April 2007[edit]

Archive[edit]

I just archived my talk page, if you wish to continue current discussions, go to User talk:FictionH/Archive1. Archive 2 will come in May. FictionH 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Token?[edit]

You say that Token is based off of you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've listed your name as "David" before. Token is based off of (and voiced by) Adrien Beard. Tweeks Coffee 03:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's based off of both of us. FictionH 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So which episodes did you create and/or direct? Tweeks Coffee 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I created (or helped create at least):

Helped create in what capacity? If you are such a major contributor to South Park, then why doesn't your name appear on this list? Tweeks Coffee 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Because I don't want it on there. FictionH 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I'm doing be civil with you. YOU ARE A LIAR. I've made numerous factual statements that refute your claims, yet you have no response to me. You constantly dodge legitimate questions because you have no good response. Your only claims are that "I can't prove it, but it's true." So I issue a challenge to you: Prove me wrong. If you can provide one solid piece of evidence that you are, in fact, employed by SPS then I shall bow at your feet and apologize for all the crap I've given you since you first showed up. ONE PIECE. Refute any one of my factual statements and you win. If you want a list of my statements that you can refute, than please let me know, I'd be happy to provide it for you. In the meantime; I'm sure you'll report me for this, saying that I was harassing you and all. I don't give a crap, considering my track record, I'll take the warning about assaulting members to prove you wrong. Tweeks Coffee 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I nearly forgot one thing: I asked one of the moderators of South Park Studios, the official site of the show, for some backup on this "debate". He had a short response: "Ignore that article. He has there that 'I have also created and directed several episodes'." Only problem is that NO ONE BUT TREY creates the episodes." Any response to that while you're at it? Tweeks Coffee 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, what is going on here? You're a cheater if you do that. Stop messing with me. FictionH 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Cheating at what exactly? Exposing you as a fraud? Tweeks Coffee 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, if you want to know the truth, there's really only ONE way to find out. But, I'm sure you'll figure out what it is yourself. FictionH 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I already know the truth. I don't care what else you have to say on the subject. You may be able to fool the other people on this site, but I haven't bought your BS from day one. Tweeks Coffee 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Well, I know my own life and know that I'm not lying. FictionH 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Then you're a delusional liar. Tweeks Coffee 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You're a cheater if you do that." FictionH, Wikipedia is not a game. Are you here to add verifiable content to articles, or for some other reason? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm here to help Wikipedia. Why else would I be here? FictionH 20:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People have lots of reasons; you'd be surprised. Since you're here to help, you'll probably want to know that arguments like "I work for Comedy Central, so I know such-and-such", or "that's the way it is where I live", don't carry any weight here. The only kind of support that works for article content is publication in reliable sources. If you're adding that kind of content, it doesn't matter who you are or where you live or work, so that kind of argument shouldn't ever come up. If you're supporting content based on claimed personal knowledge (which would count as original research), then you're likely to attract reactions like Tweeks Coffee's comments above.
  Am I making sense here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few words[edit]

I would like to share a few things with you. You claim to be an employee of South Park Studios. I have no reason to doubt that, but the fact that such a claim is difficult to verify, makes me doubt any of such claims troughout wikipedia userpages. I hope you realize that stating such a thing may make you a potential target for people that dont' like South Park for instance. It will also result in people identifying you as "that southpark" guy and not by the quality of your edits. Being around wikipedia with such a stamp on your forehead may not always be the best. For one, you are potentially biased towards South Park, so all your edits to that topic will be under heavy scrutiny by other users. if you are not an employee, but just claim to be one, then people will consider your edits unreliable. And you can garuantee that both camps will forever bother you and your edits. :D

In my experience there are 2 good approaches to this. 1: You don't reveal yourself as a South Park employee, but just make quality edits to South Park pages. If you deliver quality with proper sources, then no one will care about who you are. 2: You state shortly that you are a employee on your Userpage and try to make good quality changes. However you tred extra carefully or even avoid your "own" topic wherever you can, especially when it comes to quality of the product and it's competition. The advantage to the last approach is that it's much more honest. You show people that you have a potential bias and that people should take a second look at any statement you make about that particular subject. Full-disclosure, but you're not shouting it from the rooftops. For you the topics to be extra careful with would be South Park, the company that owns it, the people that work on it, American Dad, Futurama, Family Guy etc.

The latter approach is what I do, and you can look for yourself as to what my potential bias subject is. I'm honest about it, but I try to keep out of any discussion that relates to the topic and don't advertise that small fact on any other place then my Userpage. This method has really payed of for me. Happy editing !!! --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot warning[edit]

Your recent edit to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was legitimate, I was just trying to follow what the {{toomuchtrivia}} template said. FictionH 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love your work[edit]

Hey dude! I love your work! Especially Chinpokomon, it's my favourite episode. I think there should be an episode where Cartman vandalises Wikipedia (and then at the end of the episode he learns a lesson about not vandalising Wikipedia!), it would be so funny! --Candy-Panda 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Regarding your edits to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, I believe you have an incomplete understanding of the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag. If you would read the guidelines at Trivia Cleanup Project, you will see the statement: 'This project focuses on finding, tagging and cleaning articles with too much trivia. Trivia sections shouldn't always be removed altogether - they may just require shortening, or rewriting and incorporation into the article.'
You did a good job incorporating trivia items into the article. However, I think you went just a bit too far in removing completely the remaining trivia. Many of the items contained therein are definitely notable, and worth of inclusion in the article. There were only a handful of entries (that is, the Trivia section was not unduly large) and their inclusion did not make the article unwieldy and overburdened with trivia.
I invite you to discuss this issue on the Talk page for the article. Generally such large edits are discussed before action is taken, to see what other editors think of the move. The possibility exists that the rest of the trivia can be integrated into the rest of the article. Here's hoping in good faith that we can work something out. Captain Infinity 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation[edit]

I'm taking a 2 week vacation, so no comments until I post saying I'm back. FictionH 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you just up and take vacation while South Park is still going on? So I guess this week's episode will be sans co-creator, eh? What exactly are you going to do after the two weeks? You've got a few months until you'd have to go to work again, after all. Tweeks Coffee 22:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Damn it, I said no comments! But anyway, it turns out that my flight was cancelled due to the rain, so I've been here where I live for a few days, but I have a limited time to use my PC since I need to go tommorow and have tons of stuff today. And about the South Park, I don't need to help create all the episodes. FictionH 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because the weather has been sunny to partly cloudy in LA for the past 5 days. There are no part-timers at South Park, everyone works on every episode Tweeks Coffee 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, I'm going to Mass, where it's been raining badly for the past few days. FictionH 01:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:D 9URL.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:D 9URL.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Since Firefox is licensed under the GPL, LGPL, and the Mozilla Public License; which are all free software licenses; this image can be replaced by an image made entirely of free software. Jesse Viviano 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your page[edit]

You know you have to be an adminisrator to protect pages.--$UIT 06:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUIT, FictionH requested protection of his userpage, as seen on the userpage's history. Squirepants101 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool--$UIT 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to have three protection tags on your user page, and even less sense to have tags implying full protection when the page is not fully protected. These tags add your user page to categories that it is not meant to inhabit. Please choose one of the pp-semi-* templates to place on your page and remove the others. CMummert · talk 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FictionH, I've reverted your revert because these extra protection tags are putting your userpage in categories that do not reflect why the page was protected. For example, before I started to revert, your userpage contained the categories Category:Protected due to dispute, Category:Protected, and Category:Semi-protected against vandalism. None of those, with the exception of the semi-protected against vandalism (it's also redundant to have if you have the semi-protection tag), are actually true. Squirepants101 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have a right to my own page. Any editing of it by anyone other than me is something considered vandalism (which I hate), to me. FictionH 01:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two users (me and Squirepants) have politely asked you to not include incorrect tags on your page. Please reconsider. It really is inappropriate to have full protection tags on a page that is not fully protected. CMummert · talk 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your userpage is NOT your sole property. It's explicitly stated in Wikipedia:User page. It's a page as any other in wikipedia, and anyone may edit it. Of course you have a little more privilages regarding the content, but you do not have sole 'right' to your own page. And adding your page to wikipedia categories in which it does not belong is one of those things you in general should not do, and you certainly should not be surprised if other users try to fix that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - But I'll revert any edits done to my page that are done by people other than me. You wouldn't want people to vandalize your page, do you? Then don't vandalize mine. FictionH 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You do realize that CMummert is an admin, don't you? I seriously doubt he/she's attempting to vandalize your page. Tweeks Coffee 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I realize it, but that still gives me a right to my own page. FictionH 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you thought my edit was vandalism - I was cleaning up the deprecated template {{protect2}}, which meant replacing it with other templates as appropriate. You are the only user who has made any comment about it. Would you be willing to remove the full protection tags yourself? CMummert · talk 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I removed them. FictionH 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will take care never to edit your user page in the future. CMummert · talk 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are using the term "Vandal" and "Vandalism" very liberally. You should be aware that the term is quite an insult here on Wiki. Please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info about this subject. Tweeks Coffee 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

How do I change my username? FictionH 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username. Squirepants101 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you! FictionH 21:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007[edit]

New owner[edit]

I would like to notify you that this account is now used by South Park creator Trey Parker. Any South Park images uploaded from now on will be licensed as {{cc-by-2.5}}. 79Bottles 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of 98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Picaroon (Talk) 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stop_Button.PNG listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stop_Button.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ButtersStotchPicture.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ButtersStotchPicture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:811 image 04.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:811 image 04.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]