User talk:CTF83!

Reply

Stop reverting him and wait for him to get bored and leave. You can revert him again tomorrow when he's gone. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Just leave him alone and he'll go away. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've checked my usual sources, and couldn't find anything. The episode wasn't even mentioned in the book Planet Simpson. So, I guess you'll need to give the commentary another listen and try to bulk up the production section. Although this quote: "One of the most dismally unfunny episodes ever, lifted only by the brief appearance of a talking camel and Homer's clever way of getting Cooder and Spud out of his home. Whereas most of the series's politically incorrect moments are funny and well-observed, this episode seems to be saying that fairground folk and travellers really are deeply unpleasant criminals who are both irredeemable and unworthy of help. Nasty-taste-in-the-mouth time." from here is useable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's easy. You just add {{GAC}} to the article's talk page, then go to WP:GAC and add "Bart Carny" to the appropriate section. There is a section there just for episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They both still need a little work. The lead of Realty Bites should be modelled after the one I added on Bart Carny, and they should both have External links sections like the one here. The plots could use a once over, and then you might as well take a shot. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the episodes are reviewed by an independant user and it all depends on how long it takes for somebody to get to it. I've had GACs wait almost 6 weeks, but since Alientraveller is around, it will probably be less than a week. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Do you mean a reference to a specific issue (there are none mentioned in the commentaries) or a reference that confirms that they are based on EC Comics, because there is already one in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you don't need sources in a lead as it is meant to summarize the article. If something mentioned in the lead isn't mentioned in the article, THEN you need sources. As well, generally admins handle page moves, so just wait for one of them to handle it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look to the right of the blue bars, you'll notice a little "show" thingy. Click that you'll be able to view the stuff. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Realty Bites

I suggest you fix up the referencing to Reality Bites, to make it similar to the way you made Bart Carny. Also, make the references to the commentary to the individuals in the commentary, as you'll make more references, and it'll just look better that way. xihix(talk) 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike Scully has the most distinct voice, so you should be able to recognize him. For the others, I suggest you hear the part they say, then go back to the beginning when they introduce themselves, and best guess who it was. xihix(talk) 00:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm pretty busy in real life, and only get chance to work on the episodes on weekends or Fridays. But, as I said, Mike Scully's voice is very distinct from the others, so thats a pretty good tip. And like I said before, just go to the beginning after you hear the statements that are said. Lastly, I suggest you use the sources I've used in my GA articles. The book (I scanned all of the season 9 pages and uploaded them, you can find the link on the talk page of the FT drive page), the simpsons plot page, the bbc page, and the commentary. xihix(talk) 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really just unnecessary... xihix(talk) 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not every episode does, some do, some don't. You can add it back if you want, just add the book source < ref name="book"/> (without space next to ref at the beginning) next to it. xihix(talk) 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested it at the talk page of the Wikiproject. Many people find it unnecessary, but whatever. Also, add your two GA's to the main page of the WikiProject, in the GAC's area. xihix(talk) 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it... xihix(talk) 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were talking about the chalkboard discussion. And, regarding the GAC, I'm talking about the one on the main Wikiproject page, in the Announcements section. xihix(talk) 04:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is none... You said that every episode should have a chalkboard, and I suggested you go to the talk page of the Wikiproject's main page and suggest it. xihix(talk) 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I can't say you've seen that many... xihix(talk) 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

well

I don't live in Davenport, and I don't actually know how to use some of the features on wikipedia. Most of what I do is start articles or minor changes (such as correction in grammar, or disambig. pages), so I don't know a whole heck of alot about editing wikipedia in that since. The only problem I have is there are very few pictures, and all of which have to do with the river, I understand that the particular part of the city is no doubt the most important part of it, but I'm sure there are certain important things in other areas. Like I said, I'm not extremely skilled at wikipedia. Thanks. Iamanadam 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Something about further from the river, like Duck Creek or Vandevere (?, haven't live there for almost seven years, so I'm not sure how it's spelled). Thank you Iamanadam 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For constantly beating me to the punch on vandalism, keep up the good work! Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol... I hit like 6 straight pages where you had reverted the vandalism before I could get to it so I figured you deserved it, keep up the good work!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought this might interest you

[1] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy right now. User:Sup3rior has slowly been chipping away at it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just the Van Houtens and the Flanders. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying we don't need them. Kirk, Luann and Milhouse are all major characters, as are Ned, Rod, Maude and Todd. All of them could easily sustain individual pages, but the WP:FICT guidelines are against that. None of the other familys (other than the Simpsons and Bouviers) have that many major characters, or enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I received an angry e-mail from an anonymous user who accused me of doing it only because I wanted to get rid of Rod and Todd Flanders because they are gay(???) Either way, I figured I'd unmerge them and do it the proper way (even though there have been three discussions at WP:SIMPSONS where we decided to merge the pages). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, it was a user. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The REAL Thanksgiving was a month ago. I think you use <big> tags and it makes the text bigger. To make it even bigger use another big tag. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. Text formatting really isn't my specialty so perhaps you should ask someone else. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

family guy

first its a directors blog, that was featured on familyguy.com before its redesign. Again, these episodes appear on numerous other outlets, but this was the most legit source. Also, the source has provided information in the past that was all accurate. This has been discussed in length already by the main contributing editors of family guy, and this was the decision deemed best applicable. I see youve made numerous contributions to wikipedia, but you should stay with the subjects you are most familiar with, even if you are a said fan of family guy. Please stop reverting discussed changes. thanks. Grande13

I believe its the article at ign from this years comiccon that details the upcoming plots. Regarding the blog, it has been proven in the past to be correct as you can go back to the last season and see the same results. Also, there is a lot of insider knowledge available there and on his past blogs. Also, a few of us are in direct email connection with a few of the directors as we help run other various cartoon/family guy websites/promotions. There are no longer any issues with this page and its causing no harm and it clearing lays out the upcoming info without being crystal ball like it was previously formatted. Its more beneficial to have the official titles up there now, as the page is a high source of vandalism and this cuts back on it substantially as there is a source provided that cant be manipulated by vandals, so all future info not properly sourced is quickly now able to be identified as vandalism which helps protect the integrity of the page. There are some other reasons as well but i have other things to attend to now. Grande13

again it was at one time linked to on the official family guy site, before its recent remodeling. The source is the director itself, and the past verifies this as he has provided details in the past that were added here that all were true that could not have been figured out by someone just impersonating. I dont know what other proof you could want, but all the information is factual and the format has been agreed upon by the editors here, and even a few admins had stepped in in the past to give their input. The official directors blog is a method that allows us to source info that has already been mentioned in some past audio interviews, newsletters, videos, and such and allows for a source that can't be manipulated with by the outsider. You're asking for proof it is the directors, but there is no proof showing that its not. Yes, not the strongest argument, but it was on the official site, which at the time made it an official blog, before the designers of familyguy.com switched layouts. Grande13

Please stop. If you continue to fasely accuse editors of vandalism (like you did on the Homophobia article, you will be blocked from editing. --24.62.221.173 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)