Talk:Seth MacFarlane/Archive 1

message: Please, don't feel free to talk about whether you think Seth Macfarlane is a genius, whether he's an asshole, whether you think he's a pedophilic rapist, etc. Not on this page. If you have something to discuss about the article, or about contributing to the article, this is your page. If you want to air your opinions about the man to the waiting internet public, go to the IMDb, or to a fansite. 
For those still in doubt, please read this and this, especially the third paragraph of the 2nd link. Cheers riana 04:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NOT AN OPINIONS PAGE

message: This may be a shot in the dark, but does anyone know definately if Seth MacFarlane was actually born in Kent? I'm from the same general area and know people who are from or have lived there and outside the rare person most families in Kent have their children in nearby New Milford or Sharon; Kent is about midway between the two though in Sharon's favor. Being a western Litchfield County, Connecticut-eastern Dutchess County, New York-ite, I know too much on the matter. Scrabbleship 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace?

message: I read the Family guy section, and I didn't notice any mention of Seth MacFarlane.  Isn't that a problem since this is the article about Seth MacFarlane?  Why is it about Family Guy?!  I'm not qualified to edit this, but maybe someone else could help?   --Bmk 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: no mention of macfarlane?

message: Hi,
In lieu of my above comment, I decided to just eliminate all the extraneous info about Family guy, and narrow it down so it's actually talking about Seth MacFarlane.  I would encourage the author of said hacked out material (which was quite nice writing) to take it from the history and incorporate it into the Family Guy article.  --Bmk 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hack job on "family guy"

message: I've heard this ridiculous rumour that he's a Scientologist. I couldn't find conclusive proof either way, could someone take up the slack? --Onias 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology? 

message: I find it surprising that there is no mention of Seth's alcoholism. 
Sources:
Rolling Stone July 1 article - "My Life As A Dog" written by Seth himself
"1995- ..I also get my first taste of Jack Daniels. This is the first incarnation of what will eventually become 
a crippling addiction."
-Adam Carolla has said that Seth's shyness prevents him from talking infront of crowds sober.
-Seth mentioned his alcoholism in passing on his Dinner for Five appearance.
-Seth often shows up to live events drunk (ie. the Stewie movie premiere) 
He even drinks on talk shows using a coffee mug. He's admitted this on Craig Ferguson.
-He carries a flask of Jack Daniels in his jacket. He was drinking from it during a speech he
gave at Stanford. There's a picture of him holding the bottle of Jack.
-Seth has said on a Family Guy DVD extra feature just how easily he could be a complete alcoholic.
-On "Too Late With Adam Carolla", a caller asked Seth what the best thing about working on two
shows was. His responce: "It's doesn't give me enough time to face the truth about myself, which 
would be disastrous". One could infer that he was reffering to his drinking problem.
-Seth's life is supposed to be similar to Brian the Dog's. Brian is an alcoholic.
-Seth also smokes pot. When asked during an interview what he would do if he could go back in
time, he stated that he would've tried pot earlier in his life (college).
-There is speculation that he's a coke addict as well, however this has yet to be collaborated.
Anyone know for sure? Rumour has it that he only made American Dad for booze and coke money.
Again, rumour.
I'm pretty sure Seth is clean drug-wise, but he probably does drink some. 70.225.33.129 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seth MacFarlane's alcoholism 

message: Getty Images is refering to actress Jessica Barth as Seth's wife
(Spike Tv 2006 Video Awards). Can anyone confirm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.42.76 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Seth get married? 

message: I realize a lot of people aren't that fond of Mr. MacFarlane, therefore some of them will vandalize the page. I think it is best that someone protect this page from future editing. Just a suggestion. MichaelGriffin 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently working on a proper and expanded version of this article and I was planning to request a semi-protection after I'm done. Nat91 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I say this article should be locked 

message: Hey, sorry, I deleted the critcisims section, and I got a notice , saying that I did not put in a reason in the edit summary. Whoops.  The reason I deleted it, and the reason why I think it should be deleted because the criticisms do not seem to be from a major media source but the rantings of one person.  And if you look at the name of the site dailyraider.com, and see who was the person who put the criticisms in the first place, it was a dizzofdailyraider..  so I guess I will delete that bit again, but put in these reasons in the edit summary box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.206.72.82 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:COI and WP:RS, which resolve this debate handily. -- TedFrank 17:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "criticism" section is based only on the opinion of one website/person. It should be removed per WP:COI and WP:RS as mentioned above. Nat91 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then may I remove the section?  I am afraid if I do so, then the user DizzofDailyRaider will merely re-insert it in.  What should happen then?  And as suggested below, I could just put a note to refer to the criticisms of family guy page.  However it seems that article too has been marked for using improper sources, but on the other hand I do notice at least the sources are more relevant or proper than the soucres on that page.  132.206.72.82 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  ETA: I see my post was unnecessary, sorry about that. I suggest though that this page be put into protection soon, because I have a feeling the dailyraider folks will come back and re-edit it again. 132.206.72.82 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that should be here because there's already an article about that. It'd be kind of repetitive. Nat91 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this belongs in "see also", not a bloody one-line "Family Guy has been criticized a great deal [citation needed]"- seriously, that's pathetic and totally not wikipedia material. --24.27.18.94 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Criticisms 

message: I think this page should be locked. Too many people are editing it as they see fit and not actually adding information to the article. 70.225.74.67 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the criticism 

message: There's been considerable back and forth on this page in the last few days, and a big chunk of disagreements since semi-protection in early December, and nobody seems to be talking about it, outside of edit summaries. Would those making all these reverts care to discuss their positions? BusterD (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about others, but I was simply combining alike descriptions, and once inserted lists. Only reasons given for removal of lists is that they were "garbage" and don't "look right". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring on the infobox 

message: I had reverted the edit by User:Monterrosa which cited the $150m figure as net worth as being cited by CelebrityNetWorth.com. That editor restored the infobox parameter, using MSNBC Money as a source. However, the MSNBC citation presented doesn't say $150 million, it says $100 million, and that's sourced to... CelebrityNetWorth.com. I see no compelling reason why the infobox should make a claim with only CNW as a source. It doesn't meet WP:IRS, based on previous conversations on WP:RSN. I'm inclined to delete the $150m claim altogether, based on WP:BLP. It's contentious and not cited by RS. BusterD (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net worth parameter for infobox 

message: {{Infobox person Change this to this {{Infobox comedian
Conno87 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: MacFarlane isn't just a comedian. Also, changing it to infobox comedian will lose some of the information in the infobox. Strikes me as an WP:IFITAINTBROKE situation. Mz7 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014 

message: Under "Film Career," there should be information in a new article about Seth Macfarlane's new series he's executive producing for the Stars network, "Blunt Talk" which it set to premiere in 2014 with 20 episodes ordered.
JoelAtkinson51 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014 

message: Seth Macfarlane did a special on the Epix channel in 2011 called "Seth Macfarlane: Swingin' in Concert" wherein he performed many songs all of which were part of his album "Music Is Better Than Words." No mention of it is made within the article. There was an article about it in the New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/arts/television/seth-macfarlane-swingin-in-concert-on-epix-review.html?_r=0
Ehoch326 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seth Macfarlane: Swingin' in Concert 

message: Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment