SoSaysChappy

 

Hello, SoSaysChappy. You have new messages at Tealwisp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you mind telling me why you've taken such focus and dedication to the Eric Cartman article? I don't mean to be offensive in any way, I'm simply curious. Rarely does one see such admirable devotion. Tealwisp (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good luck, I was involved a while ago in that effort, but I was bogged down just keeping the article from becoming bloated. If you ever need help, don't hesitate to ask. Tealwisp (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

…for this. Deor (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invite. For film articles, I mostly remove/reword material for various reasons per Wikipedia's policy, particularly for the plot summary sections, but rarely find the time to contribute significant new additions. For the moment, I'm focusing mostly on editing South Park character-related articles, but hope to get back to fixing up film articles on a regular basis once again (like I used to do on a previous username that I've forgotten the password to...d'oh!). So, I'm all aboard, and I'll try to stay moderately active in editing articles within this project's scope. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do what interests you when it comes to film! :) No obligation on your part. I noticed that you were editing film articles, so I thought you could be informed about how the WikiProject could possibly be useful for you. For example, getting feedback for articles, providing notifications for disputes over an issue like wording in the plot summary, or using recommended resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Glad to have you on board! :) Here's a template below with useful links. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

 

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for March has been published. April's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

John's full name is Jonathan as his father called him during their phone call. Dr. Phil Beckman's full name is Phillip since "Phil" is usually a short of that name. Also, Lara Robinson also play a Young Diana Wayland on Lucinda's and Diana's picture on Lucinda's mobile home.

If the father did indeed call him that, then putting "Jonathan" on there is fine. The other stuff, though, is original research (we can't just assume his full name is Philip, unless it is indeed portrayed as such somewhere in the film), and Lara is not credited with playing young Diana anywhere else on the web (not that I can find). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Actually I've been rather obsessed with South Park for the past few months, so it was my pleasure. My favourite part of the Cartman article was the detailed pronunciation help with "Respect my authority!" Hilarious. indopug (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Im sorry, I was on vacation and unable to help and apparently everyone else didnt helped like I thought they would.But anyway, your GA stuff is still on the talk page and I will fix everything there then nominate it again.Thanks--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Replying from my page, Thank you and I might need some tips here or there, this song hasnt been out very long and currently I'm looking everywhere for a veriable source stating...well stating anything.I'm surprised Jacoby Shaddix hasnt commented on the song yet, saying it's meaning.That would help, or amybe some controversy :P--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

YES!! THANK YOU!!! Those myspace crap things have been bugging me, look at it now, it still needs a lot of work but I'm trying, considering I'm basically the only editor....Also, I've added the co-label and the two different song times (album and single),tried to "beef" up the heading, and I created a video games section, which I need to find a ref for tap tap 2, I found one for Rockband, but I need more info, I also found Jacoby's statements about the song, and currently waiting for Chris Sims to comment abtou the video, and I also cut the run on in the music video section.If I can get more in fo I will try to model it after Smells Like Teen Spirit, one of my favorite songs.I am currently looking for the sales and reviews, and critics etc. Thanks for the help!Just wait, I'll make this article a GA , no matter how long it takes!--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 18:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, can you check it out now? I've done about everything I could with it, as Papa Roach is about the release a new single, and their probally won't be anymore info, except amybe a more in-depth detailing of the guitar riffs.I think it might qualify now, I'm thinking of adding a picture of the Music video to the Music Video section too, What do you think about that? Thanks! Cheers!--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm not the best copy-editor, but I know someone who probally will for me. And I have read the Cite Web several times but the references keep ending up on the top keeping the refs bare and replacing the number. Im confused :(. Any tips? After that I'll add the video pic and re-nominate it. Cheers!--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 16:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I got it.Sorry I figured it out.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

In all the work on the Comcast Center I forgot to thank you for your review and work on the article. Thank you. Medvedenko (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For you excellent work on the South Park character articles! Keep up the good work! :) TheLeftorium 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I echo this sentiment! Excellent work, and congrats on your deserved GAN pass for Eric Cartman! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 21:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to post legitimate facts about a legitimate form of Genocide in an article about Death Tolls; and you are threatening to block me.  ? There's no soapboxing about it. Please stop soapboxing yourself by refusing my Neutral Statistics with legitimate references. This is fair and objective information that people should be aware of in the topic of "deaths per year" or "deaths by event". There's NO (sorry for earlier egregious typo) bias about it. Wether your pro-life or pro-choice, X number of unborn children are killed each year. The AGI (an org that is part of Planned Parenthood, FYI) refers to them as "babies killed" in thier articles. So stop this nonsensical behavior please. You have no right to obstruct facts. JohnWrot! JohnWrot (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) JohnWrot (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are no reliable sources in these edits that verify abortion as being a "crime against humanity" or "genocide". What you were doing was blatant "soapboxing". My full response. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

"IP address and username...".

My first post was accidentally without my username because I thought I was signed in and wasn't, my apology for that.

"First of all, none of the stats you posted were sourced. "

Not true, I put hyperlinks to my sources on each topic. I did not specifically "footnote" them, because honestly... I'm not sure how. But hyperlinks were provided.

• Response I looked at both http://www.blackgenocide.org and http://www.dianedew.com/black.htm and neither one looks like a reliable source. Both sites scream religious zealotry, paranoia, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. They're also both the personal webpage of one person. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Secondly... you're equating abortion with "Crimes against humanity". This is your personal opinion; not one person has ever been convicted of mass murder in an international court for performing abortions. "

Again, not true. There are an uncountable quantity of men and women who have Murdered a pregnant woman, and when such is done, you are, in the United States of America, tried for 2 counts of murder. Yes TWO. The mother and her unborn baby. Every time. It happens all the time. Don't believe me, do your research. (That is a challenge to your own worldview/view of American law. Do it.)
Murder of a baby in a womb with a mom is murder x2; murder of a baby leaving the mom in tact is... convenient.? There needs to be consistency, it is murder and it is recognized by the courts as such.

• Response You're simply trying to start a debate here about whether or not abortion is murder. A Wikipedia article is not the forum for that, and your rebuttal does not address my statement at all. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Equating abortion with "genocide" is your personal opinion as well ...unless you can find a reliable source that states abortion is an act "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"."

Again, I take it that you didn't read my sources. www.blackgenocide.org and any research into Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood; which is the #1 provider of abortions in America) will make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the intention Planned Parenthood is to eliminate as many black people as possible? Think I'm just vomiting out pro-life nonsense? Read the website. Google: Margaret Sanger Founder I challenge you to find if I am correct or not.

• Response Yes, I do. That site is hardly credible. (For the record, I am a pro-lifer myself) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Your stats on abortion are better suited (with sources, of course) for an abortion-related article, not for an article about armed conflicts and worldwide natural disasters."

The article was not merely about "armed conflicts and worldwide natural disasters". It was also about "Crimes against Humanity, and Genocide". And first and foremost: it was about "Death Tolls". My information and my sources were perfectly placed.

• Response Quick correction: I didn't mean "natural disasters", I actually meant man-made (as the article's sections on famine and so forth are focused on disasters as the result of government regimes, etc.) Again, you haven't provided any reliable sources deeming abortions as a "crime against humanity" or "genocide". Your one source seems to refer to the abortion rate among blacks in today's America... are you suggesting that the majority the black women in America are being forced against their will into having abortions? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, as a supervisor, or whatever position you hold, you aught to do your research before laying out your own biases on page revisions and updates. ...Now go do it. Question it. See if I'm right. If you can prove me wrong I'll stop my postings.

• Response The burden of proof (or verifiability) is not on me! You made the initial edits that differ from the consensus. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

"...so if you feel you're being treated unfairly in this matter, please contact an administrator"

I will if I need to, but first I'll wait till I hear back from you after you've looked into my sources.
In the meantime I'll try to figure out how to properly source them - footnote style.
Sound fair?

John Wrot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWrot (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Response I'll bring this to the attention of established editors of the article as well as post a new section regarding this on the article's talk page (Done ... Here). In summation, I'm not objecting to the stats you're providing at all, it's the context with which you're presenting them that I feel is inappropriate for the article and in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your concern, I totally forgot about them, I will definitely complete them within the next 2 days, Thank You ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 03:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a friendly note on A Dog Called Ego. I declined your speedy deletion request because press coverage is a good faith claim of importance (and a claim of notability, too.) If you think the band isn't notable, AfD would be the way to go. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, You removed something I added to the 'Independence Day' article.. why is IMDB not a suitable source? Thx.. Chris Dvmedis (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I was gone so long, Sure I'll put in some details ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wouldn't worry about it - let an admin sort it out. I (and I suspect many others) find it very frustrating that this whole neologism/oneday/hoax issue is not made clear as grounds for speedy deletion. One thing is certain, that page has got to go! I would be inclined to leave the AfD in case the speedy is declined. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Justice! [1] WWGB (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please weigh in about the Daily Mirror review at Talk:Knowing (film)#Dave Edwards at the Daily Mirror. Additionally, I advise not removing the review again at this point. The editor's editing history shows a tendency to prefer his revision during editing disputes, starting off unnecessary edit warring (well, all edit warring is unnecessary), so let's avoid that here. If necessary, we can ask at WT:FILM for other editors to chime in their opinions about the review from the tabloid. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. This website confuses me. I am trying to block out students from editing our school's wikipeda page. Do you know how to do it? I have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmccann (talk • contribs) 08:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. My name is Margate. Mr McCann's personal assistant. We received a report from Mr Wooly (Our IT Expert) explaining that vandalism is occurring on the website. The vandalism is damaging for the school. I have submitted a "request for protection" application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmccann (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SoSaysChappy. Re the non-responsive reviewer, I've placed all the noms back in the queue so any user can review them from scratch. Just to let you know: I tagged the Stan Marsh one for deletion as that had no substantive content, and starting over will be less confusing for a potential reviewer. It may be worth asking the user (Flash) who gave the feedback on the Kyle Broflovski one if they'd like to take over the review. The noms are both still near the top so hopefully'll be picked up real soon. Thanks, Whitehorse1 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on Cartman Gets an Anal Probe for the Season 1 featured topic drive and I noticed that you have access to to both South Park and Philosophy books (which I don't). Would you mind seeing what, if any, information is available on the first episode? If you could scan the relevant pages and email them to me, I would really appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Usually I don't think of something funny to say until long after a situation comes up, but it sometimes happens. People react differently. I was at a restaurant once and the waitress came over and said, "My name is Destiny and I'll be your server tonight", and I said, "It guess it was just meant to be!" and she got p.o.'d. It happens. Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've started the review. I'll wait for a response before continuing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some IP just added information, I'm not sure it's true, as I have a gut feeling it is just vandalism (^[2]). ceranthor 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article South Park, which you nominated at GAN is currently under review at Talk:South Park/GA2. Stay tuned for comments regarding the article.--WillC 08:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I haven't heard back from you regarding the review so I've been waiting to begin, in case you were wondering. I wanted to find out how active you were first. So could you tell me if you are sticking around to handle the problems that may come up?--WillC 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll begin tomorrow. I should have mentioned that, so my bad. I guess I was expecting a reply or an edit to the subpage. Well that is in the pasted, lets look to the future.--WillC 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the revert on my talk page :) LittleMountain5 22:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just for your information, I have posted a prod at RGCSM. You have previously nominated Rgcsm for a speedy deletion. Thank you for your kind attention. Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I noticed all that, that's, like, eight different users coming in to review it when the original reviewer asked for just a second review, lol. ;) Anyways, I think I already gave my final say, but I'm perfectly fine with it as of now. I just have an issue with the small paragraphs scattered through the creation/design. I'm fine, other than that, so I think Scarce should have the final say. The Flash ^{talk} 04:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha, fix that one issue and I'll pass it. The Flash ^{talk} 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great! I'll go through the process in a couple of hours. The Flash ^{talk} 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the amazing work on South Park related articles.

You are the dawg! Suranah (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

hello and thanks for all your help on Independence Day. Can you look at the recent edit history and let me know what you think is the best place for the picture of the White house? Plot or production? -- Jombage (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply