User talk:Darrenhusted/archive12

Cherry Picking
I stand corrected. You were right to revert my edit on cherry picking. It was wordy and detracted more than it added. Thank you for your efforts in making Wikipedia a better place. I will strive to do the same. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:WWEPPV
Please stop reverting edits that reflect the change in name for WWE's September Pay-Per-View from Unforgiven to Breaking Point. Please see WWE.com for confirmation of the name change. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it has been officially confirmed by the WWE. Please consult the "Upcoming Pay-Per-Views" sidebar on WWE.com. I respect and appreciate the discussion at WP:PW, however, there is no reason not to update relevant articles with the best available information. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sidebar means nothing, wait until after SummerSlam. What is the rush? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Darren, see the WP:PW talkpage. The ticketsales page at WWE (which is what we used for changing ONS and GAB) confirms that the PPV is now "Breaking Point".  TJ   Spyke   21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is: http://www.wwe.com/schedules/events/eventdetail/?id=10202442   TJ   Spyke   21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although that does not answer the question of whether it will share Unforgiven's history as The Bash, NOC and Extreme Rules do of the PPVs they replaced. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that point, we don't know yet if it's a new event or just the same even re-named (meaning it would carry the history of Unforgiven).  TJ   Spyke   21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing
You have reverted my edits which added proper inline citations to the Snowballing article. I am going to revert your edit. If you remove the inline citations which improve the page again, you will be reported to an admin for vandalism. Willy turner (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? Seriously, do you think I'm a n00b? One revert is not vandalism. Report me to twenty admins. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

why'd you move threads not that old to archive
for Star Trek why did you archive some threads that had stuff in then dated as new as three days ago on 26th may. I think you should only archive when they get certain number of days old. but this is just my opinion.-- Gman 124 talk 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23
Regarding your revert, please read the article before reverting a edit and wrongly calling it vandalism. Neither match happened, so the editor was correct in removing those (which I and others missed somehow).  TJ   Spyke   21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have apologised and removed the warning. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek XII
Actually, I did read WP:NFF and I quote, "While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I would also direct you to WP:IAR. What makes you think you can just delete everything without even an AfD? It's very rude. Daskill (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Notability (films) is a notability guideline, not policy, per your edit summary here. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not change the fact that the page in question fails that guideline, does it? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but just because it doesn't adhere to everything in the guideline, does not make it an automatic candidate for speedy deletion. Daskill (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it up for speedy deletion, I made it a redirect, which is the first step described under deletion guidelines. As you cannot seem to understand the guidelines I have been forced to send it to AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Person
I've left a message on the talk page of the IP 70.114.141.234 who keeps recreating the article, and suggest that they request a deletion review if the feel the AfD was handled badly. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK)
Please read the "Reccomendation for the Ratings section" part of the talk page on the article and add your views please. Thanks, DJ 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re to Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars‎
You learn something everyday! Thanks for pointing that out as I probably would have stated that again in the future. Cheers ;)  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 09:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, delete them all!-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Response
Agreed, agreed I see I was a little too gung-ho. But to be fair, Stephen Root guest starred in True Blood, he did not star. 67.175.159.76 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And also, re: the "the answer is simple, because it needs a total re-write" thing you said on the TB wiki page, yes, that's true, so why not start by moving main charactrers like Arlene to the section they belong? Why revert it?67.175.159.76 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fuddruckers
About the Idiocracy reference, this little factoid keeps creeping back into the article despite multiple attempts to delete it. Trust me, I have tried... --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP reports
Hi, Darren -

You should have reported that IP days ago. I've blocked him temporarily for disruption. If he starts it up again after the block expires, report him to WP:AIV and/or leave a message on my talk page. You don't have to put up with this kind of stuff. It's adding deliberate errors to pages and it definitely deserves attention from admins. Like me. :-) Thanks, and keep up your good work - Krakatoa  Katie  02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)