Talk:Doc Hammer/Archive 1

Archive 1

People

Please, stop being such pricks. None of you even cared about this page until it had junk on it for you to bitch about. Just let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.104.228 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... so, you own this page? Whoever you are? What is offending you so much? People trying to make this an encyclopedia entry everyone, including Doc Hammer himself, can be proud of? --Pagana (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's actually proud of their wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.94.148 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Friend, please sign your posts. And knock off the namecalling and negativity while you're at it, for your own sake if not for others. If that's your attitude, why bother contributing? And don't bother trying to get a rise out of me; I'm unwatching this and moving on. --Pagana (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"trying to make this an encyclopedia entry everyone, including Doc Hammer himself, can be proud of"... By making it humorless? Great idea. Yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.104.228 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you actually reverted your little witticism for what, the sixth time today? Please see WP:3RR, and WP:NPOV and WP:CIV while you're at it. Now you're being petty, and not playing nice with others. Take a breath and stop defending what you perceive as your turf, okay? --Pagana (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go to the community portal and read various information on Wikipedia. --Diabolos (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page?

I'm not denying that Doc Hammer should have an entry here, however it reads as if he wrote it himself, and is not up to wikipedia standards for Bio entries. It reads like a friggin myspace page. It's unproffessional and in major need of an overhaul. --Elijya (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So, we have to ditch the "snazzy birth defect" comment? --Diabolos (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm on it right now. --Diabolos (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the articles's unprofessionalism, you can simply take the necessary information and put it in the article (see an edit I made that was reverted because it wasn't "snazzy" enough). You can get rid of the trivia section, which keeps irking me. --Diabolos (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already been fixed. What's the problem now. And the trivia section stays, thank you. Who cares if it "irks" you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.104.228 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, put the trivia section back. Wikipedia doesn't care whether or not it irks you. This isn't your page, Diabolos. --Somesuch (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the trivia section could be merged in with the rest of the article, rather than completely deleted? --Robbie (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at it. That's been done. We want to make a new trivia section. With actual trivia. Like, useless information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.253.42 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Shush you. 'Useless information' says it all. --Robbie (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is FULL of useless information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.253.42 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Diabolos explained this situation to me and informed me that was what she intended to do. --71.38.183.69 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

THOSE GUQIN PLAYERS HAVE FAMILIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --ChrisGriswold (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

←I'm amazed that I'm coming to the defense of Hazelfo (who has not been playing nice lately), but there's an abundance of strong precedence for a Trivia section in a bio. In fact, it's a good device for making sure the rest of the article stays authoritative. For examples, see Michael Chabon, Matti Wuori, Józef Simmler, Johan Wanloo, Kasi Lemmons, Karen Mulder, Theodore Woodward, etc. Let Hazelfo restore the Trivia section; there's more than ample precedent for it. Just don't fill it with in-jokes and deliberate misinformation. okay? --Pagana (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okaaaaay. And since when have I ever added deliberate misinformation! Unless you mean the Moxie bit, and that was only misleading! --Hazelfo (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold, at first, I thought you were just a citation fiend. But now, I think I love you. --Hazelfo (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. You are just a citation fiend. --Hazelfo (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc Hammer and Films

I was thinking, and since we have a verified listing of films he's appeared in, should that maybe go in the non-Trivia section of the article or should it stay in the trivia section? --Diabolos (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. --Hazelfo (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Restored!

The trivia section is dead. Long live the trivia section! I've tried to keep it as condensed as possible. I still think everyone should know his cat is named Robespierre and she spits fire at all who intrude. --Hazelfo (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A cat's name is actually pretty relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somesuch (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What just happened? Why was the trivia integrated again? We have no timeline for this guy. There needs to be a section of miscellaneous information so that it can be moderately organized. --Hazelfo (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does there need to be miscellaneous information? --ChrisGriswold (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look: I, not Hazelfo, have restored the Trivia section, because it is an incredibly common component of WP bios. (See my post above). If you want to dispute the contents of said section, fine. But removing the section wholesale is simply uncalled for. This is standard equipment for this kind of WP article, folks. It's where you put stuff that isn't specifically an achievement, but nonetheless illuminative of the character. Please do a search for the category "==Trivia==". You'll find it is employed in thousands of entries: John Haymes Newton, Ezra Idlet, Gina Holden, Naberrie family, and so on, and so on. So please, leave it be and let's focus on the content. --Pagana (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, I noticed on the Arcadia page that it says that his paintings were exhibited until October 20th (I think), 2005. Shouldn't it be "were" exibited rather than "is"? --71.38.183.69 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold, to make it organized. Right now there is just a random collection of information without a timeline or any structure to it. We need a "miscellaneous information" section after the information about the Venture Bros. and his oil paintings. --Hazelfo (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

71.38.183.69, the October show was his solo exhibition; right now his paintings are still at the Arcadia, but part of a larger group show. It's not like they were all sold in one show. We could say that they "were" exhibited at the Hygenic art gallery in New London, but they "are" at the Arcadia. --Hazelfo (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ALSO. I really don't think his oil painting should be a "trivia" thing. I'm reverting it back to before ChrisGriswold integrated it all. --Hazelfo (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're correct, especially since I've now described him as a "multidisciplinary artist," which seems to be an apt description. --Pagana (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hazelfo, thank you for clearing this up for me. I just was a bit confused. --71.38.183.69 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think I integrated it? Everything that was integrated was actually worthwhile information that belonged in the article. --ChrisGriswold (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oil painting wasn't in the trivia section. Trivia was. --Hazelfo (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

←The current trivia section is actually a bit what I had in mind. --Diabolos (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe you shouldn't have erased it. --Hazelfo (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What she meant originally but didn't say it was that so much of the trivia section could be intergrated into the article or have more added to it. She probably just didn't know how to do so. --Darknightmusic (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the vegan-chocolate thing should stay. How many vegans do you know eat chocolate? And the man said it on his MySpace. The chocolate stays! Capiche? -Diabolos (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Gosh, it's not like I said this kind of chocolate-loving hypocrisy is snazzy. --Hazelfo (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pottery?

A part of me really wants to say that he is kidding, just because he's said nothing about this until now, and it's always been assumed he studied painting... Gosh. --Hazelfo (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Throat Coat

um wots his "throat coat"? that should really be explained. --Coda littleking (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Throat Coat is a tea that's supposed to help sore throats and hoarseness. From what I've gathered, Doc was asking for it while he was at Comic-Con, since he left his voice in Ken Plume's hotel room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.110.30 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

um thanks. but shoodnt sum1 xplain it in the article? --Coda littleking (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of trivia that reads like an in-joke. Popping up as early in the article as it does, it makes the piece seem flippant. --Pagana (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the article in its entirety? It's exceptionally flippant. Is that a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.104.228 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Coda littleking, why don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.104.228 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...yeah. "Diet of tears" and all that. It's not flippant, actually, just cutesy-poo. Guy deserves a real article, in my opinion. Why undercut him with chuff? --Pagana (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cutesy-poo? I thought it was amusing. If he deserves a "real article," make him once. God knows I've scoured the internet enough looking for facts about him. This is all I could come up with; basic information and a selection of trivia. Really, I could find no definite timeline for this guy. We don't even know his year of birth! And good luck making a real article on a website "anyone can edit!" Let it be flippant. --Hazelfo (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

72.80.104.228, i didnt tink i shud bcos i didnt av a source nd stil not even sure if it should be in the article....... --Coda littleking (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Then take it out! Jeez. And you would mind typing legibly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.252.118 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

well sorry for trying to see if people wanted it kept in or it could be made a proper part of the article! And sorry about the typing im used to using shorthand things in things like this. --Coda littleking (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for IM speak. Ever. --Mashtato (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian

He's not a vegan, he's a vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.10 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Very sad what's happened to this article

It used to be a hell of a lot better. A lot of information, much of it sourced, has dissappeared. Including Hammer's own comment that his Wikipedia article was scarily well-researched. Now look at it. What the fuck? --AvatarMN (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reasons why this article's changed so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbanksbaby (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When was this article good? If you look in the article history it was basically the same in 2006 as it is now. --Prezbo (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Around July 2006, it peaked for good info. Many sources were added later. By the end of 2006, it had lost some, but still had lots of things that aren't there now. It seems to have went to shit through 2007. --AvatarMN (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is the July 2006 version. I don't think there's very much information that was in that version and isn't in this version, but if there's anything you want to add back then go ahead. --Prezbo (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)