User talk:Darrenhusted/archive11

Lawrence Person
The IP that is spamming a Person review at Watchmen (film) removed the proposed deletion template from Lawrence Person. (I supported it with a prod2 template.) Article is now at AfD at Articles for deletion/Lawrence Person, FYI. — Erik (talk • contrib) 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have !voted. I am amazed that the page lasted as long as it did. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Butler
Please don't revert six weeks of edits without at least discussing it on the talk page. I've been trying to balance the competing POVs that various editors seem to want to introduce into this. Perhaps you could do the same, rather than removing the whole lot. Some of the stuff you removed may be trivia, but some is relevant to the subject and worth including. I removed any unsourced or blatantly POV stuff. I've been trying to go through them and look at each section on a case by case basis. I'm not going to revert your changes now, as I don't want to run into 3RR over this, but perhaps you could look again at your changes and try them in a more nuanced way. I'm open to discussion on this. --ascorbic (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored a version from a few weeks ago because the multiple back and forth edit had not improved the article, rather they had focused on recent events and overinflated them. Also the majority was wrong, a basic fact which has been lost in the mix. Stick the the facts rather than dwelling on tiny events and giving them 500 word paragraphs. You can't roll through 3RR until you've been warned, so consider this a warning. If you have any further suggested amendments then make them on the talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I be clear: I didn't write those sections in question, I've merely been trying to improve the article without removing it all. If you look, you'll see that I removed a lot of the worst stuff and rewrote much of the rest. By reverting wholesale, you missed other changes that had been made, including improvements to prose and maintenance fixes. At a glance I see you broke a template link, restored sentences such as 'Interest in youth services has continued as one of her main interests', and moved sentences back to less appropriate sections. --ascorbic (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bouklyloo
Just like Dawn Butler stated please don't revert editing without discussing it on the talk page. My writings had references and links making them easily good enough to be on Wikipedia.Bouklyloo (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Our friend the date-linker
Hiya. Sorry to read that you have internet access problems. When you next have internet access, you may wish to follow the developments   here (or on its History page). Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not test edits...
I made the edits seperately as I read, it helps me to make clearer edits than bundling them together, they are not vandalism, sorry for the confusion. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Signpost tip
Thanks! Sorry for the confusion; we need to make the most important signpost pages easier to get to. The normal place for things like this is the tip line.--ragesoss (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IP on Salvation
hey. Just to give you a heads up, the IP on 174.21..... just replied to you on her talk page. . Thought it might be interesting for you to know. Deavenger (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet another comment. I'm guessing because she was a big fan of T4, and is trying to find any excuse to get rid of rotten tomatoes. Especially since after other users said they don't believe that rotten tomatoes is advertising for fox, she tried to make a table showing how the critics on the T4 page are owned by fox because museum got a higher score. If she keeps on continuing trying to get rid of rotten tomatoes, and accuses other users who disagree with her of trying to destroy the page and antagonize everybody, we might as well as ignore her. Deavenger (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the IP is finally getting of the subject and actually working on making a better article now. Sorry for disturbing your talk page. Deavenger (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)