Difference between revisions of "User talk:Snowball II"

Latest revision as of 13:23, October 27, 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikisimpsons! Thank you for taking an interest in our wiki. If you have any troubles, feel free to ask questions on any experienced editors' talk page. Here are a few pages to help out new editors such as most likely yourself: Wikisimpsons' Policies Help pages, your first stop if you need any help Editing help, in case you have questions on how to properly edit articles Please sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date. Signing your comments is important, as it lets other editors know who has posted which comments. Again, welcome! Solar Dragon (Talk • Contribs.) 18:08, December 8, 2013 (EST)

Conor[edit]

The tweet you linked to said that Chris Edgerly was Conor, not Daniel Radcliffe. Al Jean also confirmed this to me in a DM. Also, the book in the episode calls him "Conor", with only one n. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 16:31, April 9, 2018 (EDT)

Again, his name is Conor, not Connor, as you can see here. The Solar Dragon 16:39, April 9, 2018 (EDT)

Mrs. Glick[edit]

Hi, why exactly did you change "Alice Glick" to "Mrs. Glick" in multiple places? Her full name is Alice Glick, her page name is Alice Glick. She should be referred to as such. The Solar Dragon 07:41, September 15, 2019 (EDT)

Even at the top of the article is she is generally just referred to as Mrs. Glick and most folks any known her such. Snowball II (talk) 17:28, September 16, 2019 (EDT)

It's still her name so pages should be left like that. And the page title is "Alice Glick". Please do not make any more of these changes. The Solar Dragon 06:20, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

The body of the article is not the same thing as links from other pages i.e. we use "Marge" or "Bart" in the body in the article rather just using full title of the article "Marge Simpson" or "Bart Simpson" at every instance. Snowball II (talk) 17:35, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

Block[edit]

"Thank you, come again!" ―Apu Nahasapeemapetilon You have been blocked for a period of 1 week due to disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding your reasons below, and your appeal will be reviewed by the blocking admin. The Solar Dragon 18:07, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

You were warned. Twice. Since you decided to go ahead and change it again, I have blocked you for a week. The Solar Dragon 18:07, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

I just figured stuff like Dr. Hibbert rather than Julius Hibbert or Superintendent Chalmers rather than Gary Chalmers was just a good faith style choice rather than something one gets blocked over. Thinking about it more, it can lead too much confusing and best to stick with the title of the page. It's fine, I wish you remove the block and I won't use "Mrs. Glick" any more in the article. I didn't think it would matter that much and I thought you were only referring to the changes to Reference section of episode articles, but I thought editing the body of the article was fine. Snowball II (talk) 18:50, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

Character statuses[edit]

Appearances gallery artwork[edit]

Hello, please stick with the character's default artwork in appearances galleries. Often, they are only wearing these costumes for a short period in an episode, and it's not representative of the character fully. Plus, it makes trying to find their appearances a lot harder. Thank you, The Solar Dragon 19:35, January 2, 2024 (EST)

I wouldn't totally agree since these appearance pages are unique to each episode and noticed locations sections for episode aren't uniform since they looked different in different episode and a top of costumes are unique to a specific episode which an user would be able to see if he/she check "used on" section of the file. If you 100% with or without me making a case, so be it. The main characters so seeing Lisa in a gymnast's outfit where gymnastics are a major plot element isn't the same as off a background one-off character. Snowball II (talk) 21:10, January 2, 2024 (EST)

Yes, I am 100% on this. A good thing about having the images be uniform across the Appearances galleries is that it allows you to find the appearances a character has made by looking at their image links. Splitting that up across multiple images will mean that some get missed. Plus, keeping uniform across the wiki is always a good thing. Characters will only get different images in Appearances galleries if their appearances are radically different throughout the episode. i.e. Episodes set nearly fully in the future, or completely different artstyles. The Solar Dragon 07:08, January 3, 2024 (EST)

I do appreciate you taking the time and efffort for a through and thought-out response. Again I don't totally agree with everyone of your points and do kind of wish you were flexible and negotiable, but I won't push it if you're 100% solid on it. Snowball II (talk) 15:02, January 3, 2024 (EST)

Stealing First Base characters[edit]

Hi, I think I've moved all the characters you marked to be moved. Could you go about fixing up their pages and changing them over to the correct characters please? I'd do so myself but I'm kind of busy. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 14:14, January 18, 2024 (EST)

Senator Payne and moving of articles[edit]

Hello, please do not move articles to different names like that, especially when the name you are moving the article to goes against the official material for the show. In future, please bring up all move requests on the article's talk page. I have access to multiple sources for character names so I can check to make sure they are official to the show. Thank you, The Solar Dragon 06:57, February 9, 2024 (EST)

Appearances[edit]

Hi, when you add appearances to an individual article, can you also add them to the episode's appearance page too? I noticed you added a lot of appearances to the Volvo article, but didn't add them to the episodes. It helps to make sure the appearances are accurate if they're listed in both places. Thank you, The Solar Dragon 07:53, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Hiya, thank you for adding Cletus' pickup to the episode pages. There were two things that gave me a slight pause. One was just decided to take a break and figured I'd get to it in a bit. The other was the image is specifically Tab Spangler's Volvo which I debated a bit would be the one to put for any and all Volvo vehicles.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

The article already mentioned other examples of Volvos, but the Image was only on the episode it appeared in File:Tab Spangler's Volvo.png and other examples already mentioned weren't mentioned on the actual episode My Sister, My Sitter/Appearances

Plus had the example of the image used on the Mercedes-Benz page in the back of my mind since it's only used in the specific episode is comes from. File:Mercedes-Benz.png Snowball II (talk) 11:32, February 25, 2024 (EST)

It'll be fine to use Tab Spangler's Volvo as it's just an example of one Volvo. So, feel free to use it on other Appearances articles for the Volvo image. Same should go for Mercedes Benz. The Solar Dragon 12:52, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Actually, looking at the notability policy, I'm not sure that the Volvo or Mercedes-Benz pages should exist. They're brands of vehicles, rather than a specific vehicle. And they're not exactly named, and a majority aren't recurring enough for an article. The Solar Dragon 14:27, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Well if you're unsure, I have some ideas to bounce off of if you'd like? Snowball II (talk) 15:04, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Feel free to share those then. Because at the moment, I'm leaning towards deleting the Volvo and Mercedes-Benz articles. The Solar Dragon 16:40, February 25, 2024 (EST)

You're going to do with you think it best, but also no major rush either to come back to it. I'd look over http://www.imcdb.org/movie_96697-The-Simpsons.html might for yourself since people have an interest in it.

Just random thoughts since I'm kind of like parts of it, but it's not without issues either.

Unsure if Cecil Terwilliger's car needs it's own article, but still interesting to know it's a Volvo since they made the effort to make it one. What also confuses it a bit it is a bit of the floating continuity things since Principal Skinner has been pretty consistently shown driving a Volvo, but not always (http://frinkiac.com/caption/S17E11/113989 http://frinkiac.com/caption/S05E09/79345) They have mentioned the car companies, but for sure not often, but logo are very distinctive (particularly on the grills). #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 Add in the research of the people are doing online to determine the make and model of the vehicles. I'd point out that I didn't list off every background incident. I tried to stay to major or even minor characters are shown driving them or the Volvo or the Mercedes-Benz played some part in the plot. Sorry this is just some of my first thoughts haven't thought it through if it's fine as is, can be improved or just removed. Snowball II (talk) 17:26, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I feel that for most cars, it'll be a case of the car being based on a real vehicle, but with some differences and without any mention of the brand usually, because of licensing and advertising etc. As such, they'd probably mostly be parodies of real vehicle brands. Similar to how Mapple is a parody of Apple. However, Apple has also been mentioned within the show. However, we can't know for sure unless it's mentioned in the show. Therefore, the cars would likely be based on Volvo models, but unless stated, they could also be some sort of parody of the model. Unless it's stated what it is in the show, we can't know for sure. It's a complex grey area. I'd say it'll be fine to mention on the references page "X's car is based on a Volvo model" but I don't feel like Volvo should have its own article, because of the reasons I mentioned. The Solar Dragon 17:49, February 25, 2024 (EST)

What's more, I can't seem to find a solid mention of "Volvo" for Tab Spangler's Volvo. Which would also mean that's against the notability policy too. The Solar Dragon 17:51, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I'm not an expert, but I remember reading the reason TV shows don't use branded products within a scene is because of advertising (the show wants the companies to pay for their product to appear on the show). The show don't have the license a brand name or logo, they do it all the time. They named Volvo and Mercedes-Benz and also use their logos.

Dialogue is nice, but it's not the sole requirement. It's shown and there are loads of example where something or someone isn't named aloud, but still has an article based on the visuals. Snowball II (talk) 17:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I disagree. The fact is, there are various different parodies of real things within the show. Including a lot of brands. For example, with cars, we have Tissan, a parody of Nissan. Would that make all cars based on Nissan Tissan cars? We can't really say. So, I feel an article for Volvo is unnecessary, we can just list what cars are based on in the References page, and if a vehicle does have an article (i.e. Pink Sedan) we can mention what the vehicle is based on in Behind the Laughter. But having a whole article for a car brand, that the cars listed might not even be made by in-universe, feels wrong to me. The Solar Dragon 18:07, February 25, 2024 (EST)

An example seems like a bit of leap that it now makes it an undisputable universal fact for everything unless said aloud within the episode. We know Volvo exists in the Simpsonsverse so unsure why it would exist in one episode and cease to exist in another episode because it's not in dialogue. Of course the shows has parody products, but I can point to examples of real world products i.e. Dumpster is a real brand which the call out themselves. We come back to this disagreement a lot where if something is 100% implicit, you err towards pretending we knew only what the show 100% tells us (sorry as pretending isn't the right word, but I guess just because tree trunks are purple we don't say it's a tree only it they say). The joke about clouds like the one looking like a crashing school bus or Jedediah Springfield status without a head isn't how clouds work, but doesn't mean the term "cloud" can never be used unless said aloud. Buzz Cola doesn't mean Coca-Cola doesn't exist and they've mentioned Apple even with Mapple and they've mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger even with Rainier Wolfencastle. Also just because Rainier Wolfencastle exists, doesn't mean every celebrity shown is a similar parody unless named aloud and the wiki has plenty of them. Anyhow acting like unless they say it's a Volvo, it has to be parody is a choice the same as deciding it's just a Volvo. It's a character is drinking a brown soda pop, I can get assuming it's might be a Coke or a Pepsi or Buzz Cola, but I just don't see the big harm is the wiki having Tab Spangler's car being a Volvo was it's clearly a Volvo and no parody of Volvo has ever been established. Snowball II (talk) 18:49, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Tab Spangler's Volvo is something I feel can be mentioned on the references page, that it seems to be based on a Volvo. But it is against the notability policy as it currently is, because it's not really named (a make is not a name). The same will also extend to the Volvo article and Mercedes-Benz article. They can be mentioned on References pages, but I don't think they need their own articles. The Solar Dragon 18:56, February 25, 2024 (EST)

But as tend to happen on Wikis somebody else clearly did believe it was worth an article and I toke the time to add to it. I did the Mercedes-Benz edits awhile ago and again unsure why it's now a violation of policy. Snowball II (talk) 19:08, February 25, 2024 (EST)

For the episode if you'd prefer the make of the car this or that drives goes on the references page rather than appearance page, that makes sense to me. Snowball II (talk) 19:27, February 25, 2024 (EST)

It's not a case of it "now" being in violation of the policy, it's more a case of it slipped through the net and got missed. Hell, I've sometimes edited articles, or even created articles, that I look back on and go "Actually, that isn't notable enough for an article, as per the notability policy". Also, many articles were created well before the most recent notability guidelines were made. And for the fact you took time to add to pages, I'm sorry about that. And I know it can suck to see work you've done get removed or deleted for reasons. But, wikis are also collaborative efforts and sometimes, stuff gets removed or changed. And yeah, they're good to be mentioned under the References page, most likely under Cultural references. The Solar Dragon 19:28, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I get typos and others stuff slipping through the cracks or even reconsidering an article or old edit, but this can't have been that egregious of a violation since made these edits and stood for some time and even earlier today you were fine with them. If it's not a clear-cut violation, I don't see what would be the issue against discussing it towards an understanding. I get you disagree, but that's seems like it's the one and only take to be used. Snowball II (talk) 19:40, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Seems more like a "Trivia" than a "Cultural Reference"? Or maybe "Continuity" i.e. reappearance of Principal Skinner driving a Volvo. Snowball II (talk) 19:43, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I don't check every single edit or article and often I will miss them. As for earlier today, I wasn't even thinking about the notability policy. It was only later when I was thinking back on it, I realized it was against the notability policy. I'm not always thinking about the policies, and often I will have to check them myself to check if something goes against policy or not. As for what section it goes to, brand parodies generally go under Cultural references as brands are part of culture. If a vehicle makes a reappearance, that can go under Continuity. The Solar Dragon 19:45, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Block 2[edit]

"Thank you, come again!" ―Apu Nahasapeemapetilon You have been blocked for a period of 1 month due to disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding your reasons below, and your appeal will be reviewed by the blocking admin. The Solar Dragon 12:43, March 11, 2024 (EDT)

You have been pushing back again and again against things I've been telling you. I've been giving you chances because you have been making many good edits. But there's also a lot of edits I need to undo or clean up because they go against the wiki's style guides and policies. Therefore, you have been blocked for a month. The Solar Dragon 12:43, March 11, 2024 (EDT)

Thank you for acknowledging for the first and only time I've made some good edits, but this block feels mean and unfair to me and even just a 24-hour block would have make your point.

I disagree with you, but that's not a crime. I put in real world knowledge you find too much or you don't. Maybe it's all very obvious to you, but even after reading the style guidelines and editing here for some time, I'm still surprised what edits do or don't get reverted or allowed to stand I push back in be bold. Also you get your way in the end in every circumstance. I'm not a mind reader and literally change the guidelines after reverting my edits [8][9]. 99% of the time edits I've made are uncontroversial (and I think helpful) and when you revert something I don't push back 99 times out of 100 and even this time for Colette/Collette was just in the Talk Page. I've tried to incorporate your concerns and when you revert and then try to leave it. Snowball II (talk) 13:08, March 11, 2024 (EDT)

In the end, I'll humbly and apologetically ask taken down to 24-hour block. These edits weren't done of out of malice or vandalism and you've accepted were in good faith even if they were wrong. This Wiki has standard practices not set by a whim and your time and patience aren't (nor shouldn't) be infinite. Snowball II (talk) 13:48, March 11, 2024 (EDT)

I didn't block you to make a point. I blocked you because you've gone against things I've told you repeatedly. I've been head admin and running the content side of this wiki for many years now. As such, I have a feel of what should and shouldn't be on the wiki, how pages are laid out etc. I will admit, some of the policy pages or style guides can be lacking, but that's at least partially because I haven't gotten around to updating them, or plain forgot that they exist. And sometimes, I do miss things. The See also section, I plain forgot to include that in the style guide, but it's something that has been set in that position for years and has always been in that position on pages. And if there's a page that it isn't in that position on, I change the layout if or when I find it. Everything has a set order on pages whether it's documented or not. Unfortunately, a lot of the time it's not. And I'd love to be able to just focus on the policy pages and style guidelines for pages, but they're not really a priority for me. But this has all made me realize, maybe I should make them a priority to stop this sort of thing happening in future. So, for that, I apologize. I dropped the ball there.

I've also made compromises on your edits on occasion. I've left some of the stuff you've written in while removing other stuff. A lot of the time, this is stuff in the Behind the Laughter sections. Yes, these sections are for non-Simpsons related content, but it still has to be relevant to the franchise in some way. We link to Wikipedia pages for things to direct people there if they want to read about it from a non-Simpsons perspective. It's not for Wikisimpsons to go into too much detail about things outside of The Simpsons. Using All Creatures Great and Small as an example, the single sentence summary I used, which was pretty much just taken and altered slightly from Wikipedia's article about it, was enough. Where the title of the book came from had absolutely nothing to do with The Simpsons and therefore didn't need mentioning at all. This is a wiki about The Simpsons and we don't need to go into too much detail about things outside of the franchise.

I try not to be a dictator about the wiki, although I know I can come across like that. I've been working on this wiki for 15 years now, so I understand how things go on articles. And I get that other people might not understand the same way I do. But rather than just undoing my reverts (which is also a breach of policy) it should be brought up on either the article's talk page or my own talk page. Because I don't revert edits without a good reason. Sometimes I explain my reasons in edit summaries, other times I don't. And I should probably be better at actually explaining my reasoning rather than just thinking "it's obvious why this edit is being reverted". Again, that's my fault. And I'll try and be better about that in future.

Some of the things you've taken issue with often include the naming of certain articles. I've been defensive for the naming of some (like Senator Payne and Collette) but I've also moved others or merged articles when you've pointed them out. This is because I have multiple sources of information that I check and weigh up before I make a decision. Not all my sources are 100% accurate, but that's why I use multiple, to cross-reference them to come to a decision. So, if I say an article should be at a certain name, that's because my sources back that up. And they're all official sources too, I don't use IMDb or Wikipedia as sources for things. And this has been one of my biggest issues with some of your edits, because you're being adamant that my sources are just all incorrect.

The reason I blocked you for a month is because I increment each block. And since this is the second time you've been blocked, I jumped it up to a month. However, I'm going to unblock you. I acknowledge that I've made some mistakes in handling things and I could have done so better. So, for that I apologize. I'm just going to ask for you, in future, to bring up issues on the talk pages and understand that if I do undo your edits, 99% of the time there's a good reason I did so. I do and will continue to make mistakes occasionally though. And when those do happen, feel free to call me out on them. I don't know absolutely everything about The Simpsons and there will be times where I'm misremembering something. And sometimes I won't explain myself properly when I make edits or undo edits. Again, if there's confusion about those, bring it up on the talk page so I can explain properly.

And on a last note, please remember to use the preview button because you made ten edits to your talk page before I responded. The Solar Dragon 14:33, March 11, 2024 (EDT)

Using "make a point" wasn't the right word choice for what I trying to convey. I don't think your sourcing are wrong, just there's a conflict. Anyhow I wrote out a big, long response since I haven't totally given up hoping to change your mind on this or this policy, but as you've not unfairly noted me taking up your time, I'll skip it. Snowball II (talk) 15:41, March 11, 2024 (EDT)

Preview button[edit]

The preview button is shown by a red oval

Hello, I have noticed you have been making a lot of minor changes to a page in a row. Can you please use the preview button when making lots of changes? This will show you what a page will look like after you have made your changes and will reduce the amount of edits showing up in recent changes. If you continue to make multiple edits without using the preview button, we will force you to preview your changes before you can save. Thank you, The Solar Dragon 12:02, March 15, 2024 (EDT)

Sandboxes[edit]

Please don't make changes to someone else's sandbox or "working space" pages. If you have a suggestion for someone's "in progress" article, please drop them a line on their talk page. Thank you. Mythigator (talk) 12:14, March 16, 2024 (EDT)

Okily dokily. Snowball II (talk) 15:30, March 16, 2024 (EDT)

Gay Village[edit]

Hi, at what point was this seen written out in the episode? I've tried scanning through it but couldn't see it. I want to know just see if it's officially used in the episode before I move the page. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 20:05, March 21, 2024 (EDT)

I thought it was in the episode proper in the Village Apartments rental listing, but even still used online in [10][11][12] (and also used in this Wiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowball II (talk • contribs) 20:42, March 21, 2024

I just checked and it doesn't specifically say "Gay Village" on the listing. I was just checking for capitalization purposes, whether it would be "Gay Village" or "Gay village". Since it's never actually referred to that in the episode, nor is it referred to as the "Gay Neighborhood", I will move it to "Gay village". The Solar Dragon 08:04, March 22, 2024 (EDT)

Okily dokily. Make sense like if writing on the city's downtown or the city's outskirts don't start with a capital letter either. Snowball II (talk) 10:18, March 22, 2024 (EDT)

Donna Reed[edit]

Just because Homer acted like Donna Reed doesn't mean it should be put under History on her article, or listed as an appearance. It's the same as Homer acing like Fred Flintstone in "Marge vs. the Monorail" not being listed as an appearance for Fred Flintstone. The character didn't appear, nor was even mentioned. Therefore it should belong under Behind the Laughter because Homer is parodying the character. The Solar Dragon 12:34, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

But that's neither true nor remotely consistent while also making the article itself worst. Snowball II (talk)

Did Donna Reed appear or was she mentioned in the scene you were adding under History? The Solar Dragon 13:53, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

Homer is fantasizing about himself as Donna Reed within the episode. Characters fantasizing themselves as other characters or dressing up as this or that other person are mentioned in histories all the time even without direct dialogue or written text. Home wears a devil costume or Lisa dresses up as the Statue of Liberty are not a behind the scenes reference. At the President's Day Play when Ralph shows up and sit is a wheelchair and grim with a cigarette holder between his teeth, nobody mentioned FDR. At the end of the play a model of Mount Rushmore is lowered onto the stage yet never said in dialogue or a sign with Mount Rushmore on it. The Flintstone example isn't apt since it's Homer's own fantasy with his head and the Simpsons watch a lot of TV and Homer repeatedly confusing his past with TV shows.[13] I dislike pretending I don't know what a scene or moment is referring to. Snowball II (talk) 14:18, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

Okay, I've reworded it in a way that I feel makes it more clear that it's a bit more than just Homer acting like Reed. Let me know if you have any issues with the new wording. The Solar Dragon 14:35, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think I can still stand by my previous statements although admitting this undermines me, but I have not even seen this episode. Snowball II (talk) 14:40, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

Welcome signs[edit]

While the category is a fine idea, I feel that there needs to be some sort of criteria on what a "welcome sign" means. I feel that just a sign with the name of a location isn't a welcome sign, it's just a sign with a name on. A welcome sign should be welcoming, and say "Welcome to location" or "Now entering location" or some other similar phrase. A location with just the name on isn't necessarily a welcome sign, or welcoming, as is the case with, for example, military bases. As for Tapped Out decorations/buildings etc., the same rules for them apply as with other categories, they don't get put into Images - Locations for the same reason as they shouldn't go into Images - Welcome signs. We like to keep the Tapped Out building and decoration images separate from those categories as there will be significant overlap with the images of them from episodes. The Solar Dragon 08:07, April 12, 2024 (EDT)

While adding to location section on episode appearance pages I was just enjoying those little gag under them[14] and thought maybe grouping them together although maybe a list article might have been better option. Unsure on wording so I just looked up how those kind of signs and categorized http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Welcome_signs_in_the_United_States_by_state and reused that naming, Snowball II (talk) 08:42, April 12, 2024 (EDT)

Places signs for places like a major national or state park not within a city or town would seem to fit the criteria. Snowball II (talk) 18:10, April 12, 2024 (EDT)

Chipper Jones and Joe DiMaggio[edit]

Hi, just noticed back in January that you updated the Chipper Jones article and used the image File:Joe DiMaggio.png in it. Is the person in the image supposed to be Chipper Jones, rather than DiMaggio? Just curious because the same image is still used in two Appearances galleries for Joe DiMaggio so would like to get this fixed, especially if it isn't DiMaggio. The Solar Dragon 11:39, April 26, 2024 (EDT)

Not Joe DiMaggio in that episode (I think the team logo on the baseball hat that made me notice it at first). My bet is the line within that episode was, "a Jones that's Chipper" and Jones got mixed up with Joe. Plus the Simpsonized versions of the two do look a bit similar. Snowball II (talk) 11:55, April 26, 2024 (EDT)

Okay, I'll make the fixes then. The Solar Dragon 12:02, April 26, 2024 (EDT)

Springfield Grocery Store[edit]

We do not list opening sequence locations in the episode Appearances page. I said this in the edit summary when I removed the location from the page. As for it appearing in the episode when Homer is in the cereal aisle, that was the Try-N-Save. If I remove something from the page, and give a good reason why I did so, do not go adding it back in again. The Solar Dragon 06:41, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Another contributor added the same information which isn't to point out if it was correct or not, but just to show clearly it wasn't me just making it up if somebody else thought the same thing. Me disagreeing with you (which is maybe on a half-dozen minor points) where your personal preferences win out 100% of time is a bit unfair to also get blocked just not agreeing with you. Snowball II (talk) 06:49, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Also "speculative" information isn't the same as vandalism nor grounds for a block according to the linked policy. Snowball II (talk) 06:52, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Doesn't matter if someone added it before you. I removed it, explained my reasons behind removing it, then you went and added it in again. And yes, I'm aware that many of the policies are outdated. But either way, you were adding false information. I removed it, you added it back in again. And you didn't get blocked for "disagreeing" with me. You got blocked for adding false information, despite me already removing it. The Solar Dragon 06:57, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

C'mon. Also it's a new standard as of today since I checked on The Heartbroke Kid/Appearances and saw Helen Lovejoy is there because they restaged the opening credits. Snowball II (talk) 07:00, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Helen Lovejoy appeared elsewhere in the episode. It's not a new standard, it's how it's always been. If she's listed on another appearance page and she only appeared in the opening sequence parody, then she shouldn't be. Just because one article has it incorrect doesn't mean all articles should have it incorrect. The Solar Dragon 07:06, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

"She shouldn't be" You set up this impossible standard and block me for not meeting.

I'm not a mind reader and if I see something done on another page, I figure it's fine and would have no way of knowing what is or isn't correct since restaging of opening credits has very rarely. I get you explained your reasoning, but figured I'd be allow the grace of another revert or more than a minute to digest this new information.

Also this isn't a fact like who voices what characters or the date of the episode first aired. What is or isn't canon with the wiki page seem like a pretty safe topic of debate which I really didn't actually want to do. I don't really get how a restaging of the opening credits doesn't count, but I wish I could have at least a minute to digest it. Wasn't planning on trying for 3rd time since sometimes one or two reverts might convince you, but usually never more (which I stated before). You're the one who blocks or threatens blocks yet somehow I'm the aggressive one for 2 reverts for a policy that I'm not saying is wrong, but just not as obvious as you might think for another editor. I still disagree with you on X or Y , but I haven't brought it up let alone try to change so I still don't get why I get treated like an editor in bad standing. Snowball II (talk) 07:32, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

I literally explained why I removed it in the edit summary. You went and re-added it after that anyway. I never said that you need to be a mind reader. I gave the reason and you went ahead and ignored it. If you think that something should be different, bring it up on the talk page. Do not just go about making the edit again because that just comes across as you're not listening and are just trying to force through the edit and hope I don't notice. Or you're just trying to start an edit war by doing it. So, when I undo an edit and explain why, if you think otherwise, go to the talk page and explain your reasoning there. This block was only for a day, it was more of a warning block/a block to stop you making the edit once again. So, I'd suggest you stop arguing about the block unless you want it to last longer. The Solar Dragon 07:44, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe I should have realize a revert comes across different than I had in my head (they clearly reused the same supermarket background whatever establishing shot they used so figured/hope so leeway on it), but you do get a block (even one for 24 hours) might come across as aggressive or punitive more than a friendly warning? You've explained reverts before, I did a revert or two with another explanation and there have been times you just accepted or you didn't.[15] You like The Simpsons and so do I so maybe it's too late, but I don't want all this animosity since I've been on your good side and I've been on your bad side and I at least prefer the former. Snowball II (talk) 08:07, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

DEFAULTSORTs[edit]

Hi, please stop trying to sort files by incorrect names. The DEFAULTSORTs are to sort files by the name the file is under, not a completely different name. The Solar Dragon 09:01, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

So you're dictating me on this rather any curiosity on asking how come I was doing it and what the rational might be. OK then. Snowball II (talk) 09:06, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Well, judging from the fact you just kept undoing it again and again, breaking the only revert once policy, rather than giving a reason why you were doing it I can only assume you were just doing it because you were wanting to be a bother. Next time, explain on the talk page why you think something should be that way instead of repeatedly undoing the edits of an admin. The Solar Dragon 09:23, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

I didn't just revert and revert and revert, but tried to accommodate your concern. Your assumption that after all those edits to recategorized those title card images I made 3 minor edits to make myself a "bother" rather then just trying to be consistent with the way User:Jjeffrey01 was in how he put default name sorting into his uploads, if nothing else, kind of goes against your policy to assume good faith, but I'll keep to your newest dictate since I don't want to be blocked by you. Snowball II (talk) 09:49, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Image page changes[edit]

Hi, could you slow down a bit and check to make sure you are making the edits correctly? I've had to go through and fix quite a few edits you've made just now due to either spelling "yes" as "eyes" or using a - instead of an =. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 19:04, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

Sure.Snowball II (talk) 19:05, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

Block[edit]

"Thank you, come again!" ―Apu Nahasapeemapetilon You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks due to disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding your reasons below, and your appeal will be reviewed by the blocking admin. The Solar Dragon 10:16, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

WAIT? What rule did I violate? I reverted once which is allowed and you reverted it back. Snowball II (talk) 11:34, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

What exactly was disruptive? You don't want to answer to discuss it or even explain it? Maybe another admin can be brought in since you really aren't assuming good faith? Snowball II (talk) 11:42, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

I'm just fed up of all the pettiness, passive aggressiveness, and the frequent policy breaks from you. Deciding to revert the higher quality image I uploaded for the existing lower quality one because "I like the other one more." was just the final straw for me. There have been many, many times I've just let things slide or quietly changed things without bringing it up to you because every time I do, it just turns into an argument. And I don't want to deal with those arguments so frequently. Stop acting so petty about things and taking everything as a personal attack against you and it wouldn't come to this. Just be glad that it's only 2 weeks, other users have been blocked for longer for doing a lot less. The Solar Dragon 11:49, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

You being fed up isn't a violating of any rule? Snowball II (talk) 11:51, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

I liked the other one because it had the character in full. It wasn't a personal attack. You site "I think" or "I prefer" all the time in your reverts. "I like the one [with the full character than just an arm] is an personal attack on you. Snowball II (talk) 11:56, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Please don't take this away from me. I won't last 14 days. Snowball II (talk) 12:50, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

If that's the case (and I really hope it isn't) then, I'm no professional, but you may want to look into some sort of therapy if you're that dependent on the wiki. Yes, I know that this might seem rich coming from me, but might be something to think about. If you feel that you're that dependent on editing that you can't stop for 2 weeks, that's a problem that you should probably look into. I'm afraid that the ban is going to stand though, and maybe having some time away will actually help in that case.The Solar Dragon 13:14, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Again, thank you for the response, but it doesn't change that I won't last 14 days. I try to get a bit relief in my day from you, but I'd feel even more pathetic if after all of that I got a "Rules are rules. The 2-week block still stands" as if this was some major bureaucracy rather than one man who wants me to know I suck for deigning to act as if my personal preferences might be enough or were to matter as much as his. Even more likely no message or response at all since that's usually what you do.

I'd hoped unblocking would actually make you happy too. I'd hope you'd be a more caring person who no doubt being administrator matters and also didn't solely looked at issues through the lens of deference to his authority as admin (I just had a more Jimmy Wales view of administration) and not think the worst of me so I guess hoping for something doesn't make it happen. Also you just changing your mind is an easier solution than your proposition of waiting to 2 weeks to return to same animosity (I know what you meant, but maybe you can consider how it looks to another person what you tell them  how bad it is of them that "you take everything as a personal attack" and in the next sentence call that same person petty and passive aggressive. I know you have "admiration discretion" and are not circumspect to use it yet didn't know it expanded to you typing what good or bad for me outside of edits. You want to lay down rules on image categorization, have at it, but your authority on this wiki matters more than just even a basic reconsideration of a block where no harm was done and no policy violated beyond "your discretion" is a bit much. I can stand to be judged on not explaining my edits or poor spelling and grammar (I always have since I can remember), but that I know your presumption to tell me that I get therapy (you ever think that's already the case) just because my editing gets on your nerves? Well I'm sorry, but if you can't be perfect, I certainly can't either. Also I really didn't occur to you until I used this as a coping technique or it might have been recommended to a healthcare professional? Snowball II (talk) 15:08, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Part of me wants to get mad since getting blocked because you didn't argue or you're stressed, but I do sympathize since I like (or at least learning to like) there are reviews of edits compared to a lot of fan wikis. I do think you've been unfair in some parts since I've made the exact opposite  point and also made sure to note that I haven't ever given up hope of changing your mind even if it didn't work the last time. Yesterday I wrote on the Talk Page specifically for that end and I'm sure for a thousand and once valid reasons I got no response to it. I thought "Huh, if the issue is Sebastian Cobb is too cut out of the frame, be proactive and get another one where he's more in frame and (yes honest I thought this) everybody's happy." I'm not asking for perfection. I wrote specifically I've been on your good side and I've been on your bad side and I know I prefer the former. Earlier just last week an editor who you or I made an edit that isn't "wrong," but just didn't like the style of it, but I thought "Huh, so that must be what he feels." What I don't get in this "push and push" is you get your way 100% of the time and I get blocked and told to be grateful it wasn't longer. That's too much of a generalization, but I'm trying to see it from your side. I know perceived goading is an excuse, but that "be grateful" line was just irksome. What the intention and good faith there was to it, it goads me. When you revert an edit with a chastisement on violating the rules, I point out how other pages have the exact same thing and it's even where I got the idea and never "oh I see, I understand now why you did that, but I believe a better way is Y or X" rather than "We haven't gotten around the changing rules" despite it being there 8 or 9 or 10 years. If and when I made a suggestion you did agree with, I tried to be overly thankful and appreciative yet it didn't seem to matter in the least to you (maybe you thought so, you didn't reflect it in your typed messages) compared to messages I get anytime I do something that violates "administrators discretion" which I'll go with, but never knew about until today.

I'm sorry for adding to your stress and maybe once in awhile I'm upset with you in my head, but of my edits are not about getting at you and I figured that's what I get judged on. I admit if an edit is wrong or one just dislikes, you are there in a flash to let me know my mistake. I put in those urls to YARN or Frinkiac solely for your benefit since I know where I got this information, but I kind of hope you'd notice it, but never did so I stopped although I still do it sometimes out of habit.

You've just made the point that your direction is just as important as any policy or guideline and your mind is open to being changed, so you find it hard to square when you then revert back "it will stand" because those are the rules. If I honestly believed you thought a 2-week block was for the best of all, but I don't. I just feels like it can from frustration and reestablishment of deference to your 15-year experience (which I don't get what 14-week block helps since the image file is the way you want it right now and I desire to change now) for that above mention perceived "pettiness" and "passive aggressiveness" or not liking to argue which is fine and don't respond to my message on the Talk Page since I accept it when you haven't before like with File talk:Air France.png, File talk:Georgia.png, File talk:Radioactive Man action figure.png as 3 examples. Or using the talk pages maybe others do too File talk:To Die For parody.png or File talk:Homer Defined 007.png. I'd like to believe that if I take breaks or "cool off" from editing here it might be my terms rather than chastisement for everything I've ever done wrong. Whatever a solution is, maybe me trying to nicer and more considerate of you and a simple for the same in return is better than solution than a wait out 2-week block because I don't feel like reconsidering a move you admit was done from stress and after 14 days I get on your nerves, you point everything I've ever done wrong and block again and I get snarky and at least request to change the very first line of the home page. Snowball II (talk) 15:08, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Okay, I'm gonna leave another long message.

"I'd hoped unblocking would actually make you happy too." I will admit, I considered it. I really did. And part of me wants to, but if I was to do so, I would be doing so out of guilt. Which doesn't feel right. However, depending on your response regarding the rest of this message, I could remove it.

I apologize for assuming things r.e. the therapy stuff. You're right, I shouldn't have just presumed. If this is an outlet for you, then I can fully understand the effect that having it taken away can have on you. As someone who has autism and depression, I have my outlets too.

The reason I didn't immediately leave a more detailed message after I blocked you was partially due to needing to cool off a bit myself. I knew if I did immediately leave a message, I would have been more emotional when doing so. And I didn't want that to happen, I wanted to give myself more time to think calmly about what I said before I said something. In hindsight, I should have also waited a bit to do the block in the first place. However, I also assumed that you would know why you had been blocked, since it was for an issue that had already been talked about, which is regarding the image.

And following on from that, to be clear, the image wasn't the sole reason you were blocked. It's lots of little things that have added up over time. I feel like I'm walking on eggshells whenever I bring anything up to you. I feel like you're just going to argue back, and most of the time I don't feel that I can deal with that. Mostly for my sake, of course, but also because I'm pretty sure you don't want that either. You probably don't believe this due to the image of me you've built up in your head, but I do respect you as an editor and as a person. And I do care about the community we have here. Which is also why I made the (misguided) comments about therapy.

I don't want to just block you from the wiki forever or anything, despite the fact doing that would make my life easier. It would be detrimental to the wiki after all, since you are a good editor. It's just that sometimes, you push too much and keep making the same edits over and over in an attempt to get me to accept them. Which, to me, comes across as you trying to make the same edit over and over in the hopes that I miss one and it flies under the radar. Now, I know this is most likely not the case. You aren't intending this to be the case. But, to me, that's how it comes across.

Regarding the talk page stuff. As you have very likely noticed, I have been incredibly busy going through Tapped Out stuff. Which takes up a lot of time and energy. And a lot of the time, when I'm not doing edits on the wiki for Tapped Out stuff, I'm going through the files, or working on reconstructing images (many of the images from the files are literally jigsaws that need to be put together). Therefore, what time I do take off from doing Tapped Out stuff is usually spent doing non-wiki related stuff to relax. This has led to me not doing other wiki tasks, which includes responding to messages. Regarding the Air France and Georgia image talk pages, I have had them bookmarked, intending to replace the images when I took a break from doing Tapped Out stuff. Today is the day I decided to work on images, since I did the work on the 100th Tapped Out update yesterday. Thought that would be a good place to stop and take a break from that to catch up on the other stuff. However, with all this happening today as well, that slipped my mind. I probably should have responded to the talk page messages, yes. But it's not like I straight up forgot about them. As for the Radioactive Man figure talk page, there's no message on that page. If there are others that I have missed, I may have literally missed them. While I do have to mark your edits as patrolled, sometimes I go on autopilot through them and just mark them as patrolled without really thinking about it. I'm human, we make mistakes. I miss stuff. It happens.

With all that out of the way, I don't want to lose you as an editor. Like I said, it would be detrimental to the wiki. But, I also don't feel like things can continue as they are right now. Because, I don't think that's fair on either of us. So, before I propose anything, I'm going to ask you for your input. What would you like to see change, in particular about the way I moderate the wiki? What would make things better for you? What allowances would you like me to make? I can't promise you that I'll do everything you respond with, but I'll keep it all in mind. And I'll work to find a compromise between us. The Solar Dragon 16:17, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

I'm fine and dandy with guilt and I felt the eggshells about you so there you go. I was typing out a response and all that, but today was the day you planned to upload images which were mostly requests from me and if you want to get going on that today, I'm fine with it since I don't want to assume, but you take in your responses. Maybe you noticed since I edited a few episodes already that I got the Season 16 DVD so had some appearances and notes on the episodes, but they will keep just like my woes will still be woeing (although, and I know it's a broken record, 2 weeks!?). Snowball II (talk) 16:57, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

As I've said, the two week ban wasn't just because of the one thing, it was due to a build up of lots of smaller issues I've had. Some of which I have talked to you about, some of which I haven't. Because like I said, I didn't want to just start arguments. And 2 weeks is a pretty standard ban for a first offense. However, this is the third time you've been banned. Sure, I've removed one of those bans after talking it out with you, but for most people, a third ban would be permanent. Or at the very least a year. There's no policy of how long blocks should be put in place for and it's usually decided on an admin's discretion, depending on the severity of the offense(s). Granted, with you, these offenses are mostly minor ones. But the fact it's been so many minor offenses is what is causing the issues. If it was just one thing, I could overlook it. But the fact that it's been multiple issues is the problem.

So, for full transparency, I'm going to list out all the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. Firstly, Previewing. You often make multiple edits to the same articles in a row. I've asked you before to use the preview button. But there's still many times you've made many edits to even the same section of a page in a row. I get that mistakes can be made that you don't even catch when previewing, I've done so many times. But you do need to try and take more care and actually stop to try and make sure there's nothing wrong before you hit save.

Talk page comments. Yes, I know, I'm not great at responding to talk page comments sometimes. However, they also shouldn't be removed from pages, even if there is no response to them. This goes against our talk page policy. And yes, I am aware that some of our policies are outdated and need updating. On that topic though, I also don't want to update them when I realize something is missing, because I feel that you will claim that I'm changing the policy just to get my way. Which you've accused me of doing before, regarding the See also sections. When in actual fact, I'm just updating at outdated policy to match current standards.

Undoing an undo. When I undo one of your edits, 99% of the time it's for a good reason. A lot of the time, that's usually because it's breaking current standards of articles. Unless it's something I've already spoken to you about and already told you to stop doing, I will usually leave a reason in the summary box. If you disagree with that reason, bring it up on the talk page rather than redo the edit once more. Because that breaks the only revert once policy. The onus is on you to explain why you think it should be that way since you're the one who made the initial edit. I will also try and be more diligent with responding to talk page messages, even if it's something like saying "I'll get around to this eventually."

The three things above are my biggest gripes with your edits. I understand that everyone makes mistakes, but these are the most common ones I've seen you make.

And, you didn't answer the questions I put forward in my previous message. To be even more clear, I want to unblock you. But, before I do, I want to know what you want from me in regards to compromise. What do you want me to do better? What other changes do you want put in place? I can't promise you that I can do these things, but I'll definitely take them under consideration. Because things can't continue as they are now, with us constantly butting heads like this. It would be nice to have an impartial third party who could get involved, but I also know that most other users would just take my side without really thinking about the opposite side because they know me. So, please let me know what you want to change and I'll consider it. The Solar Dragon 17:28, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

You get what you want and tell me I should be grateful I wasn't blocked for not agreeing, and I do think to myself, "Well so what if you're annoyed with me" on top of it. Believe me I'm trying to annoy you if and when I make a case for edits I believe in. I can take the rule changes, but I admit I didn't care if you were annoyed with me at the end of these exchanges since I can get vandalism or edit warring, but being annoying or ungrateful (which isn't the same as disrespectful or a personal attack) on a Talk Page. You don't want to feel like you can't deal with me in quick "hey, (you did about that baseball player, but while "Whatever, I still think you're wrong and not addressing my points" might get not the most lovey-dovey way to put it and under your skin more that I considered and I'm sorry for it, but also you tell me how you're an admin and 15 years of experience, I figured the burden would be on you to raise above other user being petty or whatever. I know you don't want a fight and fight again, but can you relate to me not wanting to be made to feel meek and subservient while here or every prior bad act brought up. The multiple edits is a bad habit and hard to break I admit. Last week I put "Image needed" on an appearance page and you wrote whatever it was when reverting it (I swear on my life) a second before I was about to. I just had two tabs on the Internet browser open and put it into the wrong one. I often have two open since I'm not unaware I make silly spelling mistakes so when possible I try to copy and paste which is how I end up using the language or style of previous articles so I get more annoyed than I should when you revert it since I've taken the extra effort to fit in and it seems like it for nothing. I don't want to relitigate everything (well I'd probably love to relitigate everything), but I get hot when you make these demands... I'm being abstract. Specifically DeForest. It wasn't easy to find that tweet, it took my time and effort, and I honestly thought I'd get a "wow, great find. Well done" instead of "nope, not good enough for me" and I know you'll tell me it's about standards and rules, but as much I'd both do and don't want to relitigate it all, I want to admit I too get frustrated, but the burden is not on you when not meeting my expectations and I hope the same burden is not on me. I end up frustrated so I might not be very pleasant, but also again, annoying you seems like a bonus that didn't break any rules. You mentioned my onus, but if a comprise I'd like it the nous when you get what you want to be or high tolerance for some grumbles (within reason) from the other side if you dislike it, Should I grumble, no, but again i try to move on from it and just figure the onus as 15-year admin is greater to let a grumble slip if you want to keep editors coming back. Compromise isn't the same as satisfying you. There are articles or ways articles are written that aren't to my taste and wouldn't miss, but so what. I'd note that I don't think you never change your mind and I think it's unfair to put that on me since I've written even in all my snark that I still believe it is possible, it's more that I don't think you should have to change your mind. If you dislike something, that's fine. I'm not advocating for a free for all and standard and best practice don't disappear because one editor thinks differently. It's just if you'd like more people to edit here, having a feeling of ownership helps and not requiring to convince you on everything would be nice especially on relatively minor things. I'm hoping I'm making my point clearly, if it's me I'm more than likely not. Again, respectively, I'd ask for the block to lifted since I figured I'd take the council for at least cool off for a bit (although it was a bad day in end). Snowball II (talk) 15:35, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

Unsure if I addressed any of your concerns, but forgot the thing about Talk Pages. I got your point about wanting to a record of discussions and tried not to do after that message, but if nobody has responded and it's not something I no longer wish to discuss since I don't care anymore about the issue I raised or the issue was resolved without further discussion, I just deleted it. Snowball II (talk) 17:41, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

On I put in the wrong like. It was for Talk:Radioactive Man action figure and cited not as knock on you or anybody else, but just to counter the notion that I'm always in any and all situations hostile and pushy about stuff. Snowball II (talk) 17:44, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

Gonna start this off by saying that this entire message was made before your last two messages. I just got edit conflicted while trying to save it.

My biggest issue with you is your attitude. And honestly, this response from you hasn't helped with that. When I explain to you how things are done and why they are done, you will often refuse to accept it and keep pushing anyway. To some degree, that is fine. As sometimes policies and the way things are done can be changed for the positive. However, you get very defensive and antagonistic over issues that you feel strongly about. And that is the reason I don't like bringing them up to you all the time. And your comments of "Believe me I'm trying to annoy you" and "annoying you seems like a bonus" really don't help your case. You shouldn't be trying to annoy me. You should be trying to change my mind.

There have been times I've explained things to you or undone a mistake you made without being annoyed at you about them, because mistakes can happen. For example, the previous section message "Image page changes". I wasn't annoyed in the slightest about it, because I guessed you were just copy pasting and you copy pasted a mistake. It happens, and is something I've done in the past too. So, I just asked you to slow down a bit and check to make sure your edits didn't have errors. As for your example with the Image needed template, again I wasn't annoyed. I thought you didn't realise that we used the No image.png image rather than placing the Image needed template on appearance pages. Both those cases were me explaining calmly to you what the issue was and if I came across as mean spirited for those, I apologize. Most of the time, that is not my intention.

Bringing up the Jack Deforest/DeForest thing again, the issue there is it was extremely unfortunate timing. We had literally just found out that Costas Becker has his name changed at some point, and even the episode's writer was getting his official name wrong as a result. Which is why I wouldn't accept a tweet from a writer as proof. If there's nothing to contradict it, then it's completely fine to accept a tweet from a writer as proof. However, in that case, there was a contradiction, which was from the episode's captions. And since that is the name that was aired, it's the name we have to go with.

On that topic, I think you have been a bit confused about what we use as sources or not. And the answer to that is complicated. Every official piece of Simpsons media, from episodes to comics, to games to the scripts and captions, and even tweets or interviews from writers, are all accepted sources. However, often times sources will contradict each other. We generally weigh up the amount of sources that say one thing against sources that say other things. So, if three sources say something but two sources say something else, we'll generally go with what the three sources say. We take the majority option for most cases. Another exception for this is recency of sources. For example, Dolph's surname was stated to be "Starbeam" for a while. However, he was called "Shapiro" in a more recent episode, so we moved his page to that. Often times it can be a complicated mess of contradictions, which we need to try and work through in a somewhat satisfying way.

You also mentioned that you use other pages for examples of how things should go. Due to the size of the wiki, and the amount of time it's been around for, what has been an acceptable standard in the past isn't anymore. If you look at the page for previous featured articles or episodes, you'll notice that some of them were unfeatured. They previously met the standards at the time, but didn't meet current standards. The standards of articles are constantly evolving and changing, so it's not really good to compare against older articles. And, just because some articles do things a certain way, doesn't mean that every article should follow that specific standard. It could be that article that is using the wrong standard. The style guides are supposed to be a sort of solution to this. However, as I have mentioned multiple times before, they are outdated. I know this. So, the best course of action in that case would be to propose changes to the style guides to meet current standards. I wish I had more time, or the ability to completely focus on the wiki 24/7, because then I could get to work on updating all these outdated pages. They're on my long to-do list to get done at some point. But, since reworking them doesn't immediately help improve the wiki, I put them off and instead do things like decide to go through 250 Tapped Out update pages to overhaul them.

Some of the changes you've tried to make, and I've undone, are because they would be rather large scale changes that would need to be implemented across the wiki. For example, the whole DEFAULTSORT thing. What you were doing there was making a change that would have a large effect across the whole wiki if we started allowing that to happen. You may not have realized that at the time, but it would be the case. You might also notice that I tried to get an automatic way of sorting Tapped Out icons by the text that followed the "Tapped Out" part of the filename, but was ultimately unsuccessful at getting it working. Even if I had gotten it working, I wouldn't have immediately put it into place because something like that needs discussing first, with more community input. As it stands, I'd be all for sorting files like "Tapped Out Homer Icon.png" by "Homer Icon.png" in the categories. But, it would need to be implemented across the wiki as a whole rather than just on a select few pages. And there's a LOT of files with that name standard, so it would either take a very long time to do manually, or we'd need to figure out a way to automatically do it. Discussing these things is important rather than just doing them without any explanation.

And, back to the topic of discussion again. If I feel something needs an immediate reply, or if I have some spare time, I will do so. Often times, I'll just bookmark stuff to look at later. Or, if things have been put into one of the maintenance categories, I'll get around to working through that at some point. Don't take me not responding as me ignoring it. There are multiple reasons I don't respond. Sometimes, I may legitimately miss the fact that it's something I need to respond to, or may forget. In those situations, just leave another message on the talk page in question and the chances are I'll see it then. Tasks like me going through low quality images, or uploading needed images, I generally like to do all in one go once it builds up a bit. But also, feel free to upload the needed images yourself, even if they're lower quality than what I can get, and just add them to the low quality category. I'll get around to them eventually.

You may not realize this because I often don't mention it, but I do let things slide sometimes. For example, the Welcome signs image category. I still disagree with a lot of the images you added to that category. But, I just let it go because a single image category wasn't worth fighting about. There are other things on the wiki that I let go, even if I'm against them. The biggest being the list of nudity page, because I really hate that page and I wish I could just not have anything to do with it, or delete it straight up. But, I let it stand despite my views on it.

I want to finish off this long message by saying that I do not think I was in the wrong for blocking you. There are a lot of small things that added up over time that led to the block. And, it was not your first block either. The reason it was only two weeks is because, as I've said, I think you're a good editor. I really do. Most users, by a third block, will be blocked for a LOT longer than just 2 weeks. Two weeks may seem like a lot to you, but to most people that would be a first offense ban time. I don't like having to block people, especially users who make good edits 99% of the time. But it is necessary sometimes to get across that things can't carry on as they are. I know I probably seem like some sort of tyrant to you, mad with power or whatever. And I will admit, sometimes I do try and throw my weight around, being the head admin and all. It's something I try not to do, but it does happen sometimes. So, that's all that. I'm gonna unban you after I save the page with this message. But, can I just ask you to please read everything and think about it all before you jump back into editing again? And, just so you are aware, I am sorry it came to this. And I hope you can start to feel better and move past whatever troubles you have. The Solar Dragon 18:24, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

There was a mean-spirited line I had thought up when I read "I do no think I was in the wrong," but me-oh-my it would undermine any point I was hoping to make about not wanting to irk you anymore than I already have. There's an aspect to people with a low self-image where it's hard to have the foresight to get some other people might pay them any heed, let alone enough to get angry about what over thing one says. It wasn't that I want you to address any of the concerns I raised. They were just a bit of context for me. I phrased the annoying you stuff badly and wasn't the point I wish to make. Figured just admitting to it to a certain degree might be helpful rather than "no, no, I've never done that. That's all your head." It doesn't matter, but mainly it was after the fact (still think deferring to episode actual writer being right over the CC) when it's just futile and instead stating my piece, thanking you for the considering and then moving along or even taking a break, the not-exactly-brilliant plan is to just doubling down... again, it doesn't matter and I don't want to parse over all my grievances or misdeeds. Snowball II (talk) 19:23, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

Unsure[edit]

User:AleWi, User:Loco87, User:Mythigator, is there a way for me request to some help or guidance? Snowball II (talk) 12:05, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

"You being fed up isn't a violating of any rule?" No. But some things are left up to an admin's discretion. And if a user has been constantly pushing and pushing and is being incredibly petty, that's definitely a reason for being blocked. In general, you're a helpful editor who makes good and constructive edits. However, your attitude is an issue and you just seem to like to push and push and don't take no for an answer, which ends up forcing me to make drastic actions like blocking you. And don't pretend you didn't know what would happen when you decided to replace the higher quality image I uploaded with the lower quality one. Especially after repeatedly adding the Sebastian Cobb image category despite being told not to.

I know I'm not perfect, and I admit that I'm not perfect. I frequently make mistakes. However, I've been working on this wiki longer than anyone else. So I know how things should go even if policy pages or style guides don't reflect that due to being out of date, or missing information. I'm also pretty much the sole admin, as other admins are barely active anymore. As a result, I've had to take more and more workload on myself rather than having multiple people doing things. So, I will admit, there is a bit of stress there for me which I know comes out at times like this. And the wiki isn't really busy enough to warrant any more admins at the moment. I would like there to be another active admin at least, especially to help with situations like this. But as it stands, there aren't really any candidates for that role, especially ones who would be impartial. So, unfortunately, it is what it is.

I would really suggest that you just cool off, take the two weeks off and when you come back, take time to explain things on talk pages rather than repeatedly make the same edit despite it being reverted. And, feel free to bring up any policy changes or additions on either the policy's talk page (full list of policies can be seen here) or if you think something not under any of the existing policies needs addressing, bring it up on the policies talk page. Despite what you may think, I am open to having my opinion changed. It's just that 15 years of working on this site leads to me having a certain understanding of how things should be and how things should go. And sometimes, those things are a standard that has been kept, but not explained in a policy page. The Solar Dragon 12:29, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Changing an image in Appearances galleries[edit]

Hi, just wanting to let you know that changing a main image of a character across appearance galleries like you did with Arnold Schwarzenegger is something that should be discussed first. I've started a discussion here as it isn't exactly an open/shut case for what the main image should be. So, in future can you please discuss these things rather than just going ahead and doing them? Thanks, The Solar Dragon 13:34, July 5, 2024 (EDT)

Miami Sound Machine‎‎[edit]

Where in that scene was "Miami Sound Machine‎‎" mentioned by name? Where did they appear? We don't list songs as appearances for characters anywhere else, so why is this specific instance any different? The Solar Dragon 08:38, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

I appreciate you asking for why I made the edit. I mean when a scene happens Las Vegas it gets mentioned on the Nevada article even it Nevada isn't specified or said aloud. I mean if you want to keep it in universe, I guess there's just a subjectively to it and I just think if I'm was a person who was reading around this wiki and curious about the MSM on the show it seems pretty relevant and interesting and it's not exactly making this one-sentence article overly long and seems needless to make a sole separate one-sentence article. I mean this one seems an easier ask for your like of being in-universe since within the show MSM plays the song so we know it exists the band who made it so Homer is singing the same tune with slightly different lyrics. So can't say they don't have the same tune in both scenes. I mean when we hire off screen "Seymour" we can recognize it's Mrs. Skinner without seeing her or her name said aloud so audio shouldn't be treated as lesser than visual. Plus the song wasn't picked at random. They are in Miami singing a song by Miami Sound Machine seems relevant and just any old song sung around Springfield. Snowball II (talk) 09:53, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Point is, they didn't appear, nor were even mentioned, in that episode. It wasn't even them singing the song, since the characters were, so you can't even say they appeared through that. Therefore, it doesn't count as an appearance. To use real world examples, if a singer does a cover or parody of another singer's song, it's no longer the original singer singing the song, so they wouldn't be classed as the singer. Same logic applies here. The Solar Dragon 10:34, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Except your arguing against something wasn't the passage you deleted. All that was written was parody lyrics to real world Conga. That's it. And I didn't even add this, it was there for some time. If you don't like it in the appearance section, that's fine, but other articles have passages that aren't solely about specific appearances in the show. Just think you're getting too bogged down in your take since nobody reading the article would know the logic and standards of how songs and bands are written up elsewhere nor the whole system of standards collapse. I get if it was completely inaccurate or totally irrelevant, but it's not and you did write about wanting to be a bit more loose and more deferential to other editors and not push your weight about as admin/standard bearer as much. Snowball II (talk) 11:08, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

An "appearance" is if the subject either physically appeared, or was heard off-screen. A "mention" is if the subject was mentioned in dialogue, or through text on-screen. These are the only things that are classed as appearances and should be under the Appearances section on articles. References and song use should only fall under Behind the Laughter sections as they are not appearances of the subject. The part in question was in the Behind the Laughter section before you decided to move it to the History section. I reverted your edit, assuming it would have just undone what you did. I didn't realize that it completely removed it rather than just undoing it back to the state it was in before. And I'll admit, that was on me and I should have double checked. And I'm not trying to throw my weight around. I just assumed it would be common sense that if the subject didn't make an appearance, that it's not an appearance. The Solar Dragon 11:25, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Why would it be "Behind the Laughter" if everything stated happens within the aired episode. Homer sings their signature song with his own funny lyrics and they are in Miami since that's context for why that's the song. Snowball II (talk) 11:37, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Because it's a parody of the real band's song. So, it goes in Behind the Laughter. The Solar Dragon 11:46, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

I know this is your standard already, but Conga exists in their universe so it's the characters themselves coming up with the lyrics. Homer calls it Taxachusetts doesn't mean Massachusetts doesn't exist. The characters are capable of making joke lyrics to a song that exist within the show's universe just like a real person can. Snowball II (talk) 11:59, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Also like the Prince of Tides joke where Marge knows her memory is just a parody of the movie or Lisa notes scared Bart is doing a parody of the Three Stooges. Part of the conceit of the show is the characters are self-aware ness about pop culture. Snowball II (talk) 12:07, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

It's still a parody/reference. And all parody/reference notes go in Behind the Laughter. Parodies and references are more trivia notes than something that belongs in the main content of an article. For example, we have The Thung mentioned in the Behind the Laughter section of The Thing's article. Because it's a parody. Yes, The Thing has also appeared in the show. But it's a parody of a fictional character from our universe, so it gets mentioned in Behind the Laughter. The main content, under History, should be used for appearances and mentions. At the end of the day, it still has a place in the article, it's just in a place where it makes more sense to have the episode names mentioned and Wikipedia links put in. The Solar Dragon 12:24, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Conga isn't a fictional song nor is Miami Sound Machine a fictional band. The example you gave for BTL was about the subject of the article is real. I'm disputing it's a real song and it's established within the show as a song by MSM. I guess who low do you think people's knowledge is that when Homer sings this song with altered lyrics, I'm sure some people don't know the real song, but the jokes works better when a viewer knows it so it's doesn't seem like a behind the scene thing anymore than the genre of band or the nationality of the band or what-have-you are in the main article partly because this specifi cartoon universe has a lot of overlap with reality than a lot of others. I get you want to focus on bigger stuff, but feels a bit like micromanagement or when any conflict on content arises, it seems like you feel it just makes more sense to defer to your take. I mean I will never stop hoping and you asked me for my take so I figured there was probably some hesitation, but I'm placing any large bets I'll get my way, but would it really be the worst if it's not in the behind the laughter section you give an inch on a minor style thing when you ask me and others to comprise what we would prefer a lot and you admit the standards are not based on a community consensus like real Wikipedia. Logic are hard when you lay the ground that article must be written in-universe so "the joke being in reality" are a no-go. Please don't misunderstand me since I can often be unclear, but I don't want to change the whole system or a chaos "do as you fell" approach. I tried to adhere to the standards of the wiki as the standard set and I go with it. I guess I'm coming less from conformity to some standard or what is and isn't real or established as real in-universe, but just who will this edit confuse. All I wrote was Homer is in Miami and sings Conga (a song associated with Miami because of the band while he changed the lyrics which is all in the episode proper. Seems as good a place to mention it as any. I'm unsure if that applies to every and any song ever used on the show, but seemed find for this article. It might also be undervaluing audio and composing of a melody. MSM created that song and as the lyrics tell us, "You've got to listen to the beat" in that it's "Music and Lyrics" and even if Homer changes some of the lyrics, the melody is the same. Also don't feel the need to counter everything I wrote and particular the stuff on your approach to content conflicts since I figure it was better to let it out rather than fester, but I don't expect it to be taken seriously or the unquestioned truth. Snowball II (talk) 13:51, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

If you were arguing for it to be under the Trivia section rather than Behind the Laughter, that is an argument I could see from both sides. However, you're arguing for it to be put under History. History should be used for appearances and mentions. Characters singing a parody of a song by a certain band or singer doesn't meet that criteria. It doesn't matter whether the song or band is real or fictional, it's still not information that should be used in that section. I'm not trying to say that the song isn't a thing in-universe. I'm saying that it just doesn't belong under the History section because it isn't History about the band. It's a trivia point at most. The Solar Dragon 15:42, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

I mean it's a two-sentence article so it feels more confusing to break it up into a bunch of sections for the sake of some personal canon rules and also because these are rules nobody else would know about. Wiki can get a bit idiosyncratic and forget about the general reader rather than the lingo. There a lot of valid reasons to remove stuff, but seems a bit strict and opposite to wiki where anybody is open to edit. These rules are not written in stone and inferences happen all the time. Snowball II (talk) 18:13, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, anyone is open to edit. As seen from when MediocreUsername added it to the article in the first place. I have no issue with it being in the article. I'm just for keeping it under the appropriate header. As I've said repeatedly, references/parodies of things go in Behind the Laughter. Because they are references to real world things. The band wasn't mentioned nor did they appear. Therefore it doesn't count as an appearance. It is a reference. Therefore, it goes under Behind the Laughter. If the band appeared and were singing the song, that would be different. But that's not the case. Therefore, it's just a reference. And references do not go under History. The Solar Dragon 18:28, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Dr. Quinn / Marge on the Lam[edit]

Hi Snowball II, Where in the episode was Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman mentioned? The observation you made about its air time needs to be related to the episode. Was it something like Troy announcing that he was going to watch Dr. Quinn while he was babysitting the Simpson children? -- Mythigator (talk) 22:25, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

http://youtu.be/xUbjnjHY_KQ Snowball II (talk) 22:54, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

I saw the change in the episode's References tab. It looks good. -- Mythigator (talk) 11:00, October 25, 2024 (EDT)

Okilly-dokilly. Snowball II (talk) 11:08, October 25, 2024 (EDT)

Last warning[edit]

Okay, this is your last warning. Any more edit warring, breaking of policies etc. will result in a permanent ban that will not be overturned. You've had many chances and many warnings already. The Solar Dragon 12:31, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

Seriously? We're still at this point immediate block threats and unsure why were back on "policy" dictates as you've already told me "some things are left up to an admin's discretion" anyhow. You really have next to no faith in me and it's destressing. Snowball II (talk) 12:55, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

The usual course with these warnings is within a week of tip-toeing around until some minor edit causing the block threat to get followed through and I'd rather to let the air out of this tension so instead of some officious, bureaucratic language I'd just please request let be aware of what's bugging you about me of late. Snowball II (talk) 13:46, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

Edit warring, like you did on the Oh, My Papa. I've told you multiple times to stop trying to push edits through repeatedly, when they're being reverted, and to bring it up on the talk page instead. But you have once again decided to ignore that and go to edit warring instead. If you disagree with an edit being reverted, bring it up on the page's talk page. Don't just go doing it again because that comes across poorly on you and only results in irritating me. Which, I'll add, is something you've previously mentioned that you have intentionally tried to do. The Solar Dragon 14:18, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

Oh, and making comments like your second reply to the message just comes across as flippant which really does not help your case. The Solar Dragon 14:20, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

So I've an engender no goodwill from you.

I didn't just revert for its own sake and tried to take account of your concerns which is all the more puzzling. Doesn't matter if days or months or years go by, it will always be square one and I'm out to get irritate you rather than any other assumption i.e. not understanding why using the words from the online script nor citing interview with Mike Reiss are not good enough because you're deferring to the title of the Wikipedia article which notes it has more than one title. You revert stuff and it's a style thing, I've learnt to just let it pass i.e. external link. I pushed back here because the reason stated was incorrect as it's not the official title and also mostly just found Mein was a bit funnier. The policy as stated on the website is that an editor should have a serious reason to revert edits and using "Oh" or "O" isn't vandalism nor hate speech nor personal attack. I guess part of my confusion and desire for you to let it go a bit is I do. After the last kerfuffle when you'd revert stuff and at first I'll type out some message and just delete it and move past it until it just didn't matter as much. Plenty of times I looked over an article written in the present tense, I'm reminded of this higher standard you hold me to since you don't mind them, but I had to get a block warning over using is instead of was yet also the lower standard you hold me to like asking "if others agree"-type stuff in station/terminal talk page as if my take matters less. I've left around a dozen messages on Talk Pages unanswered. Earlier when for example I'd add another note to the art references article and you were there in a flash with an image and I thought it was a sign of being on your good side, but now figure I'm back on the outs. Yet the policy of this wiki is to assume good faith so I try. The stuff about not using officious/bureaucratic speech is that it's distancing when you are the decider and I'm shy and kind of private about my personal stuff, I figured if we don't exactly "know" each other, we'd moved pass the generic wiki-o-speak messages. You told me this Wiki works differently since you are where it begins and ends when it comes to higher-up doing anything on the site so you take by necessity a higher discretion than other wiki-style websites. I probably do have some goodwill from you nor would you have a completely low opinion of my contributions otherwise I'd just be blocked so while I toke umbrage sometimes the way you've used "be grateful you're not blocked'-type language before, I am trying to be. Snowball II (talk) 16:47, October 26, 2024 (EDT)  

Yes, you have some goodwill from me. It would be so much easier for me to just permanently bad you and be done with it, but a majority of your edits are good, which is why you haven't been permanently banned. I don't believe your edits are made in bad faith or anything. I just ask that you use talk pages to discuss stuff if it has been reverted, instead of just adding it back in again as this is bad faith and against policy. I may not respond to every talk page message, either because I don't feel my input is needed or I might just straight up miss the message, or forget to respond. Also, me doing stuff like adding images and making edits to pages you've been working on shouldn't be seen as me doing something to appease you. I put a lot of hours into the wiki and right now, my attention is mainly focused on Tapped Out stuff. So other stuff is being pushed aside for now until I'm finished with Tapped Out stuff, which will still be a while. It takes hours out of my time and can be very mentally draining. Which is why I'm not making certain edits, and also why I miss stuff sometimes. After I'm done and all up to date with Tapped Out stuff, I'll be able to focus more on other stuff again. I don't edit things based on how I feel about someone, I edit things based on what I see needs to be fixed up.

I'm not going to argue the capitalization of "mein" here because that's not the focus of the warning. It wasn't about the content of the edit, it was about the edit itself and how you did it. If you have an issue with something I've reverted, bring it up on the talk page. I try and respond if I feel my input is needed. But also, I'd like it if others could offer input and feedback too, even if it's unlikely to happen. Due to the fact that very often, things I post don't get responded to, I started to have to make decisions for the wiki myself. Look at the Wikisimpsons:Featured content pages. There have been no nominations in months, which means I have to find and work on content to be featured all myself. Otherwise it won't get done. There's a page up for deletion on Wikisimpsons:Pages for deletion. No responses. Message I left on Talk:Nohosogoblojoto. Again, no responses. This isn't me attacking you for not responding to things either, just me stating that a lot of stuff doesn't get responded to. Which is why I had to start making the decisions myself. Because nobody else would. This is why a majority of the time, the decisions on what happens on the wiki comes down to me.

And now to get onto the topic of the "Oh, My Papa" page: We typically include direct links to Wikipedia pages, and typically follow Wikipedia's naming conventions with our articles. Which is the reason your edit was reverted. I would have explained this more on the talk page if you had actually brought it up there instead of making the edit once again. The Solar Dragon 17:24, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

You've written this before, but maybe instead of believing the easiest thing is to just block me, maybe, just maybe you can be less controlling since nearly all the edits were over style issues. You want more of a community of engaged editors, but you tell me, one of more active contributors, that I should be blocked forever over "mein/Mein/my" revert done twice. I mean you've threatened to block me over making points on discussion pages rather than just not replying so this "why don't you just go to Talk Page" stuff can be a bit contradictory and not as easy and you make it sound. I wrote my position in the summary and didn't think it would be such "a thing" to need any more discussion since your assertion was incorrect. We typically follow "Wikipedia" naming except we've had the exact opposite argument before and Disney+ subtitles trumps all including the writer of the episode. Usually I'm the one making the case our world is more similar to Springfield and had to unlearn that so it's been odd to suddenly be different. And typically isn't a rule. let alone of violation, and unsure how I'm supposed to know this standard let alone agree to it especially when the Wikipedia article even notes it has more than one name. You create a standard rather quickly and expect others (well it's usually me) to know it as well as completely comply with it right away. That isn't questioning the standard is wrong, but just noting it can be hard to follow and then get a block threat is usually a sign of open dialogue. And what's more, I did comply to your no external links thing and I took the time to read the script and the whole Wikipedia article and an interview with Mike Reiss as it would be one thing if that was just ignored, but a block threat for my efforts is not exactly making the day any shinier.

I didn't use appeasement. Like I wrote, I just showed I took it as a sign you thought well of my edits and were there to help make them better.

You asked before about stuff to help you do better in communicating with contributors and I don't want to overuse that request, but please use "I'm busy" stuff a bit less. It can be and actually is totally true, but my role is not to worry about your schedule anymore than you about mine and even if your time is more valuable than mine, I don't need to hear about it for that context especially as you've already taken the time to leave a message in the first place. If I wrote back I'm too busy to use the Talk Page, besides not being true in that case yet even if it were, what would you think?

You're going to get your way on Oh my papa page. I knew this as soon as I saw the "new message" alert and usually this is the part where I point out you always get your way. The one cite to me you gave on not getting your way on an article was a list of nude scenes except I didn't create that or have some major change to it and that page predates you being an admin. The burden is always on me to convince you of something and hope I do because otherwise it's not going to happen.

You wrote about me doing this to irritate you, but please don't misunderstand as this is not my aim and especially not of late. I see you want a high standard and I've seen lower standards on other fandom wikis. I like to have an outlet for my own The Simpsons obsessive trivia so I might grouse, but it's just that. Snowball II (talk) 18:51, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

You are once again missing the point. I didn't give you a final warning because of the content of the edit. I gave you a final warning because of the way you went about doing it. It is edit warring and is against wiki policy to keep making the same edit after it's been reverted. This is where a majority of the warnings I've given you have come from. The content of the edit isn't the issue here. If I was to permaban you, it wouldn't be because of you changing "mein" to "Mein". It would be because of you frequently resorting to edit warring to try and get me to cave and let edits pass.

Wikisimpsons follows a certain style across the wiki. A lot of it isn't written up, but it's there. And you can understand that style from looking at more recent articles or articles that have been touched up recently. Would it be better to have it all written up in manual of style guides? Yes. But it's a lot of work to get those set up too, and I'd rather prioritize content over policy pages. Most of the edits I revert from you are because you've made changes from that typical style I try to adhere to. If you have issues or questions with the manual of style, you're free to bring them up. And despite what you might believe, I'm open to having my mind changed.

If you had brought up the "mein" thing on the talk page, I'd have listened and looked into it. I'd still listen now if you do so. I gave you the warning solely because of the edit warring.

And since you're bringing this up again, sources have different weight behind them. It's not simply going "this source says this so we go with this", it's balancing multiple criteria to decide which way we will write something up. Stuff like how official the source is, how reputable the source is, which sources outweigh others etc. For example, episodes outweigh comics as the most "canon". Scripts are a good source as they're the official scripts. However, we are also aware that stuff could change between even the final script and the episode, so that's why we prioritize episodes over scripts, and even the writers. We even have an example of things changing between script and episode, which even the writer wasn't fully aware of, as is the case with Costas/Kostas Becker. Which is why we use "Deforest" over "DeForest", despite the writer referring to him as that. Writers don't decide on official names. If Gracie Films notes a name down, that's usually how the character gets called unless the producers ask them to change it. This is why the wiki goes with "Deforest". We only have one source, the episode's captions, that refer to him by name. And I even checked through the foreign credits on Disney+ to see if they referred to him by any other name. Even one mention of "DeForest" in another official source would have swayed me and I'd change the page title immediately. And that's not to mention that the producers can get things wrong occasionally. I often ask Al Jean to confirm voice actors of characters, and he's occasionally been wrong and corrected himself after.

You mention that I always get my own way. Just the other day I moved Grand Central Terminal back to Grand Central Station after you brought it up and offered evidence for it to be at that name on the talk page. I'm open to this. But also, I understand that I can be biased when it comes to you as my perception of you, not saying this is what you are doing but how it comes across to me, is that you are often hostile and demanding and you seem to treat it as a competition that you want to win against me. So, when it's just you and me discussing things, it's often likely that there will be no real progress made. If another person came along and offered their perspective, that would sway things. Hell, you're free to ask other users if they could give their opinion on things on their talk pages. I would absolutely love nothing more than to have more discussions about things so that not everything falls to me to decide. Especially when it comes to changes you're proposing. Unfortunately, we don't have users frequently taking part in discussions and it will often just end up with either forgotten messages or you and me going back and forth until one of us gives up. And neither of us enjoys that. The Solar Dragon 19:33, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

You write a lot about how I come across. I've wrote this before, but a threat to get blocked for a minor offense (and even if the offense actually happened) doesn't come across the friendly concern. It's hostile. Snowball II (talk) 20:14, October 26, 2024 (EDT

Unsure how come you look as this as "cave" or "get one passed you" on style stuff you dislike. Also you take this on too. I mean if Mein had just stood wouldn't matter much, but you toke it on so it doesn't just fall on you when you take it up. The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of whether you ever chang your mind, but that the burden is always your mind has to be changed. My point is when you don't like something, you don't just accept another way. I know you often have your judgement alone to rely on, but this isn't the case when dealing with an active contributor. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. Snowball II (talk) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

You are the one threating permeant blocks and than tell me I'm hostile!? I don't know why you lament progress since you've gotten what you wanted. Fine, you telling to now go to real world after telling me the show's reality isn't our reality and yet I'm not the one being hostile!? The wiki didn't go with lower case f since that is the bureaucratic speak to obfuscate rather than clarify since it was just you. That isn't hostile, but it's just how it went. You aren't balancing it. If a source might have been wrong before doesn't mean it's wrong now and the subtitles have been wrong before[16][17] which also wasn't weigh and not written by Gracie Films, but the broadcaster so if one watches on Disney+ or FOX or Channel 4 or whatever will have different subtitles. You are literally just citing one source and no rational or inference allowed. The show went out of way to tell us it's a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and made the character look and sound like Sen. Paine and oddly changed an i to y. I'd buy it more it the movie was retitled "Mr. Smyth Goes To Washington". I just say you cause, but the name was specifically used because the whole character is a spoof of Humphrey Bogart so his late name came from Bogart's middle name as was cited the writer the tweet for that, but not the capital F. You can rationalize any choice you like and I'll talk about Humphrey Bogart's middle or bag guys from Jimmy Stewart's movies all day long.

My concern right is defusing the threat of block and I'd rather do it now than after. Snowball II (talk) 20:22, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

You're not going to be defusing any threat of banning. This is your last warning. I'm not going to take that back. One more rule infraction and I will be permanently banning you, this time without repealing it. It's not because of this one infraction, it's because of all the warnings and infractions that have happened. You've been told multiple times to take things to talk pages if you disagree with things. But time and time again, you've decided to go to edit warring instead. And yes, my mind may not change immediately. But it also leaves it open for others to come along and give their input at a later time.

You say that you're unsure how I look at it as you trying to get one past me? You've literally admitted in the past to repeatedly making the edits to try and get me to let them slide the next time. That is from you.

Bringing up the Senator Payne thing again, we have multiple sources for the name, including the Simpsons World script and book. All say Payne. I always use multiple sources where possible to work out what to name an article. And if I can't come to a decision, I open it up to discussion. If every official source we have access to says that the character is named one way, that is what we go with. Doesn't matter what he's named in a real world film.

So, I will reiterate, this is your last warning. Any more edit warring will result in a permanent block. The Solar Dragon 09:00, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

The last time you blocked me for a month, you admitted I hadn't actually violated any rule and it still stood. I quote the revert rule and you admitted it wasn't in violation, but you told me it was still at your discretion. I've made my peace with this website being at your discretion, but I don't agree with you on some stuff and you are making the exact opposite case (we have to with real-world here when the show used the opposite). There is a goofs section for every episode, so yeah, mistakes can and do get made. I've made my peace with you not agreeing with me on this or that and I get your case, I just disagree. You talk about how it would just easier to block me (which despite being a common refrain is still hurtful to read after all the editing I've done), but on my end (I do try to see it from your side) it would be easier to just flatter you no end or tell you how wise you are in every circumstance and I'm never in right. There's no benefit to disagreeing with you since there is no recourse on my end, there are no other admins to review your block decision like a regular wiki. I know it would be easier to just tell you I totally agree with your take and not a single inconsistency with your previous takes. I don't wish to bum you out or make being on the website a displeasure, but being told you want to block me (which can happen even without a rule violation) is hurtful and yes, I'd rather defuse it. You still going to throw back stuff at me again and again since you admitted unfair treatment such as stubbornness or having too high opinion of yourself or lack of knowledge or unreasoned aggression as motive rather than a policy violation, but I don't think to apply your omissions to every circumstances nor accuses you of it since I appreciated your candor back then. Also I admitted to that stuff thinking having a snity attitude isn't nice and sometime to stop, but it was not, in itself, a rule violation and also thought placating some of your accusations at the time on how you were already convinced I was doing stuff to irritate you might help my case at the time except now, despite the cavoites I made at the time, it seems it's the only way you view most of your interactions.

The "get one passed you" was just the idea of having to make the final decision on everything and hoping for more looseness or open to style ideas that are not to your taste. The whole "cave" stuff just seems very winner/loser. No, I'm not saying in every instant or that consistency and coherent style are unimportant. Yes, you cited stuff like nude scene page pr Grand Central Station (where I was just quoting the episode and the first line of the Wikipedia page and you made sure to note it didn't really matter to you either way), but it doesn't really apply since it's usually style and cannon which take up so much of our disagreements. Snowball II (talk) 10:37, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

You're being a bit revisionist in your retelling of our interactions which I'm noticing since you are still doing it.

You stated Gracie Films writes the subtitles and I point out they don't as the multiple broadcasters each write up the subtitles and that's just ignored. I point out that subtitles have also been wrong and that you just stating the writers were wrong before is a proof point of being wrong now and it's ignored. You tell me to go to Talk Pages and your openness to discussion, but for all your takes on my attitude not so much the case when I make a point along the lines of your stated goal of not just going with one source without weighing it. i.e. the entire premise of the episode is remake of a specific movie or the entire character is spoof of Humphrey Bogart or that character is clearly or Fat Tony's wife isn't blonde since it's a wig and the only thing she does in the scene is get into a catfight which is exactly what she in the previous appearance or broader context that Bruno Wife Banger gag only works if Connie is his wife. And I'm rereading some of it and one thing to not agree, but you get upset from the start. Even typing it any broader context on the Talk Page (even my Talk Page) so unsure how that counts as part of your claims to being majorly openness of a free flowing discussion.

I think the admission of irritating you with edits was ABOUT something along the line you were reverting some edits telling me I was wrong and I show you were wrong or uncover I was in the right so I put it back in which might be a petty motive, but it wasn't vandalism or an attempt to break the rules. I do have the image file of Sylvia Plath to episodes' appearances tabs to irritate you. I believed back at the time that whether you were irritated with sound edits wasn't a violation of any rule, but I've learned it doesn't matter so I try to not be on your bad side. Your omissions about mean-spiritedness were about blocks and reverts and while you noted you have to spend time and energy cleaning-up some rough edits by me, I'd just like to also note your not-so-nice actions towards me are a lot more stressful for me to deal it especially when you cite and disregard rules (the excuse I haven't had time to up the rules page is used frequently).

Just try to see another side. Nobody can't block you for inserting false information when you wrote what's the official title when it's not nor block you for reverting more than once instead of going to the Talk Page. It's not an accusation, but just a fact. If you had an admin who admitted to you yesterday a basis towards your very existence on this website, you can see how that fictional admin can find a reason to follow through on a threat. And you most likely wouldn't want to be under near constant threat of blocks for edits even this admits concurs are good faith edits anymore than I do.

I still don't get why you write "We" in your responses, but you noted "we" have multiple sources, you don't answer why did you need to look it up when you created the article. I mean what source is there for the spellings for all the cross-over characters in the subtitles. The difference is you know when it's a cross-over character like Sherlock Holmes or Luke Skywalker so you don't look it up as you wouldn't need to have a spelling in the subtitles and you admitted you did with Sen. Paine and I'm betting if you had watched Mr. Smith Goes To Washington multiple times and knew the movie well, you wouldn't have needed to check the subtitles for a spelling and there would be no issue and I don't get why I'm in the wrong for knowing about a movie you didn't. And I'm just reluctant to believe if the subtitles had it something like Luke Sky Walker that you go to bat this hard in the same way. But I bought into your whole a remake of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington within the episode won't be treated the same as the real world so now that you want this deference to the real-world names is a shift. I've written before and maintain a hope you'll change your mind, but the recapping of this stuff is more that which to broader idea of you change standards and don't seem to notice you have. When, you rationalize the change, but the point is you don't get even I dislike the new standard isn't what matters, but you acting like it's always been this way or I'm in violation for not knowing let alone pushing back.

I've gone on about how you come across, but I don't want to come across as just a downer and if I have, I apologize since it's not what I wanted you to get from this. Even if you think any point is unfair, my point is what does it matter? Fair or not, there is no review for you. I point them out since more often than not you try to be a helpful contributor in our interactions and you take constructive suggestions to heart. I really just kind of defending myself since you're being unfair in your retelling of this. Snowball II (talk) 13:50, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

Block[edit]

"Thank you, come again!" ―Apu Nahasapeemapetilon You have been permanently blocked from this wiki due to disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding your reasons below, and your appeal will be reviewed by the blocking admin. The Solar Dragon 14:23, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

I've had enough of your constant attitude and failure to listen and obey the wiki's policies. Enjoy your permanent ban. The Solar Dragon 14:23, October 27, 2024 (EDT)