User talk:Scorpion0422/Archive 4

Not Canon??
What are you talking about "not canon"??!?! I submitted a paragraph about Prof. Frink from the simpsons with his de-bigulator and you say it isn't canon... what ever that means, you just remove it with out any specifics. Would you like to elaborate?

See ya
Will do, and hopefully Raul will make up his own mind on the issue, so we could have one. Anyway, have fun! Gran2 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Homerpalooza
I have a question about an edit you made a long time ago. I added the information about Eric Stefani adding the members of No Doubt in the background to the No Doubt article. Well today, Eric Keyes made this edit to the article. Keyes is indeed a friend of the band, so I was wondering if you were still able to view the DVD commentary and check whether it was Eric Stefani or Eric Keyes who added them in. 17Drew 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're back!
Here are your messages:


 * As you've seen, Homer's Phobia is TFA.
 * No comments at YOMT's FAC.
 * I think 4 more supports for season 1.
 * TSM's plot needs chopping down by about 500 words, if you want a job.
 * Saw the movie, loved it.
 * You have thirty minutes to move your car.
 * You have ten minutes.
 * Your car has been crushed into a cube... etc.
 * Can't think of anything else that's happened.

There you go. Gran2 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's bad, I'm glad to hear that you and your friends were okay. Enjoy the movie, I really liked it, and there were some great laughs. I consider it to be knocking on the doors of season 1-9 brilliance, way better than some episodes since then. Plus, I didn't force myself to laugh, because everyone else was, once. I actually found myself laughing out loud at the fan based in-jokes that no one else in the cinema apparently got. Good times.. Gran2 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good idea, we'll need to get the Itchy & Scratchy episode list to FL as well though. The Richmond book should cover that though. Gran2 07:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And.. what did you think of the movie? Gran2 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take The Front, and The Day the Violence Died. I'll do the pages and put any other relevant details about the entire show onto your test page. Also, I think that the I&S&P Show needs a clean up, I'll listen to the commentary again at some point, because I think it is probably the worst episode page. Gran2 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Half an hour, and I'll get to work on it. Gran2 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pics
Just letting you know, in case you don't, on those pics, I think it works out ok if you put it allows for the identification of the character...btw, as far as the Ralph thing goes, he says he likes men now, not when "I Love Lisa" was aired Ctjf83 02:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Whoops
Haha, made you look. Still, thanks for the heads-up. D'oh! No, I thought The Simpsons Movie was superb: among the best I've seen this year, along Spidey 3 and Transformers. Alientraveller 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo
True, true. I'm thinking doing Krusty's page anyway, might be a good idea as he has a lot going for him production wise. But that'll be a big job. Anyway, great job with YOMT, you did an excellent job with and I agree its better than Homer's Enemy. As you can see I (ahem) thought the guy was jumping the gun, and reverted it before I realised! Anyway, after we've done the I&S episodes, I think we should focus on the main episodes we havn't done yet. The Cartridge Family, Deep Space Homer, Homer the Great, 22 Short Films and Homer at the Bat. And WSMB, which I do think we should merge into one page, as it would be a lot more comprehensive. Although that would be something that would take a while. But that's for another time.

"For now let us party, like twas 1799!" Gran2 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just looked over your userpage, you really have got a large amount of quality articles to your name now! Great job! Gran2 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the FAR, I'd say The Simpsons is pretty much done. The don't seem to be anymore unsourced areas, and the prose (which was the only problem when the article was removed) seems to have improved a lot. So maybe, at some point, we should try again for FA, even if it just act as in part as a PR. But it think it would pass, thoughts? Gran2 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I'll give it a read through as well. Gran2 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My only idea is to put it on the right side of the Origins section, under the infobox. For me anyway, it wouldn't screw up the page if it were there, but this is a laptop, so the screen size is different. Gran2 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. Gran2 08:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
We now have a new featured article! — BQZip01 — talk 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Itchy & Scratchy Show topic
I don't know, it seems a bit arbitrary to me. Are these episodes really clearly distinguished from the other Simpsons episodes? Surely doing it by season makes more sense, no?--Pharos 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Simpsons
Took a while? What - twenty minutes? Great job. I made a few other edits that I saw, because I didn't mention them in the article. But, I'm going to support now. Great job again!--Esprit15d 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons
Cool, I'll take a look at it tomorrow or during the weekend. Zagalejo 05:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. Just because SandyGeorgia hasn't objected to anything yet doesn't mean she "approves." She has said that she hasn't re-read the article, so give her time to do that. Let's give the Simpsons the article they deserve! Zagalejo 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to get going, but the article is shaping up nicely. I'll be back later. Zagalejo 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Helen Lovejoy
She needs a page, such as Luann, Kirk, The Sea Captain, Cletus, Gil, who are characters who primary makes cameos in the series. Helen Lovejoy needs a page!

Scisser104, 2007, (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talk page of Helen Lovejoy (for the sake of it...) I think that's better than reverting it, comment (round up a few others as well) and we'll have consensous in about ten minutes and we can revert for the last time. Gran2 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Report filed. Alientraveller 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons deaths
Hmm. The diff showed Annoying-dude tim removed the Clancy Bouvier entry. Ugh, it'd be so much easier if he'd just go away. I've already given him two warnings. -FeralDruid 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New section
Best title I could think of. Anyway, the guys been blocked for a day so that's good. Maybe he'll realise that now four different people have reverted him Helen doesn't qualify for a page. Anyway, I've nominated Homer at the Bat for GA, we did a very quick and a very good job in my view. Gran2 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was thinking that, it seemed to be more effective if we worked together, okay lets do that. I'd probably add the episode below... Because it is very popular, and I find it very new. As, becuase of 9/11, its the only pre-season 14 I had never seen until this year when I got the DVD, becuase it has never been shown on terrestrial TV here in the UK. Gran2 07:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

re:You Only Move Twice
I haven't had time to take a look at the article, but it's definitely too early to nominate it for FA Review. My advice is to use the "ticking time bomb to FAR" to your advantage and try to get as much improvement done as possible to avoid such a time bomb. &mdash; Deckiller 12:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

City of New York / Simpsons
Hi again Scorpion - hope you're having a nice weekend. Back to the article - you've not been able to cite one WP policy for any of the reasons you've given for deleting the image. On the other hand, I've cited many in favor of keeping it. This is clearly not sufficient: "2 people think the image - which is fan art, NOT a screenshot - is unnecessary". There could be hundreds who have seen the article, liked it, and of course would not think to comment on the talk page "I like the crab juice image" or anything like that. The image is relevant (per WP policy), adds content and a visual break -- and is fully compliant with WP:Images policy. Please show me WP policy that states that images must be "necessary." Peace. --Gekritzl 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

simpsons infobox
I changed it so, if people (namely me) didm't want that statement, they could change it. If no parameter 1 is entererd it stays what it is, no big problem. I did it to yoursbecause its a good userbox and now I copy your userbox so I can make it my way.  SpecialWindler   talk  22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signatures
My friend, if you make an edit, it is not difficult to get your name. How do you think I did it? Vandals certainly do target vandal fighters, As an admin, I get targetted daily, more or less. If you are targetted, and vandalised, worry not. Firstly, I assume that you know how to revert edits? If not, read WP:REVERT. Secondly, a repeat vandal will be blocked, on being reported, for increasing periods of time; I, and most of us, are particularly firm on user-page vandals. I will not re-apply your name to the article in question (I have blocked the vandal for 31 hours), but it does make it easier for us if you do sign fully, as we can then immediately see that the nomination is not frivolous. Once again, please do not worry about being vandalised; everything can always be resored, any vandalism is always picked up by one of our patrollers, and recurrent vandals do not survive. Any problem, come back to me. I am here every day. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, fair comment. But if he is reported he will be blocked, and if he learns to use sockpuppets - which seems unlikely if he doesn't even understand the history option - then they will be blocked as well. While an indefblock is not usually applied to an IP address, it can be if there is enough justification. Also, if he does attack your page persistently, I can protect it for you, if the level of attack justifies it. Let me know. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't just battle. Report. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked for senior advice on your problem, and will report as appropriate. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Status
Having had my attention drawn, I have taken the liberty of checking your edit history. You have been here a month longer than I have, and have made about twice the number of edits than I have, distributed across a wide range of the project. Have you ever thought of becoming an admin? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you probably would pass - being firm in your opinion is if anything a plus factor. But of course it is up to you. If you would like to go for it I would be happy to nominate you. Let me know. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A year ago doesn't matter. Enjoy your holiday--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons vandal
It's about time an admin look at the abuse report. I filed it what, a month and a half ago? I didn't think his new account would last long, but two day? Yikes! -FeralDruid 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're back, again
Main points: The Simpsons is an FA, Homer is an FAC - I would have requested removal, but when I found out, it already had two supports... After that I've just kept out of it, to see what happens. All the GAs passed except TSM which is still there... Some guy actually nominated it for FA earlier in the week, but I got that closed quickly. Other than that, the HMV seems to have gone. But now we have a new one, the "Helen Lovejoy vandal"... Gran2 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Homer at the Bat was probably the most effective episode we've ever done, so going through all the key episodes jointly would be a lot more productive. I think The Cartridge Family should be the next one we do, and looking at it, someone has done some (pretty meh) work on it already. Gran2 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to work on Troy today, and probably nominate it later on. Even if it fails, it'll be a good peer review, but I'll need to do some work today first. As for I&S, I'm pretty sure The Front's commentary is pretty informative, from what I remember of it. Gran2 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm going to do another biography. Aside from Matt, I think the two people that have done the most stuff outside of The Simpsons, are Hank Azaria and James L. Brooks. So I'm gonna do Hank. As such, could you get some info from the commentaries for me? I need references for who he based his main voices on, the in the article, but they just need sources. I seem to remember he says who he based a lot of them on, in the Homer's Barbershop Quartet one, so I'll look at that. Also, any other little tidbits from the commentaries, like how he joined the show for example, that you can find, would be very useful. Gran2 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right Hank is a GAC, after looking at it for a day or so, Troy's gone as far as it can, and if it doesn;t make FA now, then it never will. So I'm going to nominate it now, bare in mind though, its gonna be vice versa to The Simpsons, as I'm on holiday next week. So you'll be in charge of it for most of the time. Gran2 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm gone tomorrow morning, so see you in a week's time. In complete role reversing way, if you could look after TMcCs FAC, and the two GACs, and also keep a close eye on The Simpsons Movie. Thanks, and see ya next August 25. Gran2 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Simpsons
Joined. I'd actually like to see "The Principal and the Pauper" become an FA. ;) Zagalejo 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Own Articles
The List of recurring characters on The Simpsons is getting excessivly long. Characters like "Lindsey Naegle" or "Agnes Skinner" require their own articles like before. Please don't delete. Sup3rior 20:14, 14 August 2007 (Centrel)

Bleeding Gums Murphy
Please engage on the talk page if you think this should remain merged. You told ttn you thought the article should stay. Tim! 06:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But merging has made it worse as the entry in the list contains exclusivley in-universe information about the character... Tim! 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured list
Oh congrats on Hart Memorial Trophy making it as an FL. Turns out I didn't need to do anything at all except throw in a support vote. Oh by the way, I've finally come to the conclusion that Marge on the Lam is the best Simpsons episode of all-time... even though its a very tight conclusion. Anyways, keep up the good work! Croat Canuck <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy shizzit man, you plan on doing every trophy article? :) yeah Homer's Enemy is good, but Frank Grimes is nowhere close to Hank Scorpio or Rex Banner when it comes to one-time characters. Croat Canuck  <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, judging by the work you've done I'd say its perfectly acceptable that you feel bored with Simpsons article. Oh and I just noticed your (Wiki-Chiki?) edit summary, and yes, in hindsight it was pretty stupid...looks like my Inapproprate Edit Summaries section is about to grow a bit... Croat Canuck  <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Well, Guilty as charged." ;) Croat Canuck  <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 00:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks I did not know that... I'm back from doing my thing this weekend, so I think I'll hit the books tomorrow with regards to the Calder Trophy article. Croat Canuck  <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 00:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:National Hockey League awards
Yeah. I grabbed it because it will both be a challenge, and because as the article that ties them all together, is important. I already did a chart for Canadian Hockey League awards, but this one will very likely require a different format. I'm going to take your advice and start with a list. After that, if I can see enough for an article, I'm sure the project can put it together for FA status. Resolute 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I bellieve we are thinking along the same lines. I had pretty much the same thoughts for what each column would include.  I do like the idea of including pictures in each column, and there are FL's that use this format, including List of Alberta premiers, which doesn't even include a picture for everyone.  Shouldn't take long to create the chart.  The prose will be the big part. Resolute 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Featured topics
That's why I created the infobox :), and BTW, I'm busy redoing Bill Masterson Trophy, so expect a huge edit in the next 10 minutes. I've been working on one edit for about two hours. Maxim 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did my edit. Can you look to see that I did everything right? :D Maxim 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance
As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Back
Anything major happen? Gran2 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I'll see if I can expand the actual reception section itself, but that's basically covered by the Controversy section, which is brilliant. I'll read through it again and see what I can think of. Gran2 14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, wasn't it one of those two unaccepted Emmy noms? Gran2 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay Gimmebot still needs to do its stuff, but Raul has updated the FA logs, and Troy's passed, and Homer's failed. Which, was the predicted outcome. So there we go, I've done as much as I can think of with ASNM, its looking great, actually. I'm going to stick Homer at the Bat for PR, for a few days, then maybe try for FA. Same could be done with ASNM, as they are probably they two closest to FA article that we have right now. Gran2 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing for Strawberry, or Canseco, who was probably the second best choice. So I'd go with Ken Griffey Jr. Gran2 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons DVDs
I left the season 6 covers in because they are explicitly discussed in the text -- likewise with the season 8 discs. As for the basic DVDs, I believe Image:Thesimpsonseasons1-10dvds.jpg does the job of illustrating them perfectly well. Brad 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Point 16 of Non-free content states "An album cover image as part of a discography. A discography is a type of list, and such usage of images on a list normally does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The DVD list is the same as a discography and a DVD cover is the same as an album cover. Besides, the image at the top of the page performs the same function as the individual images, making them redundant. Brad 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A Streetcar Named Marge
I'll have a look. Great episode. Zagalejo 19:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean-up the prose. There were a lot of run-on sentences, and some Briticisms. (Nothing against British English, but the Simpsons is an American show.) The current plot section might be a little bit long, though, so I'll see if I can streamline it. Zagalejo 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FLC
Hello,

I don't believe that failing the FLC is appropriate, since like most things on Wikipedia, it is not a vote, but a discussion whose merits should be weighed by the nominators. Two of the three opposes are based on a reasoning that more established FLC contributors have discounted, and it seems mostly that those experienced editors simply never saw the newer comments and changes in line with their suggestions, and thus were not able to provide feedback and/or modify their positions. At least one of those who had not listed an official position had supported on the prior FLC, and it seems likely that they intended to here as well. I suggest that you reopen it for a few more days and allow me to leave notes to those whose comments were addressed so as to elicit replies from them. Please let me know,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The suggestions are being actively addressed via discussion, it just seems that those who commented probably haven't seen the discussion recently (probably in part due to my unexpected absence from WP in the middle of it). I don't doubt that your actions are grounded in policy, but I think we would better serve the policy by allowing those who openly supported in the last nom and whose suggestions were responded to to at least be alerted, rather than nominating again and simply separating the discussion over another location. The two bottom opposes don't need to be dealt with since the more experienced reviewers have already discounted the objection, and they shouldn't be granted weight that they otherwise lack in determining the discussion's outcome.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done
Done, hope you can understand them. I started season earlier this month but got distracted, so I'll finish that as well. Gran2 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All it mentions is Moleman on pg. 49 and Frink and 52. Gran2 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copy edited it as good as I can, see what you think. Gran2 11:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm inclined to agree that its not needed. From an athestic view, its unbalances, and its uneeded what with the template. So unless a few people suggest we use it at the FLC or some other, I don't really think we should. Gran2 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear of Flying (The Simpsons)
You tagged Fear of Flying (The Simpsons) as needing a history merge from Fear of Flying (The Simpsons episode). There is no important history at Fear of Flying (The Simpsons). Are you asking for a page move? --- RockMFR 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lost (season 4)
Funny. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter much to me, but I think you should gain consensus first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost. The reason we have season pages and a list page is at WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, which was designed and discussed at Requests for mediation/Lost episodes and Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 2.  (Of the eight users who were involved in the mediation, only Wikipedical is still part of the Lost WikiProject.)  --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, let people know before you merge the featured list, in case they have any objections. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just mean let people know, which you have. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean where it says "The staff writers were..." or "Written by?" For "written by" we could cite the press releases, although I personally think it is fine the way it is because the credits run at the beginning of every episode.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So I cut down ~14 000 kb, but I still think that it can bes horter, as I do not believe that much detail to be necessary. Under "written by," does it need to say, "Story by Jeffrey Lieber & J.J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof and Teleplay by J.J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof" or can we just shorten it to "J.J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof & Jeffrey Lieber?"  Also, I will not be here September 10-14.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I would like to see the plot summaries shortened. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Prince of Wales Trophy
I'm not going to bother with the def. history, but the color of winning the Cup I'll do next. And the sources are tough to find, they say all the same, brief info such as: "The Prince of Wales Trophy, donated by....is awarded to the winner of the Eastern Conference champions". --Hasek is the best 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, about the amalgation, maybe it's best to not do it, because it can confuse readers and it isn't a great way to let the reader know when the change of the conference name is done. --Hasek is the best 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Buddhism tag
You do realize that the only reason Lisa's page was tagged is because she is in the "Fictional Buddhists" category. Nobody from the Buddhism WP will do anything to improve the article, they just want to increase the pages within their range. As you can probably tell, I have little patience for projects that do that, such as the LGBT project tagging Homer's Phobia the day it became an FA (AND including it in THEIR achievements list) and the Alt Rock Project tagging Homerpalooza. -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining this to me. I didn't have a sense of your reasons, and what you're saying is all new to me.


 * I think a lot of the WikiProjects do very little. I think someone like you (correct me if I'm assuming too much) would contribute a lot even if you weren't involved in WP:SIMPSONS (and for all I know you aren't; I haven't looked it up). Anyone sensible who wants to find out who did the actual work will just click "History" or lookit the Talk page chat.


 * However, I think Homer's Phobia is legitimately an article of concern for the LGBT project, even if they only watch the page and never contribute. Lisa is for some audiences the most famous public Buddhist, and representative of Buddhism-identified kids at many a high school IMO, so this should be of interest to the Buddhism WikiProject. I don't think any one WikiProject should WP:OWN any article &mdash; in many cases, WikiProject members aren't the biggest contributors anyway &mdash; and it's obvious on a Simpsons page that WP:DOH is the most intimately involved.


 * I'd like us to put up with other WikiProjects adding their banners. If they use other people's work to make a Potemkin Village achievement list, that's their business. Could you tolerate this? I think if something like this went to dispute resolution (which I'm not planning or anything, just giving an example), I doubt the outcome would favor excluding other Project banners.


 * I also think it has the potential to enhance some The Simpsons articles (especially the episode pages). If Lisa Simpson has a big impact in the Buddhist community, would we presumably non-Buddhist Simpsons fans know best? I'm not quite deluded enough to believe the WikiProject Buddhism tag will bear fruit (and besides, their tag is too long, someone should tell them), but I think having them on the page is better than not having them. / edg ☺ ★ 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize it is kind of WP:OWN but when one project does all the work, and then another comes along and adds it to their list of accomplishments when in reality they had nothing to do with getting the page promoted, it is pretty annoying. Especially when it is such a large scale Project. The Buddhism WP tagging characters would be like the Simpsons WP tagging every single guest star, which wouldn't make a lot of sense. And you are correct, I would still do work on a lot of Simpsons articles, even if I wasn't part of WP:SIMPSONS. Speaking of which, we currently have few active members and I have noticed that you edit a lot of Simpsons articles... -- Scorpion0422 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Working with others is always annoying. I'm getting used to there being a lot of annoying editors on Wikipedia. I'm probably one of them, Ed thought philosophically.


 * If that was an invitation, thanks, but I feel like there are good editors working on Simpsons articles and I'm not very needed. I'm currently doing too much work at WikiProject Family Guy and a sense of fool's errand is really kicking in. Besides, there are bigger Simpsons fans than me. Fans that own a TV, for instance.


 * On the subject at hand, I think I appreciate your distaste for admitting other Project tags, and that we're still in disagreement on whether this should be permitted. My feeling is the bulk of the work is done by editors, not by projects, and claiming turf isn't taking credit for building the neighborhood.


 * I think the impact upon Buddhism from Lisa may be greater and more relevant than the impact upon The Simpsons from of Danny DeVito's appearances in as many episodes, but if WP:DOH tagged DeVito's page, my main question would be why 775 articles wasn't enough for them.


 * So my position is it's mostly no big deal, maybe slightly helpful, certainly the decent thing to do. Is there a way we can accept our shiftless cousins on Talk pages?


 * Sorry to write so much. / edg ☺ ★ 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as too many editors. The way I see it with the Simpsons WP tagging pages is that we are a small scope WikiProject and thus smaller things mean more. But in the Buddhism WP's case, it has a larger scope. However, I do see your point and if you wish to readd the tag to the page, then feel free to do so. -- Scorpion0422 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving this so much consideration. I'll restore The Buddha in a few minutes if no one else gets to it sooner.


 * Maybe some day when I'm feeling less burned I'll consider helping WP:SIMPSONS more directly. I'm just a bit overextended for now. / edg ☺ ★ 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A street car named Marge
Was that your work on A street car named Marge? I saw it before you fixed it up and it looks awesome. Nothing has been left out, reception, production ,contoversy, the works. Great job! Should it be nominated for FA? --Simpsons fan 66 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, got your message. A peer review couldn't hurt; it's always good to get a new set of eyes to look at an article. I'd like to look through it a couple more times, myself. But a FAC seems like it would be doable in the near future. Zagalejo 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, best to give it a PR first, but then right on to FAC. Gran2 06:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article, the only thing that really concerns me is the first paragraph of "Reception." It seems kinda long; most readers wouldn't want to plow through all that. Could we trim it down a bit? I think the Quindecium reference, in particular, can go, especially in light of the reviews Scorpion has recently added. That's not a national publication for college students; it's just one of many campus newspapers. Zagalejo 06:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also some more copyediting and referencing to do, but nothing major. Tomorrow afternoon (in Chicago time), I'll list some things which might need citations. Zagalejo 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do you think we should mention the phone call Mike Reiss received (mentioned in his commentary) about Bart in the Mardi Gras parade? I think it's kinda funny. :) Zagalejo 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a to-do list on the project page. Zagalejo 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussion of List of counties in Alabama

 * I didn't realize I needed to discuss the improvements made following User:Crzycheetah's original critique. Most of those requests have been incorporated into the list and I would have preferred that the nomination remain active. --Dystopos 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I have no interest in conducting a campaign. If the article is good, it's good. I'll let the politicians and critics sort out the stars from here out. --Dystopos 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Categories

 * Re: User talk:Black Falcon

Hi. Since the same issues apply to most subcategories of Category:Wikipedian Ontario Hockey League fans, I decided to do a bundled nomination, with the intent of suggesting either deleting the empty categories (i.e. the ones that contain only a userbox) or, since these are junior ice hockey teams, upmerging all subcategories into Category:Wikipedian Ontario Hockey League fans. The reason I think upmerging might be a good idea is that there are currently only ten users spread between these 21 categories ... if anyone is interested in collaboration on the topic, the individual userboxes will still identify which team a particular user supports. Do you think it's a bad idea?

I removed the cfd-user tags because I will be stepping away from my computer for an hour or two and won't be able to complete the nomination until then. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re
Not another one, yeesh. But as for each short having a page, I don't think so. It isn't required, and can't be easily done. What with all the WP:EPISODE stuff anyway, it would be pointless, Good Night is fine. The page itself is alright, it won't pass as is, but its got a chance. The 138th commentary has got some good info to milk from, but aside from that, I can't think of much. The descriptions could use a little beefing up, but that's all I can think of. Gran2 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be easier if they released the shorts on DVD, but there you go. I need to finish my Englsh coursework, but after that, I'll try and improve it in any way I can. Also, Maitch has left us SEE to do. I'll whack out my S1 DVD later, and have a look at some of the stuff we can use on there. Gran2 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the actual Flickr version of the image IS colour, I saw it a while ago. But when the guy uploaded it, he cropped it and put it in black an white. Gran2 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Source
Thanks! I'll add it in the morning. Davnel03 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference grouping
I noticed on some of your pages, if you have more then one reference with the same name they will group together. For some reason the references on the Kamp Krusty page aren't doing that. Am I missing code or is there something else I have to do? --Simpsons fan 66 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Crowded House awards
Thanks for promoting the list! I've worked hard on it, so I appreciate its promotion. <font style="background:f2ffeb;" size="1" face="century gothic" color="#000000">linca <font face="century gothic" size="1" style="background:f2ffeb;" color="#339922">linca 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: A sock?
Judging from the edit summaries, I strongly believe it's a sock of blocked user BloodRunsCold1996. See the contributions for evidence. I will report this to the blocking admin. Thanks for pointing this out and dealing with it appropriately. - Deep   Shadow  23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAC
I really think we should go for FAC now, as it is really very good, unless there's anything Zagalejo can think of. As for another collabartion, I think its a great idea. If we can go one article at a time, and gradually try and get all of the main ones we still haven't done to at least GA, it'd be great. As for a character, well we should really do the remaining family 4, but in all honesty they wouldn't be that entertaining to do. I mean some of the recurring characters (like Moe for example) would probably be a lot more interesting, as the family were all just created at the same time. So whichever character we do, I don't mind, maybe Moe or Burns? Or just a collabaration on either of the ones we've each started, Bob or CBG. Gran2 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As said, I don't perticularly mind which we do, but I think in terms of what would be considered "acceptable comprehensiveness" the family members would be pretty hard. Yet, as you said, both Bob and CBG have a good lot of DVD info, and both are popular fan-favourite characters. But I'm not in much of a decisive mode today, so its your call, whichever you decide I'll help out. Gran2 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, well unless Zagalejo has any ideas (it'd be great if he wanted to help out that's for sure) we may as well just do Bob first, as alot of the work is done already. And then do CBG afterwards. Gran2 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well some work, more than I've done on CBG. Gran2 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might as well take it to FAC. We don't really have anything to lose. I'm not sure we really need anything more for the reception section, but thanks for digging that up, anyway.

I would be very interested in future FACs; I'll look around to see which articles look good. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:AwesomeKong07
Thank you for pointing out the user you suspected him of being a sockpuppet of. Once I compared the two edit histories, it was clear enough for me to block him indefinitely as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage
Do you need a history merge? Do you want all the edits moved to that page? Because that's what I've done, so tell me if I did something you didn't want me to do. It's an interesting process, which involved 6 log actions (3 undeletes, 2 deletes, and 1 move), and 2 reverts which restored the original version. What you now have is all the edits to your userpage and the second page you provided to me on one single page.  Maxim (talk)  19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are all your pages in your main userspace, and here is everything in your user talk space. Do you want anything else to be cleaned up, while I'm still around? :)  Maxim (talk)  19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Scorpion, when will NHL awards be nominated for a. Featured list status b. Featured topic status, in your opinion? I'm in the middle of two FLC, you're two (I'm looking at the President's Trophy, so expect some comments in a little while :) ).   Maxim (talk)  19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have on FL under my belt, and I have two FLC, but I've been burnt out by admin work, if anything else. I'm thinking of nomming NHL awards, and look at some more; they're almost ready except the fact they're at FLC. I'll look for some stuff (like copyediting, automated peer review, etc.) and I should file more nominations. I've also put King Clancy Memorial Trophy, which you didn't look at, but you're under no obligation. However, I wanted to ask a fellow WikiProject member, is King Clancy too short? Raime, an unaffiliated reviewer (very useful, and I work with him on all my FLC's) that the King Clancy article on WP is the most comprehensive on the net, and if it's the most comprehensive, there are few ways to expand it. Cheers,  Maxim (talk)  01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I know. It's the same as for RfA, only it's a simple question. The four articles in progress are all ready, they just need some minor tweaks here in there, IMO, and they should pass FLC. However, they should be staggered, as some users (not naming names, but you should be able to deduce :D) will oppose on the basis of seeing four similar lists at once. :D  Maxim (talk)  01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah, what happened to your user page? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Streetcar
I've added the ratings info. I can probably find figures for the premier. Just give me a little while to look. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it seems like the premier got about 12.6 million viewers. Not a huge difference... You think it's worth mentioning? Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  21:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Heretic" got about 11.2 million. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading something. "Streetcar" had 11 million viewers, so it drew the smallest audience of the three. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  03:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it really adds much to compare this episode's ratings to the average episode rating for a randomly-selected season. Have any of the other Simpsons FAs even mentioned ratings? Maybe someone at the FAC will suggest something. (Where is everyone, BTW? Just one comment so far.) Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref
Can't find one aywhere, the EMA site is terrible. Usually this is the sort of thing that citing IMDB is allowed for, but Zagalejo could probably dig up an old paper to source it with. Gran2 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
I responded to your response. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I think we should do whatever we can to get more people involved. The draft for the welcome message seems OK; there's nothing I would immediately change in it. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah definitly a good idea, should hopefully get us a few people. Gran2 06:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep I approve for sure, I'll give you a hand. As for the one-time characters, that is a MUCH better layout for the page. Plus it makes it a lot more comprehensive. Gran2 16:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good good, let's see if it gets any results (already three people have added their name). Gran2 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

help!
That vandel on the bio page, what exactly can i say/do to stop him from editing again and again? He re-edited the article 3times, and all I could do was revert changes.

Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcbaldwin27 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons Project
Since Tim finally stopped vandalizing, I find myself spending much less time editing Simpsons pages. Guess it probably is time to take myself back off the list. :) -FeralDruid 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic
I was working on other stuff, so I kind of stopped there but I'm still available. Check Art Ross Trophy and see if it's good enough already to reach FL. Thanks.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? Art Ross Trophy --Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a mention to Bobby Orr in the article, I feel it's important, thanks for nothing. However, I don't think there should be a mention of Art Ross and Hart Memorial winners for a simple reason. The Art Ross has been awarded 59 times and in 30 of those 59, the player has won the Hart Memorial as well. So, it happens more than 50% of the time, so it's not such an amazing feat to mention the players one by one, I think. Maybe it could be mentioned the number of players and times they did it: after the introduction of Art Ross trophy, 16 players won it and Hart in the same year 30 times. 22 players and 37 times if you include the scoring leaders prior to the introduction of the Art Ross trophy.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY FLs
I don't think I'll be working on the Prince of Wales Trophy article anymore unless there is any suggestions of how it can be improved. I think "GA" is fine, if not, featured. The quantity of the article's history is good; it's as long as Hart Memorial Trophy's. Refs fill up all the info we got, the wikitables are good so I don't think there's any improvement there. I also do trophy wikitables, such as the +/- article which I'll do next. --Hasek is the best 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FL milestone done. --Hasek is the best 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Darn, I thought it was good enough; but I have no doubt it'll pass. --Hasek is the best 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FL stuff
Both my vote and Crzycheetah are irrelevant as far as the FL candidacy are concerned. You can fault a list for not having articles when it should have them, but certainly not for having articles at all (their existence is relevant to AFD, not FLC). And my vote, while I stand by my opinion that the topic is not notable for Wikipedia, is not relevant to the FL criteria as I understand them. Besides, my vote is unactionable, anyway.Circeus 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Much like AFD, an oppose (especially "weak" argument opposes like ours) do not destroy a strong consensus. Circeus 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One time characters from The Simpsons
I'm planning on expanding a few characters over the next week or so, but mostly on seasons 3 and 5 because they are the only ones that I own, but i'll do my best to give everyone in those seasons some info. Also, could you elaborate on "real world information" and what it means exactly? I have heard it a lot but I don't know much about it. Is it cultural legacy/influence or something like that? Thanks. Rhino131 02:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I think I get real world information now. I'll see what I can do for the one time characters page, specifically season 5. Thanks for your help. Rhino131 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:bullet points
I understand what a GA is, but I don't understand why making an article hard to read makes it better. --Jnelson09 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I "take it up" with the GA people? I doubt I'd be able to convince them anyway. --Jnelson09 13:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Funeral For a Fiend
I leave this with you, but according to this the Sideshow Bob episode is Funeral For a Fiend. Gran2 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kamp Krusty
Thanks for your help with the Kamp Krusty page, It is good to recieve proffesional help and advice. I think most of the cultural references you removed were justified, although I put the Alan sherman and frank sinatra references back in becuase they do have references in the commentary. With the Disneyland reference...

"The slogans "The Krustiest place on Earth!" (Kamp Krusty) and "The happiest place on Earth!" (Tijuana, Mexico) are plays on the slogan for Disney Land, "The Happiest Place on Earth!" Additionally, Black mentions that he was previously head of Euro Krustyland before it “blew up”, a parody of the unpopularity of Euro Disneyland.

I know it has no source but it's on pretty solid ground. Should it be included? --Simpsons fan 66 23:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, i'll leave it out. Most of the issues for the GA fail have been addressed, and I am awaiting a reply from Gran2 regarding improvements to the reception section. I will continue adding references to simpsons.com for things like the plot and airdate because it seems to be a standard for GA articles. Any suggestions? --Simpsons fan 66 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The EW reference has already been explored in the production section, along with an al Jean quote. I think I have almost milked the commentary dry, there is a bit at the dream sequence at the start talking about the Flintstones animation sequence but I’m not sure if it is worth including. It talks about clearing the usage with Hanna and Barbara and one of the writers working there as well. Is it worth including? It would really appreciate it if you had a listen to the commentary and tell me if there is anything we should include. I think I’ve got nearly everything from the commentary but I would love a second opinion. --Simpsons fan 66 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll have another listen tonight and get back to you with any suggestions. --Simpsons fan 66 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging time?
Well, I&S will clearly survive the AFD, but I think we should trim some more articles. I think it could be a call for "possibile GA or merge." And so, I think we should really merge the following.


 * Chalmers is the clearest merge now, as much as I'd love him to have his own article, he'd be serviced better merged with the school's page.
 * I think we should recreate the Van Houten and Flanders family pages, and merge Rodd, Todd, Maude, Kirk, Luann and hell even Milhouse into them.
 * And then there's the major borderline characters of Moleman, Cletus and Martin, that we really could do much with.

Thoughts? Gran2 09:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also, just re-designed the characters list. I've removed all of the one time characters, because of your one time characters list re-design, so they arn't needed here as well. I've organised it by season, with each character listed by first appearance and so on. I need to re-write the descriptions, fix links and add sources before I implement it though. Gran2 15:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I may as well axe descriptions, I mean they wouldn't be anything past "family dog" would they. As for the discussion, I think this a perfect oppourtunity to see if our other members actually plan to help us out. I also had an idea with the welcome message, maybe we could have a one off "Updates on the project" message, t all of the people that still wish to retain their membership. Almost exactly like the welcome message, but pointing them in the direction of the discussion and also reminding them that its a good idea to watchlist the project page. Gran2 16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. And that rewritten list of characters looks easier to navigate. Alientraveller 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Milhouse
Thanks, I'm glad someone else is keeping an eye on that. I could be wrong, but I don't think 3RR applies to reverting obvious vandalism. /b/tards is my guess. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: O'Brien Trophy
As I understand it, the Toronto Blueshirts were a team in the old NHA and folded. Then the NHL came in and the Toronto Arenas were a new team in a new league, and the Arenas were re-named the St. Pats a little bit later then finally the Maple Leafs. So in answer to your question, the Blueshirts are seperate, whereas the Arenas/St. Pats/Maple Leafs are all one in the same. Croat Canuck <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 19:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what Croat said. In fact, the NHL was formed specifically to exclude the Blueshirts after a conflict with the owner.  The modern Leafs history begins with the Arenas in 1917. Resolute 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The irony (Stanley Cup)
I was about to propose the same thing. I think it should work, but it should be better defined. I can search around WP what articles need to be improved. I think it's feasible.  Maxim (talk)  19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The current article's a mess. And I've never written an FAC or come close to writing one (actual writing).  Maxim (talk)  22:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stanley Cup's a GA.  Maxim (talk)  22:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 9
Hello. I am looking at my The Simpsons Forever! to see the show runner for The Simpsons (season 9), but I'm confused... It seems that most of the episodes were ran by Mike Scully, however, some of the episodes were ran by different people. As an expert on this whole stuff, would you mind telling me what I do in this situation? Thanks :) Xihix 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant on the actual Season 9 page. I'll look at Season 8's to see if it'll help though, but when I read Mike Scully's wikipedia page, it says that he became the show runner starting in season 9, and he is the executive producer in most of the episodes, so I'll go with that.  Also, as I don't have the Season 9 DVD yet, do you think you could help with the Season 9 page?  Like adding any notable information that was said on the commentaries that I may not add?  Thanks :)  Xihix 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I saw one source on season 8 that was a commentary, so I figured it was possible season 9 had something too.  Thanks again.  Xihix 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it's ok if I fix the table over the next two or so days. Writing the summaries was a little harder than I thought it would be, especially since I've been really busy for a few days.  It looks weird right now as it's incomplete, but yeah, I'll be writing it as much as I can.  Also, when I finish, would you mind looking at it to fix or copy edit anything thats needed before I send it in for a FLC?  Thanks.  Xihix 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons
Hi, I recently proposed that the page be merged with the main The Simpsons article, and since you were involved with the recent deletion of the similar Family Guy page, I was wondering if you would mind commenting. I am anticipating heavy opposition from some newer editors, and it would be nice to get some opinions from some more experienced ones. Thanks, Scorpion0422 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look when I get a chance. However, one of the concerns mentioned repeatedly (I think even by me) on the Family Guy AfD was that the Simpsons version of that same page was so much better. / edg ☺ ★ 23:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

HLTFAHD
I'll let you find a place for it, as I can't really think of one (maybe a casting section) but I'll write it out here.

When asked to appear on the show, Colbert believed that he was merely going to an audition, but was "thrilled" when the production staff told him he actually had a part in the episode. Colbert was pleased that his character was named Colby and that his appearance was similar to that of his own, although he had not expected the animators to retain his glasses for the design. He based his performance on Tony Robbins, and described the recording sessions as "the hardest job."

He also notes that the insect overlords is one of his all time favourite jokes, and that Kent is one of his favourite characters. Also, this may help in some way. Gran2 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where'd that info come from Gran? Also, Scorpion, while I agree the article has shapen up nicely, I just don't feel you should now because I know what you can do with most articles, and it won't sit with them. It's a tall order, but maybe you should wait for the DVD, even if it's years from now (maybe sooner, if the show ends). Why not concentrate on an episode on DVD? The controversial Scully era is out now, and there is "Deep Space Homer"... Alientraveller 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "My Sister, My Sitter" never sat with me: if the commentary was really lacking, it could have been a prime candidate for merging to the Season 8 article. Still, improve it and we'll see. And I hope "Deep Space Homer" is an excellent article: I can dig some stuff for you considering it's such a famous film parody. Alientraveller 16:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really for reasons above regarding its comprehensiveness. Still, we'll see. Alientraveller 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Breeders discography
Just to let you know, The Breeders discography has received five supports over ten days; I believe it meets the criteria for promotion. CloudNine 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

cite book nooks and crannies
A few comments re: cite book (which I agree can be damn daunting to use): Circeus 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Editor" is used when you need to cite a section/chapter of a book written by someone else than the "main author" credited for the whole work. ("author"is then the author of that section)
 * "edition" is used for stuff like "3rd revised edition", not yearly or repeated publications
 * "origyear" is used when a book is republished with relatively little changes in content, this is used primarily to avoid giving an indication of recentness for scholarly works dating from the 60s or earlier.
 * I'm not entirely sure Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup is a necessary part of the FT. Also, while Mark Messier Leadership Award is indeed too short for FL, it is not too short for FT. See Featured topics/Canadian election timelines (it's even still considered an all-featured!). Circeus 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOST S3 FLC
Hi. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources
For the record, while the Wikipedia guidelines say blogs should be avoided it makes an exception for "except those written by a recognized authority"  In the case of a recent wiki entry you reversed, I'd argue that a blog written by a staff sports reporter at the Globe and Mail qualifies as a recognized authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Room 40 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC) --Room 40 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment
It hasn't even started where I live (MST) yet, so I wasn't mindful of that fact. I could have kept reverting it as unsourced though, and not been in violation of 3RR due to WP:V. I'm logging off. Later, <font color="Steel blue">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  01:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright
Alright, you caught me...guess what, I don't spend fifteen hours a day and when I do I usually don't plan on getting attacked the minute I put something up, and yes, I'm not familiar with picture licensing, so i'll try to fix it this weekend, okay? Please don't delete it, thank you.IamMcLovin 15:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
I want to add the following information to Marge Simpson's page. Under the "Body" section.


 * Marge posseses metal-like arms. When Marge has her arms crossed, she means it. Homer needed to use all his strength and a crowbar/wrench to uncross her arms, resulting unsuccessfully. ("Homer and Marge Turn a Couple Play")
 * Marge has webbed toes (mentioned in one episode where she had a trial for shoplifting, I think it was "Marge in Chains"), as well it mentioned it in a book I've read about the Simpsons by Matt Groening (i.e. 100 things you didn't know about the Simpsons, #47 I think)
 * Marge posseses a weak telepathic bond with Homer ("The Wife Aquatic")
 * Marge can spill and suck up a tear drop immediateley ("He Loves to Fly and He D'oh's"), it happens when Homer calls her, she gets her hopes crushed but when he tells her good news she sucks the tear back up in her eye

For the "Hair" section, I want to had how,


 * Marge uses Johnson's water seal to keep it straight ("Last of the Red Hat Mamas"). One occassion implied the hair to be alive.

'''Look, I've checked anything I could find, any policy that was against me writing this information for about an hour so you wouldn't remove it. Please, if there's anything against this, tell me before you go around removing it.'''

Superior 11:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)