User talk:Cromulent Kwyjibo/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Cromulent Kwyjibo/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst 27 18:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and thanks for the advice! Cromulent Kwyjibo 18:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Family Guy Band

I know where but its much easier to just upload a photo. File:Genes tounge.jpg

Hey Cromulent Kwyjibo

For improving the Wiki, I award you this barnstar. Redwolf24

I would love to award you the TV Barnstar for your work on television related articles, but alas, there is no such thing. So you get the regular ol' barnstar. Redwolf24 21:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Perhaps for future awardees, we could design a TV Barnstar. Maybe the regular barnstar with a circular 50s TV design in the center. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists target Family Guy episode articles

Hey, Cromulent Kwyjibo, just thought you should know a VFD has been convened for the article on the Family Guy episode "Mr. Saturday Knight." ShutterBugTrekker 21:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the vote. Cromulent Kwyjibo 19:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future tvshow

File:Future-tv-stub.jpg

New stub picture.

On Wikipedia:Requested images, you requested a picture for Template:Future tvshow. I created Image:Future-tv-stub.jpg. I was wondering, is it what you expected? Thelb ⁴ 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. Sorry about the name - I do so much work in stubs![reply]

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see it. Wikipedia's being extremely slow with images today and I don't know why. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

I just have to say I love your name! I love when TV shows create made up words, and what better way than to use two of Simpson's best fake words. Hurricanehink 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think those two words describe me pretty well, too. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barely Legal

One of the anons provided a source on this episode, considering its from blog.familyguy.com I think its fairly likely not to be a hoax. Discordance 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the blog entry from a viewer of the show or is it from a producer of the show? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes director, Zac Moncrief, Road to Rupert was announced by director Dan Povenmire. I wasnt asking for the article not to be deleted i was just making sure the page wasnt locked in case it needs recreating in future. And no the site doesnt appear to be hosted on the familyguy.com server its at sethmacfarlane.org but the fact that it uses a subdomain of familyguy.com means they have permission from fox and fox are willing to associate the blog with the official site.Discordance 01:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

Please do not delete redlinks such as the redlink you deleted from Cote de Pablo. Redlinks are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policy as they are signals that articles are missing and need to be written. Although a case can be made that wikilinking obscure names is unnecessary, a television series title is fine to leave as a wikilink, especially since there is a WikiProject underway to create articles on these series. There is no onus placed on the person adding the redlink to create the article in question, though on many occasions they will do just that. 23skidoo 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sibling Rivalry

I used the promotional picture distributed by Fox, you can sometimes find them on FOX's website a few days before the episode aires. --light darkness^(talk) 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting my inadvertant blanking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy. I don't know what happened, I'm guessing it was software related. Anway, thanks again, Addhoc 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Fitch

It's A7, no assertion of notability. Being a porn star doesn't merit an article, unless they are a particularly significant porn star, and the writing indicates this is a fairly low key porn star, hence not notable. The Lynne Stopkewich article has a small indication of notability that she is particularly known for something, though this may not be enough in itself to keep the article. Tyrenius 03:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your list IS valuable

The list you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors! JM

Thanks. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding comments like this[1] and the one left on my talk from before, I would like to remind you to treat all editors in a respectful manner. Thank you, Yank sox 23:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, just keep those things in mind. I'm stunned that you trust me with personal information, and just wish to extend a hand of "wiki-friendship" reminding you that you can contact me (on my talk or e-mail) if you ever need anything. The best, Yank sox 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New epsiode article problems for American dad and Family guy

Two issues. First there is a new format for the articles so just copy in the format from a previously aired episode to avoid confusion. Also, you are using the wrong season code for American Dad episodes

That's exactly what I did, I copied the format from a previously aired episode. As for the season codes, I copied those, too, so that's a carryover mistake. Also, did you know you can sign with four tildes? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what episode did you copy it from intially because that one probably needs to be fixed as well....Grande13 03:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy Image Placeholder

Yeah im aware the placeholder blows for family guy, so see if you can find some other generic placeholder to replace the current one instead of just removing it. Grande13 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Cancer

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings.aspx?id=20061103fox14

For me that has all the authoritativeness of a Kirk/Spock fanfic. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy layout

It had been discussed earlier and decided that the order would be cultural references then notes, so everything up to this point has been changed accordingly, sorry to cause any inconveniance Grande13 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who discussed it? You all by yourself? Why wasn't I invited to that discussion? Cromulent Kwyjibo 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on one of the episode discussion pages for wikipedia. The standard form was to be used should be alphabetical, so please revert your editsGrande13 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L Reference?

Thanks for your reference for Helena. Any chance you might know of a good reference for List of characters from The L Word? Donnabella 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Welcome to our Planet? No, sorry. But if you just want to shut up the deletionists right away, we could use that one. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format

why are you going about reverted the formula for format. It goes alphabetically (Cultural references, notes, trivia, references). Any more violations and you will be reported, as what makes your layout correct? as there are no guidelines that support it 216.177.121.212 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetically? Do you even know what that word means? R goes after T? What a stupid idiot! And what makes your layout correctly? Maybe one person is more than five or ten in your weird world view. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Summary

You do realize that the futoncritic gets their press releases from fox right? as the futoncritic usually provides the link to the intial information as well. Well most sites have crappy previews, thefutoncritic should be a reliable one as it only updates its datebases with pressreleases from the networks themselves Grande13 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I only have your word that "futoncritic gets their press releases from fox." I looked at the website for a few seconds and couldn't find a link to the "initial information" (and being that I'm a kwyjibo I'm not the most tech-savvy person in my household). Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That novel you've been working on?"

In "Brian the Bachelor" Stewie spends two minutes questioning Brian about his novel. There was a later episode where he started to do this again but was stopped. What episode was that? Anton Mravcek 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Brian goes back to college." Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Dietz

I think you've got Ada Dietz all wrong. She's not a "math crank", she's a former math teacher who developed a weaving pattern based on the binomial expansion. She is regarded today by weavers, for the creativity of her designs, and by certain math professors and others interested in the marriage of art and mathematics. I think that you mistakenly afd'd her because her stub was categorized as a "mathematician", a title which she clearly doesn't deserve.

Anyhow, I reworked her article to make it clear that she's a weaver, not a math crank. I'll leave it to you whether to reconsider the afd. Irene Ringworm 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original stub didn't provide much context so no worries. Irene Ringworm 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Quagmire citation

The offline citation for Glenn Quagmire won't make much of a case. Can you find a statement worth including in the article? Here's an online source: http://bobspoetry.com/Bobs03Ja.pdf

A citation template (perhaps {{Cite web}}) might be good for this. A quote helps plenty. / edgarde 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I forgot to put in the URL. Thanks for pointing it out. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons episode title request

Do you know off the top of your head the title of The Simpsons episode in which Lisa Simpson, dressed as a boy, incorrectly answered a math problem? PrimeFan 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I do. "Girls Just Want to Have Sums." Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help again. I thought that "Girls Just Want to Have Sums," Nelson gave the correct answer to the math problem Lisa got wrong, but Anton Mravcek says Nelson in another episode "said nobody knows what's the square root of a million." He thinks it was "Martin, or even Milhouse" who gave the correct answer. Also, if it's OK with you, could you tell me your real name so I can properly cite you at PlanetMath? PrimeFan 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yes, your friend is right, Martin gave the right answer, not Nelson. He's also right that in another episode Nelson said "That's like asking the square root of a million. No one will ever know." ("Bye Bye Nerdie").

As for my real name, sorry, no can do. I wouldn't even tell the folks at CostCo my social security number. You don't have to cite me for this, you look like you know how to use Wikipedia and you could have figured all this out yourself. All I will say is that my name has the same letters in common with Homer Simpson's name that Peter Griffin's name does, and in the same order. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brideshead Revisited.

rather than posting condescending and patronising messages, it seems to me that it would be infinitely more productive to discuss the matter like adults. the unenclopaedic trivia you speak of was deleted after being tagged for deletion in excess of two months. the proper action to take would be to integrate the text into the article. --emerson7 | Talk 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more condescending than you have been. What is it about boring British novels that inspires this kind of protective passion? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RLS

Do you know any pop culture refs to restless legs syndrome? Cholerashot 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Saturday Night Live skit about "restless penis syndrome," in the episode with Julia Louis-Dreyfus hosting (it was rerun last Saturday). I vaguely recall Alan Shore mentioning RLS in an episode of Boston Legal, but right now I can't remember what episode that was. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family Guy episodes

I didn't start that sub categorization. I was categorising an episode, noticed the subcategory and followed something I saw in a category for either Columbia Univ. or Harvard Univ. alumni where it asked people to go through the big list of alumni and sort it into the subcategories for the med school, law school, etc. So, I figured if it was ok for someone to ask that that happens for that school, it is ok to do it with the family guy episodes category! Postcard Cathy 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Family Guy

Talk pages are to discuss how to help the article. Not to discuss the subject in general. Can you tell how these questions can help the article? If not, then please don't revert me. I don't want to be blocked because of an edit war, and believe me neither do you. TheBlazikenMaster 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get in an edit war over some anonymous user's misguided attempts to ask legitimate questions about the article mixed in with some about the subject of the article. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got a good idea. I will tell that IP address why the section got removed. TheBlazikenMaster 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uw-chat1}} is a good user warning template for this situation. (Tho the personal touch is always good.)

Thanks for not edit warring. I agree with TheBlazikenMaster on this one. The questions seem suspiciously posed to incite off-topic discussion, and some of the regular editors in Talk:Family Guy (I won't name the parties) can be counted on to take the bait.

On the unlikely chance these questions were sincere, best to inform that editor on their User talk page that Article talk pages are for discussing edits to the article. / edg ☺ ★ 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy reference desk proposal

Thanks for participating in Talk:Family Guy.

I've started a discussion thread on WP:FG about the possibility of starting a Family Guy reference desk. Anyone who feels we should be answering general Questions about Family Guy is encouraged to participate in this discussion. / edg ☺ ★ 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd also like to volunteer for that. Slappywag42 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Future Stuff

I wasn't really sure what to add there. I had looked up "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" before and then lazily looked up just "Crosswords" again and seen there were two seperate pages, so I put them all into one and updated all the WikiLinks, but I wasn't sure if I was doing it right, I knew all taht info shouldn't be in two places. Please let me know what to do in the future in case I run across another show like this.

BTW, got to give you kudos for your username...that is just awesome. But I am rackin' my brain trying to figure out where they used "cromulent"...was it in the episode where Homer is a food critic? Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Worf

Hi Cromulent Kwyjibo, there's a note here about the slow edit-war over reverting to a stub version.--chaser - t 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please note that this blanking may constitute a violation of several policies including, but not limited to, 3RR and NPA, and you may be blocked if you continue. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blanking. Or did I mistakenly think this was Wikipedia, where stuff is supposed to be "edited mercilessly," and where reverting "Good Articles" to older versions is perfectly acceptable if the additions are not that good? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop revert warring and discuss the changes on the talk page, and follow the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process. Dreadstar † 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not revert warring. OberRanks is mischaracterizing those who improve articles as "vandals." Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to revert the edits of others when clear statements have been made that the reversions must stop (especially the "blanking" or removal of large amounts of content without consensus, as stated in the above message from FastLizard). Even thought it is "slow" and covers several different articles, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], the net effect is revert warring. Dreadstar † 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who've said the reversions must stop are the same people who want to hold these articles back against the larger concensus that these articles are bogged down with excessive plot summary details. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the reversions should stop because revert warring is against Wikipedia WP:3RR policy and harms the encyclopedia. Contested removal or additions of large amounts of content generally needs consensus. I haven't yet seen a consensus in this dispute. Dreadstar † 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is concensus in this case. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6/3 or even 7/3 is not consensus. Further, good conduct on Wikipedia isn't negotiable. Dreadstar † 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I've done is restore stuff the taggers said they wanted the articles to have. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective enforcement

(copied from my talk page)

So how come those who revert to a bad version can revert all they want, but someone who reverts back to an improved version and suddenly everyone cries "3RR! 3RR!" That doesn't make any sense. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: "bad" and "improved" are subjective terms. Both opinions should be given equal weight. 3RR avoids these kinds of edit wars — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, yes, if everyone gets the memo, and not just the people you disagree with. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone was asked on the article's talk page to stop edit warring, I left a note on your talk page because your reply to that request made it appear that you felt you had consensus and therefore the right to continue reverting to your version. I wanted to make it clear that you should not continue the edit war under the curcumstances at the time. Dreadstar † 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BQZ, good points. Also, in this particular case, both sides have been asked to stop revert warring. There has been no enforcement of WP:3RR that I'm aware of. But if the reverting continues, action will have to be taken to stop it - whether it's protecting the page or blocking those that have violated 3RR. This applies to all sides in the conflict. Everyone needs to discuss it on the talk page, and confine the comments to the editorial content of the article instead of commenting on the other editors. Dreadstar † 22:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's commenting on the editorial comment of the applicable pages: they were tagged as containing too much plot summary and no real world perspective; someone did something to fix that; they were reverted back to versions with too much plot summary and no real world perspective. That makes 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Cromulent Kwyjibo 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote on "Hush" page

Hi Cromulent. I removed the quote from the first paragraph, believing it inappropriate. You just reinstated it, so I thought I should clear up my objection. It says the episode is, "the most important single episode in the Buffy canon in terms of dealing with the operations of this textual/conversational economy". What textual/conversational economy? It's obviously referring to a concept discussed earlier in whatever article the quote is from, which makes it a confusing addition by itself, particularly since it appears before the wiki page has even mentioned "Hush"'s no-speech gimmick. And given that we don't know what the writer means when she speaks of a textual/conversational economy throughout the Buffy canon, what does it tell us to say that this is the best example? I cant imagine anyone new to the episode reading that quote and not being baffled by it. --Nalvage 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Masters of Science Fiction episodes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Masters of Science Fiction episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Masters of Science Fiction episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Masters of Science Fiction episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]