needs to be a reliable source for the series finale date. Add Amphibia to the shows that are ending but do NOT add the end date until we get official confirmation. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Mother and Child Reunion (The Simpsons): You have a point about the episode not being notable, but I'm not seeing anything forward-looking, so how do you figure that WP:CRYSTAL applies? —C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question. We are not The Simpsons Wiki. Every episode of that show is for some reason on here, which is rather bothering. This is especially since not all episodes are notable enough to be here. Some rapid fans are on this wiki to have every episode here. I mean, really? Do we want a third Simpsons Wiki when there is already two? Per WP:CRYSTAL, “All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses.” BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But that has nothing to do with Crystal. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the anticipated event? If the episode has already aired, then CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Where CRYSTAL would apply is in creating an article early for this season's finale, or next season's Halloween episode, just because we expect them to be notable. We wait until the coverage is there before creating the episode. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT add credits and increment the count before it's aired otherwise your edit will be reverted. Xeditboy (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You kinda do the same thing too, I was inspired by you as well. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of The Owl House episodes needs to be its own page since it has over 20 episodes. Amphibia also has a separate page for its episodes. Please don't merge the page into The Owl House page. 117.221.85.188 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHER. Also, 20 is not that much episodes. There is supposed to be 50 or more. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if you did consider the Amphibia page, it wouldn't even make sense, because there have been over 50 episodes of that have aired, which falls under Wikipedia rules, while the episodes that have aired of The Owl House have NOT, as I noted further in detail on The Owl House talk page. So, in theory, it could be less than 50, but the current amount of prose falls far under the requirement of 50-60 kB needed for an episode list split. Historyday01 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

use of illegal social media links as references.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Unstoppable Yellow Yeti and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Unstoppable Yellow Yeti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BaldiBasicsFan! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creepTalk 17:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. Okay? You are absolutely not using edit summaries to describe the actual reason for your reverting, every reason you’ve given so far does not accurately describe the circumstances.--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr is not reliable though. It is user-generated. Unless if you used a verified account; it can't be used as a source, and WP:EW is not helping. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not Tumblr being sourced, it’s the embedded content within it. Stop the edit warring, leave the content alone. You have reverted multiple users, making you the edit warrer. You’re not providing solutions, you’re just recklessly removing sources to leave the content unsourced. You cite policies to justify your reversions but those policies don’t actually apply This is your problem, not mine CreecregofLife (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you for forget about BrickMaster02? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, isn’t within the timeframe required to classify it as edit warring CreecregofLife (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to continue the discussion about the episode order here, because I realize that continuing to go back & forth with the edit would really not be very productive.

Now, with your previous statement, you said that "I don't know if the creator of the show thinks that Disney+ has the proper order... until there is at least a reliable secondary source from the creator to verify this order; this list should stay on official broadcast order". However, I would say that we already do have a source from the creator regarding the order. There was this tweet from Matt Braly, which already exists as a citation on the article, that discusseds the placement of "The Shut-In" in relation to the other episodes. Braly specifically phrases that "[The Shut-In] does slot into our continuity, but the current airing order doesn’t reflect this", while including a chart placing "The Shut-In" after "Return to Wartwood". Disney+ is following the exact same order that Braly had previously already detailed on his twitter. In effect, Disney+ legitimates Matt Braly's already stated episode order.

That is why I consider this case solid enough to warrant re-ordering the episodes on the page. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright you win. Jeez. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit summary on the article just consists of a banana emoji. While this doesn't break any kind of rules on wikipedia (that I know of), I'd suggest to be as clear and concise on edits summaries to avoid any kind of confusion, as well to avoid your edit be perceived as vandalism at glance. Seeing that you added a single hyphen, you could have tagged this edit as a minor edit, keep editing! -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just making a bit of an edition. The emoji means that I will be a gentleminion to see the movie. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In [your recent contributions] for Call of the Night you deleted the hyperlink for episode list based on WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE but that is not a right decision, you see, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states we should "Avoid links to sections within the article". this phrase means avoid using hyperlink for exactly the section it self like Anime section, plot, Manga and .... so tables are not part of it, what I mean is that we should avoid using #Manga or #Anime in info box for links. If we're to follow your reasoning we should also delete the hyperlink for Manga's table. but we don't do that, in fact we can use hyperlink for tables that are in the same page of the article's infobox. I can provide you examples, these are articles that are marked as "good articles" so they have gone under heavy assessments so If this was a problem they either would have fixed it or didn't mark them as good articles since this is an issue until it got fixed: Land of the Lustrous (TV series), No Game No Life, as you can see they have #Episode_List in their tables and still are marked as good articles which means it is not a problem, these are just examples for Anime tables, we have a lot more for manga tables or light novel tables and these two article I just sent are just 2 articles from the "good article" category, I can provide around a hundred or more articles that doing it this way and most of them are getting edited by seasoned editors or even moderators so If using #Episode List was wrong they would have fixed it by now. anyway all I'm trying to say is that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE has issue with providing links for sections not tables since tables are not sections but contents of those sections. Using #Plot or #Anime is an issue here which nobody used. Parham.es (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to add the storyboard artists for the series? BrickMaster02 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had access to the episodes. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animaniacs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes have always been released as two combined as one however they are counted individually. Season Nine is no different, Xeditboy (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Unstoppable Yellow Yeti, 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.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you fail to give me a valid reason for your reverts (you linked a section of WP that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the content in question), it is also apparent that you have no citation explicitly stating that BS11 is the so called "original network". The broadcast runs at the same time on Tokyo MX and AT-X as well per the official website, followed by several others networks the next 3 days. So, yes, I do believe as long as there's no citation for the BS11 "original network" claim, that I am in the right to revert your baseless removal edits. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said that adding the storyboards on List of The Owl House episodes was unnecessary but then Jamie Eliat had to revert your edit because apparently they think otherwise, and now my edit, and then you reverted my edit. Do you have anything on this? Thanks in advance. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I kinda think that removing the storyboard table was wrong because the storyboarders are in the opening of each episode. Plus collaborators I work with (aside from IJBall) would not help me with a discussion I made on the talk page about this issue. I still agree that if the storyboard artists are not in the opening with the writers and directors; then their unnecessary to list. But what about the opening? Some people have removed the storyboard artists on some shows despite being in the opening just because their clutter. True they can be clutter but their only important if in the opening. I think we need to put in some more thought and consensus on this issue. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain this edit? @Tamzin and Yamla: as admins associated with the block. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This user was infinitely blocked for posting a lot of copyrighted images. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh ok. Understand the difference. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed some details[1] from the Bros film article that I was already saying should be removed but that another editor was edit warring to keep. (There are also other things that should be cleaned up that the anonipv6 editor didn't care to fix.)

Your comment on the talk page might be helpful. Talk:Bros_(film)#Box_office_breakdown_in_lead

Cleanup of the duplicate references would be appreciated. (See this [diff for example) -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not care because of your disruptive editing, besides I just only did some rewording. Is that a big deal? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to care about me, but since you cared enough to improve the article I thought you might care enough to make other obvious improvements. You're not interested, that's fine. Bye. -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baldi. I've seen you before on Fandom/Wikia, and I get what you are trying to say. But there are plenty of sources in the article already that say the series fits those three genres, hence why I figured it wasn't necessary to include them there. These are some ones I'd use. https://variety.com/2020/tv/features/simpsons-solar-opposites-bento-box-adult-animation-boom-1234699492/ https://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/exploring-satire-simpsons

Now it's possible we can dig for them and use <ref name=""/> because I know they are in the article. I don't intend to WP:EW, as I hope you don't see that as the case. Happy editing. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had to be honest, could just be me, but animation aimed at adults is considered animation aimed at the age group, not a genre. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it would have been more appropriate to propagate a List of Spy x Family episodes list with at least ONE episode of season 2 BEFORE changing the article title? Due to this trigger happy change, now I'll have no choice but to go to the technical bulletin to change it back until season 2 actually arrives. We are aware that there will be a second season, but please be patient about it. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright colleague. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BaldiBasicsFan: Thank you for your understanding, as stated we're are not in a rush to make a season sublist article until the second season actually arrives! Otherwise, it stays a list of article. Also, instead of renaming it, we typically just make it into an new article so the edit history does not move!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ThanksToThem.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding credits before they air on-screen you obviously source from TVIV. Xeditboy (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also futon numbering aren't a valid source for prodcodes. Xeditboy (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You source credits from an app you use. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HirogaruSky!PrecureLogo.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, about the whole thing. Sony Pictures Television always uses their on-screen logo for subsidiaries (well, except for Television Studios), and I'm only assuming about the Canadian thing because of the Canada logo appearing at the end, despite both SPTK/Silvergate and SPT being American businesses. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Really Loud House, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is your consensus already? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All two part episodes are treated as two separate entries at least from what I have seen and not combined, you will need to bring this issue up on the talk page if you think otherwise. As for the Thomas episode issue I will leave it up to Magitroopa as she seems to be editing the page more and I think as reverted these types of edits before. However since it hasn't aired in the US it shouldn't be added until it airs. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Engines Go is an American-Canadian co-production. If the episode aired in Canada first before the US, its fine. If the episode aired first outside of the US and Canada, then it’s a MOS:TVINTL violation. Will see what Magitroopa says but I'm trying to follow guidelines. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I removed your talk page post at User talk:108.41.81.126 as it provided incorrect information and does nothing but add flame to the fire. I'm sure your intentions are good, but please don't respond on that talk page; I'm close to removing talk page access and don't want to poke the bear.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Really Loud House, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. At this point, it's best too get a census on this issue. I have reverted your edits before and no one else has said anything. It's staying that way until a discussion can be had. Youn also may want to look at WP:BOLD . Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of PAW Patrol episodes, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magical Golden Whip: I was only removing the unnecessary clutter. Why are you not listening to this issue? It’s a serious problem to the episode list and it’s not notable if one person is directing every episode. And no, the director switch that was between episodes 58 and 59 does NOT count! Read WP:POINT. You’re violating this policy because as mentioned in the policy it’s impossible to stay consistent. While there is a reason why the director tables should be there since director credits are in the opening, with what is previously mentioned with them, they are not considered necessary or notable at all. The way to see them would be though the main article of the show that lists both directors so no one is mad or anything really. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Ban evasion, too!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Best & Bester and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pbritti (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Editor is obviously MrBoldBald evading a ban, editing their latent drafts. Request a speedy SOCK block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How am I even a sockpuppet of someone other user with the word Bald? I’m getting falsely accused. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know you could make a sockpuppet investigation instead. I’m under different IP address, join in 2018 before MrBoldBald, and have been improving editing skills since then. @C.Fred: can you please help me on this situation to provide more evidence that I'm not a sock? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Please look up any data to prove I’m not a sock. The usernames are purely coincidental. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti I'm not seeing anything to make it a speedy sock block, and there's overlap of tenure. If you're seeing similarities in the edits, it's probably best if you open a SPI to look into it further. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: One was opened and closed. I am deferring to the judgement of Bbb23 in closing the SPI. Thanks for looking into it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Please do not make conclusions just because I have a similar username. Thanks to you, it's getting change so I won't get accused of false rumors again. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who made the Delicious Party Pretty cure episode list {{See Also|List of Delicious Pretty Cure episodes} and I put citations and they were never reverted we try to use same format for all Pretty Cure shows there is always an extra page for episodes. Ckng9000 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Again read WP:OTHER and WP:N. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to keep the same episodes list like other pretty cure episodes. They have an extra page of episode list pretty cure Ckng9000 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:OTHER. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who edited all of the aired timings which have been gotten all the while from the official source that is Fuji TV's program listing. And now suddenly I see those timings be removed off, is there any issue of why the airing delays cannot be listed along with the episodes? This has always been normal for Fuji TV's standards to air episodes later than usual, so why the revert to change? KANLen09 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't have the sources to provide your evidence on this information. Wanna readd them, please cite with reliable sources. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like you're the only one who reads them, and edits like nobody's business to rip off contributors' hard work, which coming from someone who always frequently disagrees with checking sources at its core, is only a recipe for disaster.

  Now I see that you just don't bother to check and want factual evidence linked to legit sources, which I have been on this scene far more than your overinflated ego would allow, having contributors seem to be the bane of the problem that's insulting you and your work alone.

  If so, then I ask you: Isn't this source or this source good enough to justify your "cite with reliable sources"? Not everything needs to be under WP:OR if it still counts as "reliable". KANLen09 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like you're back at it again for Rurouni Kenshin, which is another Fuji TV show. What's up with your citings that does not link to the episode air times? Looks like either you don't care, or just edit without a giving a thought as to quote "secondary sources for air timings" via the official anime website of episodes that does NOT say anything about timing. KANLen09 (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, reverts and everything in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure, WP:AGF and all, wasn't all the problem you had. The problem is that your actual overinflated ego clashes too much with other users even if some were actually trying to solve one problem with the article in a more legitimate manner. Before you said WP:OTHER on the matter, anime tends to have episode listings separated because they tend to take too much space, and in ways cripples loading times. Just because you think you were in the morally rights means you're right, hell, some edits I made were always changed by ones who are more responsible and experienced here.

For you, you think everything that were edited in an article is one big threat to your POV when some are trying to LEGITIMATELY solve it. Its not that hard to split an both the main and episode lists into seprate articles as long as its been fully sourced. You had a lot of bad pride and ego to reject it instead of actually just helping with some contributors. It is no wonder some mods are a bit wary on your actions. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually, a separate episode list needs be at least 3 seasons or 50 episodes, but that Pretty Cure show is only very recent resulting in just a few episodes aired. There is no consensus for an episode list split yet, and I'm still waiting for a talk page discussion on the matter. Also to think that some mods concern me, I tried following the guidelines as much as I can do what is the problem? What guideline am I violating? There are other editors like roll backers that have a similar behavior to me and yet you’re over worrying. You know, the issue you have is that you over worry a lot on the article (yes most of the issues might be WP:OR but some of this stuff is completely acceptable for the Wikipedia guidelines and yet you still over worry). I highly recommend going to the talk page of the article to get a consensus about those issues, if you continue to edit the article over worrying and make more unnecessary vandalism, you might get reposted. Sorry but that's how things work. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  all pretty cure episode list only have 45-46 episodes so that means all pretty cure episodes list should be redirected Ckng9000 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  look at this one episode list List of In Another World with My Smartphone episodes has only 12 episodes and its a new article Ckng9000 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  when I was watching Kirakira Pretty Cure a la Mode they had a new recent episode list after episode 8 and they kept updating each time from wiki fandom. Ckng9000 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  CureGuziczka

  He created the page for Kirakira Pretty Cure a la Mode episode list before it even aired January 30, 2017: This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CureGuziczka (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 30 January 2017 (←Created page with '{{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Kirakira PreCure a la Mode'' episodes}} {{Infobox television season | italic_title = no | season_name = Kirakira PreCure a la Mode...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. The air date was February 5, 2017

  11:20

  +1,436 Ckng9000 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  look at this one from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hug!_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=823882581 episode list created at air date February 4, 2018 never redirected was there when the anime was airing. Ckng9000 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also created one for healin' good procure episode list when it first aired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Healin%27_Good_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=938818625 Ckng9000 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  i also created this episode list of Delicious Party Pretty Cure in March 3, 2022 with only 5 episodes showing and never got redirected. Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Delicious_Party_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=1075017726 Ckng9000 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok my problem over the reversions is simple: People are using leaked sources, something TOEI forbids to be included. If you want to recall something, Kamen Rider and Super Sentai articles has to confirm with the no-leak guidelines as of late because majority of Chinese fans are leaking info that were supposed to be released AKA the ones that we aren't supposed to see until its ready? Pretty Cure has this problem when some PEOPLE LEAK info about Wing and Butterfly's info. There's a good reason I had to harshy revert things as per WP:CRYSTAL. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have created many pretty cure episode list and they always leak the next 3 episodes it was a draft due to no citation and patroller transfer it to a working episode list after some episodes aired before he got to work and I am more in experienced in Pretty Cure shows/anime, i have watched all Pretty Cure shows that is why I joined wiki to create episode list for Pretty Cure shows. I just copy template from other Pretty Cure episode list. I don't worry about citation unless someone fixes it. I have watched Delicious Party Pretty Cure air and gone to wiki and see the all the next episodes listed before they air. It is common practice for all anime. If a patroller says nothing that mean its good. Ckng9000 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because you keep on redirecting the episode list to main page the patrollers cannot autopatrol the page. Ckng9000 (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baldi. We've crossed paths before on Twitter and Discord before. It is generally not necessary to include the episode in the season chart until the title is revealed, as dates were already listed in the season overview section. Now that the title has been revealed per the press sites, now it is okay to list it. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested a WP:3O Ckng9000 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's added the parametres that are needed to add the credits. As you weren't doing it in one fell swoop, it jarred with the look of the template. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user is consistently performing disruptive edits on the page, changing the episode order, despite the previous one being correct. Can you try and take care of that? BrickMaster02 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello baldi my name is LeronJomes or Leron or LJ well i see you have an AVID (Formerly CLG Wiki) account I say this because I need you to edit this draft since this draft didn't come true because of "unreliable sources" and you needed sources for the draft to turn a real article and also for the wiki to become better known. LeronJomes (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if I could give you much help. I haven't seen any reliable sources about the site. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suugest you keep an eye on this article, as users have constantly changed the tense to "was", despite the show still existing, even if it has already ended... BrickMaster02 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your revision by mistake earlier today, mb. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Everyone make mistakes as long as it's not offensive. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be watched, as information such as the premiere date and season count have been added BEFORE the series even premiered. And the edits keep getting reverted. I think it would be for the best if the article was protected for the time being. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to add that one user (the same one that improperly moved it from a draft page!) keeps removing all sorts of content with edits like this, adding in subpar sources, and I can't do any more as I'd be violating WP:3RR. I think I will begin by bringing this to WP:ANI.Historyday01 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of ironic you mentioned a user with this behavior. I had previously reported another user who had similar behavior and was blocked indefinitely as a result. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It sadly happens too often. I just began the discussion here. Anyway, it was a bit unfortunate because I had been working on the draft page for over a year, slowly adding to it over time, and just as soon as I was about to submit it, the user jumped in there and created it, meaning there is the awkward situation of having a draft page and having a page in the mainspace with almost the same content, but they don't have a unified page history. Historyday01 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly notice that I reverted the changes you made at The Super Mario Bros. Movie, because it is a form of synthesis. The reviews listed in the critical response section are randomly chosen by Wikipedia editors and may or may not reflect the overall consensus of critics. The only summary statement in that section that does is the one from Rotten Tomatoes, which we don't typically place in the lead section. Coming up with one on your own is not permitted, and this is described at WP:FILMLEAD. If you have any questions or concerns about this, discuss at the article's talk page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you ask me, you should get this IP blocked, or at least reported, I would. Visokor (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With this comment I am assuming that this is the edit that you are talking about, but I'm not sure because you didn't provide any diffs. However, I'm concerned about your continued unsubstantiated accusations; the source removed in that diff does not appear to describe the show as adult animation, so what about that edit is vandalism? Which of the WP:VANDTYPES does it fall under? It's not "Blanking, illegitimate" because a reasonable reason is given, even if it's one you disagree with. Being on the other side of a content dispute does not make their edits vandalism, and describing their edits as vandalism and disruptive editing simply because they are making edits you disagree with is WP:UNCIVIL at best and WP:ASPERSIONS at worst.

If you want to edit collaboratively with someone (which is the goal) then applying unsubstantiated and inaccurate negative labels to their edits in discussions is not going to warm them to your perspective. WP:Civility is the fourth of the Wikipedia:Five pillars; it is very important that editors resolve disputes civilly and with collaboration in mind, and misusing labels like vandalism to describe the conduct of someone that disagrees with you is counterproductive to that. I recognize that they are not being civil either at this point and I will comment on their talk page about that, but your edit summaries (which until about 30 minutes ago has been the only way you've been discussing this) have not been appropriate. See WP:AVOIDYOU and focus on the content. Up to the moment where you used the talk page, no one in that content dispute has been in "the right" in any way, and any behavior legitimately prescribed to the IP editor equally applies to both sides of that dispute. Moving forward I would strongly suggest that you avoid labeling edits as vandalism unless they clearly and unambiguously meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism; even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. We're all (even the IP editor) trying to build the best version of Wikipedia, let's do that together collaboratively and not adversarially, because that way doesn't work. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try being more civil on the issue. Some of my colleagues aren't also acting civil all of the time, especially BrickMaster02 and rollbacker Amaury. I understand frustrations but they have made a bad influence on Wikipedia. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information or more details about film's production and the film as a whole, is not an unnecessary information. For the first part, there was already a "casting" section, but why not combine it with cast in the first place? Secondly, the article definitely needs some expansion and I'm currently doing a research to add more information here, like I did for the article about Sleeping Beauty (1959), so please let me continue to do that without constantly reverting my changes. At least, care to read it first or preserve the archived sources. De Disney (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I was actually complaining about is the Bill Peet credit. He did the screenplay but ended up as uncredited, only having a story credit. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your only complaint, then why you continued to revert my changes? Anyway, Bill Peet is only listed in the film's actual story credits, and from what I've seen, they no longer use the uncredited filmmakers in the infobox. Besides, his role in the film's screenplay is described in the "Story development" segment of the article, which I believe is enough for his credit for this part of the production. De Disney (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the indication that uncredited people are not allowed in the infobox? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, Bill Peet was for a long time included in infobox for The Jungle Book (1967), also uncredited for the story, but now he's no longer listed there. I already worked on this article as well, but by the time I got to it, he was no longer included in infobox. De Disney (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited people can be included in the infobox if reliably sourced. The user who thought that the person who’s not credited didn’t have a source to back up and thus thought he didn't have involvement. I on the other hand added a reliable source to indicate that he did the screenplay for Dalmatians, though uncredited. You seem think that adding in uncredited people is a violation to the WP guidelines, but if you think so, indicate me. To me, uncredited people can be added if a reliable source is required to backup. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at 101 Dalmatians (1996 film), you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not say that a film received "negative reviews" in the lead when it received mixed reviews on Metacritic. Similarly, please do not say that it received "mixed reviews" when it received negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. If the aggregators disagree, don't cherry pick one of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as "mixed-to-negative" then? WP editors typically don't mention critic websites in lead. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source says "mixed-to-negative", that's your own synthesis. It's also kind of to mostly meaningless. See WP:VG/MIXED, which isn't quite relevant here but is precedent for not using this phrasing. I have no idea what you mean about not mentioning critic websites. What do you think MOS:FILMCRITICS means? The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. That is exactly what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic do. It is the only reason that they exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: told to me a while ago that "The only summary statement in that section that does is the one from Rotten Tomatoes, which we don't typically place in the lead section." That was for a discussion about The Super Mario Bros. Movie and how synthesis should be avoided. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The advice I gave you had to do with forming your own summary statement, which you were doing at the time. We shouldn't be doing that. I also pointed out that in many film articles such as that one, Rotten Tomatoes is the only source that publishes a summary statement. While it is uncommon to copy the entire summary to the lead section, that doesn't mean it can't happen. Some articles do have a portion of it quoted in the lead, which is totally up to editor consensus at any given article; it's just not "typical" based on my own personal observations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at 101 Dalmatians (1996 film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the reference dude. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The split would have been accepted without a consensus, however it wasn't done properly in the first place. I know several shows like Danger Force didn't have a consensus on the split before the episode article was made as after the second season episode pages are usually created. If done properly the page would have been fine. Now I do think since you have reverted a consensus will now need to be reached. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it was tagged earlier this month so a consensus may have had to happen first. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The talk pages are usually the most helpful way to reach consensus. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be mean to you but i seriously don't get why you think storyboard directors and supervisors are the same thing, you can do research, and the logic of why aaron should be still credited here as storyboard director despite only being director is flawed, it's an important part sure a lot of tv shows have directors credits and are not credited as storyboard directors. I also don't get why my edits would be disruptive, i'm trying to give more exact information VeryFirst (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I just wanna make sure your sources are reliable, which unfortunately the two given in your edits, are not reliable. Also, we usually use the opening credit details for each episode (with producers mostly being exceptions). Regardless if director and supervisors are the same or not, they are still front-credited thus allowed. Instead of removing the "supervisors", you can just do some rewording and call those people supervisors. On Wikipedia, opening credits are always okay to have, not closing (unless if a show doesn't contain opening credits in the episodes). BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but i'm using opening credits, where it says aaron was director and credits the storyboard directors and supvervisors separate

And i dont see the point of adding supervisors, it just feels like unnecesary information, maybe i would ad it layer bbut ijust wanna correct information VeryFirst (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reintroducing this edit to the article lead. There is a range for the budget you are ignoring (which has been discussed on talk), and the grammar is not an improvement. If you need to discuss this in detail, please do so on the article talk page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The home media lists 24 episodes for the Blurays/DVDS, therefore I split the page because it's going to get long. "It will run for two consecutive cours of 24 episodes."^[1][2] Check the sources before jumping to conclusions. LIJ4EVA (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you read MOS:TVSPLIT? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "Episodes" section title naming convention really even include the full list with entire seasons? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I think so. It's how Wikipedia would typically see episode lists as per its guidelines. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OnePieceEastBlueBluRay.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the page to state that the show has ended unless you have an official source to back it up. The iTunes and Vudu release is not an official statement nor a reliable source.

I understand that over a year has passed since Season 11 concluded, but it's worth noting that Season 11 itself was confirmed over a year after Season 10 ended. I can imagine that the ongoing strikes in Hollywood may play a part in the fact that the show has still not yet been renewed or cancelled, as not all animated television programs are non-SAG-AFTRA/WGA; take for example, Family Guy, which is on indefinite hold as the writers and actors are on strike.

Long story short, unless you have an OFFICIAL source, please don't add that the show has ended. Crummymummy (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't take on bias beliefs. Per Template:Infobox television, "In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using End date. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. In the event that a program resumes airing after a long hiatus, such as more than 12 months between episodes or cancellation and subsequent renewal, the date is simply replaced with "present" to reflect the "current" status of the program." BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I'll mark it as on hiatus while including the last-aired date, like other shows on hiatus typically are on Wikipedia. Consider it a compromise. Crummymummy (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think using a "hiatus" word is necessary, it's already on a hiatus, and I heard about a complete series DVD coming out, implying there's no season 12. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, that's not an official source. We can't use any wording indicating the show has actually ended unless we have an official source.

  And if I recall correctly, during the gap between seasons 10 and 11, we never marked the series' last-aired date on Wikipedia.

  Bear with me and compromise here, because I don't want to start an edit war. Crummymummy (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SpongeBob Season 13 DVD.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are two rather small blogs posted from the month of April before the premiere of the show in May that describe it as a "miniseries", all other major sources, including Warner Bros., Adult Swim, and even the post from Indie Wire that is referenced in this section describe it as a "series" and have "Season 1" attached to the information. While it is true that a second season has yet to be confirmed, all major sources describe it as "Season 1", as it is possible to have a series with only one season, especial if it is not renewed or is cancelled.

Also, could you refrain from posting in all caps? I do believe that this is against Wikipedia rules and is usually considered bad internet etiquette in general.

Thank you. Ranma chan4 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered you added that like 3 times, and they were all reverted. It is redundant, non-informative and overall unnecessary. Please stop doing that. If you were not the one who edited that before than I am sorry I remembered it wrong. But again, please stop adding "segment count" in Spy × Family (TV series) and its related pages: Spy × Family (TV series), Spy × Family (season 1), Spy × Family (season 2) and future seasons. - Theodorethebear (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here doesn't pertain to the content of WP:Manual of Style/Lead section (the guideline page), but is something particular to some specific article, and needs to be raised at that article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:It was originally deleted when replaced by a higher-quality logo that was deleted for copyright reasons.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929–1939), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman Spencer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For episodes Season 2, Episode 37 "Blue Engine Blues", and Season 2, Episode 38 "Hay Fort Frenzy", Britt Allcroft, is no longer credited with just "Created by Britt Allcroft". It now states "(Based on the Railway Series by The Rev. W. Awdry) and as originally created for television by Britt Allcroft". Starting with Season 2, Episode 39 "Percy in the Middle", her credit for the series has been completely removed.

Please fix the article with this new information. TheThomasEnthusiast (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the episodes yourself. I really want this whole mess to be cleared up. TheThomasEnthusiast (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Really Loud House. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 08:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:BRD. You made the initial WP:BOLD edit to remove them; it was reverted. Now the WP:ONUS to discuss is on you. If there is WP:CONSENSUS for your change, people will comment and agree with you. Currently, that is not the case, so until then, the page stays on the WP:STATUSQUO. Amaury • 08:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wonderful PreCure.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having two final episodes with uncredited writers isn't a valid reason for outright entirely removing the section, and even if it were that doesn't excuse removing the first season's section at all. When deciding what is or what isn't valuable to a table it's best to handle each situation differently. If the number of episodes with uncredited writers reached a outweighed majority threshold (over 50%), maybe you would have a case here that I could at least understand.

Obviously if the series compositor was the only episode writer for an entire series or a single season such a thing wouldn't be necessary on the table, but that's not an issue here. Not to mention, there's more than enough table room for it. ED, WR & SB should always be noteworthy if there's different people working on the episodes and stuff like Animation Directors of Chief ADs can be optional if there's not that many people per-episode (about the 3-4ish range) that could fit to such a table. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Family Guy, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Nyescum (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not constructive either. Nyescum (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You literally copied my reminder. Talk about lazy… BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming my talk page with false accusations. Nyescum (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations? Are you having a temper or something considering that you didn't listen to my warnings? Okay, so if both of our behaviors are disruptive, I created a discussion Template talk:Infobox television#Multiple network and release perimeters about the dispute. That way, we can try to respond to our ideas and what we think. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do more stuff on the page. Wave 1: Streamlined Greta Green, Sweet Sioux, Porky's Super Service, and Egghead Rides Again. Wave 2: Porky's Badtime Story, Plenty of Money and You, Porky's Railroad, A Sunbonnet Blue, and Get Rich Quick Porky. 128.92.126.130 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so later. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do it? 97.95.55.222 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "How do you do the thing!" And remeber- "I Wanna be a Sailor" was animated by Virgil Ross and Paul Smith. Littlepuput8 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I did not mean to cause any harm or trouble with my contribution. I've been adding these episodes and several other shows' episodes to Wikidata, which are usually all in order except for some, so I went and modified that one episode's position without reading the consensus first, but now I understand why it's the only episode on this list that isn't in order. 1033Forest (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but I do agree that the list needs to go by broadcast. The thing is though, currently most seem to be okay with the current order to stick with continuity, although "The Shut-In!" is considered non-canonical. The way this episode is currently ordered really questions me. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I saw that you added the pilot for Amphibia to the List of Episodes page. I just wanted to ask what source you pulled the credits & produced date for it from, since onscreen credits don't appear in the pilot, & I'd like to add a citation for them on the page. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where the sources come from other than the Fandom wiki. I had removed some of those details but they could be somewhere. The Fandom wiki lists the director for the pilot but I don’t know what source it came from. Also, you seem to write detailed summaries for pilots. Why not do the same with 101 Dalmatian Street and The Ghost and Molly McGee? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show § Creators. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thank you for this edit; I forgot about that coding. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is to keep everything in touch. Also just in case if anyone tries changing the format of the credits make sure there is a hidden note to keep editors reminded. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for the disprutive editing by the way, I will try to improve the episode short summary listings of Season 2. By the way, I wasn't rude when I said "it doesn't matter".VictorRocks (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine. I just wanna keep the current overall consensus up to date. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ArthurSeries2DVD.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not always distributors FYI. They are also sometimes just production companies FYI. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but it doesn't apply to every series. Sometimes they would copyright the series that they distributed, but I'm aware that they could be involved with the production process in some manner. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is reliably sourced as a production company on the body such as under Production section, then it is a production company. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Same with animation production companies. If an animation production company is heavily involved in the production process, if reliably sourced, its allowed. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100%, an example of series being distributed is 21 Jump Street. Jediknight15 (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've got to talk about your tendency to edit at the cost of breaking tables or over-inflating the revision history of articles just to make per-episode additions, as you've continued to do as recently as over at Ranma ½ season 1.

Let me make this clear: yes, they are very much appreciated, but you can't do it at the cost of the things I just mentioned before. If you go slowly with these additions, then I recommend you copy and paste it to your sandbox page to do it and then publish them to the actual article only when you've completed it. Either do it in-bulk or use the sandbox if you continue to do per-episode edits from now on please. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: Thanks for your understanding. I'm glad you are actively adding and improving episode lists, but it can't come at the cost of making the real active pages look like temporary construction-in-progress work and being an inconvenience to readers and editors alike. I've already completed a few for you several months ago if you remember, but it can't go on the way you've been doing them episode-by-episode. Stuff like this is exactly what the sandboxes are for!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baldi,

Sorry about this I know that mixed-to-negative is not used but "not well-received" is not typically used on film articles. Instead, you might want to use "negatively received", or "polarized" instead. Thanks. HiGuys69420 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe that this is not the first time I'm encountering yet another problem with you, so I would like to come to a compromise on this.

I just don't think that having the exact same episode table as series prior past makes any sense at all, unless you have a WP:Templates standard for doing so, then I don't think my edit should be reverted, with links to sources and all that's the new standard which I've been following for quite some time after editors like GalaxyFighter55 helped navigate me around what should and shouldn't be done. KANLen09 (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the comparison list again, the changes are quite minimal. Saw your template on your user page, and it is exactly what it is when I edited it to exact the same as possible. It's just the adding of sources to make the episode table as coherent as anime of today, so what's wrong with that? KANLen09 (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You for some reason removed animation directors on the list, although it’s just two for the first episode. Maybe if an episode has 9 or 10 animation directors they can be removed from the list but for now its fine. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: I usually do a case-by-case basis for anime series when it comes to whether or not to add animation directors. If there's too many (say, +5 or more) and multiple episodes, I usually wouldn't add it as there wouldn't be reasonable space on the table column most of the time.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I mean, some recent animes happen to credit multiple animation directors either due to a lack of proper animators or as it means of rushing production (bad scheduling). BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the original and updated replies, I concur with @GalaxyFighter55 that I would not add any other aspects like animation directors and the like (because the episode table would just be very overcrowded). Just so to be clear, my only stance in this is just 3 things: direction, scriptwriter and storyboarding, even if the sources do state the involved otherwise. Feel free to add them if it deems necessary for the consensus.

If everything is alright, I'll add back my original edit to the episode table with sources and the like. I promise not to overstep the boundary and only fill in to the best of my knowledge from now on. KANLen09 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SpongeBob Season 14 DVD.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance in terms of animated shows, what counts as the official production company? The animation studio or whatever else is producing it? So in this case within what you've been doing... animation studios should be kept blank if they're the only ones working on it. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert about the guidelines of the infobox template, but as far as I'm aware, a production company and a studio are different things, just to clarify. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, so for example for Strawberry Shortcake, DIC Entertainment handled almost all of the work of the series including animation, producing, writing, licensing etc and are also the copyright holders for this respective series; while American Greetings owns the trademark for the franchise. this source lists that DIC "partnered with American Greetings to develop new entertainment and handle licensing for the property." It's easier for the 2010 revival because MoonScoop/Splash Entertainment only provided the animation (with outside companies outsourcing the animation) and American Greetings did the rest. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Since DIC is a production company it is allowed on production company tables. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've done two edits so far with this new guideline thing (Strawberry Shortcake's Berry Bitty Adventures and Care Bears: Welcome to Care-a-Lot, just editing the Adventures in Care-a-Lot page). Is this the correct way to do this new formatting? Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a lot of people are following the new guidelines especially in regards to the television section because even I am confused to note who is the animation studio and who is just the production company as some studios (like DIC) function as both. Have you even verified these new rules within WikiProject Television? Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines of the template do say that studios are not allowed on the template. I held a discussion at talk about the studios having their own infobox section. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as an former Fandom user, whose the wiki hosting that gained my MediaWiki skills, I sometimes make contributons to combat the influence of Namuwiki. Todonite (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But, I will not retire from Fandom at the moment because people need to trust me on certain things. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't contain this anymore. I'm not liking the new policy about not including animation studios. It doesn't make any sense to assume that every animated series was subcontracted like The Simpsons and King of the Hill without solid evidence. You can believe what you believe. I don't care. Don't bother replying or talk to me on my talk page because I already know what the answer is gonna be. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could discuss this issue on the talk page of template. As much as I as much wanna have subcontractors mentioned, the current policy of the template says otherwise. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already did bring it at the template. You didn't just didn't pay attention. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted my fix at Rurouni Kenshin (2023 TV series), you caused the page to again have readability issues (broken infobox from a formatting error).

I honestly can't tell if you intended to edit in good faith, or if this was vandalism. Assuming it's the former, please get in the habit of using Preview, to see whether your changes will leave the page readable. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is not my intention in anyway. I was also trying to fix the formatting in the infobox. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Looking at your most recent edits, I do see that you were trying to fix the formatting. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Dinner Table Detective, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FNS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just go over how you shouldn't be making minor per-episode staff additions for tables on the article for the previous season of this series? Did you really think I wouldn't eventually notice? All I ask from you is to use your own sandbox if you want to keep doing it like this, so as to stop unnecessarily flooding the article revision history with these types of small edits. You make it more difficult for editors to review the revision history by doing this. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just couldn't help it. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate constructive contributions, but you've got to stop with the per-episode minor additions on the actual articles. If you can't add them in its entirety or in bulk when you edit, use your sandbox and publish them once finished. You have it for a reason. I don't want to come back here again for this, so please listen this time around.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not know about the origin of the series? The reference is in my addition. You can look it up--it was a 60s album. Not a joke.06:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Ha! That source is not considered reliable and is likely user-generated. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you multiple times what the deal is now and it seems you still refuse to listen. If you won't stop doing this, you're gonna force my hand and make me complete these myself each time you edit like this. Do you really want to put this burden on me just because you refuse to complete these in your sandbox? Because that's what you're doing. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: I've finished season 3 staff listing for you since it was only 18 episodes left on the article. But PLEASE, stop doing per-episode staff addition edits on actual articles. If I come back and see this editing pattern again outside of the sandbox, I might have to go to a noticeboard over this because you're continuing to do this despite being told not to multiple times. You do realize that intentionally inflating the revision history of an article with minor edits is a form of WP:DE, right?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're a nice contributor and I respect you as an editor for you work, but the current editing pattern regarding staff on the episode tables needs to stop. I finished the article in no less than 20 minutes, so there's absolutely no reason you can't at the very least use your own sandbox for your per-episode editing pattern until you complete it for publication on each article. I promise you, nobody's in a rush to read a episode staff listing that's incomplete mid-season for a span of months.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so this is related to the DBZ episode lists but not about the above discussion: we might have to omit the Animation Director parameter (which many would consider the least important to add out of the three episode staff parameters) if we can't find a way to make the episode tables less cluttered with information overloading. This is more-so the fault of the early pre-Funimation English dub, which has made it such a mess due to its complicated history, especially earlier on in the series. If you go look at the latest One Piece episode list in full, it's much more organized on seasons where the English dub has been broadcasted on linear television (Animation Director parameter was never added), and down below in the latest two seasons you can imagine how much of a mess it would be to add such a parameter due to the recent addition of Animation Directors (which will likely be removed if the dub ever gets to that point on TV). It's not too much of a concern right now, but I think you should know this going forward with your additions to the DBZ series. You can still add them, but they might come down in the future when I revise the articles.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we both got this information from the Japanese credits, usually the most reliable source to get the staff. But I get what you’re talking about. If anything, I could use the "storyboarded by" part for season 4 onwards, as storyboarding is an important part of anime. But right now, a consensus isn’t reached on how the credits should be like. I mean personally I'm fine with the animation director credits still being there as unlike more recent anime it’s usually one animation director per episode. But considering that it’s often confused with episode director I wouldn’t mind its removal either. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a consensus matter, there's simply too much information on the table and one of them needs to go. Many would agree that the ADs parameter is the odd man out here for those first few seasons of DBZ. It's possible that after we get past the redubbed seasons that might not be the case, but something definitely needs to be done with those first few seasons. And it seems like a storyboarding parameter isn't necessary for this series since a large majority of episodes appear to just be storyboarded by the episode director anyways, which is what that dual template was made for: to save space that would otherwise be wasted on ED-SB parameter repetitiveness.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are many shows that use a third parameter on their episode lists, like the original Dragon Ball series and in the case of board artists, Ranking of Kings, as the animation director credits on that show is all over the place. But, I argue that many anime their episodes storyboarded by the episode director. In terms of Western series, we have The Ghost and Molly McGee that has board artists listed but that’s because their in the opening credits. But, having a lot of space can definitely be clutter, especially if English air dates are in the article to come in mind, and a possible solution if the animation directors should be kept, is to make the formatting similar to the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes article, at least for season 11 onwards of SpongeBob, where they are in the directed by table with the episode directors and board artists. I mean there is usually one animation director per episode so its not too bad in this case especially since it’s an older anime, its just that more recent anime like to have multiple animation directors per episode which is considered clutter. I know I make a lot of comparisons but dealing with fewer than 5 animation directors is considered okay in my book. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this wasn't your intention (it should have been, tbh), but the original Dragon Ball series' episode list strategy to fix the info cluttering issue where they put the dub titles in a separate horizonal parameter isn't half bad. I was not aware of it; thank you for bringing it to my attention. Also, when I stated what I did regarding the ED-SB dual template, that was simply for episode tables where they couldn't fit otherwise (the ones you listed do); I thought that was otherwise obvious with my last reply but I guess not.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Danny Masterson, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Yes it has been discussed on the talk page. There was an RFC about this. You need to look at the archives before you claim that something has not been discussed on the talk page. And even if it had never been discussed, per WP:BRD you should have raised it there yourself after you were reverted, rather than restoring it. Meters (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Hop (TV series) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 15 § Hop (TV series) until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BaldiBasicsFan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Belfort & Lupin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OnePieceEastBlueBluRay.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to let you know that please be careful when adding information on articles. Your recent contributions were about the reported closure of Nelvana. The edits were reverted because the sources you cited to support the information are self-published sources. Self-published sources, such as social media, are considered original research, and therefore, they are not allowed since this is an encyclopedia. Since there is no official, verifiable source about the closure, the reported closure is just a rumor/rumour for right now. Aubreeprincess (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BaldiBasicsFan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hop (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ren & Stimpy (upcoming TV series) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one who doesn't seem to understand is you, since the short film Viva Willie was produced by the Iwerks Studio, that's why it should remain in that section and not in the Harman-Ising Productions section.

And another thing, that's a filmography of shorts films released in theaters, not a list of episodes from a TV series, so why are you editing it like that? Jack hoop (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just my thing I guess since short subjects were before television shows. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source saying that that film recieved negative reviews? AnythangStudios (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic states “overwhelmingly dislike”. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know that but what would describe the ratings of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes combined? AnythangStudios (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RT is not that positive either giving it a 4.8/10, so yeah, I would say that generally its negative overall. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is a good edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_%282026_film%29&diff=1350456190&oldid=1350455492 Marcus Markup (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to address the allegations in all, though I know it’s just one source from an opinion of a critic. Critics are considered reliable. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The thing of it is... what you added to the final sentence in the lead of a high-visibily article is not true. Your addition is boldfaced here: The film received generally negative reviews from critics, which mainly stems on the film not addressing the allegations against Jackson.

Most negative reviews don't mention the issue of allegations against Jackson at ALL, as demonstrated in the source just prior to your addition: "Michael': What The Reviews Are Saying About Michael Jackson Biopic"^[1] Most of the negative reviewers simply think it's a bad film , and do not say it's because allegations were not mention. Marcus Markup (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]