User talk:Solar Dragon/Archive 24

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Quests

Since you have Marge and Kang, can you fill in the missing info here? Thanks, ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Twitter

Are you the one who is behind our Twitter account? If so, can you post something about how we need to complete the Tapped Out Halloween info and need more images? Thanks, ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

While you're at it, can you set it up so our Facebook posts to Twitter? It would be nice to have the On This Days going via Twitter as well as Facebook.--Cook 8 7 9 12:37, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

1 day left...

There's only about 1 day left until Halloween and we need to complete the info in the list of Halloween quests and we need to complete the gallery. How are we going to do all this before October 31st when the Halloween features are removed. Oh, by the way, how many treats do you have? Because there's a rumour on the Tapped Out forums that Kodos is going to be available to purchase for 500 treats on the 31st - and we'll need an image of him (or is it her?) ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Urm... 25 at the moment. So, no chance of getting 500 by the 31st. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 17:11, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Damn, I've only got 300. Also, any chance of being able to build Krabappel's Apartment within the next day? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Haven't gotten the quests yet. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 17:13, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Damn. All we need is better quality images for Krabappel, Duffman and Hank Scorpio and images for Frink and Otto and we're done with the gallery. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Does Kearney go trick-or-treating? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

No. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:21, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

If you can, could you fill in Witch Marge and Kang's quest info on the quests page. Thanks, ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 05:29, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Someone's already filled in the info apart from the rewards. So, can you remember what the rewards were? Were they 1 Treat and 5 XP like the other Halloween quest rewards? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

I have no idea. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 13:46, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Oh. I've already asked the user that put the content on there, FDrahke, about the rewards but he's not responding. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Could you take a bigger picture of Mayor Quimby as a zombie? Thanks, ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 06:16, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Sorry, can't. House has limited power with very few plugs working and iPod has ran out of power. We just have the modem working and my laptop is running off the battery... The Solar Dragon 06:18, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Damn. I'll ask on the Tapped Out forums then. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Also, were the flowers and the shrub unlocked on Level 16 and the shrub unlocked on level 19 introduced in the first content update or the second? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 07:45, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Any idea? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:19, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

My memory isn't that great.

^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 13:23, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

I think it they were introduced in the first content update (apart from the level 19 shrub), but I can't be 100% sure. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:36, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Can Kang get turned into a zombie? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

↑ and could you put the ray gun into a field in to your town so I can take a better pic of it. Thanks, ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

What happened...

What happened to Wikisimpsons yesterday? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 November 2012 (EST)

From Jake: "As for what's causing this, I think it has something to do with the Apache web server locking up unexpectedly. Whenever the site is offline like this, the server and database are actually fully functional, but Apache won't respond to web requests or even my restart commands."

Also, you get Fat Tony in Tapped Out?

^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 10:56, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Fat Tony? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 10:58, 14 November 2012 (EST)

From Facebook: "Play Tapped Out this week and get Fat Tony with an exclusive storyline that leads up to this Sunday's episode of The Simpsons, 8/7c on FOX. It's an offer you can't refuse." I've got him and have been doing his quests since yesterday. I got him as soon as I turned on the game. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 10:59, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Songs

Please don't remove the speech to we have discuss this and the title of the songs to we discuss this. /AleWi 16:36, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Okay, we'll discuss it. Therefore, we leave them the way they were before you made the changes. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 16:39, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Can you then using http://simpsonswiki.net/w/index.php?title=In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida&oldid=360398 and http://simpsonswiki.net/w/index.php?title=Springfield,_Springfield&oldid=480783 /AleWi 16:42, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Romney's child

Why is Romney's child against notability policy? -AleWi 23:35, 12 December 2012 (EST)

They aren't exactly celebrities and their names were only seen once... SEEN! Not even mentioned. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 03:19, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Tapped Out commercial?

Would this be considered a commercial for Tapped Out? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (EST)

I guess so. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 12:54, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Bot

I nearly forgot about this. You told me to remind you to go make your bot go through a number of pages and fix all the redirects being linked to pages. Examples are Otto Man or Otto instead of Otto Man and Herman instead of Herman Hermann or whatever they decided his name would be. -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 10:49, 22 December 2012 (EST)

I've already done Otto and Herman. Any others? Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 10:55, 22 December 2012 (EST)

A suggestion is changing all [[Bart]] to [[Bart Simpson|Bart]] and the rest of the Simpson family too. -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 11:04, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Those are probably a bad idea. They use less code that way and it is pointless to have the extra code. We should only change spelling mistakes, wrong names and those that appear in galleries wrong. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 11:41, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Is Kwik-E-Mart an issue? -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 16:16, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Two more pages: "Patty and Selma Bouvier" and "Montgomery Burns". -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 19:00, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Both done. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:51, 2 January 2013 (EST)

How about Burns Manor to Burns' manor and similar redirects? -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 07:41, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Platinum and Crystal awards

Who decides who gets these awards? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about these. They will be decided some time this month. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 15:37, 1 January 2013 (EST)

For this years' image of Homer on the Platinum award, I think this or this would work. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 January 2013 (EST)

How were the winners for the awards chosen in the past few years? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 January 2013 (EST)

It was usually an admin decision on who won. However, this year, the awards may be scrapped due to the fact it is now too hard to pick a clear winner as we have too many good users. The Solar Dragon 07:36, 26 January 2013 (EST)

We could have a vote on who wins. Users could nominate those who have made excellent contributions over the past year, and the winner would be given the Platinum award. If there are too many users to be given the Crystal award, there could be another vote and the four users with the most votes for the Crystal award would be given it. How about that? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 January 2013 (EST)

I agree, Phinbart. --Fred (Talk • Contribs. • Editcount) 08:37, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Solar? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Anyone else like my idea? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 January 2013 (EST)

A Compromise

First off, I know that you have shot down other people in the past with this topic, but I have to know, what exactly do you have against Simpsons Wiki (in general) and why did you feel that it was necessary to break away from that site and start this childish "it's my info, gimme gimme" feud. I know that people do not like having their work stolen, but at the end of the day, it's ALL the same information, because a person can never OWN a fact (even that can get full credit for figuring it out). In fact if anything, some would say that we're stealing from those who created a number of the Simpsons media (episodes, games, comics, books, etc.), anything that was written. But because the sole purpose of this wiki is to provide people with concrete Simpsons information, we're not exactly infringing on much, since all we really have to do is watch and read the series. To go into even more detail, view this section. And not for nothing, but this site's copyright policy tends to deprive certain articles of important information (or the little information we can derive from certain ambiguous or underrated characters/places/etc.). After all, these are all things created by the writers, not grad school essays that are submitted into one's yearly portfolio.

For example, let's compare two different articles of the same topic: 1, 2

Now which article has more information and content. Basically as far as this site is concerned, the octuplets are so minor that they don't need much contribution. Or some may go as far as to say that the only characters that matter are the one's in The Simpsons.com's Hall of Records and certain cult-favorite characters of the day.

For another example, compare these two articles 1, 2

Now which one is more organized and has a better layout?

Basically, both Simpsons wiki sites have their share of strong points and drawbacks. Fox example, this site is more credible, since it has excellent template usage as well as neat organization, high-quality images, excellent citation, mentioning of each character appearances, and a good amount of media content. However, you do not follow up on already existing characters or do not give enough depth of information on tertiary characters of the day or the minor (nearly background) ones in the series. And because of this site's policies, creative control is restricted and any image that could be good content is discarded if it can't be used in-between article text or if it came from somewhere. Images are meant to be shared. The same goes for information. Meanwhile, Simpsons Wiki is more flexible, as we make good use of official images (even unofficial grabpics (similar to the ones on this site) to an extent), add concrete and relevant theories, and truths that no one bothers to touch on. However, the staff on our site is limited, and we have little technical know-how when it comes to templates, while most of our contributors upload low-quality images (whatever is available to us) (including pics of every cockamamie store from The D'oh-cial Network), and we get almost no comic book/guide book information. But then we get all the edit-monkeys who go around adding the most unnecessary of crap, such as fan drawings, fan characters, coming up with fake age assumptions, coming up with fake biological names for certain stock characters with nicknames or no last names (I'm still trying to figure out how Squeaky-Voiced Teen is Lunch Lady Doris's Son), and that's not getting into the whole Simpson/Bouvier family tree fiasco or the lewd images that we have deleted in the past. And I find often myself cleaning up everyone else's messes or doing most of the writing/citation. But as long as we resolve our respective drawbacks by working together, we cam create two (or one) of the the ultimate Simpsons information base. And no, our site cannot just turn over everything we ever worked on to this site. It's a two-way trust partnership deal. Now I don't know how is fallout happened between the sites, but if we continue this stupid war, the wiki higher-ups may get involved and both our sites may cease to exist, sending back to the stone age (from scratch).

BTW, there's no way to come up with original information writing, since certain paragraphs and sentences are written in such simple and understandable English, that the only other way to be "original" is to be unprofessional (use of slang, jargon, run-ons, and pretty much switching words around and using many synonyms), at that is not good writing at all. --Kid Sonic 14:26, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Okay, let's go through these one by one. We moved away as Wikia were restricting us. They still are restricting Simpsons Wikia and every other Wikia wiki. We at Wikisimpsons are free to do whatever the hell we want on the wiki. Change the skin? No problem. Add cool extensions? Again no problem. Ask Wikia staff to do any of these? Get a big "fuck off" in return. Wikia staff rule over the admins of Simpsons Wikia. Here, we are free to roam.

The Octuplets article is a bad example. Our "article" is actually a disambiguation page with each of the Octuplets getting a separate article of their own. Therefore, Simpsons Wikia is the one that doesn't think that they are notable enough, having them all in one article while we have eight (and one disambig).

Some character of the day articles may be worse than Simpsons Wikia. That's because someone has most likely watched the episode recently and updated the page on Simpsons Wikia. I often flesh out bad articles if the topic is well known to me or fresh in my mind. We have many articles on newer characters of the day which are a lot better than Simpsons Wikia's articles (A9000 Robots for instance).

We used to have problems with the comic articles too. Then AleWi started to add a shitload of comic information. Sure, they may be in Engrish, but we can "translate" that into full English and have the content.

What exactly are you saying? You want us to merge? Move back to Wikia? Not going to happen. Want us to have some sort of truce? That is already happening. Want us to be able to copy information between the wikis? Either link back to us or get sued. We won't take information from Simpsons Wikia. We prefer to write our own stuff. It's like two authors writing pretty much the same book with the same chapters, with only a few differences.

Simpsons Wikia may be more flexible with images, but look at the unused files. There's pages and pages of them. Not many people will see them. They are just sitting there, taking up space on the servers. They are of no use at all to the wiki. We have a simple policy with images. If it can be put on a page, put it there. If not, see ya! (although I won't like to see pages with huge galleries of images...)

The two wikis differ in places. Wikisimpsons is a lot bigger than Simpsons Wikia. The users have more freedom and we are happy in our own little corner of the Internet. We are increasing in visitor count every month too, showing that more and more people are coming to us for information. We also have lots of information that Simpsons Wikia doesn't have which helps our wiki. We create most articles on the new characters, locations etc. that come up in the new episodes. We create the episode articles and guest star articles earlier than Simpsons Wikia. We worked hard to get where we are. We didn't just "move in" and take our previous owner's stuff. About 75% of the content on Wikisimpsons is our own work.

Thank you. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 15:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

- Well it seems that I cannot reason with you. You really do not need to get and attitude with people who only want the best for both wikis. Are you that angry inside. I guess will have to do this the hard way, with one of us running into a brick wall of our own logic. BTW, why are you so prejudice against old characters that you won't contribute to their pages, but won't let anyone else add information to them either, even if they wrote it themselves and are members of the original site. I don't mind giving credit (I don't exactly know how you want to be credited), but don't deprive pages of content. The image situation I will have to live with, but certain text are too important to be disown. Either that, or you can say goodbye to your editors, because you are restricting how much people can actually do (since you and the rest of your admin already do everything that you do allow as it is). Basically, you're so caught up in your own power that this wiki has to be the only one that matters, that you won't anything else, or allow anyone else to have anything and you come down hard on people who want to add much more or try to reason with you for the sake of change. "We're that BIGGEST, the BEST, the ELITE!", just like Fox Entertainment, with their overbearing competitiveness, narrow-minded influence, and hotshot lawyers and lawsuits. This is why we can't have anything nice! I always knew that the series and the writers had a nasty reputation, but who knew that the fandom would be equally harsh. Well I guess it's whatever show that appeals to certain people, enough for a powerful fanbase and enough neutral Sunday night family viewers, as opposed to those who used to watch the show just for a few light-hearted laughs in the 90's. I guess nothing is sacred anymore, just new, new, NEW! Well if that's your game, then two can play just the same. But just one more thing, you can ignore or blow off this message all you want just to save face, but I actually have a life and other interest. Take some time to think about that for a while. A long while. --Kid Sonic 18:18, 9 January 2013 (EST)
  - "BTW, why are you so prejudice against old characters that you won't contribute to their pages, but won't let anyone else add information to them either, even if they wrote it themselves and are members of the original site." Urm... what? When did I say that? I said that the older characters don't usually get information added to them unless someone rewatches the episode recently then adds the information. I didn't say that no one can add information to older character articles. I am not restricting what users do. By signing up or editing at Wikisimpsons, you agree to obey the policies. If you go against the policies, there will be consequences. I only tell users if they are going against the policies and put a stop to them if they go too far. And about my attitude, I only get like this if users try to persuade me to do things with faulty logic, and it's just even worse when they are wrong about half the points... The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 03:35, 10 January 2013 (EST)
  - Oh, and we are bigger than Simpsons Wikia. You can't deny that. Many of our articles are a lot higher quality than Simpsons Wikia. You can't deny that again. Our templates are better, categorization is better, pictures are generally higher quality. We have more information on comics, more information on crew members. The only thing we are really lacking is lots of editors. No one can compare the two wikis and say "Simpsons Wikia is better". The only reason people use Simpsons Wikia is because they don't know about here. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 03:39, 10 January 2013 (EST)
    - Kid Sonic, I feel for the battles you fight with subpar and quite possibly malicious editor wanna-bes, but those are just the nature of the beast if you're going to stay on Wikia. The two main reasons we left were high-handed treatment from the Wikia staffers (which Solar can speak to far more thoroughly than I can) and the changes Wikia made in their overall public face, which IMO essentially amounted to dumbing it down to the Web 2.0 social-networking crowd. Since Wikia is pitching itself to appeal to people whose preferred mode of communication is blocks of "text-ese" of 140 characters or less, it's no wonder that you're getting "edit monkeys" (as you put it) coming out of the woodwork.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change regarding either of the reasons we left Wikia. There's definitely been no change to the "dumbing-down" reason, which is a real shame because there are excellent wikis on Wikia that are being stifled by all of the social-networking crap. Anyway, if you're wondering why you're getting such a chilly reception when you float the idea of reunifying the two Simpsons wikis, that's why. -- Mythigator 12:32, 10 January 2013 (EST)

And, just to add, I'm all for reunifying the two wikis. Just not on Wikia. It wouldn't work, I would be banned, Wikia would change a lot of our stuff, we'd have stupid ads everywhere, we'd have a horrible looking skin. The only possible way this could work is if the editors on Simpsons Wikia move to here, taking the editing on Simpsons Wikia down to a minimum. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 12:47, 10 January 2013 (EST)

I would also like to see the wikis joining together on here. You guys have a number of great editors and we do too. Add em together and we have a great infobase for the Simpsons. -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 14:59, 10 January 2013 (EST)

I like this wiki more than Wikia, that's why I'm here. We can do more what we want, we are more update, we have lesser and annoying ads, we have a better wiki editor. /AleWi 17:23, 10 January 2013 (EST)

The end problem is that, even if we were to get every single one of the editors from the Wikia wiki over here, the wiki would still be there; Wikia will not remove it under any circumstances, otherwise we'd have no competition whatsoever. --Will Kilgour (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Up until now (and the "chilly reception"), my only major beef with this wiki has been the fact that I could add information from the wikia that wasn't already there in this wiki (even if I wrote it), but no one else would do it either (I would have to re-write basically the same information from scratch, and that's pointless), the fact that galleries aren't allowed on this site, not even for official images (framegrabs, comic images, and character slates), and if an images is deleted, it's made impossible to be able to re-upload it without being redirected to the image upload page. In other words, even over a simple misunderstanding, a deleted image wouldn't get a second chance. I only wanted to update the octuplet pages, since no one else is interested in doing it. Is that such a crime? Plus, many other characters have been ignored. It's my job to include as much info I can drag out, so that it's there. Or else, how else will people get there information (let alone the writes), then we'll just get another butt-load of poor episode writing, with continuity errors, out-of-character-ness, and inconsistancies (because the writers either have zero-memory of anything, or just throw out their old work and stab the hands of any urchins who try to get their grubby hands on their precious copy-written cash-cow garbage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 January 2013

No one said that you can't update the Octuplet pages. We're just saying that we don't need 100 images to illustrate what one image can do. Galleries obviously are allowed on this wiki, see our appearances pages for example. We're not ignoring other character articles, there's 20,971 articles (at the time I'm writing this) on the wiki. Do you know how hard it is to get round to all of them? Of course some articles are going to get left for long periods of time. Of course some articles aren't going to get content added to them for long periods of time. Every wiki has articles that could be improved but aren't as no one has gotten round to them. Simpsons Wikia does too.

We upload official images from Fox, the promotional images, to the wiki. Just see many of the latest episode articles, and the Lady Gaga article for examples. For most other topics, we integrate the official images into the article content. However, we do not need 100s of images for that.

Oh, and if I delete an image that you feel should really be on the wiki, just make your case on my talk page and I may restore it if I agree.

In conclusion, think about things properly and do a bit of research, use some common sense, before you go telling us off for things that happen to every wiki. The Solar Dragon 01:17, 14 January 2013 (EST)

Common sense? Common sense? Let's not get full of ourselves here. Don't ruin anything that could be considered an established peace. Anyway, I'll take a gamble and see where it goes from there. Either way, it will be worth it. I already know now that galleries are hated on this site and that mainly one image is needed for usage. Just one more thing I have a question about, what is the point of using grabpics (since they are technically fake and unofficial)? Ex: Martha Prince. --Kid Sonic 01:44, 16 January 2013 (EST)

ShoutWiki

Why is ShoutWiki so slow and why does this:

"Error 503 Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable

Guru Meditation:

XID: 1953751075

Varnish cache server"

appear when I access it? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Never mind. I can access it now. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (EST)

ShoutWiki's gone slow again. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2013 (EST)

So what exactly happened? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Not entirely sure.

^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 03:55, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Image restore?

Can you please restore this image: File:Frank Grimes.png, Thanks. --Fred (Talk • Contribs. • Editcount) 05:52, 27 January 2013 (EST)