User talk:Maitch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Corythosaurus

You added the "Living" section to Corythosaurus (also: please italicise) in which you mention some detailed speculative information,... like you have just watched a documentary on NGC or something (mentioning the vague "western mountains"). Fiction should not be provided as fact like that... Please substantiate the section or I will delete it.Phlebas 19:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The facts are from the book "The Ultimate Dinosaur Book" by "David Lambert". I'm sorry if its poorly written. Besides being a bit vague in the beginning, the rest is not speculative. --Maitch 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mickael Rasmussen/Michael Rasmussen

Being Danish you may be able to sort out this problem. You created the article Michael Rasmussen, and about the same person is the article Mickael Rasmussen. I'm not sure which one has the most correct spelling of his name, do you think you could look into it? --Commander Keane 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering myself why the Tour de France says "Mickael Rasmussen". The only reason I can think of is that the "h" is silent in French and it is to help the pronunciation. His real name is "Michael Rasmussen". You can also see it at the UCI Pro Tour website that this is the correct spelling. Another point is that in Denmark we have very strict rules for which first name you are able to get. I've checked the list on the Danish Wikipedia and Mickael is not an option. Only Michael or Mikael are allowed. --Maitch 14:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The info on strictness of Danish names is interesting, is there an en.wiki equivalent to the Danish names list you referred to? If not, could you give me the link to the Danish names list please --Commander Keane 12:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is an English equivalent, but the list for boy names is da:Drengenavne and the list for girl names is da:Pigenavne. You can however apply for a different new name or an alternative spelling, but if these names gets approved, it would be added to the list. The list on the Danish Wikipedia might be a few years old. The newest list for boy names is here and the list for girls is here. --Maitch 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
How do you pronounce "Michael" in Danish? --Commander Keane 07:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but I’m not very good at doing pronunciation translations, but I will give it a go anyway. The word Michael sounds in Danish almost the same as in English. The biggest difference is the i sound that in Danish sounds more like an English e (like in “me”). The a is a bit different, but not to much. The overall tone is more flat, which Danish generally is. --Maitch 12:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scandinavia

How do you do, Maitch. Nice to meet you too. You seem a bit rash on that Scandinavian article. I'm new to the article so I don't really care what you call the place. But, we need a resolution to the problem, unless you think Wikipedia is a place of endless conflicts over unsolvable problems. I'm only trying to help out here.

I did not say Denmark was not a part of Scandinavia. And, I did not omit Denmark. I just put it further down in the intro. Furthermore, the Scandinavia you are talking about is an emotional one. It seems to be part of the sentiment of Scandinavism. But those of us who dwell elsewhere, how are we to define the place geographically? Don't you think there are multiple meanings of the word? The Finns get pretty hot over it too and my guess is you wouldn't even think they were Scandinavian!

I'd like to work this out with you. The introduction you restored is mainly wrong. For one thing, the original Scandinavia never included any current Danish territory at all, unless you think Pliny meant Zeeland. Halland was in it, but that is now Sweden. For another, no matter how you define it, you can't avoid getting some Uralics in the territory. And finally, there is not only that one definition of Scandinavia.

I am willing however to concede your main wish, which is to emphasize up front that Denmark is in Scandinavia. So, I'm going to put mine back with alterations. I am open to its being modified if you still think it needs it. Or, alternatively, rewrite that or the previous yourself. We're not the only people here. I suspect that if you continue to insist that the one that to which you reverted stay, that tag will be on until the Wikipedia administrators get tired of looking at it and take further action to stop the conflict. Then you'll be an even angrier young man. So what do you say, maitch? Friends?Dave 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad or anything. The problem was just that your version was even worse than the one before. Scandinavia does not equal the Scandinavian peninsula and including Russia is laughable. The Baltic region has more to do with Scandinavia than Russia. Scandianavia is first of all a cultural union. If you read through the discussion you would know that. Even the Finnish Wikipedia defines Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. With that being said I am not a supporter of the version I reverted to. I myself do define Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but I do want it to say that some include Finland as well. --Maitch 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. There is a confusion of what is being defined, then. According to you there are two different definita. One is geographic and the other is linguistic, political and cultural (as well as emotional). I understand your wanting to distance yourself from Russia, but geographically that doesn't take you very far away. You see, in the states here we look at things geographically. We appreciate having the wonderful countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden as allies and many US citizens are descended from people who came here from there. I for one sympathize with Danish free speech. There is nothing like freedom. On the other hand we don't have the nationalistic feelings that you do. Why should we? It's not our native land. So, we look at things geographically.
Your explanation suggests the solution. We need to distinguish carefully between the Scandinavian peninsula and Scandinavia. That is probably what the main problem has been here. There is a little ambiguation in your mind as to what to do with the Finns. They seem to want in on Scandinavia. So, I agree, you should include that possibility in your definition. As for the Russians, you can include them on the Scandinavian peninsula but not in the four countries mentioned. I doubt if they are eager to be part of your Scandinavia anyway. While I am at it I would like to point out, we don't have the opposition to the Russians that prevailed during the cold war. Many US citizens have relatives that came from Russia. So, let's make sure the Russians don't get to be laughable. I don't know who put the tag on the article but I doubt if it is coming off as long as nationalistic sentiments prevail. Wikipedia is international.
Well, I had a shot at it. It only seems fair to let you have the next one. The objective is to get something so accurate and inoffensive as to be able to get the tag off. So, anything that does not include all the possibilities is not going to fly and anything that belittles or excludes also is not going to fly (probably). Objective, open-minded language and concepts, that is the thing to achieve. I look forward to your version. Meanwhile, I have to get back to etymology and get my tone right.Dave 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between Scandinavia and the Scandinavian peninsula is important and hard to explain to outsiders. I would have waited to the discussion was over, but I can give it a try now. In my mind the most fair solution is to mention the two possibilities DNS and DNSF. There is another problem with the definition of the Nordic countries that people can't agree on either. For me Iceland is a Nordic coutry and not a Scandinavian one. --Maitch 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the discussion ever will be over. I like the idea of successive approximation. I think you did a noble job. I took it on myself to polish up your English to the extent that it doesn't sound foreign. Its fine with me if you drop the larger definition of Scandinavia. It might not fly with everyone though, based on the map. Where would you say Murmansk is? Not in Scandinavia? If it is not, why would Vardo be in, which is further east than the whole Karelskaya border? Similarly, there is nothing but a line on a map (and a bunch of border guards) to distinguish east Finland from West Karelskaya. And Lappland, which sprawls over the whole north, is that in or out? But if it is out, so is the north of Sweden and Norway. Tsk tsk. But what you have is solid and I will not question it. On the rest of the article. It seems a shame not to have an accepted article on such an important topic.Dave 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did the best I could. It's not really that easy to write and I'm sure that there will be further discussion. I also hope that someone will improve the article. There is also still the issue with the greater Scandinavia definition, but I'm not sure what the consensus is. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden we use the term Nordic countries, but I'm not sure the rest of the would makes that distinction. In my definition of Scandinavia I'm only thinking in countries and not so much the geography. It's a bit loose definition, but then again has the borders of Denmark, Finland, Ñorway and Sweden historically changed a few times. --Maitch 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellas, I felt like budding into your discussion since I have left a comment at Talk:Scandinavia. Dave/Botteville, I would like to see some convincing evidence to your claim that the Finns or the Icelanders "want" to be part of Scandinavia. All my sources and impressions and personal experiences will tell me otherwise. In fact, there are people in Finland and Iceland who would actually like to emphasize their non-Scandinavian location and identity and to distance themselves from the Scandinavians (proper), while others could care less what names the outside world calls them by. Another unsourced claim fo yours (Dave's) is that an American is more likely to define a certain region geographically, as contrasted by "emotionally". Clearly, any region or subregion will depend on geographical criteria for its definition, and I'm not convinced that English speakers in the US define their regions differently than people elsewhere or in other languages. Again, the extended meaning seems to be primarily an exonym, used by non-Europeans who picture Scandinavia as an exotic mythical place of polar bears, social equality and yellow-haired people with horned helmets − not entirely unlike how the medieval central Europeans pictured Thule. ;) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Denmark was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] Your edit to See My Vest

Your recent edit to See My Vest was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess your bot can't handle redirecting an article. --Maitch 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It was spelling, you misspelt redirect and thats what triggered it, no worries, I see you've fixed it :o -- Tawker 17:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P10

Hi, Maitch. You left a sensible comment the first time the List of Perfect 10 models was at AfD due to the hasty conclusion by some that "Perfect 10 models" was a POV. Now it's worse. Basically, the excuse is that an un-named model told someone that she didn't want to be listed, and instead of addressing her inclusion individually, the guy who tried to delete it before re-nominated the entire list again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models (second nomination) --Alsayid 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The KLF

hi, your comment re the above FAC for The KLF has now been addressed. would it be possible to go back and update your comment if you think its been resolved? thx. Zzzzz 10:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tnavbar

Hello Maitch, I swapped out Tnavbar2 for Tnavbar-plain because I had just made that in accord with the wishes of another editor who made the identical changes that you did. Please know that I added {{db}} to Template:Tnavbar2 for this reason. Also, on the Simpson's template is the centering affecting how it displays on your system? With Safari it is not at all centered with out some sort of explicit centering command. Netscott 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Maitch. Netscott 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States article nomination

Hi, I believe your comment is incorrect, as the American Dream section is the only one added, because of a single voter's suggestion attacking the article's comprehensiveness.--Ryz05 t 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I checked it. On the time you nominated it it was 88 KB. Now it is 94 KB. --Maitch 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Because a new section on American Dream was added, but that's the only addition.--Ryz05 t 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but where does it end. When I was supporting the article I was going against my usual principle against large articles. Now I'm considering switching side. --Maitch 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That section was added because of this objection:
Object Good article, but missing some key points which I raised in the previous   nomination discussion but were apparently just ignored: 
 No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else. The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world. 
 Glaring ommissions from the culture section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema. (Also this newest version now bizarrely refers to Disney's influence on Chinese cartoons and Japanese manga but still does not refer to Hollywood). Also, what about fast food? 
 Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context. 
 "The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So we tried to appease him by answering his call of adding the extra section.--Ryz05 t 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you can't win, but there is room for downsizing other than the american dream. I would shorten the history and public health section and finally removed the largest cities table. I do know that there has been a poll about the latter, but I still don't consider it relevant. Tony also made some fine points about reducing the text by copy-editing. --Maitch 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the understanding. The Largest cities table had been removed if you haven't noticed and I will try to trim the sentences in other sections, but you are welcome to help out.--Ryz05 t 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a bitch getting an article through FAC and it should be. The largest cities section is back now. I might help a little later. --Maitch 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent Simpsons edits

Hey. While I think many of your recent revisions to the Simpsons article are justified, I'm curious as to why you've removed so many parenthesised remarks. I think that the comments that were in parentheses deserve to be in parentheses - things that are not directly related to the topic/sentence/paragraph at hand, but are important notes. For example - at the end of the origin section, there's a note about South Park sharing a very similar experience. I think this belongs in parentheses, because it's not about the Simpsons origins - it's not part of that 'story', it's just an interesting parallel that is noted. Also in that section, an example of one of the t-shirts - It's an important note to note the slogan on the shirt, but it doesn't actually fit into the flow of the sentance - taking it out of parentheses makes it a run-on sentence. In the heading section, the note that the show is still running (and thus the episode count isn't final) is not part of the thought of the sentence; it's just a clarifier like I just did in this sentence. Things that clarify a fact but aren't actually the fact you're trying to 'show off' are put in parentheses to indicate that. Another example is the Show Runner section. The note that the list is by production season not aired season is just a clarifier - (it's not how they're ordered, by the way - it's how the episodes are grouped - episodes that are leftover for the next season are usually still 'show run' by the previous season runner). I really think you should reconsider letting me put a bunch of the parentheses back in. I think they are important in structuring what information is the main thought, and what information is there to clarify. Another example - Marge is a stay at home mom (except in a few episodes). The point of the sentence is the statement that the character is a stay at home mom. The exception is just a minor point to note that there have been a few shows where she has worked - and therefore, I don't think it belongs out of the parentheses. Also, when an example is given in the middle of the paragraph (in the plots section, for example), it really belongs in parentheses, because it otherwise disrupts the flow of the thought.

There are some removals you've done that fit the passage fine (though I admit that I don't think the original version was a problem either), but I would really like to put several of them back in; that said, I don't think there is much point to having a back-and-forth edit situation on this, so I thought it best to discuss it with you here. I do endorse most of your other edits (I corrected a grammar error in one of them), so it's really just about the parentheses. Thanks TheHYPO 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that most parenthesised remarks disrupt the flow of the article. Let's compare:
Most of the time parenthesised remarks are just random trivia that the article could do without. Parenthesised remarks can be used sometimes, but the problem with this article is that is used too much. I'm trying to get the article up to FA standards and believe me that those things gets noticed. --Maitch 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - That particular example is a valid example where it doesn't necessarily flow to have parentheses (although I think that the way it is now is somewhat of a run-on sentance), but I think that with examples, it disrupts the flow of the article more to have examples right in the text without parentheses. That's just my opinion though. What is FA standard? TheHYPO 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually considered removing "(and it is still running)" entirely, because I find it a bit redundant, but since it's debatable I left it in. FA stands for Featured Article and is a selection of the very best articles Wikipedia has to offer. I appreciate most your efforts and hope that we can collaborate on making the article better. I don't know how interested you are in working on articles related to The Simpsons, but if you are you can join WikiProject The Simpsons. One of the things I would advise you to avoid is to add too many examples or specific episode citing. Whenever these are in the article fan boys will add random trivia or counter examples. Since The Simpsons is not really a show that cares a great deal about continuity, it is better to talk about the show in general terms. --Maitch 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll be honest; I try to avoid horning in on existing 'edit communities' just because they usually have established ways of going about articles. The only reason I did a rewrite of The Simpsons article is because I was looking something up on it and as I read it, it just seemed poorly organized considering the immense popularity of the show (I had expected it to be a very thorough and well written article given how popular it is - I guess it's a testiment to how many of the truely devoted "intellectual" fans have ditched the show since it because a bit of a farce of itself after the 8-10th seasons (not to say current fans aren't intellectual, but it really doesn't garner the attention as an intelligent well-writen comedic show anymore - I know I no longer stive to make sure I catch it every week. Long story short, I thought it could use a good spring cleaning; like having the basic origins of the show as the opening of 'production' when that really doesn't have anything to do with production of the show, and having (what I still think exists but I wasn't sure how to reconcile it) things under writing that overlap with plot/structure (IMO, the 'writing' under 'production' should be about the how the show is writen as a process, not the material/style that comes out of the writing which is part of the content of the show for the later section).
I think the general problem with the article right now is that there are dozens of subarticles. So someone needs to decide to either have the sections (eg: characters) of those topics be fairly complete but basic (which you would probably argue is too much information if it was done), or have the section be very very sparce and just redirect. Right now most of the sections are somewhere in between. - example:
Homer Jay Simpson, a safety inspector at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, is a generally well-meaning buffoon whose short attention span often draws him into outrageous schemes and adventures. He has an outright love for Marge and for doughnuts and is often seen drinking Duff brand beer.
This is probably unnecessary information if there is already both an article on 'characters' and on Homer himself. Frankly, all this article needs to do is say 'the Simpsons family: father Homer, mother Marge, son Bart, and daughters Lisa and Maggie. If people want to know more, that's what those articles are for. Similarly, Marge's maiden name is superfluous in an article on the show, and her French origin is pretty trivial (has it ever even been mentioned on the show or is it just extrapolation from her name? Either way it doesn't need to be said here). A one-line personality summary is pretty much all that is needed at most for the main characters. The description of the family's class fits but only because there is no article on the family as a whole (is there?) [looks it up] I guess there is - so that too doesn't even need to be half as full on as it is in this article. I'm rambling again; I don't mean to be critisising YOU in this - I'm really not. I'd like to hear your opinion on this though; I thought that deleting copious ammounts of accurate info that was just 'too much' would be too much for my first edit of the article that's obviously existed with many watchers/maintainers for a while like yourself.
I've never been involved in a wiki project really - could you give me more detail as to what is actually involved in being involved in it? Thanks - Keep up the good work. TheHYPO 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the project doesn't require you to do anything. All we do is discuss how to improve some of the article and try to set a standard for articles related to The Simpsons. I do agree that there is too much Simpsons crap out there and we will try to limit it. I mainly work for the main article. I know that is not perfect, but it is a slow process. I allow some sloppy writing because I don't have the time work on the entire article. A couple of months ago it looked terrible, because people were free to anything to the article without anybody controlling if it in fact was something useful. I've noticed that the better the article gets the less of crappy additions it gets. I haven't really spent a lot of time on the character section. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. There is an article for the Simpson family. --Maitch 10:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
How do I 'join' a wikiproject? I've never been involved in one. - Thanks TheHYPO 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just write your user name in the participants section and watch the project page. --Maitch 21:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 t 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tikal's featured article comment

Hi. You had said in your featured article comment that you objected because the article, Tikal the Echidna lacks an out of universe aspect. So I strived to fix this problem. So is there an out-of-universe aspect now? --71.104.178.133 17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Magazine citation for Bart Simpson

Go here: [1]. Bart's on the list, and you can also read his article. Ultrabasurero 02:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture of Norway

You objected to the nomination of Architecture of Norway. I am working on the improvements you have suggested. If you could take a look, I think you will see promising progress. Please reconsider your objection, or let me know what more you would like to see to support it. --Leifern 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation

I'll do my best; I can't make any 100% promises. TheHYPO 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. Feel free to go over the last little while of edits and yell at me for doing a crap job ;) TheHYPO 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Styleguide subpage - how to do a subpage?

Hey man, I have a question - Re: Subpages like your styleguide - I'm curious about the process for that kind of subpage, cause I've seen it used elsewhere like a recent rewrite of Futurama was Futurama/seconddraft or something. Do you just make a page like that or is there anything special about a subpage with the slash - is it linked in any way in wiki's eyes to the "parent" page or does wiki just think it's a new page called blah/blah? TheHYPO 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is only a new page called blah/blah, and it works in every namespace except the article namespace. --Maitch 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Putnam

Maitch, the "trial" of Hilary Putnam has been restrartd by Raul and your vote has been canceled as a result. If you would like to revote, please go to the new FAC page linked to on the talk-page of Hilary Putnam. Thank you. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC page

Thanks for the vote to support. I have to say, though, that even that old page you linked to was still better than 99,9999% of the philosophu article on Wikipedia (excpet the other ones I wrote)(;. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Tintin

I've had another bash, and although there's still a way to go, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have so far on the article. Steve block Talk 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haabet

Du forlod for efterhånden et stykke tid siden den danske wikipedia pga. at Haabet ikke var blevet permanent bandlyst. Det er han dog endeligt blevet nu, så derfor håber jeg at se dig tilbage på dawiki i den nærmeste fremtid. --Peter Andersen 07:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great for you, but what does that have to do with the article. uhh, simpsons not being funny anymore isn't great. My grandmother is sitting next to me and she told me to ask you how is that great for me? You make no sense 65.31.99.71 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IL

Thanks for the note, it actually isn't the first time someone asked me to fixed this. Alphabetizing by the 2 letter code is actually favored slightly by Wikipedia:Language order poll, but I'll fix it to follow the order of m:Interwiki sorting order also. Thanks, AZ t 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for managing song lists on Simpsons episodes

Hi, hope you don't mind me posting to your userpage but I'm trying to collect opinion on a proposal relating to The Simpsons and, despite posting to various talk pages, I've had no feedback at all (except from a co-planner). I don't mind if all the opinion is negative (then I'll just forget the idea) but I'd like it to get some visibiltiy. I'm not going to go implement it unless the consensus is positive.

I'm proposing changing the way we manage lists of songs in episodes. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Proposal for managing song lists on Simpsons episodes which has a full explanation of the proposal. Please leave comments there.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on this, or any views on where else it should be discussed --Mortice 12:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Walk of Fame image

I went ahead and updated the Fair Use rationale. I can send you a copy of the e-mail, if you so desire. He wrote:

“ Yeah, I live and die by the fair use doctrine. At the bottom of each page I post there's a link to it - http://www.justabovesunset.com/id10.html - the full text. I just like being asked, and I thank you for that. Not many do ask. But you knew that. ”

-Mysekurity 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons

Hi, I was looking through The Simpsons, and I was curious as to when you think it will be ready for another stab at FA status, it still needs a little tweaking, and maybe another image, but for the most part, I think it's close. I think it's A-Class quality, but it should be your decision, should you wish to promote it. Anyway, do you need any help getting it ready? Or are you fine editing it yorself? -- Scorpion 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still a number of things that can be done. People have complained that the lead should be rewritten. If you have any ideas for that, please go ahead and make the changes. People have also complained about the article being too long. I can think of two places that could be trimmed. --Maitch 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. What do you think about promoting it to A Class? -- Scorpion 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't care whether it is A or GA class. --Maitch 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Very well. And what sections were you thinking of trimming? What is the ideal length? -- Scorpion 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what the ideal length is. I've seen FA's which are longer, but it is all about cutting down on information that is not all that interesting or moving it to a subarticle. Just try and get a great lead and I will work on trimming the article. --Maitch 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, can you work the bit from the lead about meta and self references into the running gags section? I think that is noteworthy, but not in the lead. And what about another image? Perhaps a screenshot or a picture of Matt Groening? Or even the image of Bart from Cartoon Wars, we can mention his appearance in the caption and not have to mention it in the actual article. -- Scorpion 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There, I overhauled the lead. It still needs work, but I modelled after the lead for Arrested Development. Tell me what you think and what needs doing. -- Scorpion 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I will discuss the lead on the articles talk page. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to add more images to the article. I've seen people complaining that an article contained too many fair use images during a FAC. It would be better if you can find some free images instead. The only sections I think could use an image is "Storylines" and "Cultural impact". --Maitch 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm done shortening the article. It didn't have that great an effect. The article is still at 58KB, but I will wait to see what they say during the FAC, before I take out more stuff. If we just can get they lead right, then we can nominate it. --Maitch 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
So, now I've nominated it. We can still work on it as people makes comments. --Maitch 15:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess we've had some problems with sources now. Do you need any help searching for sources? And I've never actually heard the Simpleton thing before, I heard that he just quickly needed a name for the family and picked Simpsons because it sounded more American than Groening. Some people are real jerks over sources though, in the Guest Stars article, one guy demanded that I delete the entire thing, then go through and only add the guest stars mentioned on the official episode guide at fox, AND add a citation to each individual episode. I gave up because it would involve a lot of work, plus it would make the list VERY incomplete. But, it's good that your not giving up. -- Scorpion 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had anticipated that people would be nitpicking the article. I've seen this so many times before. It only means that we are closer than ever. I won't give up and if I don't manage to respond to all their criticism in time, we can always nominate some other time. I can probably finish the citations in time. The only thing that truly bothers me is that I don't think I'm able to write "compelling prose". We may need to find somebody who is truly great at proof reading. --Maitch 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons & Trivia Sections.......................

I responded to your response on the Simpsons Project Talkpage. Thought I'd let you know........ takethemud 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations are in order

I had my doubts that it would be promoted this time after an early round of criticism, but you responded nicely, and thanks to you, The Simpsons is now an FA. Congratulations! Are you interested in moving onto another Simpsons article (perhaps helping the project in getting the entire family to GA status), or are you taking a beak for the time being? Either way, good job. -- Scorpion 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am probably going to take a break. Writing a FA takes a lot of work. I'm not really interested in doing any characters, so the task is up for somebody else. I do have an idea for a Simpson FA project, but let's see what I have time and energy for later. --Maitch 14:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maitch contributions

Do you actually contribute any original material or do you just edit and criticise for the sake of it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul210 (talk • contribs)

Are you the real comic book guy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul210 (talk • contribs)

Still waiting on an answer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul210 (talk • contribs)

No, I'm not the comic book guy. What are you, ten years old? --Maitch 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Get a life !—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul210 (talk • contribs)

[edit] The Tracey Ullam Show.

Hi there, I've moved the page back to Tracey Ullman show. See Here for why. Tellyaddict 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons talk

I responded on the Simpsons talk page about how to edit the secondary characters, specifically, whether to include episodes in which the characters play a substantial role in driving the plot. The feeling among the few people who have posted tends to be one of removing those sections. I think some discussion here would be worthwhile. --takethemud 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons - Peabody award

Why do you say the Peabody award on The Simpsons page is needed? It sounds sorta rubbish to me... -- SilvaStorm

It's just that I know quite a lot of awards and have never heard of it. -- SilvaStorm

[edit] Cape Feare

I've noticed that you've been making some changes to the Cape Feare article. If you need some stuff for it, I can get some image caps no problem (perhaps a capture of the rake joke?) Also, this episode placed very highly on the NoHomers Club Top 100 a couple years ago, and although I'm not sure if it would count as a source, you could include it as fan reception. In the test page, there are a few grammer errors that you may want to clean up. -- Scorpion 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Here are the images:
    • Rake Joke: Image:Rake Joke.png
    • Family with Witness Protection shirts: Image:Cape Feare family.png
    • Bates Motel: Image:Bates Motel.png
  • And if you want em, I have screenshots of "The Thompsons" intro and a picture of Bob trying to stab Bart. I prefer using screenshots for display pics as opposed to promos, but it's up to you. -- Scorpion 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons

I was just wondering if you'd made a request for the Simpsons article to be on the main page. July 27, April 19 and May 20 were the three dates discussed on the Simpsons page. I was thinking we should try for July 27 (or April 19) for The Simpsons and May 20 for Cape Feare should it be promoted, although we would probably have a hard time getting an episode on the main page. If you like, I can make the request and assemble the shortened main page version. -- Scorpion 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I forgot. You can do it if you want to. --Maitch 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Which date is preferable to you? April 19, May 20 or July 27? -- Scorpion 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Just mention all of them. Then Raul can decide which date fits best. --Maitch 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spin-off

A while back you said that there was a chapter about The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase in the book Leaving Springfield. As I don't have it, could you add any of the useful info it has etc. Plus any other genral improvements to the article. Thanks. Gran2 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it tomorrow or next week. --Maitch 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homer's Phobia

Hi, I've changed your "Significance" header to "Theme"- you can see my edit summary for my rationale, hope this is OK by you. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad-formatting requirement

Just curious: Where is the requirement stated that Featured Articles cannot have bullet lists, and what sort of rationale is there for requiring that they must be badly formatted? Seems kind of counter-intuitive to me. - 66.93.200.116 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just because your perception is that bullets are a better to go. During multiple peer reviews we were told that if we got rid of the bulleted list, then we would get closer to FA status. Featured articles are prose. Featured lists are for lists. --Maitch 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I proposed this a while ago and you were opposed to it, but the staff categories have been deleted and I have created a Simpsons writers template, and I planned to make a directors, cast (which wouldn't include recurring guest stars) and possibly EPs. I was wondering if you had any objections to this. -- Scorpion 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I objected to one template for all who had ever been on the staff. I don't really mind a template dedicated to the writers we have a page for. --Maitch 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I was also wondering what to do about staff like Bonita Pietilla who has a page but wouldn't fit under any unless we made a producers template, which is highly unnecessary. Perhaps the EP one could be made EPs & other staff. Also, there is now a List of directors of The Simpsons which needs work before it is of the quality of the writers page. But, I wanted to make a list of supervising directors, etc., but I couldn't find a source. -- Scorpion 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. If you are having trouble finding a source for the crew you can always just cite the end credits of an episode. --Maitch 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured topic

Just so you know, Gran2 and I have decided to try to get Season 8 and its episode articles to Featured topic. It's a big job as we would have to get every page to GA status, the season 8 page to FL status and a couple FAs wouldn't hurt. If you would be willing to help by working on a couple of episodes pages, it would be much appreciated. Gran and I agreed to take 5 episodes and work on them for the time being. Gran has In Marge We Trust, Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment, Lisa's Date with Density and The Springfield Files and I'm working on THOH VII, You Only Move Twice, The Homer They Fall, Hurricane Neddy and Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious. -- Scorpion 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I currently do not own the 8th season, so I'm going to pass for now. I might join you later. --Maitch 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You could work on the Season 8 page. You wouldn't need the DVDs for that. -- Scorpion 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay. --Maitch 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I just found out that this image needs to say where it came from before it can go on the main page. I have no idea where it came from, do you? -- Scorpion 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It is probably some kind of promotional image. --Maitch 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons plots rewrite

Hey, thanks for the update. I think you have a lot of good stuff there, and the Turner book is a nice source. However, it seems like some of the material (eg, Lisa's activism, the influence of SCTV, etc) is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Also, the section doesn't really say much about the plots of the show; it seems to concentate primarily on the themes. Common plot elements that might deserve a mention include: Homer's getting a new job, Bart pulling a prank, family taking a trip, etc. I do think we should mention plots and themes, though; maybe the section itself deserves a different title.

There are a few prose issues (style, grammar), as well, but let's decide upon the content before worrying about that.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts. Thanks for your efforts; I think we're almost there. Is Homer's Phobia a FA, too? I didn't realize it; that's pretty cool. Zagalejo 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walk of fame star image

As it seems the other one got deleted, I have found this image of The Simpsons Hollywood walk of fame star, which appears to be free to use. [2] If it is free to use, and you can find a good place to put it, I shall leave it to you. Gran2 10:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have inserted it the same place the former photo was. Too bad the quality is worse. --Maitch 11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah its not the best, but I think it'll be better for the articles main page request, someone replaced the fair use image with the free use one of Matt Groening. As this one is in the article, it would be better. Gran2 11:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I did some adjustments to the image and think it looks a bit better now. --Maitch 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's nicer, good job. I've stuck it one the main page request, that also gave me a chance to read some of the comments for Charles Darwin, some people being unecessarily rude about The Simpsons, although April 19 is a bit of a lost cause now. Scooby Doo is up in a few days and I doubt Raul would have two American cartoons in the same month, plus Darwin looks set to win anyway. Gran2 11:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Jumps pointlessly up and down, much, much beter quality, free use one! [3] Have to cut the foot out though, again I'll leave it to you if you want to change it. Gran2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have uploaded it without the foot. --Maitch 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Bouvier's Lover

I don't understand why my edit to this article was removed. I did read your edit summary, but I couldn't comprehend it. Anthony Rupert 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, uncited goofs should not be in the episode articles. If there is a major cited goof, it shold be in a production section. --Maitch 09:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homer's Enemy copyedit complete

Hi! I'm with the WP:LoCE and have completed a copyedit of this article, as you requested. Let me know if you have any questions. Galena11 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Simpsons

I'll take a look at it as soon as I can; my schoolwork is piling up at the moment, though. Zagalejo 07:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's shaping up nicely. There are a few things I'd still like to tweak, although I'm really swamped right now so I can't go into too much detail. It might be nice to have a few specific examples to illustrate the themes; for example, when talking about the environment, maybe we could briefly mention Blinky the Three-Eyed fish. (Just to illustrate the point for our readers.) However, I'm not sure we'd have room for that. Any thoughts?
I'll try to give more detailed feedback as soon as I can.Zagalejo 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we should let fear of noobies dictate the content in the article, but, since it's an encyclopedia article, and not an English paper, I guess it's OK to generalize. Zagalejo 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the list of the show's "ancestors," I was wondering if it might be better to uses sources in which Simpsons staff members themselves identify those series as major influences. Such sources would have more authority than Turner, who didn't actually interview anyone involved with the show. For example, I know that Matt Groening has been quoted as saying SCTV was a big inspiration. Zagalejo 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reason I'm concerned is that, on one of the DVD commentaries, Matt Groening says that he did not want to emulate the madcap pacing of the Looney Tunes cartoons. (I have no idea exactly when he says it, or exactly what he says, but something to that effect is there somewhere. Give me some time, maybe I'll find it.)
Another point: what exactly does Turner say about SNL and SCTV? I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence from the article: "The show was also inspired by sketch comedies such as Saturday Night Live and SCTV for its vast array of minor characters, parodies of public figures and mass-media products." Are we saying that both SNL and SCTV had "vast arrays of minor characters [and] parodies of public figures and mass-media products"? SNL has always had some recurring characters, but I don't think it ever had the same sort of in-show universe as SCTV (though I don't know that much about either show, so I could be wrong here.) Zagalejo 15:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm going to look for some old staff interviews. Turner is a good source for identifying common themes and plot structures, but the show creators themselves are the only people who can really say what influenced the show (and what didn't). Thanks for your continued cooperation, though. Zagalejo 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'll do some digging to see if there's anything else. Zagalejo 06:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's an attempt I made at re-writing the section. For the moment, I've shelved the paragraph on the influences and concentrated on the plots and themes. I did decide to cite a few specific examples from the show throughout the section, since I think it's more important to be clear and descriptive than to worry about what newbies might add.
It's all kinda rough, and I might end up changing a few things. I do have a question: you claimed that the show's philosophy is nihilism, but where, specifically, does Turner say this?
Anyway, your comments are welcome. Zagalejo 05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If I'm introducing an exact quote from Turner, I do need to say "Turner says..." or "Turner writes..." The article's text needs to be explicit that those are his words; the citations are not good enough. This is standard research paper stuff. I could probably probably change the last line, though, since it's a paraphrase of a noncontroversial claim.
I rather like that first quote. It's not our words, so we're not responsible for the peacock terms. (See the FA Jaws (film); it contains a lot of similarly glowing quotes from critics and analysts.) However, if you have a good way of paraphrasing it, let me know.
Like I said, though, this is all very rough. I'll continue to think about it and edit it. Thanks for your comments. Zagalejo 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct, but the rules for referencing exact quotes are still valid here. Zagalejo 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Britannica doesn't directly cite any of its sources. Wikipedia is a fundamentally different project. Again, I'll mull this over to think of ways to improve it. I'm not personally satisfied with it just yet; I just wanted to give an update on my progress. Zagalejo 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plots and themes

Main article: List of The Simpsons episodes
See also: Politics in The Simpsons, Religion in The Simpsons, Education in The Simpsons, and List of Homer Simpson's jobs

In his 2004 book Planet Simpson, Chris Turner writes, "The basic premise of the Simpsons is right out of sitcom-land: it's a series about family life in a typical American town. . . . And yet, from this [premise], the show's writers have painted a series of sprawling satirical portraits worthy of Hieronymus Bosch." [1] Some Simpsons plots involve relatively mundane situations, such as Bart's problems with a school bully or Lisa's crush on a substitue teacher. Other plots, meanwhile, are more far-fetched. For example, Homer Simpson has served as an astronaut, and the entire family once battled theme-park robots gone amok in a parody of the film Westworld.

Turner describes Springfield as a "whole satirical universe" in which the characters can explore all themes of modern society.[2] Through Bart's and Lisa's days at Springfield Elementary School, the show critiques the American education system. Springfield's vast, in-universe media landscape, which has everything from kids' television programming to local news, allows the show to satirize the American entertainment industry.[3] With characters like Mayor Quimby, Reverend Lovejoy, and Chief Wiggum, the series lampoons politicians, religious leaders, police officers, and other authority figures.[4] According to Matt Groening, the show's creators deliberately put Homer in a nuclear power plant to "make a point about the environment."[5] (In one episode, for example, the polluted waters near the power plant give rise to a three-eyed fish named Blinky.)

The show sometimes displays a fondness for progressive ideals, often reflecting a liberal bias. However, Turner notes that the series does make jokes from both sides of the political spectrum.[6]

[edit] Rensdyr

Tak for hjælpen med Reindeer hunting in Greenland. -- Fyslee/talk 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You suggested "Remove the links to categories. We generally don't do that." The categories are not "active" (IOW they don't place the article in the categories) and they provide access to more information than linking to just one article. Is it forbidden to do this? I have followed your advice and eliminated a few where the actual article was good enough. In some instances such a removal would lessen the quality of the article as a useful resource for hunters or those interested in the subject, so I'm letting them stay for the time being. Some subjects just aren't covered very well in one single article, whereas the category provides plenty of options for people seeking information. -- Fyslee/talk 07:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Can't believe you hadn't got one of these yet.

Image:Barnstar-Simpsons.png The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
I hereby award you The Simpsons star, for all of your edits that have improved articles relating to The Simpsons. Gran2 10:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Simpsons

I've copyedited the first half of The Simpsons [4]. When time allows, I'll go through the second half. I couldn't believe the prose was so bad - before copyediting the prose certainty was not of FA standard. Thank you very much for alerting me to this and don't hesitate to ask if you'd like me to copyedit anything else. JameiLei 12:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it's a problem across the Simpsons WikiProject. As much of the information is contributed piece by piece by many different users, much of the prose becomes very choppy even if all the content is there. Also many GAs in my opinion the criteria (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct, which is why I'm trawling my way through Season 8 improving the standard of prose to a more FA level. JameiLei 20:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homer_Simpson&diff=133596972&oldid=133596917

So, all I need to do to add the image back is to give a reasonable rationale, right?

Since Homer Simpson is known in the show for sitting on his couch, then the image could be used as an example of a scene depicting him do this. There is no free alternative, so, does that satisfy WP:FU? WhisperToMe 07:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't use that image, because it is not relevant to the section. Homer sitting on a couch doesn't say anything about his personality and then it doesn't satisfy WP:FU. --Maitch 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the major points of Homer in the Simpsons is that the character is extremely lazy and likes to watch television. That trait seems to be one of his signature aspects. WhisperToMe 07:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you think it is better at showcasing Homer's personality than the image that currently in the section, then replace the image. We can't overuse fair use images, so we can only have one in the section. --Maitch 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What if I add the image if/when someone significantly expands the section and/or subdivides it? WhisperToMe 09:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can, but the section doesn't need to be expanded. --Maitch 10:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you of completely rigging FACs. What I said was that it concerned me if those types are ratings are in those Simpson FAs, because it would mean that people are ignoring reliability criteria. It would mean that people are so concerned with reaching FA status that they forget to be critical in the review. Notice how I said that the rest of the content structurally looks good. I'll be happy to read through those FA Simpson episodes, and if I choose put them up for review if you like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Lars von Trier The Kingdom DVD cover.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lars von Trier The Kingdom DVD cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'How to write an episode page'

Hey, thanks for your offer of help. It'd be good to see a draft of a guide suitable for use for ALL types of episodes, perhaps integrating some of the usable stuff currently on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes page. (That page is liable to be weeded of that stuff, following the likely broadening of the WikiProject). It's good to start with a proposal, and easy enough then to fiddle with a few minor details to bring it in line with everyone's ideas. I think if we help people to start GOOD articles in the first place, rather than just churn out little stubs from templates, then half the battle's won, as it were. Anyway, please do keep contributing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes, and also look at the proposed expansion of the existing episode guidelines at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. Do let us know if you're interested in helping us move this along. Gwinva 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your input

All that needs to be done on my season 1 draft page is the episode descriptions. But, I decided to put a history of the debacle surrounding Some Enchanted Evening and used some of the text from your draft page. So, I was wondering if you could take a look and tell me what you think. As well, I couldn't find any reliable sources for all of the Emmy nominations, so I decided to cheat a little and use the Emmy database, even though you can't link to it. It's a shame because it really is a good site. I figured that it would be okay, because the Copyright Database is an acceptable source for the episode FL and this is basically the same thing. Hopefully, nobody will notice it, but if they do, I'll simply explain that it is a really good source and is easily confirmable. But, do you think it's a useable source? Thanks for the time, Scorpion0422 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh-oh

Somebody came out of nowhere and made You Only Move Twice an FAC (here). If you could take a look at the page, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 06:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons, by JSH-alive (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Do we need this information? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville Korea voice actors


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons shorts

For the record, I wasn't saying that we should create individual pages, I was merely mentioning the criteria. To be honest, I'm amazed that the page for Good Night has gone this long without being targeted. On a side note, do you have any suggestions for A Streetcar Named Marge? The page is good, but I think it could use a little more content. -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1, 2007, voting starting December 1, 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1, 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion

Hi. I have seen you not agree (like me) on deleting the Denmark national football team season articles, as you removed a tag for the 2006 article. Please compete in the debate on Talk:Denmark national football team season 2007. kalaha 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Crown, Simpsons style

Hello. Please have a look at Special Simpsons edition triple crown offer It seems from our estimation that, all you would need is to create or expand greatly from stub a Simpsons related article, and you'd be eligible for one of Durova (talk · contribs)'s Triple Crowns. Let us know if you are interested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of The Simpsons, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Great job, it's a really good article! Cirt (talk)
Cheers, Daniel 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Simpsons WikiProject Triple Crown

I, Durova, am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject The Simpsons and its hardworking volunteers. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I, Durova, am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject The Simpsons and its hardworking volunteers. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work, and may you wear the crowns (and donut) well. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling me a vandal is WP:AGF?

After a fairly extensive discussion at the appropriate RfC I redirected the guideline per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. I gave sufficient notice, there was no plan for the guideline to come into compliance with other WP guidelines, the community had a spirited debate and consensus was to merge. Please discuss your assumption that I was a vandal and tell how this disputed guideline can be brought into compliance. Ursasapien (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I did archive all the discussion. The pertinent information from the guideline has already been merged into two other guidelines. I am supposing you did not see the merge discussion before. Please be careful about assuming bad faith. Happy editing. Ursasapien (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bart the General

Nice work! I could probably dig up some more information to add, but the article certainly passes WP:EPISODE. Zagalejo^^^ 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Simpsons good night.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Simpsons good night.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob

Sorry, I completely forgot to look at either article and I haven't had a chance to listen to the commentary (busy week). I'll do it this weekend. I'm generally not a big fan of analysis sections in fiction artices (as they tend to be a tad POVish) but the one on Sideshow Bob looks okay. I'll see if I can find something from Planet Simpson to add. -- Scorpion0422 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to get the ball rolling and I've substantially improved Homer's page within a few hours, would you be able to help with that? I don't have the book Leaving Springfield, and it probably has some good stuff in it. I'll listen to the commentary tonight. -- Scorpion0422 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Okay, here is the very rough commentary from Some Enchanted Evening. If you need anything reiterated, then feel free to ask.

Silverman: "so off-model"

Jean: In the first scene, Marge gains and loses weight from frame to frame.

Silverman: The version on the DVD is an unedited and unperfected version.

Groening: "If this is what we were stuck with, there would have been no show"

Sorry, that's all. Would you like a screenshot of this? It's a pretty bad version that's shown (off-colour, very grainy) so it might not get the point of how bad it is across as well as if it was higher quality. -- Scorpion0422 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CTC Vandal

We have made a list of vandals that continually vandalizes Kill Gil: Vols. 1 & 2 by changing "Christmas" to "Crime", the list can be found here. If you revert the vandalism, i would give the warning {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article}} which says this is the only warning they will receive. When reporting to vandalism noticeboard link to the list of vandals, and hopefully the IP will get blocked quicker, and for a longer period of time. Ctjf83talk 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tub

[5] --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Oakley

Did you read Xihix's post at WT:DOH? Bill Oakley offered to help us where he could, and we're trying to think of some things to ask him. -- Scorpion0422 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English versions of The Simpsons

About your last edit, I assume the AfD you're referring to in the edit summary is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcasting of The Simpsons but as the result was delete, there's no way to know what was the content of this article, so can you please specify what do you mean when you say "this"? 16@r (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The_Celebration_DVD_Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The_Celebration_DVD_Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Magnetic Fields Jarre Album.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Magnetic Fields Jarre Album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Oakley update

I contacted Bill Oakley myself because Xihix has been MIA for over a week and he responded. He didn't say anything about images, but I think he would rather answer questions via e-mail rather than during an IRC chat. I told him that would be okay and that we would hopefully send him our question list within a week, so if you have any to add, please do so soon. -- Scorpion0422 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your GA nomination of Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 5 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Zenlax T C S 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)