Talk:Toothpaste for Dinner

message: Yeah this is definatley one of the ugliest and most poorly structured articles on Wikipedia. Someone fix this already.
===Absolutely===
I cleaned this up a whole lot. There definitely needs to be a much more descriptive intro, and more details in the "Art" section. Describe the art style, the nature of the humor, etc. —tilde 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added in some details about what the art style looks like  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.94.238 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-Up

message: I cleaned this up a whole lot. There definitely needs to be a much more descriptive intro, and more details in the "Art" section. Describe the art style, the nature of the humor, etc. —tilde 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added in some details about what the art style looks like  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.94.238 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolutely

message: I made this for all you Wikipedians who like toothpaste for dinner! If you have edited this article or just love the comic then put  on your userpage! -EdGl 05:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toothpaste Userbox 

message: I'm trying to be judicious here, but anon IP addresses keep reverting the internal link to The Vancouver Voice they think its "vanity" for me to include the internal link. I admit I work for the paper, but its a page there bc of legitimate qualifications per Wiki rules for inclusion. and not to mention, one of the goals is to make clear internal connections between clearly related topics. Toothpaste for Dinner being syndicated in a paper like the Voice is A: part of what makes Toothpaste for Dinner notable and B: part of a way to show the general feel of the paper. if it is mentioned in the Vancouver Voice page, it seems to me that The Vancouver Voice article should be in the See Also section of Toothpaste for Dinner. VanTucky 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: In order to present the views of the parties involved, please present your ideas regarding whether the wikilink should be included or not below. Shadow1 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, I'll close the case. Shadow1 (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Hi, I checked the citation for the "interview given in 2010" last night, and while it was an interview given in 2010 (and quite interesting to read on a number of notes), I see no mention in that interview of Drew saying he no longer personally draws Toothpaste for Dinner, and especially not a specific mention of a chinese illustration firm. I have already edited the article to add Template:Failed verification though I'm not sure if I can say without bias that it really passes the fourth criteria for that template. I will say that the statement saying Drew has contracted Toothpaste for Dinner to an outside company seems almost accusatory in a tabloid sort of way, especially when given with a citation that doesn't support the statement. Not able to sign in right now because the password reset email has yet to hit my gmail account. 74.67.17.69 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Illustration Firm 

message: He must have said this as a joke, right? Prezbo (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrated by conctractors