User talk:Italianlover07

Welcome!

Hello, Italianlover07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Maxamegalon2000 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier

See what you think of my latest try. I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner, but the final episode belongs in the episodes section. Details about its awards should go in the intro, before the awards section. And it's not a good idea to have duplicate information about the years in which it aired or who the creators/producers were. Clarityfiend 06:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANTM Cycle 9?

Hey, just wondering where your source was for C9 going to Rio. Your editing history seems to be very valid, so I'm wondering what your source is. Thanks. :) 68.192.23.16 23:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam West

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. See WP:BLP for more guidance on editing articles about living people.--Vbd (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier

Hi, I have noticed that you have edited quite a lot of Frasier articles. Would you be interested in joining Wikiproject Frasier. If so, then please declare your interest over here.[1]. The aim of the project would be to make Frasier a Featured article and get an article for every episode of the series. Right now, there are a lot of red links on the episodes. It would help if we can form the WikiProject.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Landon

Please stop vandalizing Michael Landon. Phiwum 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Crest

Thank you for your continued dedication and contributions to the Falcon Crest article, but I must ask you to take more care with some of the content you intend to add before you add it. The article is already chock full of rumors and trivia with no sources, and there is no need for tiny details about character and plot when the article is obviously not meant to be comprehensive of every storyline. I think you and I are both big FC fans, but you must realize that tidbits that may be interesting or memorable to us are not necessarily notable for casual readers of the article. Thanks in advance for your consideration. TAnthony 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must add my two cents worth here as well. I've been noticing on the Susan Sullivan article that you have inserted some very trivial information, such as that actresses Sullivan and Jane Wyman were close friends and that Sullivan visited Wyman in the hospital. You also asserted that one of the actresses was a teacher to the other (the sentence was so badly written that it was impossible to tell exactly what you meant). I strongly doubt the truth of this statement, as Susan Sullivan was already a well-established actress by the time she came to Falcon Crest. This type of information does not merit being added to an online encyclopedia. The articles should reflect the major roles and accomplishments of an actor or actress, but not the type of stuff you would read in the Enquirer or the Star. Please refrain from adding such trivialities. Dbart 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Harris

Hi there. Appreciate the effort you're putting into this article but there are a number of things that need to be done to get it up to a good standard and I hope you can look at those. 1) The overall tone is very 'fannish', not particularly objective as an encyclopedic article should be. This is apparent in the level of detail, e.g. "His mother took in boarders and Jonathan was outraged about it that the boarders he slept in his bed in his room, hence he slept on the dining room chairs and didn't like it." This also illustrates grammatical problems in the article - the reader has to look hard to understand what's meant. "He was playing the same role each week who wasn't always the same, each week." is another example of this. Calling him "Jonathan" all the time instead of "Harris" also makes it look like a fan article. Lines like "Harris became a popular bloody character actor" are way too conversational for an encyclopedia. 2) The article is almost entirely uncited, meaning the information and especially opinions cannot be easily verfied. See WP:Citing sources and WP:Reliable sources for more info on how and what to cite. 3) Format-wise, I'll mention again that the quotes would be more usefully integrated into the main body of the article, rather than in a separate section. If you can start try by trying to address these points with some rewriting and editing, I'll be more than happy to help out. If you've any questions, just ask. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information reverted

Please do not continue to add content without citing sources, as you again did to J.D. Roth. You must supply a reliable source when adding information to bios of living persons. I have again reverted your unsourced entry. See WP:BLP for Wikipedia's requirements in this regard. JGHowes ^talk - 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knots Landing and Falcon Crest

I am making a formal request that you please stop adding unimportant and unsourced trivia to these (or any other) articles. This is inappropriate per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, and the articles already have large trivia sections that need to be edited down or deleted. I am a fan of both shows as well and many of your plot and trvia details interest me, but they are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Finally, keep in mind that anything significant enough to be added to the article needs a source if it is not related to general knowledge about the series. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. per WP:FLAG, Template talk:Infobox actor#Flags and Template talk:Infobox actor#Field creep, please do not continue to add flags and US state flags to infoboxes. emerson7 | Talk 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. per WP:FLAG please stop adding US State flags to infoboxes emerson7 | Talk 05:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, as you did to Jonathan Harris, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. per WP:FLAG please stop adding US State flags to infoboxes emerson7 | Talk 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Italianlover07 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. emerson7 | Talk 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Phil McGraw. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did again to J.D. Roth. As you were previously informed, doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. This is especially important in the case of articles pertaining to Living Persons. See Biographies of Living Persons policies. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk - 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to J.D. Roth. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk - 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Kevin Dobson, you will be blocked from editing. you have asked several time to stop adding flags to infoboxes. per WP:FLAG, the practice has been deprecated. emerson7 05:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rockford Files

At what point does adding become a subtraction? Your additions to The Rockford Files are starting to. Just listing everybody that appeared on the show becomes a big blob. Most English professors will tell you that once you get to about 6, and at least by 10 items in a sentence, or even a paragraph, it starts to become a deterrent to the reader to digest the information.

Lists are useful because they emphasize certain information in regular text. When you see a list of three or four items strung out vertically on the page, rather than in normal paragraph format, you naturally notice it more and are likely to pay more attention to it. Certain types of lists also make for easier reading. For example, in instructions, it is a big help for each step to be numbered and separate from the preceding or following steps. Lists also create more white space and spread out the text so that pages don't seem like solid walls of words. Online Technical Writing: Lists

Writing for the Web is very different from writing for print:

79% of users scan the page instead of reading word-for-word
Reading from computer screens is 25% slower than from paper
Web content should have 50% of the word count of its paper equivalent

Bulleted and numbered lists slow down the scanning eye and can draw attention to important points. Lists: You can include a greater number of lists on a web page than on a printed paper page.Use numbered lists when the order of entries is important.Use unnumbered lists whenever the sequence of the entries is not important.Limit the number of items in a single list to no more than nine.Generally, limit lists to no more than two levels: primary and secondary.

by Jakob Nielsen, distinguished engineer; PJ Schemenaur, technical editor; and Jonathan Fox, editor-in-chief, www.sun.com Webwriting

The names that were there prior to your arrival were of people that were leads in other television shows or movies, easily recognizable names that most frequent viewers would know. Now, the paragraph is becoming a massive blue glob that some people will just skip reading all together.

Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:

More than 10% of the words are contained in links;
There are links to articles that are not likely to exist or if they did would have little significance in the context of the article;
Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting, see below);
Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link — such as internal links;
A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;
However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. But take care in fixing such problems. If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.

These guidelines also apply to tables, considered by themselves.

~ WikiDon 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

every edit that you are making is being considered as vandalism. Cite your sources. Your edits are just plain crazy. Like changing [[Robert Young]] to [[Robert Young]], clearly illustrates that you do not know what you are doing.--Jeanenawhitney 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Andy Griffith

You need to provide complete citations for the quotes. Simply adding "Source: Thinkexist.com" is inadequate. See WP:CITE for details about citations. Also, there are several typos/mispellings, etc., which is particularly unacceptable for quotations. And finally, you need to trim the section down a lot. It's long, and most of those quotes are not very notable and are marginally relevant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you don't trim it, someone else will. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. I'll wait a day or two for you to fix these problems. After that it's subject to deletion. Thanks. Ward3001 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Stop adding fanboy cruft adjectives to articles. You must adhere to policy WP:NPOV. Words like iconic and pioneer and legendary are not wanted or req'd in an encyclopedia. You have been warned about your edits already. If you continue to ignore these warnings you will be reported to an administrator which could result in a block from editing Wikipedia. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Don Adams, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. _pete 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning!

I see numerous complaints about you adding unsourced material to the encyclopedia. It appears that you do not understand the core policies of this project. It is past the point of being disruptive. Please assure me that you have read and understand WP:V and WP:BLP before you make further edits. You can post your reply here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account until such time as Italianlover07 indicates that he has read and understands the relevant policies regarding sourcing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've received, via emial, assurances from this user that he will always provide sources in the future. Based on those assurances I am unblocking the account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Ric Ocasek. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Channel ® 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italianlover07, you appear to be adding poorly source material again. For example, this edit[2], or this:[3]. You had previously promised me that you would follow Wikipedia policies on sourcing, and on that basis I unblocked your account. Before you make any further edits please explain why you are not keeping your promise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP adding unsourced information

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Andy Griffith, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per our previous agreement (#Warning!), I have reblocked this account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]