Talk:Chumble Spuzz

Notable interview?

Is this interview substantial as pertaining to the authors defense of the reception of his work by religous circles?

After a review[1] of the title, Project Fanboy interviewed[2], the author, where in response to those who view his work as an attack on religion, he was quoted as saying,

- My book wasn't made to bash religion. I poke fun at it, sure, but that's because I think that religion is great source material for comedy, especially with the cultural dogmas each generation adds to it. When Doug, in my Foreword, speculates that Reverend Mofo seems like sort of a sideways tribute to what he is a caricature of, he's dead on. I am a skeptical person, skeptical of all sorts of things, not just religion. I sort of float around in a sea of questions and I look at the those who really seriously believe in God and I know that the world needs people like that. Some of my greatest heroes are religious. So, when I say I wasted a few years being super religious, it's a personal statement- I am not saying that I think religion is a waste of time, as many people seem to think. I just think there's a lot to laugh at.

-

Should this be included in the reception category of the Chumble Spuzz article?

143.79.143.10 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any opinions on this?143.79.143.10 (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the interview you're referring to is here. I agree that it should be included in the article. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cowboy, anyone else have any input on this? 143.79.143.10 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems worth including to me. I would prefer if it was paraphrased with relevant bits dropped in rather than just throwing in a big chunk of text though. (Emperor (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Just so you know, if you use the <ref> tags to turn a bare external link into a numerical footnote, it'll only work as a link if there is a References section with the appropriate {{reflist}} template along with it. I turned the footnotes back into bare links.

As for the question, yeah, it seems appropriate, as long as that site is considered an authoritative, reliable, third party source.

One last thing: The description of the plot in the article is lifted word-for-word from this page. This is unacceptable, as it is both copyright infringement, and plagiarism. It must be paraphrased. Someone should do this immediately. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chumble Spuzz. 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/20120406185839/http://www.evri.com/organization/broken-frontier-0x5b2c9a to http://www.evri.com/organization/broken-frontier-0x5b2c9a

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)