Talk:Neurotically Yours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neurotically Yours article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 May 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Animation Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is supported by the Web animation work group. (with unknown importance)

Assessment comments

[edit] Merge?

Couldn't this page easily be merged with [John Mathers]' page? This is his biggest creation and merging it into his article certainly would improve the length and quality of the page. --SW36 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point in time, I believe it should. It has been butchered, in my opinion.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

There needs to be some references for all of the criticisms of the show if it's going to be staying there. --InShaneee 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we even know the British guy's real name? I never heard it, even if it is "Anchovie." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.159.114 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 January 2006.

I agree on both counts. The "Criticisms" section reads like it is written by a critic. A section based entirely on people's opinions seems irrelevant. And I never heard of the British guy being named "Anchovie" either. --Tainted Ink 5:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.120.186 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 February 2006.

For the curious. I changed this signature to unsignd because the user Tainted Ink does not exist and this was signed by an IP[1]. If a user wants to claim the comment they can. --Crossmr 04:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The British fellow's name is begley: http://www.illwillpress.com/script/036.rtf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.51.94.14 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 June 2006.

Actually, that's the name of the British punk Squirrel --Wastelandsw 11:30, 1 August 2006

Here's a couple quick lazy links to some of the threads on the Newgrounds BBS where they talk about it, and if you sort the reviews of any of his movies by rating and check the last 10 or so pages you'll find more. Like the section states, most of the criticism is on a very vocal minority of Newgrounds goers. Link 1: [2] Link 2: [3] - Cableshaft

I don't see why you wouldn't allow a section on criticism - NY's publicity is largely from newgrounds, wherein it is criticised a lot. - Kevin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.158.6 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 June 2006.

Personally, I always find a short criticism section to be a worthy addition to any entertainment venue. Especially with something like NY, which gets criticisms fairly regularly. Of course, these sort of things are hard to regulate (since anyone can post whatever they don't like about a series), but I think it'd be worth the addition and would help to add to the knowledge available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.56.97 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 June 2006.

I think it earns a criticism section due the fact the flash series is one of the most criticised flash series on NG. I think they even have more anti-Foamy flashes on there then anyone else. -W.A.C. (8/12/06)

And unless it can be properly sourced per WP:NPOV and WP:V then it can't be included.--Crossmr 16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that Newgrounds has even added a forum rule against criticizing Foamy/IWP (among other flash artists). [4] 210.84.10.161 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a trivial mention and not worth adding to the article. It doesn't add anything. They're only used as an example to say, don't harrass people like these ones.--Crossmr 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we hurry up and add the criticism section? A lot of us have grown tired of this flash animation, and our opinions should matter in this article :/ RedKlonoa 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, they do not. Unless you're a professional critic being published by a reliable source or a professional journalist with the same publishing your opinion is not reliable and can't be included in the article. Please see WP:ATT for more information on what constitutes reliable sources and original research as well as how to source them. If you are a professional critic and you've published a review of the animation via a credible source please feel free to add it to the article.--Crossmr 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box. If you are a professional critic, then we can site references and integrate the criticisms into the article. Otherwise, the page will end up being a forum/discussion center rather than an encyclopedia article about a cartoon. The article itself seems neutral, as it should be. It talks about the cartoon, what it is, gives descriptions of its characters, etc. I say we should leave criticisms out. Stephe1987 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foamy's Rants

Umm, McDonald's isn't a fictitious chain, though McDoonalds (the chain refered to in the rant) is; fixing that now. And AFAIK, we have never heard Anchovie's name, though that doesn't mean it's not Anchovie... MyrddinEmrys 8:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm AGAIN fixing the spelling of McDoonalds. I know there are "scripts" around the net that have it spelled McDoogle's, but here's a screen shot I took direct from the rant: [5] --MyrddinEmrys 03:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's getting really old constantly keeping this entry sane and worthy of an encyclopaedia entry! (ie neutral and balanced) I'm tired of anti-Foamy people coming in and badly spelling their rubbish - leave it on the Newgrounds forums where it belongs NOT on Wikipedia. KrunchiePops 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"9 easy ways to becoming a Bitch Hermit" can anyone source this? I don't remember this rant. --Crossmr 04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A working copy of that rant can be found at friendsoffoamy.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.146.33.82 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 June 2006.

You can also find that rant if search for it on YouTube.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd established a pattern for the citation and format of the rants but it seems people can't follow that. I'm going to try and reorganize the latest entries into their proper place, but any that I can't easily find which rant they came from will be removed. In the future if you're adding an item he's ranted about (please ensure its appeared in one of his episodes entitled "Rant") make sure its paired up with the appropriate citation. Any citation that appears in that list covers all items before it and after the last citation. Failure to follow this format may result in future additions being removed if they can't easily be paired up to a citation. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence the burden of evidence lies on the editor who wants the material included to provide the source. I'm willing to quickly check entries for you, but it would be better if you did it on your own.--Crossmr 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unbalanced

There's lots of anti foamy propaganda, it should be mentioned. Jackpot Den 23:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It should only be mentioned in the context that it exists. Opinion and articles based on it have no place in encyclopedias. As well, the Pizza guys name, unless someone can provide a citation on the official website or a confirmation from the author should be changed back. This: "Information regarding the name "Anchovy" is from the Friends of Foamy website, possibly verified by the author" doesn't count as verification. --Crossmr 06:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I own a copy of the Foamy CD "Rants for the Masses". There are several tracks on this CD intended for release that never were released. One of them is entitled, "Auto Response: the Foamy Interview" in which Foamy goes on a radio talk show and talks about the anti-Foamy presence. I'm not sure if this is sufficient proof, but I thought it might be of use.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

This article needs to be seriously cleaned up. In doing so people need to remember what an encyclopedia is.

There is also the unofficial and infamous 'iLLegal Immigrant Special', which was submitted to Newgrounds on 29 March and was blammed on 2 April. From the reviews, it apparently was similar to the Hurricane Katrina comment, but was widely lambasted as racist. This is subjective. These types of descripters don't belong in this type of article.

The cartoons are mainly located on the ill WiLL PreSS website, in addition to numerous external websites.This should perhaps be changed to indicate that the episodes are released through the website, then later mirrored on a number of other sites.

There are also anti-Foamy groups circulating among various sites on the Internet This needs a source, or sources.

are also available for one low price. Again, subjective. Wikipedia isn't a marketing service.

Why do this? It helps anti-social and/or lonely people get out there, spread the word of Foamy, and meet people in the process. It's a win-win situation. This doesn't appear to be text from the site. At least not the card cult section. Unless something like this is a direct quote from the site (provide a citation) then it shouldn't be here. --Crossmr 06:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a card handy to check, but might that last bit be copied from one of the cards themselves? MyrddinEmrys 01:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

if that is the case, someone needs to provide something verifiable. An official scan of the card might work. Until then its too controverial a line to put up. --Crossmr 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it took me a while to find it, but I'm looking at a card now, and it's not a quote from it... So you've got me where it's from! MyrddinEmrys 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just vandalism as far as I'm concerned then. Should it crop back in lets make sure its removed until someone can provide some sort of official source for it. --Crossmr 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a quote similar to this, if not the exact same as this used in the first episode of Foamy that mentions the Foamy Card Cult.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where does Foamy's creator live?

ok recently i watched the cartoon "News" well foamy mentioned something about the news covering a woman with pet ducks. I live in Northern Kentucky, and watch WKRC channel 12. Recently, I'm not sure how long ago, they had a thing about a woman with pet ducks, and people trying to make her get rid of the ducks. Is the creator from the Tri-state area of IN, OH, and KY? does anyone know Yami 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the article (see the "Foamy Card Cult" section), it looks like the creator is based in or near Yonkers, New York. 4.236.78.220 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked Jonathan Ian Mathers up in the white pages. There is one person with that exact name listed at this address:

30 Crotty Ave

Yonkers, NY 10704-2812JIMfoamy1 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza guy

The link to the friends of foamy site and the reason they call him Anchovie is actually from the forums here [6]. Some 15 year olds reason on why he should be called Anchovie doesn't fly here. Until the creator gives him a name and reveals it in a sourceable way, i.e. an episode or interview, leave it alone. --Crossmr 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anchovie

Actually, he's referred to as Anchovie in the scripts downloadable from the official illwillpress website, and it would seem that this is where Friends of Foamy got their information. To see this, go from illwillpress.com, click on scripts, then download the PDF for "A Poetic Meal". He is referred to as Anchovie here. This is well-known to all Foamy fans, and frankly, I'm quite sick of Wiki entries that correct his lack of a name being deleted and called vandalism. --A Foamy Fan, 11 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.89.128 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2006.

Then provide the source. This was discussed and a source was asked for. You can't just keep adding information when a source is requested and expect it to say. Everything on wikipedia must be verified. If you act like a vandal you'll be called a vandal. The friends of foamy site where they referred to his name was verbatim from a forum post and isn't credible without an official source. Now that one has been provided his entry will be updated to reflect that. In the future I recommend you read up on wikipedia policy and create a username if you expect to be taken seriously --Crossmr 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the agenda is with this, but he's going to be listed as the viewer would know him until such a time that the name is used in the series. It would be like some movie renaming the 3rd dead guy who was never referred to by name in the show to "Frank Johnson" in the credits. The link to the script is mentioned in his description. Any further edits done to this characters info without bringing it to the talk page first by an IP will be reverted. If you want to make edits on Wikipedia, get a username and start discussing thins. --Crossmr 03:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, scripts written beforehand don't always match the finished product... And even if they did, the script that the nameless guy above is talking about aren't the notes written beforehand and used during the process of creating the clips. At the bottom of the scripts page, it very specifically says: "THE MAJORITY OF THESE SCRIPTS WERE TRANSCRIBED BY THE ALMIGHTY FOAMY FANS." For that reason, it's also incorrect to say that's where the fan site got them (it actually happened the other way around; the official site got them from the fan site). FYI, the scripts can be seen here: [7]). And guess what? Fan's make mistakes sometimes. A good example of that is my own complained-about-several-times "McDoogles" vs "McDoonalds" issue. Compare and contrast: [8] and: [9] --MyrddinEmrys 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for some reason I never caught that message. As such unless the creator can be identified as calling him Anchovie the reference will be removed.--Crossmr 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilz-E

Can anyone cite this? (though he claims to have pills to cure the death) --Crossmr 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it exactly you're asking us to confirm? His name? Or the bit about having pills to cure death? --MyrddinEmrys 05:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the bit about having pills to cure death. It was added by an IP and I don't recall him specifically mention that so I'd like to make sure he's actually said that. --Crossmr 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From "Squirrel Banter" script downloaded from illwillpress.com --- Pillz-E (the script spells his name this way, with to Ls): "Some of the side effects to the medication I take are either nightmares, and sometimes diseases, and sometimes diarrhea, constipation, bleeding from the eyes. My ears ache. Sometimes, I get headaches, migraines, death. But I got pills to cure the death, so I take those and it... and it off-sets the death effects." --Rumpelstiltzkin 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

excellent thanks.--Crossmr 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research - sources???

So far, this article is all WP:OR. Please cite third party reliable sources preferably with regards to WP:WEB. So far, I haven't found any media coverage or any other info from reliable sources. If we can't find any, I'm afraid this article will be in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Wickethewok 03:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 citations on the main page, why don't you put in citation needed tags on the things you feel need citations. The site also satisfies WP:WEB 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaste The content is distributed through new grounds which is a very popular website and idependent of the creator. Ranked 594th [10] newgrounds satisfies that criteria. The website itself is ranked 21,225 [11] Which makes it a notable website in itself even outside (and I realize traffic rankings are no longer in WP:WEB, but WP:WEB is just a guideline, not a policy and many people will use traffic rankings for websites). --Crossmr 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And just because its unsourced, doesn't mean its OR, it means its unsourced. --Crossmr 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But there aren't any "reputable sources" regarding this subject, which by WP's definition of OR, make it OR. Wickethewok 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(Btw, my issue is not with the notability of this subject.) The NewGrounds thing can't be counted as an independent publisher or whatever, in fact WP:WEB specifically states that Newgrounds is trivial. No matter, this sort of issue should probably be taken up on a larger scale, not on a talk page of a single web cartoon. The main issue I have is that even though something may meet WP:WEB (and is notable), is that there really aren't any reliable secondary sources, which would make it original research. This is an issue bigger than just this article as it applies to most articles on webtoons and such, so I suppose I should take this up somewhere else. Wickethewok 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Like any work of fiction, the original content can be used as source. Which means the website itself can be used as source for most of the information. Fiction like Star Trek often sites content from episodes as its source and that has been deemed acceptable for sourcing. OR only applies to information that is written that is not factual. As long as you write things appropriately to keep out speculation, or conclusions, you're not performing any OR. --Crossmr 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed that note down at the end. You're welcome to put it up for AFD if you really want, I just don't think you'd reach a concensus because of the other factors. There are a lot of peopel who don't like WP:WEB I think because its a bit subjective. Websites can achieve popularity without coverage by the mainstream media. --Crossmr 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Secondary sources would be nice to make sure this follows the letter of WP guidelines/policy, but I suppose the general WP consesus I've gathered from AFDs seems to let these go for now at least. Hopefully in the near future there will be some print sources regarding internet memes/cartoons/etc and their effects.culture/history (I'm surprised there hasn't been already actually). Wickethewok 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list

I don't think the episode list really needs to be there. Chances are, if someone wants an episode list, they are going to want more information on the subject that isn't fit for a general encyclopedia. Imo, a link to the episode list is enough. Wickethewok 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

We need more to cite that news group posting than the fan site repeating the exact same information. A link to the actual post would suffice. There are online archives of newsgroups, if you can find something in there that would work. I'm also removing some of the unsourced information that no one has provided sources for.--Crossmr 17:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsgroup Citation

I did a search on groups.google.com and while I can find a couple instances of people replying to this post he made, there is no archive of the actual post. WP:V lists the threshold for inclusion of information as verifiability and not truth. As such, if no one can find a reliable archive of this message it will have to be removed from the history section. Also the only instances I can find of two people replying are in the alt.gothic namespace not rec.artcs.comics.misc--Crossmr 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smell Tech Suppport

I added in that it's a parody of Dell, cause that's what it seemed like to me right away. I don't know it for sure, though, so feel free to change it if you disagree (or better, have sources against it). --Tnt23 13:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires you provide the sources if you want the information kept, see WP:V. By putting in your opinion that its a parody of dell without a source for that opinion it violates WP:OR see the section on what constitutes original research.--Crossmr 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Appearance

Doesn't Mention what foamy first premiered in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

The earliest reference there is is a usenet posting which states its creation. If foamy appeared in something prior to that, a citation would be necessary before it could be added to the article.--Crossmr 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blammed

Let's talk about blammed. It's used a couple times in the article. It's a term used on Newgrounds to specifically refer to extremely low score that it should be removed. I think it might be enough to put that word in quotes and link it, as there is disamb. info at that link. It makes sense as both newgrounds and illwillpress are so seemingly intertwined. But I think quotes are so good I'm going to do it now. Nastajus 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ongoing Anchovie debate

While I agree that Pizza Delivery Guy shouldn't be called Anchovie in the article heading, I can't see how it could possibly be irrelevant that that's an accepted fanon name for the character, as that's the name virtually all NY fans know him by. In addition, I see User:Crossmr skating perilously close to WP:OWN in his/her responses on this talk page -- might it not be a good idea to discuss and perhaps compromise rather than hold fast on the matter? Haikupoet 02:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss, than you should do so before attempting to jam it through. I often see people on wikipedia who want to jam through something controversial and then call for discussion after they've made their change. Plain and simple this is a fan invented name, and the creator has never referred to him as such. Just because I start referring to him as Phil doesn't mean that it should be in the article. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for something made up at school one day, or on an internet forum. Some name invented on a fan site isn't encyclopedic unless you can come up with a reliable source referencing it (say an article written about the comic), nor are fan sites considered reliable or authoritative in anything I've seen on wikipedia so far, and I've worked in a fair number of subjects which involve a lot of fan sites. Its not skating close to own at all by requiring editors follow the policies and guidelines. Your speculation about what may have been implied in an episode is also not encyclopedic and is blatantly original research WP:NOR. If you'd like to discuss that feel free, but per WP:V you're required to provide a usable citation before you add that information back in to the article.--Crossmr 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you're the one who's been unwilling to discuss or compromise on the matter and using your interpretation of policy as a cudgel to keep out changes that you feel do not fit Wikipedia's mission. Yes, it is a fan-created name, but it is the name that fans use for the character (i.e. fanon). It seems to me that such a thing is significant -- the fact that it is the name used by fans for the character can be verified, and indeed I put a link in that shows that. Now I'm not the only one to add the information about the name, so I wonder if you're not possibly on the wrong side of consensus here? Having said that, I'm all for a discussion on the subject. But you know, I've seen people offer citations for the name on this page, all of which you have shut down. This is why I'm bringing WP:OWN (and, as I believe it's relevant, WP:IAR) into the picture. So let's talk. Haikupoet 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion on how significant it is. You need to provide some evidence of it if you think it should be in the article. As I pointed out, I watch the series, I could call him Phil. That doesn't mean it should be in the article. Its a fan created name. As far as IAR goes, IAR is not valid in ignoring things like WP:V and WP:OR, that discussion has been had for months on the talk page. The reason I've shot down all the citations is because none of them pass the requirements of WP:V or WP:RS. What has been provided as citation so far? A script transcribed by the fans? I can once again do a search replace and change the name from Anchovie to Phil and slap it on a site somewhere. Doesn't make it reliable. The other citation? The one from friends of foamy (which is down again as I write this). It is from a fan site, and not reliable. Do they provide a source for the name? Other than the forum posting stating "He delivers pizza so lets call him anchovie"? They are not qualified experts for which they can be considered authoritative on a subject. They're fans. If you'd like to show me where in WP:V or WP:RS that passes muster as a self-published source to be usable as a citation I'd appreciate it. Also under WP:NPOV can you demonstrate with a reliable citation that its a not just a minor viewpoint that his name is Anchovie? There is no wonky interpretation of the policies there. If I can him phil and that guy over there calls him larry no one can provide any citations to say that those names are more or less reliable or significant. It would take me all of an hour to whip up a fan site and plaster phil's name all over it. As far as your assertion that that is the name that virtually all NY fans know him by, if you can demonstrate that with a reliable citation please do so.--Crossmr 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biggers and separate articles

Ok, we seriously need to make the main article bigger and have foamy his own page! right? hes deserved it! right?1 dat is all

[edit] Characters

It appears the entire character section was deleted from the article. What happened?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because it contained no sources and was turning in to a fan commentary/trivia section. If someone wants to provide some factual sources and rewrite a proper section, they're free to.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote a new "Characters" section, that, with all due respect, is total BS. Arguably the most tilted section I've ever seen.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new Characters section (not the one to which JIMfoamy1 refers) that uses the Fans of Foamy site as its source. It has already been tagged as being original research and not verifiable. Is a fan site an unreliable source per se? If the answer is yes, then many articles about television shows or movies should be deleted. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites do not pass WP:V and their use on other articles shouldn't be seen as endorsement by the community to use them elsewhere. Its evidence those articles need to be cleaned up. Fan sites do not have editorial control, are run as hobbies by anyone. There is zero accountability with them and inherently fail WP:V and WP:RS. The fan site could only be used as a citation on wikipedia in the event that the fan site became so notable that reliable sources started covering it and writing articles about it and it was being used as a primary source in an article about itself.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any place on Wikipedia that expressly says that so-called "fan sites" are not reliable sources? I haven't found such a prohibition at any policy or guideline page. If there's no such express prohibition, then 137.186.84.54 should stop speaking like he's a one man Supreme Court of Wikipedia. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites are self-published material. Please read the self-published sections of WP:V and WP:RS. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. followed up by Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. So if you can demonstrate that the author of the fansite is a recognized expert in the field of Foamy and has been published as such in reliable third party sources then feel free to cite it.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ongoing Anchovie debate… Again

Recently, a Foamy toon was released entitled "Conspire to Rewire" in which Foamy and Begley reprogram a Japanese sex robot that was "supposed to go to the Pizza Guy, but, for some reason, the postal worker couldn't tell the difference between the letter G and Q". I think this has some bearing on the Anchovie debate .JIMfoamy1 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There really isn't that much of a debate. Until the creator generates material which refers to the character as anchovie, he can't be referred to as such. Just because I decide that he should be called Jim doesn't mean we're going to change the article. --137.186.84.54 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)