Talk:Stoopid Monkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Cleaned u[p

Cleaned it up a bit, but it still needs some work in terms of grammar and stuff. Also needs more content.

--N3X15 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey's origin

I always thought it was obvious that the monkey was the Evil Monkey from Family Guy. The Evil Monkey lived in Chris Griffin's closet, and was a recurring joke. Seth Green voices Chris Griffin, so I figured he made the monkey his production logo for that reason. Can anybody say exactly what the inspiration is for the Stoop!d Monkey logo? I don't see why we need the Trivia section claiming Curious George may be the inspiration only because he was a "blundering monkey."

I think it's a very questionable thing. I could just as easily claim it's taken from Futurama. In the episode 'Mars University' (Season 1) Professor Farnsworth says 'Stupid Monkey' when he's trying to convince Gunther, his pet monkey, to put on his intelligence boosting hat the right way, and he puts it on his elbow. This seems a much more likely reference than this blundering Curious George bulls**t.
I think Seth Green and Co. just like killing stoopid monkeys. --(trogga) 02:55, 29 October 2006 (

[edit] The list of logos

The list of logos is indiscriminate trivia. When we can safely describe a group of things, there is no need to describe each memeber of that group in explicit detail. Additionally, it's the sort of trivial thing we can only source to personal observation of the subject, which invariably fails to establish importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, since they are down to one line, they aren't too in the way. Also, they describe each episode. If you want "explicit detail" look at the L&O:SVU, NCIS, or any TV show on Wiki episode list. There is great detail. Since this describes a TV show or a part of it, it is no different.
If this is still a problem, merge it with the Robot Chicken Wiki entry. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Other bad articles don't justify more bad articles, and lists of trivial facts mentioned in no reliable sources help no article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the episode lists (ie: NCIS Episodes and L&W: SVU Episodes) bad articles. Not all articles on Wiki are bad. Plus, people like trivial facts....and if you want references....I can give you plenty of picture references for the Stoopid Monkey cards, but that would just be nuts. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Any article describing plots in explicit detail is bad. Can you give a reference to a reliable source that has ever seen fit to comment on any one of these cards? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah [1]. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And the company that made something talking about the thing they made establishes importance how? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Strike that; it's their FAN WIKI. A fansite isn't a reliable source. However! This offers a neat solution. Since the fanpage is linked and has this fanpage material, we can let the fanpage cover it.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Or...we could let more people voice their opinion, get their consensus before you go and act. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not a AManInBlackapedia- SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So, did you have any sources? Votes don't overcome WP:V, and this IS verifipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One was given, you knocked it down. *looks at logo* Looks like Wikipedia to me. You know it can be verified, just by turning on your TV to Cartoon Network....right now in fact. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I did link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so it'd be clear what I meant.
Implicit in including an exhaustive list is the claim that they're important. Nobody has ever seen fit to comment on them in a reliable source. Telling me that I can recreate your original research isn't helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's fancruft which really is of no import to the general reader. Let a fanwiki (is that really a word?) have it. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
AMIB, you have given this maybe 4 hours. Chill. Consensus takes a couple. If no one else comments by 5:00pm EST tomorrow, I will remove them myself. Fair?
Calton, why are you here? Honestly. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't really enter into it. No amount of consensus can make unsourced material appropriate, and I don't object as long as it's properly sourced. What should I be waiting for? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Orangemonster2k1, instead of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'M NOT LISTENING" at the top of your lungs, try conforming to basic encyclopedic standards and policies that have been quoted to you. You haven't even met the first hurdle of proper sourcing, and that's not even touching the level of the importance of the information. Start there instead of trying to make end runs around policy and shutting down inconvenient discussions. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Calton, this entire thing above is a freakin' mess that you conveniently stuck your nose in. But if you would read the damn thing, I am trying to reach an opinion and not just yours and AMIB's (not like that one matters now) if EVERYONE wants them here. If they do, then I get sourcing...if they don't, finding the sourcing was a waste of my time.
You are all for the big delete button and not even following the most basic rules here. I am asking everyone's opinion, once I get it, then I will go from there. YOu just want to delete the damned thing and move on. I kinda thing I remember there being a rule somewhere saying you can't do that and you (sadly) have to do it my way, being the right way.
Now, go stick your nose in someone else's business, as you are not giving any form of opinion, input, ideas or whatever. You are just here to argue. Come up with something useful and NICE or take a hike. Perferably outside. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Orangemonster2k1, this entire thing above is a freakin' mess of your own making. Stamping your feet because you're not getting your way is not going to help.
I am trying to reach an opinion and not just yours and AMIB's (not like that one matters now) if EVERYONE wants them here...' Nooo, you're just ignoring the opinions you don't like in hopes getting your way. If you really wanted "everyone"'s opinions, you'd advertise at WP:RFC.
You are all for the big delete button and not even following the most basic rules here. If you want to be taken seriously, it's best not to be making things up out of whole cloth, especially when it's so transparently false. Also, it's somewhat ironic, given your history of constant misinterpretation or lack of understanding of very basic policies (reliable sources, PROD tags, image licensing, 3RR, etc.).
I kinda thing I remember there being a rule somewhere saying you can't do that and you (sadly) have to do it my way, being the right way. Sadly, given your track record of utterly misinterpreting black-and-white policies placed before you , I'd say you're almost certainly wrong about something you "kinda thing [you] remember". So, let's see the evidence.
Now, go stick your nose in someone else's business, as you are not giving any form of opinion, input, ideas or whatever. Given that that is essentially a description of your stalking of the last few weeks, it's particularly rich coming from you.
Come up with something useful... Deleting the useless and unsourced to make something more readable: THAT'S useful. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My making? Mine? Look at the first post in this section...not mine. Calton, you continue to twist the truth to fit your needs, you continue to twist the truth to make the good guy, you continue to twist the truth to make you the victim. It ain't going to work and I ain't going to change, because I am not the one at fault here....and I am not going to play your game. Enjoy talking to yourself. If you wish to add to the below conversation, go right ahead. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Reality check #7: Who keeps fighting to add something removed by at least two different people? That would be you. Who got a block for revert-warring over the edits? That would be you. Who keeps citing rules (like those regarding reliable sources and reversion limits) ludicrously wrong? That would be you. Who's attempted to shut down inconvenient discussion or otherwise bully to get his way? That would be you. Who's made yet another declaration that the rules are on his side -- but yet refuses to say what these rather convenient-to-self rules actually are? That would be you.
I'm not twisting any "truth" -- I don't have to. Your last two postings, on the other hand, don't have slightest shred of truth attached to them. So, once again:
I repeat, instead of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'M NOT LISTENING" at the top of your lungs, try conforming to basic encyclopedic standards and policies that have been quoted to you. Start with the above questions instead of trying to make end runs around policy and shutting down inconvenient discussions. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
....and I am not going to play your game. Enjoy talking to yourself. If you wish to add to the below conversation, go right ahead. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're able to stamp your feet and pout. Got it. Now, do you actually have anything to contribute? --Calton | Talk 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

....and I am not going to play your game. Enjoy talking to yourself. If you wish to add to the below conversation, go right ahead. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check #8: This "game", as you falsely characterize it, is the point. You want to add something against consensus and against policy: you have to justify it. Again, shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'M NOT LISTENING" at the top of your lungs doesn't change those cold hard facts. And waiting for the clock to run out on page protection before resuming your edit-warring isn't going to work, either. Start talking or be forever disappointed. --Calton | Talk 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

...and I am not going to play your game. Enjoy talking to yourself. If you wish to add something useful to the below conversation, go right ahead. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done nothing but adding "something useful", namely the basic referencing and notability questions you must answer. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but whine about "playing games" -- that, and stalking my edits so you can leap in begging for allies in your petty vendetta. The questions here are not games, they're basic policy and guidelines, and if you have trouble with that perhaps you ought to stick to Geocities or Tripod. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
...and I am not going to play your game. Enjoy talking to yourself. If you wish to add something useful, OTHER than your normal complaints, paranoia and whining, to the below conversation, go right ahead. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kid, screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU ICANTHEARYOUICANTHEARYOU" isn't an adequate response to the straightforward, unambiguous, routine, policy-based questions you've been asked. And for you to speak of "normal complaints, paranoia and whining" is as clear a case of the pot calling the kettle black as I've ever seen, to put it mildly.
I've asked the standard questions which you must address, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. To repeat:


Pretending they don't exist won't make them -- or the issues they concern -- go away. As far as I can tell, you've been dead wrong on every single policy, rule, and guideline you've made issues of -- and have been told this by multiple editors and administrators on multiple occasions -- and I can't see that changing now, but you're going to have to at least make something resembling an argument if you want any traction on this at all. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude...one, I am 25, drop the "kid" crap. Two, you have not given me anything new nor useful. It is the same recycled rantings. Three, actually read what I said, about 3 or 4 times now...."If you wish to add something useful to the below conversation, go right ahead." The below conversation...the one below this sentence, not this one, the one below this. Actually do that and I might consider taking anything you say with more than a grain of salt. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude...one, I am 25, drop the "kid" crap.
Not the least bit obvious -- or believable, for that matter.
Two, you have not given me anything new nor useful. It is the same recycled rantings.
Pal, it's not "new" because you keep pretending it doesn't exist, but it's "useful" because, hey, it's bedrock policy -- not "ranting".
Three, actually read what I said, about 3 or 4 times now...."If you wish to add something useful to the below conversation, go right ahead." The below conversation...the one below this sentence, not this one, the one below this.
Buddy, you mean exactly the same bedrock policy questions which I added below, exactly where you claim it should be, a long time ago? Reading comprehension: not your strong suit. As I said, Mr. Poor Impulse Control, screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU ICANTHEARYOUICANTHEARYOU" isn't an adequate response to the straightforward, unambiguous, routine, policy-based questions you've been asked repeatedly. But given your unbroken streak of misunderstanding/misquoting/ignoring basic policy and guidelines, I'm not holding my breath, here. --Calton | Talk 05:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Same crap, different paragraph. Question for you...why does this matter to you? Real answer this time. Not the same recycled rantings.
Oh and "Mr. Poor Impulse Control"...hell, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I said the same sentence 5 times and yet you came back and posted again and again and again. So, it is not I that has poor impulse control, it is you.
One more thing...til the article page is unblocked, I don't have to do jack squat. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. You're right: you don't know what is.
So, it is not I that has poor impulse control, it is you. Your not extremely competent stalking behavior argues otherwise, kid.
Since that same sentence is, in effect, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU ICANTHEARYOUICANTHEARYOU", it's not -- wait for it -- useful. Useful would be, you know, addressing the straightforward, unambiguous, routine, policy-based questions you've been asked repeatedly. Or, at the very least, offering up at least some slight excuse why they're NOT straightforward, unambiguous, routine, policy-based questions you've been asked repeatedly. Certainly more useful than stalking my edits and making reversions you're not even bothering to read first [2] or trying to solicit allies from abusive sockpuppets [3].
So, put up or shut up:

--Calton | Talk 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BELOW....can you understand BELOW?!?! You keep typing up here, but not below....and technically, I owe you nothing as you are just some lowly editor and not an admin and are only part of this discussion because I am. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh...and since the page has been unblocked...I readded the production logos WITH references...references that have the actual picture. Had those like 3 days ago. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's someone's wiki, absolutely NOT a reliable source. Reverted. Try again. --Calton | Talk 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One, it's a picture...I linked the actual picture page, a page that can NOT be edited by just anyone, so the Wiki rule doesn't apply. Two, well...I don't need a two. Reverted - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, the whole thing is someone's unofficial wiki. A fansite. Not, to repeat, a Reliable source. Try again. Hair-splitting about "the Wiki rule" -- whatever that means -- is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't link a Wiki site because it can be edited. I can link a site that CAN'T be edited, and since this can't be edited it is OK, regardless if it is on a Wiki site or not. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good god, that's the worst excuse I've heard all year. Reality check #9: don't make things up. There is no such rule or even anything faintly resembling such a rule, and I can't imagine how you came up with that notion. Point me to it: until you provide the slightest evidence that it's not some bizarre figment of your imagination, it's not getting past the first hurdle of whether it belongs at all. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know...an admin made it up...an admin named "A Man in Black". But it doesn't matter, you have references with pictures. References that can not be edited (ala wikipedia) and you are upset. Too bad. Oh...and revert again and you get a pretty 3RR warning. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
....and for the man who knows EVERYTHING....The Wiki Rule but even though these references exsist inside a wiki site, they CAN NOT BE EDITED by just anyone and everyone with a password and a username, the Wiki rule is null and void in this case. Thank you and Good Night. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you are making stuff up: nothing in that bit you cherry-picked says a thing about what you CAN use, only about one specific thing you can't -- a limitation which doesn't say a thing about all the other sources which are unacceptable. WP:RS talks about what's acceptable: point me to the part that covers tis as acceptable.
And Reality Check #10: I've been missing the forest for the trees, I admit. The article as a whole has no non-trivial, multiple, reliable-source references in it, so it shouldn't even be an article to begin with. A directory listing of incorporation and passing mention in a short news item -- of which it's not the primary subject -- are even in the same ballpark as being non-trivial, multiple, reliable-source references. I'll give you two days to come up with something, or you can try out your winning personality on the people of WP:AFD. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, you aren't giving me anything. You are just pissed that I have references and you are trying to block them and threatening to AFD the article. So, for your obvious violation of the 3RR rule, you are up for a nice block...that should look nice for the AFD people...and when they say that you are causing problems on this talk page, they will take you in the same manner I do...with a grain of salt. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 00:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, you aren't giving me anything. Wrong. I'm giving you reality-based advice and the chance -- however slim -- to bring this mess in line with basic Wikipedia standards.
So, for your obvious violation of the 3RR rule, you are up for a nice block Yah, citing that rule has worked out so well for you in the past. If you don't understand what a rule is, don't threaten people with it -- especially since the only editor blocked here for that has been you.
that should look nice for the AFD people. Reality Check #11: the "AFD people" are going to make their decision based on AFD standards, not on how much you can pout and stamp your feet.
You've got two days. Use it or lose. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I love how you demand things and expect me to just jump up and "Yes Sir!" and march off and do you what you demand. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh...and I know the 3RR rule....allow me to use your own words against you; "Kid, three reverts is the limit, not the violation."...well, Kid, you had 4...plus the 3 prior acts before the block...and that equals 7. 7 is more than 3. So, enjoy your block.
You "reality-based advice" is the Wiki reality according to Calton. I got references, so you stomp your feet and run and tell the AFD board. There is nothing wrong with the page with or without the production logos and since the production logos are referenced it will be instantly struckdown.
Now....here is Reality Check #13 (you used 9 twice) for YOU....1) don't order me around. 2) you are NOT an admin, don't act like you are one. 3) you don't intimidate me, so just stop. 4) drop the "holier than thou" act, cause it is not impressing anyone. 5) go away, please....follow in AMIB's footsteps. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't ordered you to do damned thing, kid. I've told you what I'm going to do if you keep screwing around.
Oh...and I know the 3RR rule Let's add this to the list of policies you don't understand, this being the second time you've done so: it's more than 3 reversions within a 24-hour period. Pay attention.
You [sic] "reality-based advice" is the Wiki reality according to Calton. No, it's reality based period/full stop, being, you know, based on the reality that covers basic Wikipedia policies, rules, practices, and guidelines. As a clue, might I point out how often you've gotten anyone to agree with you regarding basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines? That number hovers somewhere around zero. As for your allegedly reality-based points: I haven't been doing it, I haven't been doing it, I haven't been doing it, I haven't been doing it, and violating your own advice in the same sentence you originally gave it is pretty damned funny. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you 12? Cause one, you aren't making any damned sense and two, you are acting like a freakin' 12 year old that isn't getting his way. Grow up dude. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 01:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe you will find this article helpful. Oh, and where's that quote about reliable sources allowing fanwikis? Still waiting. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What have you got? Nothing

Calton....I got nothing for you. Nothing. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear you finally admit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Cal, that wasn't what I meant and you know it. I had "nothing" to respond to you with...because sometimes you just can't follow "still waiting" with a witty remark. But lookie there, someone backed me up on the main Stoopid Monkey page. Now, look, I am done playing. It's been fun, you got my goat, ralled me up a little, but maybe both of us need to take an admin's advice and move on and chill. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, a inactive user suddenly pops out of the woodwork. Have a read of WP:SOCK while you're on hiatus.
Cal, that wasn't what I meant and you know it Nope, it's exactly what you meant, whatever your intentions: you've got nothing -- nada, nil, zilch, zero, goose egg, null set, bupkis -- to offer, nothing at all backing up your odd claims, nothing that supports this poor excuse for a stub, and nothing that references the nearly 8K of weird obsessive fancruft you want to insert into what shouldn't be an article to begin with. Nothing, in fact, but your childish pouting. So, to recap:
Try making even the slightest effort to address these bedrock issues instead of complaining, pouting, and filing false reports of 3RR to do an end-run around basic policy, then I'll take you seriously. Oh, and the deadline I gave you still holds, so you have about a day before you get to try out your winning personality on the people who peruse WP:AFD. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Calton...STOP! You have been asked by an admin to stop and you continue. I have been asked by an admin and I stopped. I am telling you to stop, for your own good. Stop.
Now, another person has backed me up, each logo is referenced by picture. I have exactly what is needed for those to stay there and it has been backed up by another user. Now...give it up and move on. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Calton...STOP! You have been asked by an admin to stop and you continue How strange, you seemed to have missed the part where you were told just that yourself, not to mention how wrong you were on other policies. Selective reading ability, clearly. Or maybe what people tell you doesn't count? I also caution you that continuing to file inaccurate 3RR reports, or persisting in your edit war at Stoopid Monkey may result in a suspension of your editing privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Gee, funny how you missed THAT message on your talk page. Telling half-truths is pretty much the same as telling whole lies, you know.
Now, another person has backed me up Like I said, have a read of WP:SOCK, yet another policy you probably don't understand.
Oh, and you don't get to remove warning tags from articles unless you actually address the issues they raise. Doing so repeatedly is considered -- wait for it -- vandalism, at least borderline. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me, once again, use your words against you..."Reality Check #11: the "AFD people" are going to make their decision based on AFD standards, not on how much you can pout and stamp your feet. You've got two days. Use it or lose." Calton, not only did I not use those two days you so kindly gave me, I didn't "lose" the page, the list or anything. The "AFD People" did, in fact, make their decision on AFD standards and not on how much YOU pouted and stamped YOUR feet. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Try This Again

The above mess was to reach a consensus on whether the discriptions of the entity cards of the end of each episode should remain or go. I would like everyone's opinion, so when the 5 day block is up on the page, we might be able to figure out what to do. Hopefully it won't get as out of hand as that mess. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What mess? It's mostly you flailing. And, okay, you're able to stamp your feet and pout. Got it. Now, do you actually have anything to contribute? --Calton | Talk 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And to give you a head start:
Ignoring the fundamental issues isn't going to get you far. --Calton | Talk 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

Per Orangemonster2k1's request, here's my view on this:

  • The logos are trivial and should not be displayed. Look at Couch gag for example. We don't have a screen shot of every gag that the Simpsons uses on their show.
  • The links being used for it violate WP:EL/WP:C. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. This site is hosting something from a television show, which is copyright of the production company.

Therefore, I think the logos should go. Metros232 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view:
  • If the links violate WP:EL (I am not saying they do or don't, I haven't checked yet) you may remove the links, but that is not justification for removing the content
  • while we don't have a screen shot of every gag that the Simpsons use on their show, we have a entire article devoted to their "Opening sequence", in minute detail, and another entire article devoted to the couch gag element of that sequence, an article which enumerates several memorable gags. WaysAndMeans 03:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In reverse order
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- bad practices elsewhere do not justify bad practices here.
  • I notice you didn't address the pure triviality of the list, glossing over the point that the Simpsons' article does NOT list every iteration of the gag, which this article does.
  • Tangential: the links don't merely violate WP:EL, they violate WP:RS. Since the content is relying upon bad sources, that IS, in fact, justification for removing the content. Violating WP:EL is merely a bonus. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay, not WP policy nor guideline. It is the personal opinion of its author, and he's welcome to it, and you are welcome to agree with it, but it means absolutely nothing as far as justification for exclusion of material according to WP policy. The comparison with The Simpsons was not introduced by me, but by Metros232, who sought to exclude the logos based on common practice, shown as a comparison with another animated show. But what this comparison shows, as far as I can tell, is that its quite accepted on WP to analyze in minute detail some seemingly trivial pop culture artifacts. If we can have 2 lengthy articles devoted solely to an analysis of the Simpson's opening scene and its subcomponents, with screen shots and examples, I don't see a convincing argument why we can't have a 42-line description of episode logos. WaysAndMeans 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay When a person has to fall back on bureaucracy instead of actual argument, that's a bad sign. Of course it's an essay, one designed to save time in explaining why the tiresome "other crap exists why can't mine?" argument is intellectually bankrupt.
The comparison with The Simpsons was not introduced by me, but by Metros232. Inapt comparisons, yet another bad sign. Authorship of the comparison is irrelevant, the misuse of it is, especially given Metros232 explicitly said that the Simpsons' article does NOT list every iteration of the gag, which this article does.
Any time you'd like to actually answer the actual objections instead of resorting to rhetorical tricks which avoid actual discussion, you go right ahead. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Cal, ol' buddy, don't quote rules that people "violate" when you violate MANY a rule on a daily basis. You are a poor excuse for an editor with an ego the size of lower Manhattan. You claim to be right, when most of the time you are not. You berate people on rules while breaking the most common rules of Wikipedia. You treat everyone like they are an idiot and you are the only smart one on this site. You demand people do things and order people around like you are in charge. You "walk around" Wikipedia with this holier-than-thou attitude and are amazed with someone bucks up against you. You spin any retort anyone makes around and you make it so you are the victim. You go around looking for trouble, you find trouble and do whatever you can to make it worse and you can even stop when ordered by an admin. You are a poor excuse for an editor and a poor excuse for a human being. - [User:Orangemonster2k1|SVRTVDude]] (Yell | Toil) 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Kid, I'm not going to bothering rebutting the little tantrum of yours since every word in it is false -- including "and" and "the" -- except in that sense that as an example of psychological projection it's damned near a textbook case, from the rules-violating to the demands to the looking-for-trouble stalking you do. I especially liked how you ranted about how I was "ordered to stop" by an admin -- false, but never mind -- when you, yourself received exactly the same advice AND was told that you were wrong on several policies, to boot. Reality check #14: shouting "You're wrong! Wrong! WRONG! WRONGWRONGWRONGWRONG!" only works -- outside of kindergarten playgrounds and Bill O'Reilly's TV show -- when you say why. You have never done so, you've not done it now, and ultimately that's because you can't. Go ahead, back up one single claim you've made on this page -- I've annotated the worst of your recent howlers. Try that instead of falling back on abuse when you don't get your way. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit or deface other people's posts on the Talk page as you did above. It is especially bad form when it is pretty evident that many of the charges are true. Your edits here display an obvious and blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, including by addressing other editors as 'Kid' and describing their edits as "tantrums" or "rants", or asking them to "put up or shut up". You further violated WP:AGF by baselessly accusing that same editor of using sock puppets or being a puppet. Your block log shows a couple instances of having been blocked for "repeated personal attacks" and for 3RR violations, so it's clear you not only violate policy as SVRTVDude claimed, but have been censored for it. WaysAndMeans 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not insult my intelligence, Mr. New User, either by your one-sided concern for "civility" (didn't bother reading what you reverted or check Orangemonster2k1's track record, did you -- or maybe you didn't need to?) or your identically nonsensical claims about my "violating policy" -- larding your text with "obvious" and "it is clear" is a nice rhetorical stunt but empty of any real meaning. The latter lecture on policy is especially rich given your utter misunderstanding of it when it comes to reliable sources and original research -- and I can even arguably throw in objections on grounds of "fancruft" or even "indiscriminate lists" as to the importance of the subtrivial list you persist in aiding the addition of. As for AGF, you need to quote the whole thing: it's "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary" -- and your sparse track record and sudden -- and single-minded -- appearance after a prolonged absence is, in fact, "evidence to the contrary". --Calton | Talk 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Calton, take a look at AFD lately? Let me, once again, use your words against you, "the 'AFD people' are going to make their decision based on AFD standards"...obviously they did. At the moment we have 15 votes total, 5 Keeps, 1 Strong Keep, 7 Merges, and only 3 deletes....damn....looks like the "AFD people" went by the standards of Wikipedia and not by the standards of Calton, who stomps around and throws a fit til he gets what he wants.
Oh...and don't talk to me about "personal attacks"...cause I can go through your contribs and find at least 100 or more seperate Wikipedia accounts (not counting mine) where you have made repeated personal attacks, so a couple against words against you, from me, isn't a "drop in the bucket" compared to you and your words.
Also, you keep thinking I have more than just this one account or that I am an IP in the UK. Do a simple Whois search and you will find my IP address comes from Comcast in Richmond, VA. I don't need 2 or 3 accounts to slam you. These are other people who obviously are reading the same words as I and are quoting you on them, who are using your words and your actions against you. Your actions have been going on a helluva lot longer than I have been a member and maybe people are just getting sick and tired of your words and your actions. Those words and those actions will be your downfall, not me, not User:WaysAndMeans, not User:DHowell...your words, your actions, your downfall. So, stop making everything about me and take some responsibility for your words and your actions for once.
Calton, one more bit of advice for you...I suggest to you that you re-evaluate yourself or you should watch your step and hold on tight, cause it's all downhill from here for you and it is a bumpy ride. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another outside view

Filtering out all the hissy fits and uncivil comments above, the substantive arguments about whether to keep the closing logo descriptions seem to boil down to:

For:

Against:

Let me address each argument individually:

They are only one-line descriptions and "aren't too in the way".

I would agree with this. Since these are simple closing logos, I don't see how more than a one line description would be justified anyway, and since there are a limited number of them (42), this page won't get unreasonable burdened with them. (But if one of these closing logos were to generate controversy and become to be the subject of news articles, then it might deserve more...)

They are similar to episode lists of full-length TV shows.

I can also agree with this. Some shows have even had episode lists expanded into articles on each episode, but given again that these are still frame logos, there does not seem to be need for a separate article on each one. A simple list of one-line descriptions seems reasonable to me.

This and this are cited as sources.

The sources cited do appear to confirm the information presented here.

The sources can be verified by watching the TV show Robot Chicken.

I've seen some of these episodes, and I've seen the closing logo referred to here. Anyone can watch Cartoon Network at the appropriate time and verify the logos, and anyone can obtain the DVD releases to verify them as well.

Now, the arguments against:

It is a list of indiscriminate trivia.

WP:TRIVIA defines trivia as "information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to". Sorry, but I am not persuaded by the argument that the content of the Stoopid Monkey logos are not important to the subject of Stoopid Monkey itself. I also don't see anything in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE that would prohibit this list, unless it is considered a list of "plot summaries". Even then, as long as there is real-world context in the article (which there is in the opening paragraphs), it should be OK.

It can only be sourced to personal observation of the subject.

Well, in this case, the primary source is a published source concerning the subject itself. And everything in Wikipedia is derived from "personal observation" of published sources.

It is not verifiable.

As I addressed above, it can be verified by watching the end of the TV show on Cartoon Network or the DVD.

There are no reliable sources; the source cited is a wiki and thus not a reliable source.

While the source cited is a wiki, as I argued above the content can be independently verified by anyone in the United States with a TV and a cable or satellite connection or a DVD player, and as such I have no reason to doubt the reliability of this source and don't see any reason it should not be regarded as an exception to the general guideline against using wikis as sources.

It is original research.

Describing the content of a primary published source is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

It is not important and is fancruft; There is no consensus to keep the list.

The term "fancruft" is usually bandied about by editors who want to remove information they think is "unimportant", regardless of how many people want the information and think it is useful. Keep in mind that this article was created just over one year ago, and had included the list for almost that entire time, while being edited by 23 registered editors and another 19 anonymous IP addresses, which alone provides evidence of a long-standing silent consensus to keep the list in this article.

The subject isn't notable.

While I realize the Google test isn't authoritative, the phrase "Stoopid Monkey" gets 3 unique news archive hits and 272 unique web hits. These include T-shirts being sold at Amazon and elsewhere, an IMDB page, and an article about the company's upcoming film. I believe this is enough independent sources to establish notability for the company.

Finally, someone said above that we don't have a "screen shot of every Couch gag on the Simpsons", however, this dispute is not about screenshots, but descriptions. And there is indeed a List of The Simpsons couch gags, including a description of each one.

In summary, the page should remain and should include the list of closing logo descriptions. DHowell 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

DHowell...that is what I have been trying to say, but you put it in MANY words. Thanks. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • GET A LIFE, and leave the monkey alone!! (or is someone looking to be parodied on RC next season?)Bacl-presby 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hell, that would be pretty awesome....but no. I just make sure our good ol' pal Calton doesn't destroy another page on Wikipedia. They could parody him for weeks. Never ending entertainment. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Very well written. I totally agree. Chaos0mega 09:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said, DHowell. I agree. --ElKevbo 04:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Between the "merge" votes and the "keep but lose the logos" votes, it's pretty clear that the majority view is that they don't belong, regardless of the smoke-blowing by DHowell (among other things, I'll note your misunderstanding of reliable sources and primary sources). Out they go. --Calton | Talk 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Calton, you lost...there was only TWO of the votes (not counting yours) that said remove the logos. You are mad, obviously, but only two of the votes said for them to go, the rest said neither for nor against. Now...let...it...go! - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here via RfC. Support inclusion of logos. The use of primary sources is perfectly valid in this case - primary source information is presented absent any interpretation and can be verified by anyone. See this. Also, all participants in this discussion should remember to keep it civil and refrain from making personal comments. Orphic 09:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. So, that "reliable source" was what, again? Hint: Fan wiki? Not a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, the contents of a fan wiki wouldn't be a primary source at all. The primary sources are the episodes themselves. It's video, not text, that's being cited here. -Orphic 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Robot Chicken Season 1 DVD is a primary, reliable source. A fan wiki is a seconday source, reliable or not. Given the wide availability of the primary source, however, such a source ought to be presumed to be reliable in this case. DHowell 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The idea I had for merging the logo descriptions into the list of episodes

Here's what I had in mind for the Stoop!d Monkey merge into List of Robot Chicken episodes. (I've removed the fair-use images for this talk page comment, since they aren't being used for critical commentary. Instead, I'm putting in a picture of a flour mill.)

Screenshot Title Airdate Episode # Production Code
"Junk in the Trunk" February 20, 2005 1 2

Rachael Leigh Cook smashes more than eggs in her latest This is Your Brain on Drugs public service announcement. Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, falls prey to prostate cancer. The outcome is never in doubt during "World's Most One-Sided Fistfights Caught on Film." Outtakes from The Dukes of Hazzard, The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica and more come to light in "Bloopers."

Stoop!d Monkey logo: He is about to hit his tail with a hammer.
"Nutcracker Sweet" February 27, 2005 2 5

Voltron engages in an old-school dance-off in "You Got Robo-Served." The secret lives of nature's most fascinating beasts are exposed in "Secrets of the Animal Kingdom." Testicles are terrorized in "Ode to the Nut Shot." Walt Disney's severed head with its giant robotic spider-body attacks Cuba.

Stoop!d Monkey logo: He is smoking an entire pack of cigarettes in his mouth.
"Gold Dust Gasoline" March 6, 2005 3 6

The animals Noah left behind try to survive the flood in their very own ark. Enjoy instant nostalgia with "That '00s Show." Mrs. McNally's third-graders produce an animated abomination in "The Best Cowboy." The world's most famous cars, from KITT to the the General Lee and even Mario karts, race against each other in "3 Fast 3 Furious."

Stoop!d Monkey logo: He is about to whack a beehive with a stick.

That was what I had in mind. That way, we don't have to keep a separate list that runs parallel to the main list of episodes. That was the solution I proposed, and what I still endorse. Other than that, I don't want to get sucked into this rather contentious argument. I'd rather argue about things like Richardsonian Romanesque architecture versus Beaux-Arts architecture. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, as long there is a link to the Robot Chicken episode list here. If this is what it takes to get consensus, do it. DHowell 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoopid Monkey logos

[posted to various users' talk pages]

As you are aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.
I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.
I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).
This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.
I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT) 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The AfD debate merely determined that the article was to be kept. It did not determine that the logo list should be retained, nor did it determine that it should be removed. This matter must be resolved independently.
2. It would be improper for an administrator to revert to either disputed version before protecting the page. If protection is deemed appropriate by an uninvolved sysop, it must be applied to the page in its current state (whatever that happens to be at the time).
3. I personally agree with Calton that the logo list should be excluded. This information relates more to the individual episodes than it does to the company, so Elkman's suggestion seems quite reasonable. —David Levy 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I said that I thought that it should be reverted them locked, was I thought admins reverted to it's previous then locked it. That was my mistake...sorry about that. But, I thank you for your opinion. - SVRTVDude (VT) 04:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Elkman's proposal also sounds very reasonable to me. --ElKevbo 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


As posted User:Orangemonster2k1's talk page
Hi. I've gone back over the AfD, and my opinion was in relation to the base content itself in the context of the original nomination. My delete vote was purely in the context that notability was not established for the subject of the article and therefore per policy needed to be deleted. However, as the content had obviously been cleaned up it was a consensus of keep. The issue of the logos list as far as I can see is a separate issue to the AfD discussion.
The main point being contested by other editors in relation to the logos is Reliable sources and what wikipedia is not. Having reviewed the article history, I am of the opinion that the the list of logos at issue here is not of encyclopaedic merit and adds no value to the article on the subject whatsoever. Additionally, the referenced source used for the content is deemed to be self-published research and threfore does not meet the criteria set down in the Reliable sources policy. Therefore, the content in dispute can and should be easily removed in accordance with relevant policy. In regards to the blocking you received, both you and Calton both engaged in edit warring that was deemed to be in breach of the three revert rule. I have taken a look at the reasons for the block, and I would concur that the blocking admin Dmcdevit (A longtime WP user and current Bureaucrat) was legitimate and justified.
In terms of requesting a block on the page, it's unlikely to be granted either full or semi-protection as there has not been enough activity to justify it. Regrettably, after reviewing this matter I have seen fit to file 3RR reports against the both of you for your actions in relation to this article in the preceding 24hrs. I would strongly encourage you to use this time to step back and have a good think about the matter before taking any further action.
As per my comments to Orangemonster2k1, the content in dispute is not of encyclopaedic merit and adds no value to the article on the subject whatsoever. Further to this, the referenced source used for the content is deemed to be self-published research and threfore does not meet the criteria set down in the Reliable sources policy. Thewinchester (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I appericate your opinion. As to the 48hr block, it had to do with another user and a totally different subject. - SVRTVDude (VT) 06:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

Would this work for everyone? The picture on the left being the episode picture and the picture on the right being the stoopid monkey picture, with the tag at the bottom? - SVRTVDude (VT) 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot Title Airdate Episode # Production Code Stoopid Monkey
"Junk in the Trunk" February 20, 2005 1 2

Rachael Leigh Cook smashes more than eggs in her latest This is Your Brain on Drugs public service announcement. Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, falls prey to prostate cancer. The outcome is never in doubt during "World's Most One-Sided Fistfights Caught on Film." Outtakes from The Dukes of Hazzard, The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica and more come to light in "Bloopers."

Stoop!d Monkey logo: He is about to hit his tail with a hammer.
I wouldn't have a problem with this, except that there are far too many copyright-paranoid image police that would object to the inclusion of this many fair use images on an episode list. At this point, it's probably better to just link to the images on an external site, like you did on this page, lest you attract more deletionist attention to these pages. DHowell 09:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I kinda thought it might be taking it a bit far, but thought I would throw it out there anyway. OK, I don't mind just having the Stoopid Monkey line being including in the episode list and then the link beside it. Let's see what everyone else thinks before adding it to that page. - SVRTVDude (VT) 09:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally....

After talking to some other users, I have moved the explanations of the Stoopid Monkey logos and their respective links and incorporated them into the episode list, which was, of course User:Elkman's idea. So, now we can put this thing to rest. My thanks for everyone's input. - SVRTVDude (VT) 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)