Talk:Nancy Cartwright/Archive 1

Please Add this info

I was reading through some credits of Disney's 43rd animated film Brother Bear, and I noticed that Nancy Cartwright was a voice coach for that film! I suppose that due to her being a veteran in voice work, she is now teaching other actors/actresses to learn how to voice characters.

April 5th

Personally, I think that whole thing about making fun of Scientology is mean-spirited, is not a neutral point of view, should be removed, and the submitter reprimanded.

Other than that, it appears fine.

scientology is ridiculous.

You guys should really sign & date your posts. I agree that the negative Scientology references were inapporopriate, but it looks like somebody reacted by removing all references to Scientology from the article, which isn't right either. It should be mentioned. I've added a sentence about it at the end. —Chowbok 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah article should be neutral(unless something dubious occored) but scientology is still utter, utter crap Owwmykneecap 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not well received by reviewers?

"It was not particularly well-received by many reviewers" (link to one bad review)?--Hungoverdrawn 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous birthplace and birthdate information

I don't know where people get their information from, but according to Cartwright's website http://nancycartwright.com/html/about/faq.html and IMDB http://imdb.com/name/nm0004813/ she was born in Kettering, OH on October 25, 1957. I will update this information.

DeeKenn 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited audition thing

I remember seeing her on tv talking about the swapping of bart and lisa's voices. If anyone could find a clip of it on YouTube or something we could note the source. KZF 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for materials

On 18 May 2007 I sent a request for photo to Nancy Cartwright (email from her website). --Zureks 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received a photo (in the article already) and quite a bit of text to use:

Emmy Award-winning actress Nancy Cartwright is best known as the voice of spike-headed underachiever Bart Simpson, but also gives voice to Ralph Wiggum, Nelson Muntz, Todd Flanders and various others in the town of Springfield. In addition to her work on THE SIMPSONS, Cartwright portrays Chuckie in the cable series Rugrats, as well as Rufus the Naked Mole Rat in the cable series Kim Possible, Todd on Disney’s “The Replacements” and is in production on a new series, “Betsy’s Kindergarten Adventures”. With over two decades at the mic, Cartwright has lent her voice to characters on various other animated series, including ³Richie Rich,² ³Animaniacs,² ³Pinky and the Brain,² ³The Critic,² ³God, The Devil and Bob,² ³Mike, Lu & Og,² as well as Chuck Jones¹ final work, ³Timberwolf.² While rarely seen in the world of voice acting, Cartwright is not camera shy. She has portrayed memorable roles in numerous television series and movies, including ³Fame,² ³Empty Nest,² ³Cheers,² ³The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,² ³Twilight Zone-The Movie² and ³Godzilla² as well as the lead in the TV movie ³Marian Rose White.² Cartwright received an Emmy Award and an Annie Award for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Voice-Over Performance as Bart Simpson. They are displayed alongside the multiple SIMPSONS Emmys; her Emmys for ³Animaniacs² and ³Pinky, Elmyra and The Brain²; a People¹s Choice Award; and the DramaLogue Award she received for her one-woman play, ³In Search of Fellini.² Her one-woman show, based on her book, world-premiered in August 2004 at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Cartwright’s production company, SportsBlast, and partners Turner Sports Interactive hosting Nascar.com were recognized with the Silver Award by the Houston Film Festival for their original series ³The Kellys.² The Kellys also received an Aurora Gold Award and Cartwright Entertainment received an Aurora Gold for her “Day in the Life” documentary. Cartwright actively supports many nonprofit organizations that help children, including Famous Fone Friends, Make-a-Wish Foundation, The Way to Happiness Foundation and World Literacy Crusade. She is the Honorary Mayor of the North Valley and actively participates in her local community. She is co-founder of Happy House, a non-profit organization dedicated to Building Better Families. She is a member of Women in Film, ASIFA , Women in Animation and The Chouinard Foundation. Cartwright's best-selling autobiography, ³My Life as a Ten-Year-Old Boy² (Hyperion/Bloomsbury), takes a behind-the-scenes look at her unique life as it relates to the phenomenon of THE SIMPSONS. She recorded an updated version of the autobiography, which was released as an audio book in 2004. To find out more about Nancy and her career go to www.nancycartwright.com

Please edit it someone (I am not too god with English). --Zureks 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and birthplace information. Again?

She was not born in Florida, nor was she born in 1980! See my entry above. I am not reverting the edit because I am sick of Wikipedia and its constant vandalism. When there is a fact proven and entered, it should be locked!

DeeKenn 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted an administrator about having the page protected.I also reverted the edits.--Joebengo 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel Bryant 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks out to both of you. I was frustrated that day. DeeKenn 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like that anon editor is at it again, it only took them one day to vandalize the entire page after the protection was taken away. I have messaged Daniel Bryant and hopefully he will know better what can be done to stop this vandal.--Joebengo 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that vandal isnt giving up, they did it for the SECOND time today, diff, this is getting crazy.--Joebengo 20:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, three months this time. Daniel Bryant 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey the age and dob are messed up again, I don't know what the real dob is so can't correct it.

Disambiguation

I'd like to move the Nancy Cartwright (actor) page back here. Is there anyone who opposes this? -- Scorpion 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would. A quick google search shows both Cartwrights on the first page of results, with multiple hits for both. Although this is not definitive reasoning, I think it makes more sense to use a disambig page for both than a mere disambig link referencing one from the other's page. Besides, the disambig page as is makes it clear which is which quite adequately. — Eric Herboso 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that convention was to only use disambiguation pages for more than 2 and then link two the second page from the one that was created first (in this case, the Simpsons voice Nancy). -- Scorpion 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." (Emphasis added.) So the issue is not the number of articles, but whether or not one meaning is clearly dominant over the other.

Although I hadn't heard of either before today, my initial google search seemed to show that both their pages are high on google's pagerank. Keep in mind that IMDB and Wikipedia hits on google can't count for as much with regard to prominence, since they'll always be near the top due to massive irrelevant overlinking on the 'net. So google hit one is the actor's page, while the second relevant link is the philosopher's. In my opinion, this makes it (at the least) unclear as to whether use of the actor's name is dominant over the other.

The flip side of this is that while Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) has 19 pages linked to it, Nancy Cartwright (actress) has over 50. But I do not feel that this constitutes a meaning that is "much more used" and is "clearly dominant". Of course, this is just my initial opinion; I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. — Eric Herboso 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, but what are naming conventions for actors/actresses, because Nancy Cartwright is an actress. -- Scorpion 05:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen suggested moving the article to her full name to avoid the parenthetical. That solves the "actress" problem, but it doesn't seem like the most natural solution (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)). The current title is not bad, I think. There seems to be some dispute about whether we should use "actress" as a parenthetical (examples: Savannah (actress), Grace Park (actress), Jane Seymour (actress), Kate Walsh (actor), Jane Kennedy (actor), Anne Lockhart (actor)) I can't tell which is the majority, but this seems like something that our conventions should address. Should probably raise this issue on the talk page of naming conventions for people; I think it ought to be a guidline. The modern trend seems to favors "actor". Cool Hand Luke 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personaly feel that this page should be for the actress because she is much more notable than the philosopher.--Joebengo 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, that depends on the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.202.239 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other clause doesn't cover biographies. Nobody is hurt by having a disambig here. --Pjacobi 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is helped either. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the searches for "Nancy Cartwright" are divided evenly between people thinking of the actress and people thinking of the philosopher. If we were to move one of the two articles to Nancy Cartwright, 50% of searchers would immediately reach the intended page. The other 50% would need to follow an additional link (placed at the top of the page). Under the current setup, 100% of people searching for "Nancy Cartwright" must follow an additional link. Moving one of the two articles to Nancy Cartwright would improve the article's accessibility for 50% of searchers (while leaving the other 50% unaffected). This is why two-article disambiguation pages usually are counterproductive. —David Levy 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish this was done with a bit more consensus. I won't push the issue myself, but if anyone strongly objects, I will move this article back to "(actor)" and undelete the old disambiguation page. Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is longstanding consensus against two-article disambiguation pages, and I'd be interested to read an argument as to how they provide any substantial benefits. —David Levy 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to have this page at FAC by the end of the week. Could you please not de-stabilize it with this pointless move warring? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this article back to Nancy Cartwright (actor) and making Nancy Cartwright a redirect to that page. I'd rather Nancy Cartwright be a disambiguation page, but to minimize the possibility of further disruption and to give this discussion a more appropriate home, I think that's a good compromise for now. That way, no matter what happens with Nancy Cartwright, we can be sure that Nancy Cartwright (actor) will always work correctly, and the discussion can stay on Talk:Nancy Cartwright where it belongs. As for the value of two-article disambiguation pages, they let the reader (and editors) know that there is more than one person with that name, in a much more noticeable way than a hatnote. It makes it a lot easier to check that links are made to the correct article, since ones to an unqualified name will show up in the various "links to disambiguation pages" reports. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please refrain from performing controversial moves without consensus.

2. Your proposed "compromise" contradicts our naming conventions; it's flat-out incorrect to redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)".

3 Your claimed advantage of "[letting] the reader (and editors) know that there is more than one person with that name" also is inconsistent with our naming guidelines, which state that the sole relevant concern is making it as easy as possible for readers to find the articles that they seek. Anyone seeking the philosopher's article and arriving at the actor's article will immediately know this (and be directed to the intended target). For those intending to view the actor's article, there is no issue; we have no mission to inform people that another person has the same name as the person whose article they seek (and yet, the hatnote accomplishes this quite well).

4. There's no reason why a bot cannot be set up to list only new links to the non-disambiguated title (thereby negating the other advantage that you cited above). —David Levy 21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, that proposal seems absolutely pointless. Note that in terms of page views, this Nancy Cartwright had 21119 views while the philosopher had 872. Please don't de-stabilize this article and ruin the FAC just to prove whatever ridiculous point you are trying to prove. If you want to do something useful, why don't you copyedit the article for me? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're both morons. David Levy, you're the ONLY person with a problem with the move, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Scorpion, relatively popularity is meaningless. They both have the same name. Ergo, there should be a disambiguation page. Since neither of you seems to have a clue, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore. Good luck with your fan page, idiot. And good luck with your fascism, Levy. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody here isn't reading things properly. How could David Levy be the only one against the move when I clearly said I thought it was pointless? Okay, popularity is meaningless, what is the point in having Nancy Cartwright redirect to Nancy Cartwright (actor)? I'm glad you're not wasting your time any more, maybe you should try editing articles and improving rather than trying to move random pages then insulting people who oppose you. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit? You started with the insults, I'm just not taking crap from a stupid fanboy like you. If you actually looked at my edit history, you'd see that I do contribute articles, and unlike waste-of-space Levy, I also do regular maintenance work here like cleaning up categories and other things admins are supposed to do. Keep replying, I'm not wasting any effort "improving" this piece of crap article, but I'll be glad to call you names and point out how stupid you are, all day long. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Not sure why Actress Cartwright's credits were vandalized on the main page to indicate that she's best known for voicing 'Ronald McDonald', as well as 'Nelson Muntz and other regular characters on The Wiggles,' but I've corrected the information (as well as the misspelling of 'actor' as 'acter' that broke the actual link to Cartwright's page. Not sure why someone would want to vandalize a pretty obscure page like this, but it's fixed for now. Future attempts will be reverted; attempts at trolling me into a 3RR violation will fail.

There's some oddities too - Cartwright was born in 1957, not 1982. [1] Orderinchaos 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$10M Scientology donations

Staff (January 30, 2008). "Nancy Cartwright, Scientology Fat Cat: 'Simpsons' Voice Donates $10M". HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. pp. Page Six. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This part is interesting: "Surprisingly, Nancy, 50, forked over twice as much as the Scientology's most prominent member, Tom Cruise, who only gave $5 million in an installment plan." Cirt (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better source, same info

Associated Press (January 30, 2008). "Scientologists' big donations". ABC Action News. Scripps TV Station Group. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE CHURCH OF $IMPSONTOLOGY

Li, David K. (January 31, 2008). "THE CHURCH OF $IMPSONTOLOGY". New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
- Another source. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

Unsourced material was removed from this article by the publicist for this actor, and in VRTS ticket # 2008022110001593 the publicist said this was because they were inaccuracies/incorrect. As a result, this information is to be considered to be contentious, and must not be added back to the article unless it can be supported by good references, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. Come on, it can't be that difficult to get references for which characters she played on a couple of shows/games. - Mark 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP doesn't apply to fictional characters. Part of the info you are removing is plot information from 24, which I re-added. I have left off the unsourced credit, although I believe the credit is listed in the game material. --Smashville^BONK! 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. - Mark 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are several inaccuracies on the page (I removed one of them), but part of the reason is that it is the target of a vandal who comes back sporatically and changes things, and I guess it wasn't caught. However, some of the stuff the publicist removed was related to Cartwright being a scientologist, and that is the only section of the article that is well sourced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Can someone give examples of specifically what is objected to or what is claimed to be factually inaccurate that was removed? Especially if things that were removed were already sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, not sure why they were removed. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is some of the stuff that was removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received word back from the publicist, and here are the problems she raises with the article as it currently stands (with the unreferenced material removed):

Cartwright is no longer a member of Women in Animation, World Literacy Crusade or Women in Film. I've also noticed that the stuff that says that in the article is referenced to a Fox publicity article, and actually seems halfway to being a copyvio because the text is substantially similar.
- That is true. A lot of the article is quite similar to that. I'll work on making it more original. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no mention of Cartwright winning the "Wish Icon Award", apparently the highest honour of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The publicist gives this link as a reference for that.
- My rule of thumb for awards is that if it has no page, then it doesn't get mentioned, but I guess it might be worth adding. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no mention of Cartwright's support of the Devonshire PALS (Police Activity League Supporters) which she apparently holds annual fundraisers for at her house called "Monte Carlo nights". Here is the reference the publicist gives.
- Okay, mentioning this would going a little far. If they want to publish info about all of her current causes, then they have come to the wrong place. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. - Mark 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked the publicist to address the problems with the old version of the article, but she appears to have misunderstood me... - Mark 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky and the Brain

Does Cartwright play someone on the separate, narrowly-defined Pinky and the Brain series? Or does the article refer to her role in "In the Garden of Mindy" in Animaniacs, and/or her role as Rudy Mookich on Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain? --Kletta (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, now I've remembered that Mindy was also in "Star Warners", the last episode of Pinky and the Brain. I just don't know if Nancy Cartwright has voiced anyone else on P&tB, and I also think Rudy might play a larger role in PE&tB than Mindy in P&tB. --Kletta (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

Nancy was born on November 1, 1959, not October 25, 1957.

What is your source for this? I've been checking her book and haven't found anything yet. However, the chalkboard gag for Dead Putting Society is "I am not a 32 year old woman", and that aired in 1990 after her birthday, so she would have been born in 57. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message went out to Scientologists

Hi Scorpion, re this revert: According to the Times article, the message was sent to Scientologists, inviting them to the event. Also see Fox News, Will the Voice of Bart Simpson Get In Trouble for 'Unauthorized' Scientology Call?, referring to "her voice message urging Scientologists, in Bart's voice, to attend an upcoming conference." That is relevant. Jayen 466 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways you could interpret the statement "her voice message urging Scientologists"

1. The message was to everyone but she was speaking only to Scientologists (which is how I'm interpreting it)

2. The message was sent only to Scientologists (which I have my doubts about, otherwise how would a detractor have gotten a hold of it?)

I really have no desire to turn this into a Scientology battle and get myself added to that ArbCom case. However, some articles indicate that the call was also to non-Scientologists, ie. [2] I don't see what is wrong with the present wording as it is still neutral (it's not like it says she annoyed thousands or something) while saying that only Scientologists received the call (without a source that definitively says that) is less neutral. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source says another source says she "called many people". Which is not true anyway, since this was a robocall, and even so your source does not say that she called non-Scientologists.

We have two highly reputable sources stating that the robocall went out to Scientologists, and there is no reason not to follow those sources. It is not compatible with BLP to imply she made calls to members of the general public using Bart's voice. (Btw, that the call went out to Scientologists is obvious anyway, from the language she used.) Please self-revert, otherwise I will take this to WP:BLP/N and/or WP:AE. Jayen 466 15:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to AN/I and entered in arbcom evidence. Also note that you left the sentence ungrammatical. Jayen 466 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, on AN/I you say, "The message was to everyone but she was speaking only to Scientologists (which is how I'm interpreting it)" What exactly do you imagine here happened? That every phone number in LA got an automated message talking about OT VII, "wins" and "auditing"? Jayen 466 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I said it here too, which makes me think you didn't even bother reading my reply. I don't really imagine anything. I just read that she was using Bart to promote an event, and that's exactly what the article says. Saying only scientologists received the message is just as bad as if it said everyone received it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times source seems fairly clear to me "At least, that is what Scientologists were led to believe this week when they received an automated telephone message...". It doesn't say anyone else received it. I agree Fox News is a bit less clear. Regardless, I don't really get what the fuss is about. Can't we just say something like "in a message to Scientoligists" or "in a message sent to Scientologists" and let people intepret that how they will rather then arguing over what the source meant? There's no need for only Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have tried to say, and Scorpion has reverted it three times in a row. Jayen 466 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, what I wrote was this: "In January 2009, she used Bart's voice in an automated telephone message inviting Scientologists to attend a Scientology event in Hollywood" Jayen 466 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox says, "following her voice message urging Scientologists, in Bart's voice, to attend an upcoming conference." I don't think non-Scientologists are even invited to these conferences. They are internal affairs. <shrug> Jayen 466 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reverts:

Edit summary: rv Some PR edits
[3]
Edit summary: rv. Get a source that says definitively that only Scientologists received the message. The previous version was more neutral. Jayen466 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the second one was an unintentional revert (I didn't see that you had already reverted me when I made some changes). You also seem to be forgetting that you edit warred too. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the sources indicate that this message went out to Scientologists, not the general public. All we need do is follow the lead of the sources (emphasis added):

"At least, that is what Scientologists were led to believe this week when they [the Scientologists] received an automated telephone message..."

"disciplinary action following her voice message urging Scientologists..."

"The YouTube recording of Cartwright's robocall to Scientology members..."

This is a no-brainer and if an editor cares to make that clarification then it should stand. After all, the sources made the clarification. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, forgive me for trying to keep the article neutral. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, bro. Just be considerate of others people's concerns especially when they are clearly-sourced concerns and also consider please WP:0RR. Reverting good-faith edits often leads to conflict. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

Cartwright met writer Warren Murphy on her birthday in 1987 and married him two months later. In her book, she described Murphy as "my personal laugh track."[60] The couple had two children, Lucy and Jack, before divorcing in 2005.[61]
Cartwright was raised a Roman Catholic[62] but joined the Church of Scientology in 1989.[63] She recalls that she joined because "[she] was bummed because [she] hadn't had a committed relationship in my life, [she] was rapidly approaching 30 and [she] wanted to get married and have kids. She thought that maybe [she] could find a relationship by going to a church."

Does anyone else see that joining the Church of Scientology two years after her marriage, in the hope of finding a relationship, is a contradiction? Risker (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was an error - they met in 1988 - but it is possible that she discovered scientology, got married, THEN joined the church. I'll do some more Newsbank checking. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Zagalejo

I'll add to this list as I work my way through the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The third paragraph of the lead assumes that readers already know the Simpsons' half-hour series grew out of the Tracy Ullman Show. I think we should briefly explain somewhere that the Simpsons became a half-hour series in 1989.

I think there used to be something like that in there. Oh well, I added "She voiced Bart for three seasons on The Tracey Ullman Show. In 1989, the shorts were spun off into a half hour show called The Simpsons."

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

doing voice-overs for commercials at WING radio station in Dayton

Should it be "at the WING radio station"? I'm not sure, exactly.

No idea. I'll look into it.

left a message in a cockney accent

Should "cockney" be capitalized?

Done.

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

What kind of character was Ethel in the Twilight Zone movie? Why, exactly, did Cartwright's background in voice acting help her get the part?

No idea, I've never seen the movie and the book doesn't mention it. And it doesn't say her background in voice acting helped her. The quote says that they were both cartoon buffs.

Well, I was mainly looking at the part of Dante's quote which says, "considering your background, I don't see how I could cast anyone but you in this part!" It's possible that he simply decided that he liked her, and wanted to do her a favor, but I think we should try to figure that out for sure, if possible. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The audition called for her to say her line and walk out the door. Cartwright decided to take a chance on being different, and continued walking out of the building.

I'm having trouble picturing this. Did she continue walking out of the studio building, or what?

Again, there used to be more detail there, but it was cut. I changed it to: "The audition called for her to say her line and walk off the set. Cartwright decided to take a chance on being different, and continued walking, leaving the building and returning home. The production crew was confused, but she received the part." (the exact passage from the book is in the peer review).

OK, that's a little bit clearer. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La strada or La Strada? The article uses both.

Fixed.

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

Wasn't there a specific episode in the Simpsons' second season in which the voice actors' names in the credits were matched with their characters? Was that the first time it was publicly revealed that Bart was voiced by a woman? If so, that might be worth mentioning somewhere.
The second paragraph in this section is a bit unfocused. The first half builds of the chronological account in the preceding paragraph, but then the paragraph just becomes a dumping ground for various loosely-related facts. Could we perhaps split the second paragraph into two smaller, more focused paragraphs?

Done.

Mmmm, I don't know. The organization still needs some work. The facts don't flow naturally together. I'll think about it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Cartwright was raised a Roman Catholic but joined the Church of Scientology in 1989. She has said that before joining she was depressed that she did not have a "committed relationship", and wanted to get married and have children. She "thought that maybe [she] could find a relationship by going to a church".

Right before this, the article says that she got married in 1988. Had she been flirting with Scientology for several years before becoming an actual member?

I have no idea, but I think that's right. There are multiple sources that say she got married in 1988 and multiple sources that say she joined in 1989. The article is a direct interview and it's on newsbank if you want to try finding it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only items I can access via Newsbank anymore are a few Chicago-area papers. I do think it would be good if the article tried to clear up the apparent contradiction (ie, that she joined the Church of Scientology in 1989 because she was looking for a relationship, but actually got married a year earlier). Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read the article, but unfortunately, I'm not sure if it clarifies things. Zagalejo^^^ 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should be done then? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to tell you. I can verify for sure that she was married in 1988 (her entry in Contemporary Theatre, Film, and Television gives the exact date as December 24, 1988). However, I'm still not sure if 1989 is the correct date she joined Scientology.

Indeed, many of the sources that say 1989 were simply taking that from whatever was in the Wikipedia article at the time. See [4], for an example. The 1989 date was originally sourced to this, but that source doesn't explicitly say she joined in 1989. Rather, it says she joined "eight years ago", which isn't quite as straightforward as it seems. (For all we know, the interview with Cartwright had actually taken place months earlier than March 1997, and no one bothered to change "eight years" to "nine years".) Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [completely unuseable] source, she was first mentioned in Scientology publications in 1989. My guess is that she was just affiliated with the church for several years before finally becoming a full member in 89. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Is it me or does the timeframe not seem to add up? It says she met and married her husband in 1988 but joined scientology in 1989 because she did not have a committed relationship. Is this simple a very backhanded, perverse way of saying her marriage was not working, or is it incorrect? Hrhadam (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's meant to imply that the marriage wasn't working. I think the apparent contradict is mainly the result of unclear sources. I brought this up in March; see the discussion right above you.

I would recommend changing 1989 to "late 1980s", or something like that. The current phrasing just doesn't sit well with me. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that she was only affiliated with the church and not a full member for a few years. Then she got married in 1988 and officially joined the year later. But, the change is probably best for now. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited info?

Per this edit, OK, let's discuss. This information appears to be fully sourced by reliable, verifiable sources. The editor who removed it claimed the information was irrelevant, but since this is a biography about Nancy Cartwright, and this information pertains to a relationship from Cartwright's life, I can hardly see why that is the case. (Perhaps some of the religious practices info should be trimmed, I'm open to that discussion.) What is the justification for its removal? — Hun ter Ka hn 05:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section isn't "well sourced" and is a coatrack. Let's review. The reference that is supposed to demonstrate that Cartwright is engaged is this one. Cartwright isn't even mentioned in it. Scientology publications have long been considered non-reliable sources. There is a 2007 reliable source that confirms her relationship with "another Scientologist" Brackett and their plan to marry in 2008; however, there are no reliable sources that say that they actually did marry. His death afterward is irrelevant if there is no evidence that there was a continuing relationship at the time of his death. Risker (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the very source that you claim does not mention the engagement does mention the engagement. The exact text is "...says Cartwright, 49, who serves as 'honorary mayor' of Northridge, Calif., and plans to wed contractor Steve Brackett next spring." The text also cites two offline sources (one from Guelph Mercury and another from The New York Times) as references for the engagement. I can't read them, but I can assume good faith that they are accurate, especially since they are also backed by the People source. Regardless of whether they got married or not, they were engaged, and that makes his suicide worthy of a mention in her biography. — Hun ter Ka hn 06:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize, you are correct about the People reference; for some reason it was truncated in my browser when I first looked at it and there was only one paragraph there. I see the sentence to which you refer now. Brackett's death would only be relevant if Cartwright was mentioned in the article about his death; the fact that she is not indicates that this was not a relationship of significance at the time of his death, and thus his death is not relevant to the Nancy Cartwright article. Brackett was a non-public individual who would not otherwise be mentioned at all on Wikipedia if not for a publicly acknowledged relationship with a notable voice actor, and which appears to have ended some time before his death; while I can probably agree that the fact of that relationship may be significant enough to include, there is nothing to indicate in any way that his death was worthy of inclusion. Risker (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Googling for "Steve Brackett" obituary cartwright finds lots of refs (though certainly many are simply copying each other) that she was his "ex" at the time of his death. I don't have time to look at the reliability of these sources to find a "really good" one, but now that he appears non-related to this article's topic at his death, I don't think it matters. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree with the idea that his death shouldn't be included if he was "non-related" to Cartwright when he died. The fact that they were engaged means this was an important relationship in Cartwright's life (the idea that the subject of a FA biography was engaged and her fiance is not even mentioned in the article is ludicrous) and his suicide coming so soon after their relationship is relevant enough to warrant some sort of mention in this article, regardless of whether they were married, still engaged or broken up when it happened. (In the meantime, however, I'm going to do a more thorough search to see if I can dig up any sources that give more clarity as to the status of their relationship when he died.) — Hun ter Ka hn 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have figured out why she objects to the paragraph. This is not a reliable source in any way, shape or form, so it can not be used: "Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson in the animated series The Simpsons, has been slapped with a lawsuit by an insurance company claiming that her ex-fiancé Stephen Brackett owes them money for which she is now responsible." [5]. Also, here is some more info (again, not a reliable source, though it does have some links), which alleges that the church tried to cover up his suicide [6] -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have found a reliable source, the Toronto Sun: [7] -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this obviously changes things. If his death wasn't related to Cartwright before, this lawsuit means it certainly is now. I think we can justify adding the info back to the article, along with information about the lawsuit... — Hun ter Ka hn 12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having seen no additional argument here, I've readded the previously removed information, as well as new information about the lawsuit. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Her filmography section ends at 2007 in each subsection. Did she not do anything after that or is it just not updated? DaffyBridge (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats: Royal Ransom?

Candi Milo voiced Chuckie in that game I have proof [8] Also Nancy isn't in that video-game Matthew Cantrell (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information [9] Matthew Cantrell (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

Reading the Personal life section, I have to wonder how this article ever reached GA and then FA status. The writing, quite plainly, sucks. Any article watchers want to comment? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actor and Voice actor

Having actor and voice actor is redundant, as shown on many articles, especially actors of anime series who act in live-action as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. An actor will appear with their face/body seen. A voice actor (or voice artist) is someone whose voice is heard, often differently toned or with a specific type of dialect not equivalent to the voice actor's own everyday voice. Prior to television, those who appeared on radio were often voice actors, using vocal intonation and style different from their own voice. This genre of acting in this situation is similar. Further, one can be an actor as well as a voice actor -- they aren't synonymous. Voice acting is like a specialty within acting. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be synonymous, but like genres, such as putting pop, country pop, then country, is redundant because they are sub and main-genres. Same as voice actor is a sub of actor. Just like stage actor being a sub. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, voice actor/voice artist should not be removed from this article as the subject's voice artistry is what she is known for. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you make that case, then just voice actor should be included. Are you saying that for example, any one who has done the voice of Spider-Man should be considered a voice actor? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My general thoughts are this: if one's filmography consists solely of voice roles (e.g. Mel Blanc or Jim Cummings), credit him/her as a voice actor. If person has done live action only or both live action and voice roles (e.g. Tom Hanks or Tim Curry), credit him/her as an actor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable. Blanc and Cummings were known for their voice work, Hanks and Curry known for their acting. Seems like a no-brainer to me. That said, Hanks and Curry have done both acting and voice-work. I don't think it's right to not include voice-acting in their articles. Prominence in listing, however, should be to their acting. Same can be said for Cartwright: prominence in listing to her voice work, but she is also an actress. I'm not sure what the big deal is, frankly. Why is listing both in this case an issue at all? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like I said before, same as for musical genres. Voice actor is a subcategory of actor, not a whole category in itself. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your point in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines is? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're telling me to find a policy when you can't find one on your own. It's two to one here with removal of voice actor. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've haven't seen anyone other than you saying Voice artist should be removed. Regardless, I'm asking to you please provide a policy or guideline that you are basing your need to remove Voice artist. Because, if there's nothing that says having actress and voice artist listed for the same article subject is somehow against policy, there's really no need to do it. Just you saying WP:IDLI. And, in case you still aren't aware, the Wikipedia community isn't about !Votes, it's about consensus. There's a difference. If you're unclear on what the difference is, it would help in every discussion you comment on to know the difference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, at the risk of WP:BEANS, I was wondering why it was so quiet at Talk:Leonard Nimoy. Second, since I bear some measure of responsibility for the discussion, I'm going to poke my nose in. Sorry.

Voice acting is a completely different animal from acting. Numerous talent agencies cater specifically to voice talent. That said, this article's lead sentence, based on the sources, should read, "... is an American voice actress, film and television actress, and comedian."

But—and here's where the Brits would say it gets wonky—since the infobox lists "Occupation" rather than "Known for", it should read, "Voice actor, actor, comedian".

My US$0.02. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Winkelvi, it is basically what Snuggums was suggesting. And, saying film and television actor, and voice actor is redundant due to voice acting consisting of mainly television or film. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I absolutely agree, ATinySliver. Not a sub-genre, not a sub-category, but a completely different type of acting/artistry. That, in combination with there being no guideline- or policy-related reason to remove it - keeping it makes sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Joseph, but I have to disagree with this on two fronts. One, talent agencies' web sites suggest that video game voicing is at least as prevalent, if not moreso, than television and film. Second, differentiating the two clarifies live-action performances from (usually) animated performances. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. Forget it. I don't care anymore. It probably won't matter, I'm getting blocked soon anyway and I know it. I honestly now give zero shits about this now. If someone reverts me, I don't care who it is, even if I am correct (and apparently rarely ever am), I'm just gonna leave it alone. Fuck it, I don't care. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Prasad: stop, please? My opinion is exactly that: my opinion, based on what I perceive to be the facts and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am not against you; I am not for you. I am not against Winkelvi; I am not for Winkelvi. (Same with Snuggums, for that matter.) I am for helping to make Wikipedia the best it can be. So are you. It's the whole reason we're here. So please stick around and help make Wikipedia the best it can be. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for doing what we can in the way of editor retention, but in all honesty, this is what he does. He doesn't get his way, he gets pissed off when people don't side with him, and then he pulls the diva card. If he sticks with his previous play book, some kind of grand departure notice at his user space regarding his absence should follow. Several editors in the recent past have talked him off the ledge (including me and Snuggums) and, frankly, at this point, it might be better for him and the community if he leaves for a period of time (like he's done previously). Give him time to pout and hopefully think about his behavior and why he gets so frustrated, and when he returns at a later date, hopefully he will have a newer, better perspective and editing plan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, we all have varying degrees of reaction when we don't "get our way". Wikipedia would never again have an edit war if we didn't.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, and after a while we get the point that we don't/can't win them all, not everyone is going to agree with us no matter how awesome we think we are as editors, and there are times when we are just plain wrong. We grow -- or we are supposed to grow -- as editors and work collegially with others. Sometimes that means just walking away from something we don't understand or agree with when several others are on the opposite side of our point/argument. He's not getting it. I think it has something to do with his chronological immaturity, but nonetheless, while perfection isn't required, competence and working cooperatively is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and some of the best articles/edits are created/performed/maintained by much younger people; I seem to remember a 12-year-old who has created featured articles, but that was a while ago. Chronology isn't relevant, at least in my mind. The entire reason Wikipedia has edit wars is a difference of opinion, often quite valid on both sides; the reason edit wards continue is when one person says, paraphrasing, "Why don't you just walk away?" and the other says, "Why don't you?" Just to use myself as an example, I'm trying to be more cognizant of when I need to just walk away—and that's not a bad habit for any of us. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was leaving, but I will no longer act within the same fashion I have, or no longer for the most part make any major edits, and I said, if I get reverted once even though I am correct, I will just leave it alone and won't even touch it. Snuggums has actually never done anything to me, which is why that editor is the only one I ask questions to if I need any assistance, unlike you who decides to attack me based on my age all the time, and other personal attacks. And you really think that helps me in any way? You really think you're behavior towards me would make me want to make any sort of return if I did leave!? And you make it pretty clear you don't want me here, which is why I'm going for the most part, off. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, you don't get it. If you did, you wouldn't be blaming me for anything irrespective of whatever I have or have not done. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't admit I'm wrong? I can if you check one of the previous Meghan Trainor discussions. I have never once seen you admit you're wrong. And I'm blaming you because you tell me about policy, yet always violate by telling me about my "chronological immaturity" which clearly is a personal attack. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Act like a child and you will rightfully be treated like a child. Act maturely and you will be treated in a like manner. That goes for adults as well as non-adults such as yourself. The difference between your current behavior and what I've seen from other young editors is that you don't need to advertise your age (as you have in your userspace) for the immaturity you're demonstrating to be accurately identified. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I put my age up there is it was part of a introduction page I had before I got rid of it. A lot of people have their ages on here, granted they made their own infobox, but that's irrelevant. And immature? Yet, I am a sophomore, and many people think I'm a Senior? Check your report you made and you'll see. And it's pretty obvious you care about physical age, as you haven't started calling me immature till now, and only commented on my age. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hi, I strongly feel that "nancy cartwright" should not direct here but to a disambiguation page where one can chose between philosopher and actress. i have difficulites assuming that this actress is the standard notion of this name, and the philospopher is sort of excotic or special — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.113.194 (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nancy Cartwright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nancy Cartwright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://happyhouse.org/home/
Added archive https://archive.is/20120918071626/http://www.wishla.org/news/2-million-bequest-announced-wish-night-awards-gala to http://www.wishla.org/news/2-million-bequest-announced-wish-night-awards-gala

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nancy Cartwright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204015649/http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20133257,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20133257,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did she die?

I can't find any source saying she did? I'm sad if she did by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardofid122 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]