Talk:Angela D'Amico - Revision history

LetsPlayNintendoITA: LetsPlayNintendoITA moved page Talk:Angela (The Real Housewives of Fat Tony) to Talk:Angela D'Amico

2025-04-07T03:17:14Z

LetsPlayNintendoITA moved page Talk:Angela (The Real Housewives of Fat Tony) to Talk:Angela D'Amico

Snowball II at 08:55, April 23, 2024

2024-04-23T08:55:28Z

Snowball II at 23:28, April 22, 2024

2024-04-22T23:28:48Z

Snowball II at 23:24, April 22, 2024

2024-04-22T23:24:35Z

Solar Dragon: /* Cremains of the Day */

2024-04-22T22:21:43Z

‎Cremains of the Day

Snowball II at 22:08, April 22, 2024

2024-04-22T22:08:52Z

Snowball II at 22:06, April 22, 2024

2024-04-22T22:06:48Z

Snowball II at 22:05, April 22, 2024

2024-04-22T22:05:59Z

Solar Dragon: /* Cremains of the Day */

2024-04-22T21:03:48Z

‎Cremains of the Day

Snowball II at 20:19, April 22, 2024

2024-04-22T20:19:24Z

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ::::::::::::::What the hell are you on about with the "the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles" part? I've read this line multiple times and still have no idea what you're getting at. His names was said to be Kostas in the script and promotional material. It didn't clear legal before the episode aired, so it was changed to Costas in the subtitles and Tapped Out. The whole point of that is we can't fully trust what the writers themselves even say because things could have changed in the aired episode.
 ::::::::::::::As for the rest of it, I stand by what I said. If you can't prove something, don't add it in. And to bring it back round to this article, Connie is a different name to Angela unless I'm mistaken. There's like different letters in different places in the name, so they must be different. Therefore, you can't confidently say for a fact that they are the same character. So, it doesn't have a place in this article. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 18:21, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::: As per usual when the point is something you able knock, you bring up and anything else doesn't exist. I would have guessed if you were confused, why not just ask for clarification. I meant to type, as I've so many times, Costas/Kostas, and how it's unique and an unworkable standard for any and all other articles, a point I've made so many time, but I guess the trick is just word it so you can mock me to get a response as if matters anymore than "stand by what I said" when you never said anything, you typed and yet I can understand what you meant nor use it to negate any points I negate your points by citing other articles or examples to get a response o "I stand by what I said" is not a first. So it was block threats and now it's condescension? If it's so obvious why type ''today'' that "I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife" if it's now totally inaccurate rather than your position of contesting the canon or how implicit or explicit the use was. Don't even want to guess what your reaction would be if I mentioned it's a ''{{W|Connie D'Amicoo|Family Guy}}'' reference. It's in the "Burden of Proof" article you brought up that pretending as if this show has never been inconsistent with names is just kind of textbook burden of proof fallacy. Well Jackie and Ingrid are different names too, but you squared that fine and I'm contesting it, but why that's fine, but I need "rock solid" proof to not ignore the latest episode doesn't square. Do I wish it was all more explicit if not definitive, for sure yet why would the writer need to put make it so overt since it would be one thing if the line was simply telling an underling pick up Connie at the airport and that was that, but right after the nickname gag and right before the wife-banger are even more overt. Also your position of either ignoring the scene from the latest episode or (without proof) making it a new and separate character doesn't fit either. Pretty sure plenty of characters have been renamed and renamed by you, especially as when it's just it's never been said in an episode or conflicting info still gets put into the same article. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 19:24, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::::::: As per usual when the point is something you're able knock, you bring it up and anything else doesn't exist. I would have guessed if you were confused, why not just ask for clarification. I meant to type, as I've had so many times, Costas/Kostas, and how it's unique to itself and an unworkable standard for any and all other articles, a point I've made so many time, but I guess the trick is just word it so you can mock it to get a response as if matters anymore than "stand by what I said" when you never said anything, you typed and yet I can understand what you meant nor use it to negate any points by you. I negate your points by citing other articles or examples to get a response of "I stand by what I said" which is not a first. So it was block threats and now it's condescension? If it's so obvious why type ''today'' that "I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife" if it's now totally inaccurate rather than your position of contesting the canon or how implicit or explicit the use was. Don't even want to guess what your reaction would be if I mentioned it's a ''{{W|Connie D'Amicoo|Family Guy}}'' reference. It's in the "Burden of Proof" article you brought up that pretending as if this show has never been inconsistent with names is a burden of proof fallacy. Well Jackie and Ingrid are different names too, but you squared that fine and I'm not contesting it. Why that's fine, but I need "rock solid" proof to not ignore the latest episode doesn't square. Do I wish it was all more explicit if not definitive, for sure yet why would the writer need to make it so overt since it would be one thing if the line was simply telling an underling pick up Connie at the airport and that was that, but right after the nickname gag and right before the wife-banger gag are even more overt. Also your position of either ignoring the scene from the latest episode or (without proof) making it a new and separate character doesn't fit either. Pretty sure plenty of characters have been renamed and renamed by you, especially as when it's just it's never been said in an episode or conflicting info still gets put into the same article. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 19:24, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ::::::::::::::What the hell are you on about with the "the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles" part? I've read this line multiple times and still have no idea what you're getting at. His names was said to be Kostas in the script and promotional material. It didn't clear legal before the episode aired, so it was changed to Costas in the subtitles and Tapped Out. The whole point of that is we can't fully trust what the writers themselves even say because things could have changed in the aired episode.
 ::::::::::::::As for the rest of it, I stand by what I said. If you can't prove something, don't add it in. And to bring it back round to this article, Connie is a different name to Angela unless I'm mistaken. There's like different letters in different places in the name, so they must be different. Therefore, you can't confidently say for a fact that they are the same character. So, it doesn't have a place in this article. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 18:21, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::: As per usual when the point is something you able knock, you bring up and anything else doesn't exist. I would have guessed if you were confused, why not just ask for clarification. I meant to type, as I've so many times, Costas/Kostas, and how it's unique and an unworkable standard for any and all other articles, a point I've made so many time, but I guess the trick is just word it so you can mock me to get a response as if matters anymore than "stand by what I said" when you never said anything, you typed and yet I can understand what you meant nor use it to negate any points I negate your points by citing other articles or examples to get a response o "I stand by what I said" is not a first. So it was block threats and now it's condescension? If it's so obvious why type ''today'' that "I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife" if it's now totally inaccurate rather than your position of contesting the canon or how implicit or explicit the use was. Don't even want to guess what your reaction would be if I mentioned it's a ''{{W|Connie D'Amicoo|Family Guy}}'' reference. It's in the "Burden of Proof" article you brought up that pretending as if this show has never been inconsistent with names is just kind of textbook burden of proof fallacy. Well Jackie and Ingrid are different names too, but you squared that fine and I'm contesting it, but why that's fine, but I need "rock solid" proof to not ignore the latest episode doesn't square. Do I wish it was all more explicit if not definitive, for sure yet why would the writer need to put make it so overt since it would be one thing if the line was simply telling an underling pick up Connie at the airport and that was that, but right after the nickname gag and right before the wife-banger are even more overt. Also your position of either ignoring the scene from the latest episode or (without proof) making it a new and separate character doesn't fit either. Pretty sure plenty of characters have been renamed and renamed by you, especially as when it's just it's never been said in an episode. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 19:24, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::::::: As per usual when the point is something you able knock, you bring up and anything else doesn't exist. I would have guessed if you were confused, why not just ask for clarification. I meant to type, as I've so many times, Costas/Kostas, and how it's unique and an unworkable standard for any and all other articles, a point I've made so many time, but I guess the trick is just word it so you can mock me to get a response as if matters anymore than "stand by what I said" when you never said anything, you typed and yet I can understand what you meant nor use it to negate any points I negate your points by citing other articles or examples to get a response o "I stand by what I said" is not a first. So it was block threats and now it's condescension? If it's so obvious why type ''today'' that "I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife" if it's now totally inaccurate rather than your position of contesting the canon or how implicit or explicit the use was. Don't even want to guess what your reaction would be if I mentioned it's a ''{{W|Connie D'Amicoo|Family Guy}}'' reference. It's in the "Burden of Proof" article you brought up that pretending as if this show has never been inconsistent with names is just kind of textbook burden of proof fallacy. Well Jackie and Ingrid are different names too, but you squared that fine and I'm contesting it, but why that's fine, but I need "rock solid" proof to not ignore the latest episode doesn't square. Do I wish it was all more explicit if not definitive, for sure yet why would the writer need to put make it so overt since it would be one thing if the line was simply telling an underling pick up Connie at the airport and that was that, but right after the nickname gag and right before the wife-banger are even more overt. Also your position of either ignoring the scene from the latest episode or (without proof) making it a new and separate character doesn't fit either. Pretty sure plenty of characters have been renamed and renamed by you, especially as when it's just it's never been said in an episode or conflicting info still gets put into the same article. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 19:24, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, April 22, 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::::::::::::::What the hell are you on about with the "the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles" part? I've read this line multiple times and still have no idea what you're getting at. His names was said to be Kostas in the script and promotional material. It didn't clear legal before the episode aired, so it was changed to Costas in the subtitles and Tapped Out. The whole point of that is we can't fully trust what the writers themselves even say because things could have changed in the aired episode.		::::::::::::::What the hell are you on about with the "the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles" part? I've read this line multiple times and still have no idea what you're getting at. His names was said to be Kostas in the script and promotional material. It didn't clear legal before the episode aired, so it was changed to Costas in the subtitles and Tapped Out. The whole point of that is we can't fully trust what the writers themselves even say because things could have changed in the aired episode.
	::::::::::::::As for the rest of it, I stand by what I said. If you can't prove something, don't add it in. And to bring it back round to this article, Connie is a different name to Angela unless I'm mistaken. There's like different letters in different places in the name, so they must be different. Therefore, you can't confidently say for a fact that they are the same character. So, it doesn't have a place in this article. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 18:21, April 22, 2024 (EDT)		::::::::::::::As for the rest of it, I stand by what I said. If you can't prove something, don't add it in. And to bring it back round to this article, Connie is a different name to Angela unless I'm mistaken. There's like different letters in different places in the name, so they must be different. Therefore, you can't confidently say for a fact that they are the same character. So, it doesn't have a place in this article. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 18:21, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
		+	::::::::::::::: As per usual when the point is something you able knock, you bring up and anything else doesn't exist. I would have guessed if you were confused, why not just ask for clarification. I meant to type, as I've so many times, Costas/Kostas, and how it's unique and an unworkable standard for any and all other articles, a point I've made so many time, but I guess the trick is just word it so you can mock me to get a response as if matters anymore than "stand by what I said" when you never said anything, you typed and yet I can understand what you meant nor use it to negate any points I negate your points by citing other articles or examples to get a response o "I stand by what I said" is not a first. So it was block threats and now it's condescension? If it's so obvious why type ''today'' that "I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife" if it's now totally inaccurate rather than your position of contesting the canon or how implicit or explicit the use was. Don't even want to guess what your reaction would be if I mentioned it's a ''{{W\|Connie D'Amicoo\|Family Guy}}'' reference. It's in the "Burden of Proof" article you brought up that pretending as if this show has never been inconsistent with names is just kind of textbook burden of proof fallacy. Well Jackie and Ingrid are different names too, but you squared that fine and I'm contesting it, but why that's fine, but I need "rock solid" proof to not ignore the latest episode doesn't square. Do I wish it was all more explicit if not definitive, for sure yet why would the writer need to put make it so overt since it would be one thing if the line was simply telling an underling pick up Connie at the airport and that was that, but right after the nickname gag and right before the wife-banger are even more overt. Also your position of either ignoring the scene from the latest episode or (without proof) making it a new and separate character doesn't fit either. Pretty sure plenty of characters have been renamed and renamed by you, especially as when it's just it's never been said in an episode. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 19:24, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, April 22, 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:

	::::::::::::: What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author ''might be'' wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being [[Gladys Gurney]], but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "[[Deep Space Homer]]" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards (how would I or any other editor who what is or isn't on the Disney+ subtitles) citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)		::::::::::::: What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author ''might be'' wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being [[Gladys Gurney]], but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "[[Deep Space Homer]]" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards (how would I or any other editor who what is or isn't on the Disney+ subtitles) citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
		+	::::::::::::::What the hell are you on about with the "the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles" part? I've read this line multiple times and still have no idea what you're getting at. His names was said to be Kostas in the script and promotional material. It didn't clear legal before the episode aired, so it was changed to Costas in the subtitles and Tapped Out. The whole point of that is we can't fully trust what the writers themselves even say because things could have changed in the aired episode.
		+	::::::::::::::As for the rest of it, I stand by what I said. If you can't prove something, don't add it in. And to bring it back round to this article, Connie is a different name to Angela unless I'm mistaken. There's like different letters in different places in the name, so they must be different. Therefore, you can't confidently say for a fact that they are the same character. So, it doesn't have a place in this article. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 18:21, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, April 22, 2024
Line 27:		Line 27:
	::::::::::::: It's not simple as that and [http://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/300082 prove me wrong] ignores the rest of the burden of proof article and the fallacy of burden of proof.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#:~:text=Proving%20a%20negative,-A%20negative%20claim&text=Logicians%20and%20philosophers%20of%20logic,it%20could%20be%20proven%20true.]		::::::::::::: It's not simple as that and [http://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/300082 prove me wrong] ignores the rest of the burden of proof article and the fallacy of burden of proof.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#:~:text=Proving%20a%20negative,-A%20negative%20claim&text=Logicians%20and%20philosophers%20of%20logic,it%20could%20be%20proven%20true.]

−	::::::::::::: What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author ''might be'' wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being [[Gladys Gurney]], but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "[[Deep Space Homer]]" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)	+	::::::::::::: What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author ''might be'' wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being [[Gladys Gurney]], but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "[[Deep Space Homer]]" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards (how would I or any other editor who what is or isn't on the Disney+ subtitles) citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:17, April 7, 2025
(No difference)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::::::::: Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
 ::::::::::::I don't understand why you think I'm contradictory at all. I ask you to prove things before you add them to pages. You don't provide proof then argue that you're right anyway. Sources and references are what I argue for. That's all I want. You say Angela is the same character as Connie, despite no evidence showing they are. You haven't provided evidence that they are the same, therefore, we can't say they're the same character. Simple as that. Using another example, Jack Deforest, You said that his name should be DeForest because a real person has it spelled that way in his name. I ask you to provide a source that shows it that way within the show and related media. You can't. You're trying to make changes despite no evidence or sources within the show confirming them. That is what I have issues with and why I undo these edits. You need to be able to prove things are correct when adding them to articles. And if you can't prove it, don't add it. And knowingly adding incorrect information is grounds for banning. Simple as that. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 17:03, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::: It's not simple as that and [http://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/300082 prove me wrong] ignores the rest of the burden of proof article and the fallacy of burden of proof.[htts://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#:~:text=Proving%20a%20negative,-A%20negative%20claim&text=Logicians%20and%20philosophers%20of%20logic,it%20could%20be%20proven%20true.]
+::::::::::::: It's not simple as that and [http://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/300082 prove me wrong] ignores the rest of the burden of proof article and the fallacy of burden of proof.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#:~:text=Proving%20a%20negative,-A%20negative%20claim&text=Logicians%20and%20philosophers%20of%20logic,it%20could%20be%20proven%20true.]
 ::::::::::::: What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author ''might be'' wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being [[Gladys Gurney]], but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "[[Deep Space Homer]]" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours  is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, April 22, 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:
	::::::::::: Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)		::::::::::: Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
	::::::::::::I don't understand why you think I'm contradictory at all. I ask you to prove things before you add them to pages. You don't provide proof then argue that you're right anyway. Sources and references are what I argue for. That's all I want. You say Angela is the same character as Connie, despite no evidence showing they are. You haven't provided evidence that they are the same, therefore, we can't say they're the same character. Simple as that. Using another example, Jack Deforest, You said that his name should be DeForest because a real person has it spelled that way in his name. I ask you to provide a source that shows it that way within the show and related media. You can't. You're trying to make changes despite no evidence or sources within the show confirming them. That is what I have issues with and why I undo these edits. You need to be able to prove things are correct when adding them to articles. And if you can't prove it, don't add it. And knowingly adding incorrect information is grounds for banning. Simple as that. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 17:03, April 22, 2024 (EDT)		::::::::::::I don't understand why you think I'm contradictory at all. I ask you to prove things before you add them to pages. You don't provide proof then argue that you're right anyway. Sources and references are what I argue for. That's all I want. You say Angela is the same character as Connie, despite no evidence showing they are. You haven't provided evidence that they are the same, therefore, we can't say they're the same character. Simple as that. Using another example, Jack Deforest, You said that his name should be DeForest because a real person has it spelled that way in his name. I ask you to provide a source that shows it that way within the show and related media. You can't. You're trying to make changes despite no evidence or sources within the show confirming them. That is what I have issues with and why I undo these edits. You need to be able to prove things are correct when adding them to articles. And if you can't prove it, don't add it. And knowingly adding incorrect information is grounds for banning. Simple as that. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 17:03, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
		+	::::::::::::: It's not simple as that and [http://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/300082 prove me wrong] ignores the rest of the burden of proof article and the fallacy of burden of proof.[htts://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#:~:text=Proving%20a%20negative,-A%20negative%20claim&text=Logicians%20and%20philosophers%20of%20logic,it%20could%20be%20proven%20true.]
		+
		+	::::::::::::: What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author ''might be'' wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being [[Gladys Gurney]], but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "[[Deep Space Homer]]" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, April 22, 2024
Line 24:		Line 24:

	::::::::::: Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)		::::::::::: Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
		+	::::::::::::I don't understand why you think I'm contradictory at all. I ask you to prove things before you add them to pages. You don't provide proof then argue that you're right anyway. Sources and references are what I argue for. That's all I want. You say Angela is the same character as Connie, despite no evidence showing they are. You haven't provided evidence that they are the same, therefore, we can't say they're the same character. Simple as that. Using another example, Jack Deforest, You said that his name should be DeForest because a real person has it spelled that way in his name. I ask you to provide a source that shows it that way within the show and related media. You can't. You're trying to make changes despite no evidence or sources within the show confirming them. That is what I have issues with and why I undo these edits. You need to be able to prove things are correct when adding them to articles. And if you can't prove it, don't add it. And knowingly adding incorrect information is grounds for banning. Simple as that. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 17:03, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ::::::::::"Why wouldn't you want to prove your case which you were doing until now." You can't prove a negative. You're trying to claim that it's the same character. There's no evidence to suggest they're the same character. You're the one trying to add unproven information into the article.
 ::::::::::So, I'm just gonna say this now. Do not add information into articles if there's no solid proof behind it. Doing so knowingly will count as adding in false information, which is a bannable offense. Therefore, any more and you will get banned again. I've been patient with you despite you pushing and pushing due to the fact you do generally make good edits, but I'm at my limit now. It is down to the person adding the information to prove that it is correct and accurate. It is not down to the person removing it to prove that it's not. Because if it was proven to be correct and accurate, it wouldn't need to be removed in the first place. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 15:19, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::: Fruitless and now scorched earth. Everyone of your rules and conditions you are fever setting up for me to flow I've done, yet it's never enough that you immediately threaten a block. I read these strict standards and then look at [[Aunt Hortense]] or [[Charles Montgomery Burns' adoptive father]] where adoption is never mentioned and these standards seem all the more arbitrary. Then I try to not be just negative and whatever small things kind of bug me, remember all the massive amount of work that goes into a wiki like this and move along and change it i.e. I get why it's there, but not a fan "'''X''' is x" restatement the type so just change it rather using it to knocking everything else.[http://simpsonswiki.com/w/index.php?title=Springfield_Homeless_Shelter&diff=next&oldid=1250455]
+::::::::::: Fruitless and now scorched earth. Everyone of your rules and conditions you are fever setting up for me to flow I've done, yet it's never enough that you immediately threaten a block. I read these strict standards and then look at [[Aunt Hortense]] or [[Charles Montgomery Burns' adoptive father]] where adoption is never mentioned and these standards seem all the more arbitrary. Then I try to not be just negative and whatever small things kind of bug me, remember all the massive amount of work that goes into a wiki like this and move along and when and if possible change it i.e. I get why it's there, but not a fan "'''X''' is x" restatement type of first line so just change it rather using it to knocking everything else.[http://simpsonswiki.com/w/index.php?title=Springfield_Homeless_Shelter&diff=next&oldid=1250455]
 ::::::::::: Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)