Talk:Stoopid Buddy Stoodios

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)

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 (

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:

• What are the reliable sources for the information?

• Why is it the least bit important?

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:

• What are the reliable sources for the information?

• Why is it the least bit important?

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:

• What are the reliable sources for the information?

• Why is it the least bit important?

--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)

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:

• What are the reliable sources for the information?

• Why is it the least bit important?

Ignoring the fundamental issues isn't going to get you far. --Calton | Talk 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)