Talk:Neurotically Yours/Archive 1

738:

contain relevant information worth including in the future. They are reliable sources, which can be used to verify information. Current standards seem to allow for third party sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube) so long as the information therein contains verifiable, reliable information, which they do, as the information comes directly from the author. At that, the Facebook page has been made reference to in particular sections (though not used as a source). Many of the older cartoons are hosted on Youtube, and many of the citations link there. The Twitter feed could possibly contain information worth using in the future to expand upon the article. To beef up the section, I'd personally add a link for the homepage to make it look bigger. That said, if these sites are not listed in an "external links" section, and personal knowledge of the official site for future editors aside, whose to say to these people that the various youtube references are capable of being used? Or that the references to the Facebook posts were an accurate reflection of what really transpired? My point is simple. If we create an "external links" section, then this shows relevant source material to future editors, and maintains the validity of the article in its current state. Furthermore, it gives reletive source material for future use.

734:

and what any of it has to do with the four links I am looking to add. This is all relative due to the need to maintain, and update, the article as time moves forward. As I see it, the content contained within each of these suggested "External Links" can be considered a reliable published source from a reliable author (Mathers himself). Furthermore, though controlled by the original author of the work, the works themselves, and various content, and information, is being published on a third party source. It maintains its reliability due to the relationship the author maintains with the sites, and controlling the content being portrayed. At that, as I have previously stated, the content I am looking to add will not provide any material that is not unduly self serving, will not make claims about third parties, only offers information directly related to the subject matter, and is not based on sources that would cause this to be anything other than an accurate statement in the future. Further more, considering the content of such sites comes directly from the author, whose content the article is about, we have no reason to doubt its authenticity.

501:

page, and still listed as an external link. The main difference between this section on other pages, and here, is that they also include places like amazon.com, newgrounds, and the like. Now, I could provide shop links, newground links, and various similar official sites (or semi official depending on how you look at it). Not to mention, pages that are directly controlled by JIM. I think these pages are definitely worth mentioning. But I digress,... If you think they aren't worth mentioning, I'll leave them out. I simply think there's enough credible, and fairly official pages to link to. -

31: 294:

now believe is relative to your question. I would propose a section covering story arcs across multiple episodes, and a brief synopsis for the series as a whole. That said, maybe one could briefly touch on the general flow of the topical rants, and the like. That's assuming the community approves of such an endeavor. I'd personally be willing to make all this happen. If it were to, I think this would eliminate the issue you have presented. -

832:

videos linked to from the original site could be changed to point to other sources for the information, without actually changing the content of the article. As for how the article relates to primary sources, I personally had a hard enough time trying to find sources that didn't draw directly from the original content anyway. This is why I attempted to use the material from fan sites, and the like, to draw reference to.

896:. If you attempt to delete it again, fans of this article will vote to "keep" it and so it won't be deleted. Note that the one time this article was deleted, it was done secondarily to another deletion. The two times this article was the primary target of an AFD attempt, the attempt failed (see top of this page). It's better that we try to make any needed repairs to this article than to try to delete it again. 831:

Second of all, I don't think you actually check the references. Of the references, 1, 3, 4, 6-19, 21-25, 37, 46, 48, 53, and 62 are all fan based sites, and published articles. (That's 27 out of 63 sources, or approximately half.) I do believe they constitute secondary sources. That said, many of the

737:

My point on the most basic of levels is this: These sites, being the official Facebook page, the official Twitter page, the official Youtube channel, as well as the homepage site (this link will be included to help bulk up the section) all contain information directly published by the author, and may

733:

At this point, I would like to suggest that an external links section be added; containing links to the homepage of Neurotically Yours, the Facebook page, Twitter page, and Youtube Channel. At this point some of you may be asking why it is I have quoted all of the above information regarding sources,

639:

The section that I would particularly like to draw from is the part stating that we should only publish the opinions of reliable authors. As I understand this, we should not only use this for "opinions", but for facts, figures, and relevant information in regards to edits made. As I see it, as far as

322:

I wouldn't create a separate article. I'd simply make two separate headers. We can tackle that when the time comes. I'll take the opportunity to write something up for the article in the mean time. Keep an eye on the article for the next few days, as this will be when I'm working on it, and upload it

74:

I'm positive there was an older article on Neurotically Yours that actually had a picture of Foamy, discussed the various characters, who provided the voices for them, and gave more specific information like the year it was started. This article's history only goes back to August 2009, so what gives?

837:

Third, the article includes sections about the reboot button in order to reflect notable changes in the series (as talked about above), including a response that Mathers issued in regards to public opinion regarding the changes. The general tone of the opinions were included (not the actual opinions

1256:

I would recommend contacting J.I.M. regarding possible copyright; however, I'm not sure whether the logo is appropriate for the article. Not because of the raised middle fingers, but because it's not really an official logo. Technically speaking, the 'ENTER' text below it suggests it is meant to be

741:

I'd like to extend this as a discussion to the wikipedia public. I know that it's only four links, and I know that it's not particularly that big of a deal. However, I do see it as being extremely relevant, and worth having. It seems like a bit of a standard to most articles. What do you all think?

540:

Actually, the youtube channel, facebook, twitter, and official newgrounds pages (all of which host official Neurotically Yours content) are not linked to in the infobox at all. The only thing referenced there was the illwillpress site. Again, I refer to the fact that there are several sites hosting

144:

It seems that it was deleted because subsections with full descriptions of the different characters were repeatedly added to the article despite being unsourced. To delete Neurotically Yours entirely for this reason seems disingenuous, though I agree that the subsections were inappropriate. You can

1068:

The character descriptions are obsolete. Germaine is no longer anything like she's described; that part of the article needs to be rewritten. The other human and every squirrel character other than Foamy has not appeared post-reboot. Maybe we should move the material about the characters that have

994:

Wow, pissy pissy. You're absolutely right that I suggested that you edit the article. I meant in a constructive way, not a deconstructive way. But what the hell ever dude. Seems to me like people will piss and moan wether the article is a stub or not. Who cares at this point? On a seperate note, I

978:

No I've made those edits because fansites are not RS and should not be the basis of an article - what is hard to understand? Above, you complain I am simply complaining and should get on and edit, here you are complaining that I am editing the article. I suggest you go away, have a cup of tea ,get

802:

This article needs a lot of work - it relies too much on primary sources, reading the facebook page (we don't care what fans of the series think - that stuff should go) and direct viewing of the show. As a rule of thumb, if third party sources don't care enough about an aspect of the show to write

293:

Actually, you can't say that the article isn't accurate in its nature as of yet, for the sole reason that you don't know how much will change. Perhaps Germaine will be the only character incurring any sort of a change. That said, I came to address a similar issue I had with the article. One that I

710:

Now, the content I am looking to suggest will not provide any material that is not unduly self serving, will not make claims about third parties, only offers information directly related to the subject matter, and is not based on sources that would cause this to be anything other than an accurate

500:

The only reason why I'm interested in creating the section is because many other similar topics have one. This would seem standard for most articles of a similar class. Having just browsed similar topics, I've noted that in all of them the site is used as it is currently on the Neurotically Yours

381:

At this point, depending on tomorrow's episode, and what changes are implied, there may still be one issue to address. As we both noted above, there is the possibility for the extended characters to change to some degree. May I suggest a possible rewrite in the future of the section regarding the

371:

Why thank you very much. I thought I was slightly lacking regarding the card cult, and Foamy, though they both seemed to be strongly tied to Germaine. That said, I've seen the minor tweaks, and agree completely with them. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've made several throughout the day. I've even

779:

Sounds great. I will copy this discussion over to both of those spots, as well as leaving a copy here for possible discussion. While you're here, what are your thoughts on the subject? I mainly brought this up here, as you didn't give me an official response to what I had said on your talk page.

588:

Since the information contained there in is published by the individual who's content the article is about, and through use of the information you have cited, I'd believe that this kind of information could be used in this article (though I personally wouldn't). That said, I'm not looking to use

633:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The

253:

I had a similar discussion with another user. That said, there is an official channel for Neurotically Yours on youtube. There is also a Facebook page. Both are ran by JIM, and as such, are as official as the actual website itself, as far as I'm concerned. I take it this was the issue you were

1329:

I'd recommend, aside from the official logo I've added, that images of Foamy and Germaine be added to the article; not necessarily at the top, perhaps a picture of Germaine next to her description in the Characters section, and a picture of Foamy next to his, etc... For example, perhaps

928:

I can't care about any of that, it cannot influence the need for this article to comply with policy and the basic standards that we expect an article to reflect - regardless of the history, either reliable sources are found or the options are stubbing the article or sending it to AFD.

464:

I don't want to be one of those super annoying people, but I noticed you removed my external links section, which is completely fine with me. Would you be bothered if I readded it, possibly with the youtube channel, Facebook page link, and Twitter link, as well as the home page link?

634:

following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

1257:

used as a button on a home page to 'ENTER' the main page of a website (this given from someone who has a way with HTML), which means it isn't really even a logo. I would recommend that, if an image needs to be placed in the article, that it be an official logo or banner.

214:

How would I source DVD credits? I know on the original page, there was an ongoing argument about the name of the Pizza Guy and The Star-schmucks guy, and while their names are never mentioned in the series, on the DVD, they are credited as Anchovie and Franklin,

665:. The reason I bring this up is due to the fact that many of these sites I am about to propose be added to the External Links Section I am looking to create are contained self published material (i.e., information coming directly from Mathers himself). 723:

The word "source" in Knowledge (XXG) has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect

372:

made a couple rather recently. This is the first official piece of anything I've written for wikipedia, so the idea of adding footnotes after the punctuation was new to me. Thanks for that bit of info, and I'll make sure to apply it in the future.

1285:

Could I ask that some alternitive suggestions be given? In the meantime, I think it's best that we settle on what we would like to use before contacting J.I.M. I would be willing to try to do that after I have something specific I can reference.

910:

I concur. This is actually why I tried rewriting the article. It seemed lacking before, and in need of an improvement. I believe that an appropriate course of action would be to edit the article further, in hopes of refining it to a satisfactory

1314:

Anything in particular? Is there something specific you had in mind? At that, and I didn't think of this before, but perhaps when we contact J.I.M, we could see if he's interested in creating something specifically for this article?

838:

themselves mind you) to put Mather's statement in context, and keep the statement from potentially looking like a jackassery on his part towards his fans (which could be considered bias if misconstrued). But alas, that's just me. -

729:

Again, the content I will be suggesting for this proposed section contains all of the above information. It shall include the work itself, content coming directly from the creator of the work, and published by the original author.

382:

characters in the future, based upon the outline, discussing the differences between the characters both before, and after, the rewrite? I'd also be willing to take this up to, if you agree that it would be something of value.

541:

official Neurotically Yours content that could be linked to, and used as an official source of establishing information in the article at a future date if need be. These sites seem relative to the articles development. -

145:

go to your local mall and find T-shirts with Neurotically Yours characters for sale and probably even DVDs as well. There is definitely notability, perhaps past editors simply haven't provided the sources to prove it.

109: 677:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long

862:

I personally had a hard enough time trying to find sources that didn't draw directly from the original content anyway. This is why I attempted to use the material from fan sites, and the like, to draw reference

1120:

I completely agree, though I think that the section adds to the article. Perhaps one of the two of us can scower google, and find an appropriate third party source? I may be able to do it later on tonight,...

944:

Talk is cheap. Get up and make it happen. If you want changes to be made to the article, make them. With all due respect intended, you've literally spent more time complaining than I spent writing it. -

577:

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person,

964:, mainly due to the fact that it makes the article seem under sourced, and potentially lacking authenticity. It makes me wonder if the OP had made the edits simply to build a case for deletion? - 357:

A thorough description of the webtoon's run, especially regarding Germaine. I've made a few very minor tweaks. Please remember that punctuation comes before a footnote. You did a very good job.

238:. A lot of it likewise appears to be improper synthesis of things gleaned from episodes linked on YouTube. It might even need additional support to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. 1009:

For arguments sake, I checked the rating of the page. Since you've removed so many links, the trustworthyness, objectiveness, and completeness have all dropped by one point each. Good job.... -

514:

Having cut my thoughts short, I'd also like to point out that the youtube channel has been used as a reference, and that reference had been made to the Facebook page (though it wasn't cited). -

711:

statement in the future. Further more, considering the content of such sites comes directly from the author, whose content the article is about, we have no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

278:

the series is restarted. What effect should that have on this article? Should the article be restarted? Much of the information in this article is no longer accurately describing the series.

308:

I would support the changes you propose. If this is a true reboot, maybe we should create a new article dealing with this webtoon post-reboot; this article would cover it pre-reboot.

127: 1149:. I'm not sure, as I imagine it's copyrighted. How do we get an image to use, under fair use, and add it to the article? I noticed the above critic suggested that one be added. - 1373:

This article makes almost no mention of the Chibi series. (The only reference is Ollie, Germaine's grandfather.) This information needs to be added by someone a) familiar with

459:

I had added an external links section to the page, which I had the intent of adding other links to, though it was removed by one user, which prompted the following discussion:

1106:

The descriptions currently in the article came from that website. So if that website is not a reliable source, then those descriptions should be removed on that ground.

818:

First off, being the person who rewrote the article, I take a bit of offense to what you just said. Have you browsed the history of the page? I'd ask that you take

762: 1049:

I just submitted the page for ratings since we currently have none. I thought that it would be a good indication of where the article is going in the future. -

581:"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. 803:

about, then why are we? The first most important job is to find reliable independent sources - if they don't exist, a lot of this content needs to go. --

1182:

I do think it fits in terms of fair use. Though I'm not 100% on that. At that, it is the site logo, in a way, which gives it encyclopedic value right? -

1145:

There is an image on the Foamy the Squirrel website (also owned by J.I.M), and was wondering if we could add it to the article. The image can be found

640:

reliability is concerned, it is no more reliable that content published, via whatever means, by the original author whose work is being written about.

479:

That section was redundant, because that link is already provided in the article's Introduction. A Facebook or Twitter link would likely be considered

669: 662: 625: 614: 554: 527:

The link is also provided in the Infobox. An "External link" section is not required, so there's no need to add one just for the sake of having one.

484: 865:

then maybe the article needs to head back to AFD - if we can't find reliable sources to write from, then we shouldn't write about a subject. --

185: 153: 76: 1092:

That seems like a valid, and appropriate update to the characters section, though citing the original site seems to be a bit of a no no. -

216: 148:

And it's worth reminding you, SMP0328, that the article you quote as being deleted last year was the biographical article for the

1073:

section to this talk page. We can restore each description to the article as a character makes a first post-reboot appearance.

822:

of how it was before the rewrite. At that, other users thought it needed a lot of work prior to these revisions being done, as

758: 613:

This conversation spawned the idea of doing a little research on the subject, of which I have found some valuable information

405:

The characters' descriptions should not be removed. Instead, if necessary, split each description into pre- and post-reboot.

885: 419:

This was what I was trying to get at. Again, it would only depend on the changes being made as each episode is released. -

91: 648:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work

440:

I've added the Post Reboot section as well, considering we had one rant from Foamy, and an episode to go by. Thoughts? -

1331: 1271:

My apologies, I didn't notice the second link. As for the second image, again, I would recommend something official.

1164:

First off, I don't think that image is appropriate (raised middle fingers). As for the copyright issue, I would go

881: 857:- they should be deleted, they are not RS. Fansites are not RS. If I have the time later, I'll start checking them. 38: 1211: 1320: 1291: 1247: 1219: 1187: 1154: 1126: 1097: 1054: 1014: 1000: 969: 949: 916: 843: 785: 747: 594: 546: 519: 506: 470: 445: 424: 396: 347: 328: 299: 259: 189: 157: 80: 1032: 984: 934: 870: 823: 808: 220: 47: 17: 275: 1382: 589:

these as source material, but to create an external link section. It seems even more appropriate now. -

243: 687:

2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

1316: 1287: 1243: 1215: 1183: 1150: 1122: 1093: 1050: 1010: 996: 965: 945: 912: 884:(it was coupled with the deletion of a related article). Following that deletion I had the article 839: 781: 743: 590: 542: 515: 502: 466: 441: 420: 392: 343: 324: 295: 255: 1165: 715: 618: 235: 1338: 1305: 1276: 1262: 1233: 1201: 1173: 1111: 1078: 1028: 980: 930: 901: 866: 804: 770: 562: 532: 492: 410: 362: 313: 283: 175: 135: 117: 99: 765:. You will probably get more responses at either of those talk pages than you will at this one. 480: 1378: 1386: 1342: 1324: 1309: 1295: 1280: 1266: 1251: 1237: 1223: 1205: 1191: 1177: 1158: 1130: 1115: 1101: 1082: 1058: 1036: 1018: 1004: 988: 973: 953: 938: 920: 905: 874: 847: 812: 789: 774: 751: 557:. This is why I believe using Facebook or Twitter as a source would likely be disallowed. 449: 428: 414: 400: 366: 351: 332: 317: 303: 287: 263: 247: 239: 224: 193: 179: 161: 139: 121: 103: 84: 1333:

for Germaine? I'll leave it up to you about getting something original for the article.

854:

Of the references, 1, 3, 4, 6-19, 21-25, 37, 46, 48, 53, and 62 are all fan based sites,

960:

Considering the nature of the original argument, I don't particularly take to well to

1334: 1301: 1272: 1258: 1229: 1197: 1169: 1107: 1074: 897: 766: 558: 528: 488: 406: 358: 309: 279: 171: 131: 113: 108:

This isn't showing in the above box, but it was up for AfD last month and was kept.

95: 643:

With that in mind, the next piece of information I'd like to address is as follows:

1146: 705:

This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

130:. Apparently this article became notable during the time in which it didn't exist. 995:

know it's not policy, but isn't it the norm to indent when replying to someone? -

90:

Multiple versions of this article have been created and then deleted for lacking

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1027:

I rated it after I edited it, so that's more than likely down to me as well. --

1089: 691:

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

342:

Consider the changes, as outlined above, officially made. Comments anyone? -

110:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Neurotically_Yours_(2nd_nomination)

579:

unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.

1196:

There have to be images of Foamy without him giving the double salute.

1242:

Sorry for a late reply. How is it that I would go about doing that? -

888:. That was circumvented by someone creating this article, naming it 152:

of Neurotically Yours, not the Neurotically Yours article itself. --

672:

of the same article, I'd like to quote another portion of text:

979:

your arguments straight in your own head, read up on policy. --

25: 391:

Thanks again for reviewing my work, and the kind comments. -

75:

Why was the original article deleted in favor of this stub?

1228:

Much better. Just make sure there are no copyright issues.

961: 819: 234:

A lot of this stuff seems to be a bit in conflict with

695:

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

1300:

Perhaps a 'portrait' of sorts of Foamy and Germaine?

699:

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

628:

of identifying reliable source states the following:

826:, which inspired the article to turn out as it did. 880:AFD likely wouldn't help. This article has been 720: 674: 645: 630: 574: 461: 624:The first thing I would like to point out is 8: 1069:not made a post-reboot appearance from the 487:. Such a link would definitely be removed. 683:1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 166:The deletion was of the "creator" article 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1088:Can we find a third party source for 7: 323:to the wiki. Thanks for the input! - 170:of the Neurotically Yours article. 94:. How long will this version last? 757:I suggest you raise this issue at 24: 714:In regards to what constitutes a 654:reliable third-party publications 652:has previously been published by 29: 597:) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 565:) 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 549:) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 535:) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 522:) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 509:) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 495:) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 473:) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1343:00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 1059:20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 1037:09:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 1019:20:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 1005:20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 989:07:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 974:06:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 954:06:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 939:15:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 921:06:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 906:15:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 875:09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 848:03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 813:11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 128:the consensus was for deletion 1: 1325:00:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC) 1238:05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 1224:05:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 1206:06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 1192:06:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 1178:19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 1159:19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 790:05:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 775:05:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 752:04:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 661:The above quote can be found 450:15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 429:04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 415:03:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 401:03:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 367:02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 264:03:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC) 248:00:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 194:00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 184:Ah, you're right. Sneaky. -- 180:00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 162:00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 140:01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 122:00:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 104:23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 85:22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 1310:16:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1296:15:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1131:02:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 1116:04:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1102:03:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1083:20:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 483:and would certainly not be 352:20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 333:06:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 318:04:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 304:03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC) 288:23:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 1402: 1387:20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC) 1377:and b) with references. — 1252:07:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 1210:How about something like 718:, I quote the following: 1281:01:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1267:00:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 225:18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 798:Article needs a rewrite 18:Talk:Neurotically Yours 1064:Character descriptions 727: 708: 668:Continuing on, in the 659: 637: 611: 584: 455:External links section 650:in the relevant field 42:of past discussions. 1375:Neurotically Yours 894:Neurotically Yours 890:Neurotically yours 892:and moving it to 626:that the overview 92:reliable sourcing 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1393: 485:reliable sources 70:Earlier versions 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1371: 1143: 1066: 1047: 800: 716:reliable source 457: 272: 254:pointing out? - 232: 212: 186:141.210.236.124 154:141.210.236.124 77:141.210.236.104 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1399: 1397: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1335:I am Quibilia. 1317:Poodle of Doom 1302:I am Quibilia. 1288:Poodle of Doom 1273:I am Quibilia. 1269: 1259:I am Quibilia. 1244:Poodle of Doom 1216:Poodle of Doom 1184:Poodle of Doom 1151:Poodle of Doom 1142: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1123:Poodle of Doom 1094:Poodle of Doom 1065: 1062: 1051:Poodle of Doom 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1022: 1021: 1011:Poodle of Doom 1007: 997:Poodle of Doom 966:Poodle of Doom 959: 957: 956: 946:Poodle of Doom 926: 925: 924: 923: 913:Poodle of Doom 882:deleted before 851: 850: 840:Poodle of Doom 834: 833: 828: 827: 799: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 782:Poodle of Doom 744:Poodle of Doom 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 591:Poodle of Doom 572: 567: 543:Poodle of Doom 516:Poodle of Doom 511: 503:Poodle of Doom 467:Poodle of Doom 456: 453: 442:Poodle of Doom 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 421:Poodle of Doom 393:Poodle of Doom 386: 385: 384: 383: 376: 375: 374: 373: 344:Poodle of Doom 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 325:Poodle of Doom 296:Poodle of Doom 276:latest episode 271: 268: 267: 266: 256:Poodle of Doom 231: 228: 211: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 146: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1398: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1369:Chibi series? 1368: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1140: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1063: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1044: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029:Cameron Scott 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1006: 1002: 998: 993: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 981:Cameron Scott 976: 975: 971: 967: 963: 955: 951: 947: 943: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 931:Cameron Scott 922: 918: 914: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 878: 877: 876: 872: 868: 867:Cameron Scott 864: 859: 858: 855: 849: 845: 841: 836: 835: 830: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 815: 814: 810: 806: 805:Cameron Scott 797: 791: 787: 783: 778: 777: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 739: 735: 731: 726: 725: 719: 717: 712: 707: 706: 702: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 679: 673: 671: 666: 664: 658: 657: 655: 651: 644: 641: 636: 635: 629: 627: 622: 620: 616: 598: 596: 592: 586: 585: 583: 582: 580: 573: 571: 568: 566: 564: 560: 556: 552: 551: 550: 548: 544: 538: 537: 536: 534: 530: 525: 524: 523: 521: 517: 512: 510: 508: 504: 498: 497: 496: 494: 490: 486: 482: 477: 476: 475: 474: 472: 468: 460: 454: 452: 451: 447: 443: 430: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 404: 403: 402: 398: 394: 390: 389: 388: 387: 380: 379: 378: 377: 370: 369: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 353: 349: 345: 334: 330: 326: 321: 320: 319: 315: 311: 307: 306: 305: 301: 297: 292: 291: 290: 289: 285: 281: 277: 270:Reboot Button 269: 265: 261: 257: 252: 251: 250: 249: 245: 241: 237: 229: 227: 226: 222: 218: 217:184.17.64.201 215:respectively. 209: 195: 191: 187: 183: 182: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 164: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 142: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 124: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 106: 105: 101: 97: 93: 89: 88: 87: 86: 82: 78: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1374: 1372: 1144: 1070: 1067: 1048: 977: 958: 927: 893: 889: 861: 860: 856: 853: 852: 801: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724:reliability. 722: 721: 713: 709: 704: 703: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 676: 675: 670:next section 667: 660: 653: 649: 647: 646: 642: 638: 632: 631: 623: 612: 587: 578: 576: 575: 570:And I quote: 569: 553: 539: 526: 513: 499: 478: 463: 462: 458: 439: 341: 273: 233: 213: 167: 149: 73: 60: 43: 37: 1379:Molly-in-md 824:shown above 36:This is an 1071:Characters 240:Peter Deer 126:Last year 962:this edit 555:Read this 236:WP:SOURCE 61:Archive 1 1230:SMP0328. 1198:SMP0328. 1170:SMP0328. 1108:SMP0328. 1075:SMP0328. 898:SMP0328. 767:SMP0328. 559:SMP0328. 529:SMP0328. 489:SMP0328. 407:SMP0328. 359:SMP0328. 310:SMP0328. 280:SMP0328. 210:Sourcing 172:SMP0328. 132:SMP0328. 114:Milowent 96:SMP0328. 1045:Ratings 911:level.- 761:and/or 274:In the 230:Sources 150:creator 39:archive 886:salted 617:, and 1141:Image 1090:this? 16:< 1383:talk 1339:talk 1321:talk 1306:talk 1292:talk 1277:talk 1263:talk 1248:talk 1234:talk 1220:talk 1212:this 1202:talk 1188:talk 1174:talk 1166:here 1155:talk 1147:here 1127:talk 1112:talk 1098:talk 1079:talk 1055:talk 1033:talk 1015:talk 1001:talk 985:talk 970:talk 950:talk 935:talk 917:talk 902:talk 871:talk 844:talk 820:note 809:talk 786:talk 771:talk 763:here 759:here 748:talk 663:here 619:here 615:here 595:talk 563:talk 547:talk 533:talk 520:talk 507:talk 493:talk 481:spam 471:talk 446:talk 425:talk 411:talk 397:talk 363:talk 348:talk 329:talk 314:talk 300:talk 284:talk 260:talk 244:talk 221:talk 190:talk 176:talk 158:talk 136:talk 118:talk 100:talk 81:talk 1214:? - 863:to. 678:as: 168:and 112:.-- 1385:) 1341:) 1323:) 1308:) 1294:) 1279:) 1265:) 1250:) 1236:) 1222:) 1204:) 1190:) 1176:) 1168:. 1157:) 1129:) 1114:) 1100:) 1081:) 1057:) 1035:) 1017:) 1003:) 987:) 972:) 952:) 937:) 929:-- 919:) 904:) 873:) 846:) 811:) 788:) 773:) 750:) 621:. 448:) 427:) 413:) 399:) 365:) 350:) 331:) 316:) 302:) 286:) 262:) 246:) 223:) 192:) 178:) 160:) 138:) 120:) 102:) 83:) 1381:( 1337:( 1319:( 1315:- 1304:( 1290:( 1286:- 1275:( 1261:( 1246:( 1232:( 1218:( 1200:( 1186:( 1172:( 1153:( 1125:( 1121:- 1110:( 1096:( 1077:( 1053:( 1031:( 1013:( 999:( 983:( 968:( 948:( 933:( 915:( 900:( 869:( 842:( 807:( 784:( 780:- 769:( 746:( 742:- 656:. 593:( 561:( 545:( 531:( 518:( 505:( 491:( 469:( 465:- 444:( 423:( 409:( 395:( 361:( 346:( 327:( 312:( 298:( 282:( 258:( 242:( 219:( 188:( 174:( 156:( 134:( 116:( 98:( 79:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index