Family guy meet the quagmires soundtrack for 50

In addition to the boilerplate are use programyou must also problem out Famkly the image enough page a unique explanation or rationale for why parking this image in each will is affordable with fair use. I private that your dislike of the adults won't keep you from near them. It's even beter when they clean something I reconize fine about the spelling but I can't project the name. I'm having to your refusal to turn from affordable friends, regardless of the has that store. If you have an are with my stay or house, then please report me at WP:.

WAF to see what episode articles are supposed to look like. It's blatant attempts to control what people contribute. It's like the very core stone to Family Guy! As Quagmire said, "You take the venom out of a cobra, you got a belt. Bulleted lists are not really suitable for an encyclopedia article unless the article itself is a list and there are well establised editorial criteria and standards of inclusion that must be adhered to by all editors. If you would care to read the article you would see that most of what you are adding is already in there. NOTand WP: Be mature and don't just delete everything without a clear mind what to do.

I rewrote it and incorporated the infornation in prose form. I don't think you are remotley qualified to handle this article any better than the people you think don't, and I'll see that Family guy meet the quagmires soundtrack for 50 higher up is aware of the vice grip you currently have on it so you are releived of it. I no more own the article than you do. I will however point out that the edits you are making are are doing harm to the article. The important info is already in the article, the rest you are trying to add is not up to our standards of inclusion for sourcingoriginal researchTn phone chat writingand trivia.

Free livesex chat am more than happy to discuss these issues with you but I must insist that you assume good faithmaintain civilityand stop reverting the article to make a point. You'll have to forgive my heated opinions on this, not to Suffolk singles dating agency I've had tons of Pepsi lately. I will be a little more cival Sluts in liverton, but I am curious as to why you Family guy meet the quagmires soundtrack for 50 not paying attention to the other Family Guy episodes that have the layouts that you have been removing from this paticular article.

I hope that your dislike of the policies won't keep you from following them. As for the other FG episodes, some have been cleaned up but it's a constant job and I edit in many other subject areas. The Simpsons articles have been getting better and so have some of the South Park. Even though you don't like the rules, I do urge you to read through episodeand writing about fiction and also check out featured articles to see what we are striving for. But I know this: The spirit of Wikipedia is to put information in record and make things easier for people to look for.

I hardly believe that scrambling everything in a disordered fashion other than point forms could make things any easier. Give our cultural references back; I believe many of you guys are on our side as well. Speak with one voice. It was relevant, informative and interesting. It is really annoying when the WikiNazis delete edits that people make cause they're outside the little WikiClique of moderators and long-time users that dominate the site. And, apart from you, I don't think anyone has had the slightest problem with the manner in which Family Guy articles have been written. Yet you insist a la Dwight Schrute on altering a viable formula that existed long before you even joined the ranks of Wikipedia.

The community doesn't seem to be on your side, Homefill; please surrender your crusade to the will of the majority. You are comparing a disagreement over the format of a website article on a television show to the torture and slaughter of millions of innocent human beings. You should be ashamed of yourself. Secondly, I'll be happy to back down when the article conforms to our long-standing policies and guidelines. The wishes of a few editors, or even the wishes of an entire wikiproject, just do not trump the editorial standards that have been established here. I'm sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.

If you would like to change the policies to allow the inclusion of unsourced material, original research, and trivia then you are more than welcome to do so. It has been tried in the past and went absolutley nowhere though. Until those policies are changed however, we ALL mus abide by them even if we don't like them. Look as has been pointed out, there are many, many, many outlets for fan expression, trivia, speculation and commentary. Wikipedia is not one of them. I'm referring to your refusal to deviate from established rules, regardless of the conflicts that result. This wasn't a problem until you made it one. Why are you so adamant about changing something that has worked so well for so long?

These are rules that ALL editors must follow. I don't understand the problem here. If you don't like our editorial policies, that's your perogitive, you don't have to edit here. Thsoe are the places for the trivia and the jokes, not Wikipeida. The same cannot be said for the format currently on the page; "Scientific basis"? How is this supposed to be an improvement over the tried-and-true format that we're all familiar with? The established format is one that informs and illuminates without being pompous or mind-crushingly boring; I say bring it back.

I was just saying that you are too anal-retentive about the content of this article. You guys really are Nazis. The ironic thing is that the people who are in charge of editing a Family Guy article apparently have no sense of humor. For the rest of us, for those who get it. It is great to know you can handily provide all those concise quicklinks to the rules and guidelines you so humbly expect everyone including yourself to abide by, but damned if you grasp the basic underlying concept of this website -- in my own words: Understand this, champ, this is not an article about the declaration of independence or the general theory of relativityit's Family Guy.

Try getting it through your head that the nature of the documentation of TV programs with topical and cultural references dictate that barely anything can be cited here by traditional means, i. Seriosuly, are you that bored? You're in a minority so you may as well quit while you believe you're still sitting on that pedestal. I am not going to continue this dialogue as I've said all that needs be said - and for Christ's sake, get a life. The article being about a fictional topic is no excuse to contravene long-established editorial policy. Take a look at WP: FA there are many featured articles about fictional subjects. You will not find trivia, cultural references, or unsourced claims in any of them.

Again I must stress the information itself is not the issue, it is the ham-handed manner in which people are trying to add it. I'm sorry you think you are somehow being censored; I assure you, you are not. If you don't like our editorial policies, then leave, noone is making you edit Wikipedia. You state "the nature of the documentation of TV programs with topical and cultural references dictate that barely anything can be cited here by traditional means" well you are just wrong. Check out any college's Media Studies department, go look at the Film and Television section of your local library, read the media critics in your local newspaper.

Talk:Meet the Quagmires

These things are available all around you. If you think television articles can't be sourced, then Family guy meet the quagmires soundtrack for 50 need to continue your schooling. If you think television articles shouldn't be sourced then you need to contribute elsewhere as there is no place for you at the encyclopedia. Anyway, we're not here to set up a conflict or player-hatred, we're here for the article. And what's wiki for? If you are banning the cultural references of Family Guy, you are also banning all the trivia and cultural references of the Simpsons, American Dad, and so forth. It would be a chaotic move.

Please, just quit from the stairs to the left and give us our peaceful article back. This all comes down to one person's clear abuse of power and bullying other editors with this notion of kissing up to management's "preferences". That'd be fine if I swallowed his excuse people are "too busy" to handle every episode of FG with "Cultural References", if this "sturcture" was an insistent mandate, it'd be enforced as vigerously as other terms of editorial violation. The fact it is not proves it's not a problem, indeed it's been the opposite. Until I see this happen beyond this episode alone, I don't buy this is what the admins want at all, and even if they do, there pretty lax about it.

When this article is unlocked, the Cultural References are going back in. Put it to a vote if you want, it's for the better of the community, not the stuck-up elitist system who ruin things FOR their intended audience.

And what the hell is this? The Hook up places london manglik match making itself is not the issue. Famly for trivia, check out the rules: If you would please Family guy meet the quagmires soundtrack for 50 the time to read and understand our policies and guidelinesyou would understand where I'm coming from. If you don't like the policies, then try to change them. You can start that process by posting quagnires the talk pages of the rules you would like to change.

If you have an issue with my behavior or methodology, then please report me at WP: ANI or try any one of our dispute resolution outlets. As for other Family Guy articles looking like garbage, Familg right, they need cleaning too. Why is sourcing such an issue for you? Why do feel that citing sources is such a difficult thing to do? Seriously though, I'm not going anywhere, so get used to having your feet quagmirs to the fire when it comes to editorial standards, this is an encyclopedia after all, not the Family Guy wiki. No longer the "professional" you were last night, you are now resorting to commonplace thuggery.

Spewing threats of harrasment simply because you get off on controlling the conduct of one soundtarck. Seriously, you're untrustworthy, and self-contradictive. Qugmires this article before you humiliate soundtrrack further, you've been reported. I have tried to assume good faith throughout this discussion; presenting my reasoning alongside wikilinks to the applicable policies and guidelines. The unfortunate response from some has been abuse, vitriol, and hyperbole. This is Familg not acceptable behavior at Wikipedia. Never have I said "you don't like Wikipedia, leave".

What I do believe is that if an editor is unwilling to follow the encyclopedia's long-standing editorial policies, they should not be editing the encyclopedia. As for the issue at hand, Wikipedia has editorial standards regarding, amongst other things, verifiabilitysourcesand original research. You have to abide by policy, we all do. For, what I hope will be, the last time. The information itself cultural references, topical humour, cutaways, The problem is the way in which the information is being added. You have to cite a source for your claims, this is not up for discussion, this is a core policy of the encyclopedia.

If you can't cite a source for your claim, then you can't put it in the article. Sources in episode articles was discussed and settled here back in Please read the policies and guidelines that I have referenced; you'll find that these issues are dealt with. If Family Guy does a parody of "Back to the Future" you have to have someone else make an article that says "Family guy did a parody of Back to the Future" before you can put it in an article? ORand WP: There it is all explained for you. How to cite primary sources the episode itselfhow to cite secondary sources books and news stories about the episodeand why we don't like to cite tertiary sources encyclopedias, web forums, fansites.

Please see the references section of this article where the "cite video" template has been used to list this episode as a source. Remember however, that a primary source can only be used for information about itself. That is to say, that the episode itself can only be a source for things that happen in the episode. If you want to claim that the show's writers intended to parody or spoof another work, then, yes, you would need a secondary source A news story, or interview with the writers where they say they intended to parody or spoof that other work. This is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

Wikipedia can not contain any claims or theories that have not already been published by a reliable 3rd party source. This is not hard to overcome; the bookstore is packed with magazines that cover television, your local library has a section on film and television, your local university has a media studies dept. When Brian challenges him to actually do it, Stewie carries out his diabolical 7 1. On the look out for Stewie, Joe leads a manhunt around Quahog. Determined to take over the world again, Stewie The owner gives him unlimited burgers as It originally aired on Fox in the United States on May 14, It aired on Fox in the United States It originally aired on Fox in the United States on He ends up in a gay When Peter, heading for the bathroom, charges through the crowd of people, impresses quarterback Tom Brady, who offers Brian makes fun of Stewie for They are sent to the Deep After Death twists his ankle while chasing Peter, He ends up bailing on a date with Lois to hang out with a movie actress.

When he returns to the When they find him, the Nazis invade and Mort is