User talk:Maitch/Archive 2

Scandinavia

How do you do, Maitch. Nice to meet you too. You seem a bit rash on that Scandinavian article. I'm new to the article so I don't really care what you call the place. But, we need a resolution to the problem, unless you think Wikipedia is a place of endless conflicts over unsolvable problems. I'm only trying to help out here.

I did not say Denmark was not a part of Scandinavia. And, I did not omit Denmark. I just put it further down in the intro. Furthermore, the Scandinavia you are talking about is an emotional one. It seems to be part of the sentiment of Scandinavism. But those of us who dwell elsewhere, how are we to define the place geographically? Don't you think there are multiple meanings of the word? The Finns get pretty hot over it too and my guess is you wouldn't even think they were Scandinavian!

I'd like to work this out with you. The introduction you restored is mainly wrong. For one thing, the original Scandinavia never included any current Danish territory at all, unless you think Pliny meant Zeeland. Halland was in it, but that is now Sweden. For another, no matter how you define it, you can't avoid getting some Uralics in the territory. And finally, there is not only that one definition of Scandinavia.

I am willing however to concede your main wish, which is to emphasize up front that Denmark is in Scandinavia. So, I'm going to put mine back with alterations. I am open to its being modified if you still think it needs it. Or, alternatively, rewrite that or the previous yourself. We're not the only people here. I suspect that if you continue to insist that the one that to which you reverted stay, that tag will be on until the Wikipedia administrators get tired of looking at it and take further action to stop the conflict. Then you'll be an even angrier young man. So what do you say, maitch? Friends?Dave 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad or anything. The problem was just that your version was even worse than the one before. Scandinavia does not equal the Scandinavian peninsula and including Russia is laughable. The Baltic region has more to do with Scandinavia than Russia. Scandianavia is first of all a cultural union. If you read through the discussion you would know that. Even the Finnish Wikipedia defines Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. With that being said I am not a supporter of the version I reverted to. I myself do define Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but I do want it to say that some include Finland as well. --Maitch 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. There is a confusion of what is being defined, then. According to you there are two different definita. One is geographic and the other is linguistic, political and cultural (as well as emotional). I understand your wanting to distance yourself from Russia, but geographically that doesn't take you very far away. You see, in the states here we look at things geographically. We appreciate having the wonderful countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden as allies and many US citizens are descended from people who came here from there. I for one sympathize with Danish free speech. There is nothing like freedom. On the other hand we don't have the nationalistic feelings that you do. Why should we? It's not our native land. So, we look at things geographically.

Your explanation suggests the solution. We need to distinguish carefully between the Scandinavian peninsula and Scandinavia. That is probably what the main problem has been here. There is a little ambiguation in your mind as to what to do with the Finns. They seem to want in on Scandinavia. So, I agree, you should include that possibility in your definition. As for the Russians, you can include them on the Scandinavian peninsula but not in the four countries mentioned. I doubt if they are eager to be part of your Scandinavia anyway. While I am at it I would like to point out, we don't have the opposition to the Russians that prevailed during the cold war. Many US citizens have relatives that came from Russia. So, let's make sure the Russians don't get to be laughable. I don't know who put the tag on the article but I doubt if it is coming off as long as nationalistic sentiments prevail. Wikipedia is international.

Well, I had a shot at it. It only seems fair to let you have the next one. The objective is to get something so accurate and inoffensive as to be able to get the tag off. So, anything that does not include all the possibilities is not going to fly and anything that belittles or excludes also is not going to fly (probably). Objective, open-minded language and concepts, that is the thing to achieve. I look forward to your version. Meanwhile, I have to get back to etymology and get my tone right.Dave 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between Scandinavia and the Scandinavian peninsula is important and hard to explain to outsiders. I would have waited to the discussion was over, but I can give it a try now. In my mind the most fair solution is to mention the two possibilities DNS and DNSF. There is another problem with the definition of the Nordic countries that people can't agree on either. For me Iceland is a Nordic coutry and not a Scandinavian one. --Maitch 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the discussion ever will be over. I like the idea of successive approximation. I think you did a noble job. I took it on myself to polish up your English to the extent that it doesn't sound foreign. Its fine with me if you drop the larger definition of Scandinavia. It might not fly with everyone though, based on the map. Where would you say Murmansk is? Not in Scandinavia? If it is not, why would Vardo be in, which is further east than the whole Karelskaya border? Similarly, there is nothing but a line on a map (and a bunch of border guards) to distinguish east Finland from West Karelskaya. And Lappland, which sprawls over the whole north, is that in or out? But if it is out, so is the north of Sweden and Norway. Tsk tsk. But what you have is solid and I will not question it. On the rest of the article. It seems a shame not to have an accepted article on such an important topic.Dave 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did the best I could. It's not really that easy to write and I'm sure that there will be further discussion. I also hope that someone will improve the article. There is also still the issue with the greater Scandinavia definition, but I'm not sure what the consensus is. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden we use the term Nordic countries, but I'm not sure the rest of the would makes that distinction. In my definition of Scandinavia I'm only thinking in countries and not so much the geography. It's a bit loose definition, but then again has the borders of Denmark, Finland, Ñorway and Sweden historically changed a few times. --Maitch 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellas, I felt like budding into your discussion since I have left a comment at Talk:Scandinavia. Dave/Botteville, I would like to see some convincing evidence to your claim that the Finns or the Icelanders "want" to be part of Scandinavia. All my sources and impressions and personal experiences will tell me otherwise. In fact, there are people in Finland and Iceland who would actually like to emphasize their non-Scandinavian location and identity and to distance themselves from the Scandinavians (proper), while others could care less what names the outside world calls them by. Another unsourced claim fo yours (Dave's) is that an American is more likely to define a certain region geographically, as contrasted by "emotionally". Clearly, any region or subregion will depend on geographical criteria for its definition, and I'm not convinced that English speakers in the US define their regions differently than people elsewhere or in other languages. Again, the extended meaning seems to be primarily an exonym, used by non-Europeans who picture Scandinavia as an exotic mythical place of polar bears, social equality and yellow-haired people with horned helmets − not entirely unlike how the medieval central Europeans pictured Thule. ;) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Your edit to See My Vest

Your recent edit to See My Vest 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. // Tawkerbot2 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess your bot can't handle redirecting an article. --Maitch 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was spelling, you misspelt redirect and thats what triggered it, no worries, I see you've fixed it :o -- Tawker 17:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

P10

Hi, Maitch. You left a sensible comment the first time the List of Perfect 10 models was at AfD due to the hasty conclusion by some that "Perfect 10 models" was a POV. Now it's worse. Basically, the excuse is that an un-named model told someone that she didn't want to be listed, and instead of addressing her inclusion individually, the guy who tried to delete it before re-nominated the entire list again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models (second nomination) --Alsayid 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The KLF

hi, your comment re the above FAC for The KLF has now been addressed. would it be possible to go back and update your comment if you think its been resolved? thx. Zzzzz 10:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Tnavbar

Hello Maitch, I swapped out Tnavbar2 for Tnavbar-plain because I had just made that in accord with the wishes of another editor who made the identical changes that you did. Please know that I added {{db}} to Template:Tnavbar2 for this reason. Also, on the Simpson's template is the centering affecting how it displays on your system? With Safari it is not at all centered with out some sort of explicit centering command. Netscott 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Maitch. Netscott 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

United States article nomination

Hi, I believe your comment is incorrect, as the American Dream section is the only one added, because of a single voter's suggestion attacking the article's comprehensiveness.--Ryz05 _t 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I checked it. On the time you nominated it it was 88 KB. Now it is 94 KB. --Maitch 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Because a new section on American Dream was added, but that's the only addition.--Ryz05 _t 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but where does it end. When I was supporting the article I was going against my usual principle against large articles. Now I'm considering switching side. --Maitch 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That section was added because of this objection:

Object Good article, but missing some key points which I raised in the previous   nomination discussion but were apparently just ignored: 
 No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else. The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world. 
 Glaring ommissions from the culture section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema. (Also this newest version now bizarrely refers to Disney's influence on Chinese cartoons and Japanese manga but still does not refer to Hollywood). Also, what about fast food? 
 Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context. 
 "The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So we tried to appease him by answering his call of adding the extra section.--Ryz05 _t 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you can't win, but there is room for downsizing other than the american dream. I would shorten the history and public health section and finally removed the largest cities table. I do know that there has been a poll about the latter, but I still don't consider it relevant. Tony also made some fine points about reducing the text by copy-editing. --Maitch 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the understanding. The Largest cities table had been removed if you haven't noticed and I will try to trim the sentences in other sections, but you are welcome to help out.--Ryz05 _t 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bitch getting an article through FAC and it should be. The largest cities section is back now. I might help a little later. --Maitch 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your recent Simpsons edits

Hey. While I think many of your recent revisions to the Simpsons article are justified, I'm curious as to why you've removed so many parenthesised remarks. I think that the comments that were in parentheses deserve to be in parentheses - things that are not directly related to the topic/sentence/paragraph at hand, but are important notes. For example - at the end of the origin section, there's a note about South Park sharing a very similar experience. I think this belongs in parentheses, because it's not about the Simpsons origins - it's not part of that 'story', it's just an interesting parallel that is noted. Also in that section, an example of one of the t-shirts - It's an important note to note the slogan on the shirt, but it doesn't actually fit into the flow of the sentance - taking it out of parentheses makes it a run-on sentence. In the heading section, the note that the show is still running (and thus the episode count isn't final) is not part of the thought of the sentence; it's just a clarifier like I just did in this sentence. Things that clarify a fact but aren't actually the fact you're trying to 'show off' are put in parentheses to indicate that. Another example is the Show Runner section. The note that the list is by production season not aired season is just a clarifier - (it's not how they're ordered, by the way - it's how the episodes are grouped - episodes that are leftover for the next season are usually still 'show run' by the previous season runner). I really think you should reconsider letting me put a bunch of the parentheses back in. I think they are important in structuring what information is the main thought, and what information is there to clarify. Another example - Marge is a stay at home mom (except in a few episodes). The point of the sentence is the statement that the character is a stay at home mom. The exception is just a minor point to note that there have been a few shows where she has worked - and therefore, I don't think it belongs out of the parentheses. Also, when an example is given in the middle of the paragraph (in the plots section, for example), it really belongs in parentheses, because it otherwise disrupts the flow of the thought.

There are some removals you've done that fit the passage fine (though I admit that I don't think the original version was a problem either), but I would really like to put several of them back in; that said, I don't think there is much point to having a back-and-forth edit situation on this, so I thought it best to discuss it with you here. I do endorse most of your other edits (I corrected a grammar error in one of them), so it's really just about the parentheses. Thanks TheHYPO 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that most parenthesised remarks disrupt the flow of the article. Let's compare:

• It is the longest-running American sitcom and longest-running American animated program of all time, having aired 378 episodes in 17 seasons (and it is still running) since it debuted on December 17, 1989 on Fox.
• It is the longest-running American sitcom and longest-running American animated program of all time, having aired 378 episodes in 17 seasons since it debuted on December 17, 1989 on Fox and it is still running.

Most of the time parenthesised remarks are just random trivia that the article could do without. Parenthesised remarks can be used sometimes, but the problem with this article is that is used too much. I'm trying to get the article up to FA standards and believe me that those things gets noticed. --Maitch 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - That particular example is a valid example where it doesn't necessarily flow to have parentheses (although I think that the way it is now is somewhat of a run-on sentance), but I think that with examples, it disrupts the flow of the article more to have examples right in the text without parentheses. That's just my opinion though. What is FA standard? TheHYPO 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually considered removing "(and it is still running)" entirely, because I find it a bit redundant, but since it's debatable I left it in. FA stands for Featured Article and is a selection of the very best articles Wikipedia has to offer. I appreciate most your efforts and hope that we can collaborate on making the article better. I don't know how interested you are in working on articles related to The Simpsons, but if you are you can join WikiProject The Simpsons. One of the things I would advise you to avoid is to add too many examples or specific episode citing. Whenever these are in the article fan boys will add random trivia or counter examples. Since The Simpsons is not really a show that cares a great deal about continuity, it is better to talk about the show in general terms. --Maitch 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest; I try to avoid horning in on existing 'edit communities' just because they usually have established ways of going about articles. The only reason I did a rewrite of The Simpsons article is because I was looking something up on it and as I read it, it just seemed poorly organized considering the immense popularity of the show (I had expected it to be a very thorough and well written article given how popular it is - I guess it's a testiment to how many of the truely devoted "intellectual" fans have ditched the show since it because a bit of a farce of itself after the 8-10th seasons (not to say current fans aren't intellectual, but it really doesn't garner the attention as an intelligent well-writen comedic show anymore - I know I no longer stive to make sure I catch it every week. Long story short, I thought it could use a good spring cleaning; like having the basic origins of the show as the opening of 'production' when that really doesn't have anything to do with production of the show, and having (what I still think exists but I wasn't sure how to reconcile it) things under writing that overlap with plot/structure (IMO, the 'writing' under 'production' should be about the how the show is writen as a process, not the material/style that comes out of the writing which is part of the content of the show for the later section).

I think the general problem with the article right now is that there are dozens of subarticles. So someone needs to decide to either have the sections (eg: characters) of those topics be fairly complete but basic (which you would probably argue is too much information if it was done), or have the section be very very sparce and just redirect. Right now most of the sections are somewhere in between. - example:

Homer Jay Simpson, a safety inspector at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, is a generally well-meaning buffoon whose short attention span often draws him into outrageous schemes and adventures. He has an outright love for Marge and for doughnuts and is often seen drinking Duff brand beer.

This is probably unnecessary information if there is already both an article on 'characters' and on Homer himself. Frankly, all this article needs to do is say 'the Simpsons family: father Homer, mother Marge, son Bart, and daughters Lisa and Maggie. If people want to know more, that's what those articles are for. Similarly, Marge's maiden name is superfluous in an article on the show, and her French origin is pretty trivial (has it ever even been mentioned on the show or is it just extrapolation from her name? Either way it doesn't need to be said here). A one-line personality summary is pretty much all that is needed at most for the main characters. The description of the family's class fits but only because there is no article on the family as a whole (is there?) [looks it up] I guess there is - so that too doesn't even need to be half as full on as it is in this article. I'm rambling again; I don't mean to be critisising YOU in this - I'm really not. I'd like to hear your opinion on this though; I thought that deleting copious ammounts of accurate info that was just 'too much' would be too much for my first edit of the article that's obviously existed with many watchers/maintainers for a while like yourself.

I've never been involved in a wiki project really - could you give me more detail as to what is actually involved in being involved in it? Thanks - Keep up the good work. TheHYPO 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the project doesn't require you to do anything. All we do is discuss how to improve some of the article and try to set a standard for articles related to The Simpsons. I do agree that there is too much Simpsons crap out there and we will try to limit it. I mainly work for the main article. I know that is not perfect, but it is a slow process. I allow some sloppy writing because I don't have the time work on the entire article. A couple of months ago it looked terrible, because people were free to anything to the article without anybody controlling if it in fact was something useful. I've noticed that the better the article gets the less of crappy additions it gets. I haven't really spent a lot of time on the character section. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. There is an article for the Simpson family. --Maitch 10:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I 'join' a wikiproject? I've never been involved in one. - Thanks TheHYPO 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just write your user name in the participants section and watch the project page. --Maitch 21:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tikal's featured article comment

Hi. You had said in your featured article comment that you objected because the article, Tikal the Echidna lacks an out of universe aspect. So I strived to fix this problem. So is there an out-of-universe aspect now? --71.104.178.133 17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine citation for Bart Simpson

Go here: [1]. Bart's on the list, and you can also read his article. Ultrabasurero 02:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of Norway

You objected to the nomination of Architecture of Norway. I am working on the improvements you have suggested. If you could take a look, I think you will see promising progress. Please reconsider your objection, or let me know what more you would like to see to support it. --Leifern 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vacation

I'll do my best; I can't make any 100% promises. TheHYPO 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. Feel free to go over the last little while of edits and yell at me for doing a crap job ;) TheHYPO 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Styleguide subpage - how to do a subpage?

Hey man, I have a question - Re: Subpages like your styleguide - I'm curious about the process for that kind of subpage, cause I've seen it used elsewhere like a recent rewrite of Futurama was Futurama/seconddraft or something. Do you just make a page like that or is there anything special about a subpage with the slash - is it linked in any way in wiki's eyes to the "parent" page or does wiki just think it's a new page called blah/blah? TheHYPO 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is only a new page called blah/blah, and it works in every namespace except the article namespace. --Maitch 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam

Maitch, the "trial" of Hilary Putnam has been restrartd by Raul and your vote has been canceled as a result. If you would like to revote, please go to the new FAC page linked to on the talk-page of Hilary Putnam. Thank you. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC page

Thanks for the vote to support. I have to say, though, that even that old page you linked to was still better than 99,9999% of the philosophu article on Wikipedia (excpet the other ones I wrote)(;. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

I've had another bash, and although there's still a way to go, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have so far on the article. Steve block Talk 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Haabet

Du forlod for efterhånden et stykke tid siden den danske wikipedia pga. at Haabet ikke var blevet permanent bandlyst. Det er han dog endeligt blevet nu, så derfor håber jeg at se dig tilbage på dawiki i den nærmeste fremtid. --Peter Andersen 07:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great for you, but what does that have to do with the article. uhh, simpsons not being funny anymore isn't great. My grandmother is sitting next to me and she told me to ask you how is that great for me? You make no sense 65.31.99.71 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:IL

Thanks for the note, it actually isn't the first time someone asked me to fixed this. Alphabetizing by the 2 letter code is actually favored slightly by Wikipedia:Language order poll, but I'll fix it to follow the order of m:Interwiki sorting order also. Thanks, AZ _t 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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 12:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons Walk of Fame image

I went ahead and updated the Fair Use rationale. I can send you a copy of the e-mail, if you so desire. He wrote:

“ Yeah, I live and die by the fair use doctrine. At the bottom of each page I post there's a link to it - http://www.justabovesunset.com/id10.html - the full text. I just like being asked, and I thank you for that. Not many do ask. But you knew that. ”

-Mysekurity 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Hi, I was looking through The Simpsons, and I was curious as to when you think it will be ready for another stab at FA status, it still needs a little tweaking, and maybe another image, but for the most part, I think it's close. I think it's A-Class quality, but it should be your decision, should you wish to promote it. Anyway, do you need any help getting it ready? Or are you fine editing it yorself? -- Scorpion 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still a number of things that can be done. People have complained that the lead should be rewritten. If you have any ideas for that, please go ahead and make the changes. People have also complained about the article being too long. I can think of two places that could be trimmed. --Maitch 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. What do you think about promoting it to A Class? -- Scorpion 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care whether it is A or GA class. --Maitch 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well. And what sections were you thinking of trimming? What is the ideal length? -- Scorpion 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the ideal length is. I've seen FA's which are longer, but it is all about cutting down on information that is not all that interesting or moving it to a subarticle. Just try and get a great lead and I will work on trimming the article. --Maitch 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, can you work the bit from the lead about meta and self references into the running gags section? I think that is noteworthy, but not in the lead. And what about another image? Perhaps a screenshot or a picture of Matt Groening? Or even the image of Bart from Cartoon Wars, we can mention his appearance in the caption and not have to mention it in the actual article. -- Scorpion 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There, I overhauled the lead. It still needs work, but I modelled after the lead for Arrested Development. Tell me what you think and what needs doing. -- Scorpion 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will discuss the lead on the articles talk page. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to add more images to the article. I've seen people complaining that an article contained too many fair use images during a FAC. It would be better if you can find some free images instead. The only sections I think could use an image is "Storylines" and "Cultural impact". --Maitch 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done shortening the article. It didn't have that great an effect. The article is still at 58KB, but I will wait to see what they say during the FAC, before I take out more stuff. If we just can get they lead right, then we can nominate it. --Maitch 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, now I've nominated it. We can still work on it as people makes comments. --Maitch 15:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we've had some problems with sources now. Do you need any help searching for sources? And I've never actually heard the Simpleton thing before, I heard that he just quickly needed a name for the family and picked Simpsons because it sounded more American than Groening. Some people are real jerks over sources though, in the Guest Stars article, one guy demanded that I delete the entire thing, then go through and only add the guest stars mentioned on the official episode guide at fox, AND add a citation to each individual episode. I gave up because it would involve a lot of work, plus it would make the list VERY incomplete. But, it's good that your not giving up. -- Scorpion 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had anticipated that people would be nitpicking the article. I've seen this so many times before. It only means that we are closer than ever. I won't give up and if I don't manage to respond to all their criticism in time, we can always nominate some other time. I can probably finish the citations in time. The only thing that truly bothers me is that I don't think I'm able to write "compelling prose". We may need to find somebody who is truly great at proof reading. --Maitch 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons & Trivia Sections.......................

I responded to your response on the Simpsons Project Talkpage. Thought I'd let you know........ takethemud 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order

I had my doubts that it would be promoted this time after an early round of criticism, but you responded nicely, and thanks to you, The Simpsons is now an FA. Congratulations! Are you interested in moving onto another Simpsons article (perhaps helping the project in getting the entire family to GA status), or are you taking a beak for the time being? Either way, good job. -- Scorpion 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am probably going to take a break. Writing a FA takes a lot of work. I'm not really interested in doing any characters, so the task is up for somebody else. I do have an idea for a Simpson FA project, but let's see what I have time and energy for later. --Maitch 14:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)