User talk:Scorpion0422/Archive 1

Canada's Walk of Fame

Wow you're fast. -- user:zanimum

Helpme

Hi, I just have a quick Wikipedia protocal question.

I want to turn this page: List of guest stars on The Simpsons into something like this page: List of South Park episodes with the charts and images of each various thing. However, this would involve somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 images on one page. So, I was wondering what Wikipedias protocal on the matter is. Thanks! ~Scorpion0422

I believe that it is fine if you were to do that, as long as you make sure that if you upload images, you make sure that they have the appropriate licensing. You would want to look at the images in the South Park page to see what I am talking about. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a particular protocol or guideline, but from a general web developer's point of view, having so many images on a single page that the page load takes a long time (as is the case with List of South Park episodes) is generally frowned upon. There may also be problems with Wikipedia:Fair use if you overuse fair use images on articles. My advice would be to put the images on the articles themselves, and to improve the list without using visual material. - "Tangotango 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot have 400 images on one page, it will not work for people with slow internet connections or slow computers, don't try it. Most importantly, remember that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia". We are trying to make free content. The Simpson's screenshots are not free, and possibly illegal (eg the fair use claim in South Park is not necessarily correct). Not using images on the list is the best idea.--Commander Keane 17:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Episode Reorganization

I'd be glad to help! I've already got done with Season 1 and I'll work my way up. Thanks for the suggestion. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

About Emmy 2006

Why are The Simpsons listed as the winners when the awards is the 27th? It hasn't been done yet. And do you know what? I don't think someone tells who won. I'm deleting it from the page now, OK? ivers 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Response.

I've worked to merge/redirect far more important pages than Frank Grimes. The very idea that Frank Grimes, a character who appears once in the seventeen seasons of Simpsons and is alluded to on a handful of occasions survived a merge debate escapes me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a fan of The Simpsons. Old ones, anyway. I'm not blinded by any fanboyism, however, and realize that no matter how recognized he is over other one-shots, he is still not notable enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Holophonor and Planet Express Ship

As pointed out by Stardust8212, both the Planet Express Ship and Holophonor articles are currently marked for deletion. Your comments thereon would be really appreciated. DrWho42 06:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Survivor

I rephrased the note about Nate's "kidnapping" on the Contestants section. I hope you don't mind. Your original note was slightly confusing as it could sound like he rejoined Rarotonga's side when Aitutaki decided to bench him. On a completely different note, thanks for handling all the voting tables and the like. Editing tables is not something I particularly like to do and I'm glad somebody is taking care of it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Plow Edits

I noticed that one of my contributions to the Mr. Plow page was removed by yourself, and after looking into it it seems to have been due to this Trivia Clean Up Project. I would argue against the removal of my specific contribution as Wikipedia was the first place I went to in order to learn what the music from the bridge scene was from. Since there was nothing there, I ended up having to look elsewhere. I think this qualifies as interesting and useful enough information to remain on the page. Furthermore it's not even under Trivia, it's under Cultural References and as such is it not outside the jurisdiction of Trivia cleanup?

I edited it out because it is relatively obscure and is merely a minor reference. However, if you feel it should be on the page, feel free to re-add it. -- Scorpion0422 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I went ahead and added it again. Thanks.

--Zogundar 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Why do you insist on moving information that has been spread out through the article into a single 'trivia' section? Our style guidelines, at WP:AVTRIV and WP:TRIVIA (essay) state we should work to integrate the facts into larger bodies of text.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information from your talk page

Your removal of information from this page simply shows that you do not care that consensus is against you and highlights your edits for future analysis to see if you are simply ignoring the community's wishes. So far there have been 2 editors who have objected to your edits and you have not given an adequate response - choosing to remove comments instead. Please visit this page for information about talk page comments. -Localzuk^(talk) 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I realiuze consensus is against me, and if he made an original post I would have left it. But, that canned response that he uses on every single talk page clutters up my talk page and it really is unnecessary. I hardly see why me reverting edits on my own talk page is worth stirring mud over. -- Scorpion0422 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not just his comment you removed. It is mine as well. It is 'worth stirring mud over' because it indicates that you do not care what people think about your edits. His response is well thought out and a useful read. This is the world wide web, we do not have a 'limit on space' so a claim that his comment 'clutters up my talk page' is wrong. Simply leave it there and move on.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But you see, his response is simply an exact copy of what he puts in every talk page he responds to. I've seen it many times. If anybody should be complaining, it should be him. -- Scorpion0422 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you at least read the rules and took them to heart before deleting them. I hope we can come to some consensus on this matter. Setting aside your objections to WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV, these articles are still in violation of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, and WP:WAF. This is not a case of I don't like the trivia so I'll delete it. I do like the trivia and find some of it usefull but there are rules for inclusion in the encyclopedia and ALL editors have to follow them. If an edit adds something to an article that has not been previously published by a reliable 3rd party source, that edit is original research and will be removed. Again there are many, many, many outlets for fan commentary and analysis but Wikipedia IS NOT one of them. Cheers. L0b0t 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to get my point. AN episode synopsis is supposed to just be what the episode is about. Integrating the trivia and cultural references clutters up the article. And I'm pretty sure quality is more important than a couple trivia questions. -- Scorpion0422 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply moving them back to the trivia section is not helping though. Instead you should rewrite them so that they do fit in better. WP:AVTRIV is a guideline and as such should be followed unless there is a good reason not to (compared to a policy which should be followed unless there is an exceptional reason not to). You should not be moving things out of the main body of text.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do get your point. Quality is important, that's why lists of things are proscribed by WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, and WP:WAF and this info should be integrated into the article rather than being in seperate cruftmagnet sections. WP:NOT tells us that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." That means that the synopsis needs to contain more than a synopsis, it is the place for the sourced trivia and the allusions to other works, provided that some 3rd party source has already pointed out the allusions. Cheers. L0b0t 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, THIS is a product of your merge trivia into article mania:

===The Day the Earth Looked Stupid===

Kang and Kodos invade Springfield circa 1938. Unfortunately, the people are slow to react as they just went through a panic caused by Orson Welles' infamous War of the Worlds broadcast. The title is a play on the title of the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still and besides references to Orson Welles' War of the Worlds radio broadcast, it recalls his movie Citizen Kane (parodying Rosebud with nose-bud). The end of the episode provides a critical metaphor of the Iraq War. At one point the script called for Kodos and Kang to look over the smoking ruins of Springfield and say "This sure is a lot like Iraq will be." Fox network didn't have any objection to the line, but it was rejected by some of the writers as too obvious and was cut from broadcast. "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid" is also the name of a season 3 episode of Futurama.

How can you possibly think this is better than its current version? That is an unbulleted trivia section, NOT a synopsis. -- Scorpion0422 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how it should be structured. Plot summary including real-world context and sourced analysis. Why do you find following policy and established style so wrong? L0b0t 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But you see, thats worse than a trivia section. It says everything that is said in one, but its sloppy, takes away from the synopsis and really doesn't do much. If you insist on having it like that, don't call it a synopsis. Call it a "Trivia Section in Disquise" or something. Obviously you've never had to do research, because trivia sections on Wikipedia have helped me in research MANY times. -- Scorpion0422 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is just your stylistic opinion and is contraindicated by established policies and guidelines. If you would have the rules changed to reflect your opinion of what an article should look like, the place to discuss that is here. Also, please do not post your personal assumptions about your fellow editors. You have no more way of knowing about my research habits than I do about your own, so keep it to yourself and please stay on point. Cheers. L0b0t 17:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Stating that 'grimes is one of the most popular characters' is pure opinion unless it is backed up by e reliable, verifiable source. Please do not re-add it as it would be a breach of those policies/guidelines as well as a breach of our neutrality policy.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

why?

I see you removed the small paragraph mentioning Frank Grimes from the article List of One Time Characters from The Simpsons. I am asking why. Although he does have his own article, he needs a mention on this list, as he is a one time character.--veon 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t

L0b0t seems to believe in enforcing things overly excessive. He doesn't even allow for things to be reworked as he feels its necessary to just remove everything for the page. Maybe we can all report his abusive editing to at least delay his reactions, as he appears to be ruining and causing chaos on many pages for various shows/episodes 216.177.121.212 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it because he takes policy too far and you either do things his way or no way. Unfortunately, he does have the rules behind him and reporting him would result to nothing. -- Scorpion0422 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be more of reporting how he goes about enforcing his actions, leaving no middle ground or chance of editing as he goes in and just removes it all. Also, he is asking for sources on things that are either obvious from watching and would be incredibly hard and sometimes impossible to attempt to source 216.177.121.212 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can get a few more users on board, I'd be all for it. They can't ignore a complaint against a user if there's several complainees. -- Scorpion0422 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh there are a lot of people willing to file a complaint, but we dont know of the place to formally do it. any suggestions? 216.177.121.212 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not familiar with the behind the scenes stuff of Wikipedia. I just edit articles. I suggest asking an admin.

You have to provide sources for your edits. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. People expect that Wikipedia is a reliable source, and without any other external references, how on Earth can they actually know what is made up and what isn't? Adding unsourced information to pages has been proven very detrimental to Wikipedia. See John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I'm assuming you know what you're talking about when you make those edits to SP:BLU, but would it kill you to add references so inexperienced users would actually know where the material came from? L0b0t is only asking for references in places where references are needed. He is not trying to purposely attack you or anything. Also, you kept saying that someone could just click external links. I doubt all of those external links actually provide references for all the material in the article. Just please follow the format for adding references, and the whole situation will be resolved. Thanks. Nishkid64 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Survivor: Cook Islands

Hey, in your recent edit to Survivor: Cook Islands you removed the title of the next episode. I accidently reverted that title too but after checking it out [1] it appears legitimate. - Tutmosis 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian rock

Not sure if you know your 1970s music history Moxy was a big band toured with Trooper, Triumph, Black Sabbath, Boston, Tommy Bolin was on their first album . AC/DC palyed thier first show in north america as the opening act for Moxy in the U.S.A. NOW a band like Toronto or The Demics are just home town bands, any way just my opinion I will leave the page alone , pls read up on MOXY you may change you mind when you see that they have also helped Lee Aaron on her debut album, Also I come from Texas were Moxy is one of Canada.s greatest bands I saw them live in 1977 at any area that was sold out 10,000+ Lucifers hammer 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC) have fun tks buddy

No problem nice to talk to an adult for a change, I will do some reading up on candaian rock history at the books store to get the real history and help finish the artical in a few day. again tks for being so professional ever need my vote let me know Lucifers hammer 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the categorization, please note that Wikipedia categories are for things that are examples of the category name, not for things that are simply related to it. For example, Category:Canadian musical groups should only be applied to articles on things that are musical groups, not things that are what some of those musical groups happen to do. Similarly, only individual musicians should be filed in Category:Canadian musicians. And on, and so forth. Bearcat 17:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok i am done Canadian rock take a look and do what you wish with the artical. was fun  :-) Lucifers hammer 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL were both editing

ok i leave it up to you to clean-up sorry if i have made more work for you Canadian rock Lucifers hammer 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. L0b0t 03:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Edit summaries like these two need to stop -- please see policy regarding personal attacks, disruption, and please do consider dispute resolution. Going to "war" with other editors rarely ends well for anyone, so please don't try it. Thank you. Luna Santin 09:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, this edit doesn't do much to improve the situation. Please reconsider. Thank you. Luna Santin 09:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound like I'm looming over you, or anything, but I tend to check back on people I've warned, after a few days, and I'm happy to see that you've apparently calmed down. Usually things just escalate and lead to blocks, so it's really cool to see things head in a different direction. If you have any questions, concerns, or needs, feel free to drop me a note. Luna Santin 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

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 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Lucifera hammer

My little brother was over today i saw him edditing Under my name :-( pls double check

sorry !!!

I Guess this sort of thing happens all the time people change, add things for no reason

should we ask to lock the page Canadian rock ????. Lucifers hammer 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

New!!!!

LOL i guess your right i fell like vandalizing George W. Bush right now :-)

IHHOF & VaughanWatch sockpuppet

I reverted your edit to the international hockey hall of fame article, all companies on wiki have side boxes, the articles that you mentioned thatdon't then put them up but don't vandalise other articles--HockeyHistorian 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Get the facts before making claims, I am reverting your edtis again which is considered vandalism--HockeyHistorian 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have blocked this sockpuppet of VaughanWatch. -- JamesTeterenko 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons Movie

Thanks for making a sane voice heard over at the Simpsons Movie article. It's nice to see someone else making the same edits, comments, and reverts, letting me know that I'm not crazy. Have a WikiCookie

Cookie Award

_si»abhorreo»^T 15:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Crab people

See WP:FUC. Fair use images are not allowed outside articles. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. I was just about to get it, but you beat me to the punch. This anonymous user is a rampant vandal, so please be sure to place a warning on the talk page, and perhaps we can get him or her blocked. Thanks. Cheers! ---Charles 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Interim leaders

Then change their boxes, not Dion's box. The correct policy and procedure on Wikipedia is to list the interim leaders; if another article doesn't, then the correct response is to change that article rather than inserting incorrect information into Dion's. (Sorry about the comment signing confusion; for some reason my keyboard somehow reset itself to French layout and I couldn't find the tilde.) Bearcat 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Herb Gray was an interim Leader of the Opposition (the Parliamentary role); he was never interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. So his article isn't supposed to have the leadership infobox on it. Graham, however, was an actual interim leader of the party. Bearcat 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Education in the Simpsons

Sounds good to me! --Xtreambar 04:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Moe'N'a Lisa

Please explain your edit of my culture refs. Thanks. Lugnuts 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of characters on the Simpsons

We just had an edit conflict on List of characters on the Simpsons, which I have been bolding and adding actor names too. I'm going to copy my version, since it took forever, and then re-make your changes, ok? Natalie 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have redone your changes except for one. I kept "Unnamed, screamapille" instead of the screamapillar. I think since there are quite a few unnamed characters, we should point out that their unnamed. This will also keep people from adding a name that they either made up, or thought they heard, or whatever. Natalie 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ref for Marge meeting Homer

Thanks. I wasn't sure even what season that episode was in, so I thought it would take forever to find it. Natalie 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to know where this quote comes from: Homer has "caused three meltdowns and one China Syndrome. I remember the quote but cannot for the life of me remember what episode it's from. Natalie 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, you are obviously better than me at remembering the episodes. Do you know the episode/s where Homer has played the trombone and/or classical guitar, Homer could tell the difference between butter and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, Homer is a good poker player. Natalie 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I took out the whole part on cards, since it was kind of predicated on his being a good poker player. Natalie 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Guest star references

Thought I'd post this here as it seemed the best place. I've just noticed that The Simpsons Official site lists all guest stars (except de facto ones like Hartman, Wallace and Welker) beneath the descriptions on the episode guide for all of the episodes. Although it would take forever to add these to all episodes listed with guest stars, this is at least the highest official source. Maybe a link to ep guide at the bottom with a note about where the names are situated? Gran2 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Survivor Cook Islands

Hi Scorpion0422 I am new here. I am sorry if I do something wrong or did not follow wikipedia's rule. Well, I just want to know why my editing in Sole Survivor part in Trivia list was removed. (I added Aras was only one survivor getting hurt in Final 2 because I think it is his unique.) And I added that Morgan McDevitt was also 21 when Guatemala aired so Jeff Wilson and Morgan were the youngest partcipants. (You can see the proof in their CBS bio they were both 21) Please Explain your reasons to me. Thank you very much.

Best Regard Sweeti Tooth 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explaination (That's clear) and I also understand about Tina's case. Sweeti Tooth 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox template

Would it be possible to discuss making changes to the Protected areas infobox template [2], before making changes. I recognize not all parks list the year visitation figures are compiled, but that template is attached to thousands of pages, so any changes made impacts all those articles. Thanks.--MONGO 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again...it wasn't necessary to revert yourself...just asking if you could to post a comment on the project talkpage and see what can be done.--MONGO 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Otto's GF

Otto's girlfriend isn't a staff member, but minor related characters are listed with the more important character they're associated with (i.e. Burns' family is under him, even though they don't work for the plant). Natalie 00:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson

Yes, as in

,

Also, it has to be present tense. I am giving you a week long hold for a reason mate. Wiki-newbie 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which FAs? Also, you just have to change 'has' to 'is'. It won't ruin the article. Wiki-newbie 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. But that's what I've been told to do, and I have followed willingly. Wiki-newbie 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait, you're pulling my leg. The article about enzymes is fine and follows the style well. Wiki-newbie 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Biography being well written and encyclopedic

I know maybe it'll sound akward, so do try some stuff to make it more out-of-universe. As GA judge the edit button on the article is off limits, but I'll post room for improvement on the article's talk page. Just look at Palpatine maybe, FA character article. Wiki-newbie 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to The Haw-Hawed Couple

Just wanted to check with you on your edit to this page [3].

I guess you were seeking to restore your para, but you appeared to have reverted a bunch of other changes as well. I can reapply the ones I made (the ListGenBot tags), I'm just checking you didn't deliberately want to remove my edits --Mortice 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: A Question

Unfortunately, I've no idea, sorry. It doesn't seem to me like it would be a problem (although the more general guideline is usually "don't close discussions you've participated in," for these things). You might be able to find somebody more versed in these matters, or try the help desk. Your call. :) Luna Santin 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of guest stars on The Simpsons

Hi Scorpion. I've failed your FLC nomination, List of guest stars on The Simpsons, because it didn't seem that any progress was being made on the nomination, and there were several objections outstanding. However, the list has potential, so I encourage you to keep up the good work and do what you can to resolve the objections so that it can be renominated at a later time. For inline citations, you might want to consider a system like the one I used at List of elements by name under "Notes". That way you can identify where each bit of information comes from, without a huge long list of citations. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as on WP:FAC, one significant objection that isn't addressed can mean that the article doesn't get featured status. If it was 6-2 over an issue like formatting or something relatively minor, that would be one thing, but 6-2 over one of Wikipedia's most important policies (verifiability) is a problem. At the end of the day, it's not the vote count that matters, but rather how significant the problems are. This one has been on FLC for a long time, and there are still important issues that need to be addressed in the eyes of at least three people, and that's what matters. Fix those issues (inline citations, reliable sources, etc.), and this list will fly through the next time it's nominated. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:V (even if just the first point of the policy nutshell). Remove information that isn't in a reliable source; simple as that. Regardless of all policy considerations, however, it is the FLC nominator's responsibility to address objections (such as the lack of inline citations and the use of a fan site). It works better to do what is asked of you, even if you think it's unnecessary, than to argue. I've had the same problem on my own FLC and FAC nominations, but making the requested changes, even though I think they aren't that important at the time, ultimately makes the finished product even better than it was before. See List of DanceSport dances and Gas metal arc welding; in both cases, I thought I had a great article, but people disagreed, so I fixed what they had issues with. That's often what it takes to have a successful nomination. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like is for you to re-read the nomination page and figure out what you can do to address the objections. If you have questions about them, ask the people who objected. In my first post above I suggested a way that you might solve the inline citation problem without adding an obscenely long notes section. Go through the article, marking all information that comes from the official source, and ask the objectors what they think should be done with the rest. Think about whether or not it's possible to get a copy of the book. There are number of steps you could take that would be more productive than arguing over what constitutes a "reliable source" (though there are suggestions at WP:RS). Everyone involved wants to see Wikipedia become a better source of information, and that's what led people to make the objections they did. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding some good sources amongst the dodgey ones doesn't make it better. I can see you are keen to have the most complete list of guests, which is a worthy aim but shouldn't be at the expense of quality. Your definition of "accuracy" seems to be "complete" rather than "reliable". Wikipedia would rather have a shorter reliable list than a full but iffy one. As Spangineer suggests, please do study WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not (and cannot) be built the same way as other internet sites. The ability for anyone to come along and add a name to your list means that it is very hard for the reader to trust it. Remember that the list will remain long after you've moved on. I had the same problems on List of people with epilepsy before I started finding sources for each and every name. I could have just listed a few respectable epilepsy charity websites at the bottom, but in fact I found that they weren't as accurate as you might hope and also that it wouldn't stop editors adding rubbish to the list. I used those dodgey lists to give me some names for which to search for reliable sources – you can do the same.

WP:CITE gives some guidance here: the more astonishing a fact, the more you need to back it up. The names of Simpson episodes don't need individual citations since they are very widely known, stable and very hard to disagree about. In contrast, an uncredited guest can be challenged by someone saying "prove it".

I don't see the list passing FL without the source for every guest name being indicated and for that source to be a reliable one. It is not uncommon for the References section in a Featured List to be huge. I know you feel that some of the sources you've got are good enough. It may well be that every name on your list is correct. But WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you were submitting the list for Encyclopedia Britannica, would they accept a fan site as a source? Wikipedia's standards are widely flouted but to be Featured, they are enforced strictly.

Here's my recommendations:

• Remove all the names (save them somewhere, of course). This is drastic and optional. I think it will make it easier to keep track of what you've sourced and what remains to be done.
• Start with the official web site. Go through each episode and add back the guests for that episode. Provide an inline citation with a footnote {{cite web}} link to the episode page. Be careful not to add trivia about the guest that you can't support from the source. As you add a name, strike it off your scratch list.
• Repeat with the book. Obviously, the same book will be used for lots of names. You can either just cite the whole book or for bonus points, cite the page from the book where you read the name. In the latter case, the footnote citation should be short (e.g. "Groening, M. (1997), p 32") and you give a full citation at the end of the references. Perhaps the book has some trivia you can add.
• Find some other reliable sources for the other names. Google for the episode and the actor (or the actor and "Simpsons"). Perhaps a newspaper or TV listing magazine mentions it (you've got some of these already). The DVDs might have more info. You could ask some other Simpsons editors to help if you don't have them.

I'm sure that despite your best efforts, the list won't be as long. It will be better. There's no reason it can't become featured at a later date. Colin°^Talk 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you aren't interested in improving your article to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As for "people just use lack of sources as an easy way to fail lists or articles they dislike", all I can say is which of the three sentences in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy nutshell don't you understand? Also, there is no such thing as "6-2 approval". We don't vote on Wikipedia. The support/oppose at the start is meant to be just a summary of the feelings expressed by the editor. Although six editors (including yourself) supported it, four editors felt that it was not featured quality. Two (myself and Rune Welsh) explicitly wrote "oppose" and gave our reasons; two (Michaelas10 and Spangineer) agreed those reasons were strong and valid enough. If you don't want to write what you consider to be an incomplete list, that's your choice. But remember, you don't own the list, so someone else may come along some day and delete all the stuff that isn't reliably sourced. Colin°^Talk 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

55th National Hockey League All-Star Game

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Madchester 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)