User talk:Darrenhusted/archive14

Sorry
I must apologize. Thanks for your advice.Sir Floyd (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek
First, wllow me to thank you for your peace-making efforts on the "Alternare Reality" issue.

Please note that I have replaced the term reality warping with another, much better one - retroactive continuity. Still, though, too many people have objected to either.

Note that the "Alternate Reality" is (was, rather, since sources have subsequently bee added) an unsourced assertion, and a wrong one, at that. An "Alternate Reality" would exist in a parallel universe where events unfold in such a way that Spock is eventually Captain and James T. Kirk is First Officer, thus establishing a different reality than exists at the end of this movie, which is consistent with what we know of the "universe" (and its associated "reality" of the original television series, in which Spock is First Officer, and James T. Kirk is Captain.

Physics terms have a meaning. They are not subject to emotional interpretation, no matter how strong one's emotion is, about them.

Please read my original Edit, that was reverted:

Whereas many fans interpret the time-travel story as establishing an alternate reality, and modifying continuity, it can be perfectly descibed as establishing an extension of the timeline of the original Star Trek series, both forwards (towards the future) and backwards (to the past), more specifically, while maintaining continuity. Thus, the film is not a sequel to the original series, since it does not, so much, relate to an aftermath, describing unfolding chain of events in the future (although it does hint at some such aftermath, through the portrayal of the old original Spock (Leonard Nimoy) as 'Ambassador Spock'), nor does it create an alternate reality. Rather, it is a precursor, describing the inception of the whole series, establishing a timeline starting earlier than that of the original series (earlier, in fact, than the birth of James T. Kirk), which is affected by the time-travel story, which extends the timeline, somewhat, into the future, then back to the past, providing causal source in the future, to the unfolding of events in the past timeline extension. This creates plenty of opportunity for further sequels to the film, and to the entire series, more generally, also freeing the film and the franchise from certain constraints, especially age constraints of Leonard Nimoy (age 78), the original Spock, and of William Shatner (age 78), the original James T. Kirk, as well as constraints arising from the fact that not all members of the original cast are still alive, while preserving (or extending)continuity with the Star Trek television series and with the Star Trek canon.

Thanks.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I read your original edit when it was made and it contains too much interpretation of your own ideas, and strays into WP:OR and goes against the understood consensus of the page. I accept your apology but I cannot agree with your original edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead
I already asked for help on this, but I am having a difficult time with  and content in The Hurt Locker. I have been consistent in finding this film a 2008 film, and Inurhead continually reverts me. S/He hasn't responded to the talk page before reverting and he has a serious case of owning the article. S/he has even gone to label me as a vandal, which isn't my intention. I may be wrong in my reasoning, but there isn't anyway to get him/her to discuss. Any help you could provide would be great.

Mass revert
It appears that you did a mass revert to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Please do not do this. If you feel that some things need to be trimmed down (and in this article's case, I would agree with you), then remove those things only. Don't just undo all of the edits in the last day or so.--Ridge Runner (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of it needed to go, the gross has nor ref, the release dates focus on non speaking countries against the MOS, the plot changes, the reviews. It was all bloat. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And who care if the Black Eye Peas play over the credits? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no focus on non-English countries. The only non-English countries listed were the ones where the movie was first released in accordance with guidelines.--Ridge Runner (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And excluded the UK release, only the second biggest market after the US. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

UK release was on the same day as the US and listed in the first paragraph on the page. Again, see the guidelines. The infobox release dates are to be kept to a minimum. First release, first release in English market, and home country.--Ridge Runner (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So the UK was the first big release in an English speaking market, 12 hours before Australasian countries on the same day, and to an audience 5 times larger. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: BBUK 09
If there is continued disruption after the protection expires, request at WP:RFPP and it should be re-protected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson
Thanks. I finished updating and expanding this article over the weekend so that it could retain its good article status. I appreciate any and all eyes to help it remain at this status! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

TB
I sometimes wonder if this should be semi-protected? Just undid some stupid vandalism on the ratings. What are the criteria for sp?Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Six Feet Under
As a matter of medical definition, the daily use of drugs does not make one an addict. As such, being always high does not make one an addict. That person may be an addict, but unless and until it is established there is both compulsive drug-seeking, abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain, the worst that can be said is that the person is a chronic drug user.

For a entry based on a TV show character, this is a trivial issue, but in reviewing a number of your edits, you demonstrate an unwillingness to use even basic research tools. Here, you didn't need to have a medical or social work background, all you had to do was googgle "medical definition of addiction." In your substantive editing, don't focus on how many edits you can complete, focus on how many you can complete accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.125 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And you will learn how to sign your comments? The character was a drug addict, he did not give up his drug use because he could not. In the pilot he is high the first time we meet him, his brother dies because he is high, to argue that he is not an addict is semantics, the reader will understand what is meant by drug addict. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that can easily be achieved
As a member of the WP:BIGBROUK task force, you may be interested in the aforementioned discussion. DJ 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles
Hello Darrenhusted, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
 * PROD removed from Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino, by User:Rigadoun, with summary '(rm prod, add statement of notability)'
 * PROD removed from Bog (film), by User:Rigadoun, with summary '(rm prod and fix up a bit; it's probably notable because of the cast--I bet references could be found if someone searched.)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Annika Hansen
Thank you for your help in the matter, much appreciated :) Ejfetters (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning.
I don't know what's going on. I know how firm Wikipeadia rules are but I might never know all those changing that are pushed into articles since ... I don't know 2001? I don't know when Wikipeadia first started. Anyway, if there is anything else I need to know about, keep me updated so I don't end up confusing vandalism over something minor or a misconception of what's normal in Wikipeadia. I already had one about overlinking on infobox, what else could go wrong? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
There is a proposal on the Project Big Brother article that I believe you will be interested in. – túrian  patois  22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be more civil and constructive in the future
(leaving you a message here instead of at Talk:No Country for Old Men (film) since that discussion never went anywhere)

This message was pretty unfair and unconstructive. First of all, I don't see why you think the diff I gave was a "revert"&mdash;it's the edit I made, which Ring Cinema immediately reverted, and which I then explained with the extended notes on the talk page, which you never bothered to respond to. You specifically asked me to link you to my version, which I did, and then you used that link I gave you to mischaracterize me as "unwilling to compromise". Apparently you didn't notice that I was the one who started a long discussion and asked people like you and Ring Cinema to comment. And your response to my request for comment was to ignore it for two weeks, then show up after I had already left and say "looks like he's not interested in discussion". Really, it's no wonder people are disgusted with trying to work on this article if this is the way you people treat other editors. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I asked for, after waiting for the discussion to reach a conclusion, was for a version you would be happy with, including all the discussed elements, not just you showing me a revert from a week before. What did you want the summary to look like after the discussion, all you did was show a diff from the week before, so after an acre of discussion you didn't want any changes to your own version, so there was nothing left to discuss. "Keep your badly-written plot summary" does not seem constructive. I waited to comment so I could read the discussion from both sides, but you have moved on. There was no point keeping that thread going, as it had reached a stalemate. Of course if you have a version which includes any suggested amendments then feel free to add it to a sandbox or start a new thread at NCFOM and I will read it and suggest any changes. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: I would suggest...
I think that's a really good idea, actually. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but I know I've seen other character lists split like that. Having a separate minor characters article would also clean up the template for True Blood too. -Hooliganb (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some edits to your sandbox for you to look at. I updated the deceased characters infoboxes and reorganized the categories (since there were fewer characters populating each of them). Let me know what you think. -Hooliganb (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can lend a hand with that. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates is nominated for Featured List status
Hey. Just a quick note to say that I've nominated List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates for Featured List status after the recent promotions of List of American Idol finalists and List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests. It would be nice for expierienced editors who have knowledge on Big Brother to review the article at its nomination page. I've also asked MegaPedant and Alucard 16 the same favour. DJ 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look in the morning. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. DJ 23:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts...
...on the to-do list I put at the bottom of the '09UK talk page? DJ 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah OK. And I'd get rid completely. I ended up replacing the batteries in mine every other week and it just wasn't worth it. DJ 00:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

De-pantsing
CSD G4 only applies to article deleted via AFD or XFD. This one was speedied incorrectly as a hoax. Please note the numerous reliable sources which show it is not a hoax. Your recourse would be to take it to AFD. Edison (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

XRCSXRaiderX
Some one hacked into my accounts today it seems that they have only used this one for Vandalism I'm Trying to figure out what they did so i can fix it if its hasnt been already fix. Sorry for any problems that this has caused I will fix it all by the end of the day.--Dcheagle (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cold Y Generation
An editor has nominated Cold Y Generation, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

True blood improvements
That sounds fine, I'd be happy to help in any way that I can. I'll get as much done on the previous episodes as I can before the finale airs and then get to work helping out with the character stuff.SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

BB10 Prize Fund
Darren. Yesterday afternoon you removed without explanation content that had been agreed after discussion on the Talk Page. (See talk page Prize fund). I have reinstated it. If it needs its own section that can be discussed and agreed but I see no reason for it to be continually removed and assume it was done in error without reference to the discussion that had taken place earlier. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: True Blood improvements.
Sure, I'd be happy to help you out. Later today I'll look over the episode synopses and work on cleaning things up. I'll make some more additions to the minor characters page too, I'm just comparing the imdb information with the episodes. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've gotten most everything done. I need to run out for a sec, but is there anything you want me to do when I get back? I'd be more than happy to give you a hand. -Hooliganb (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I started working on the Cast and Character's section. I added a brief introduction, like the one for The Wire, and will clean up the discussion of the characters so it resembles the same format. -Hooliganb (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard discussion
Since you've been involved in the situation with User:Commoncase on Bret Hart, I thought I would inform you of This Discussion of his possible COI at the COI noticeboard. Mc JEFF  (talk)  18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of filing a Sockpuppet Investigation on Commoncase/Arthur Cutz. Mc  JEFF  (talk)  20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the SPI. Mc  JEFF  (talk)  20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw V
Look Here Im Just Giving A Longer Plot I Took Out The Sequel Section Due To It Releasing In A Little Over A Month I Did Not Mean To Attack Other Editors Im Just Inputting My Edits Since They Wont Stay I Keep Reputting Them In It Seems Like A Way To Keep It There. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Film series
Well done on being bold - you might like to get involved here: Talk:Film_series. I've requested a semi protection on these articles to avoid these edits by unregistered users. Robsinden (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Bourne, Pirates of the Caribbean, Beverley Hills Cop, High School Musical (and a few others) from the 4 films series and put back to 3 films earlier. There was a whole series of unreleased X-men movies on there too.  Unfortunately being unregistered users, you can't leave messages like this on their pages and hope that they will read it... The pages are on my watchlist, but I think I may take them off for the sake of my blood-pressure! Robsinden (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:86.178.84.114 is at it again. I've reverted once, but they've added them back in again.  don't want to get involved in an edit war.  do you know how we request a block on the IP address?  I've popped a note on the user talk page, but doubt it'll do any good!  Robsinden (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in getting involved here: Talk:Film_series? Robsinden (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

TB
I appreciate your asking, but pretty much all the last edits I did were reverted, so it doesn't seem like a very good use of my time. Wish I could help more.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BB 2009 (UK)

 * Hi, this message has been sent to you in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices
 * It concerns the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template


 * leaky_caldron (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A straw poll has now been added to the discussion about sources in order to gather consensus. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ric Flair
Hi! You removed the reference and the name of Fifi without giving any explanation. Can you give your reasons? 82.224.118.7 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you removed the reference and replaced it with "Dave Meltzer's Fall Brawl 1993 recap", that's not a reference. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ref I removed was the one I added, but it wasn't about the sale Fifi so I removed it and added the right one 82.224.118.7 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting the words "Dave Metzler's Fall Brawl 1993 recap" is not a reference. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok remove it, but Moondog Fifi wasn't Ric Valet. I made an error but you seem to think I was right adding Moondog Fifi as Ric Flair Valet. I haven't time now to find another source than the one I added, but Ric Flair's Fifi was Wendy Barlow. 82.224.118.7 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should remove The moondog link and the source. I was wrong the first time I added it. Some people could be mistaken by it and think it is the same girl. 82.224.118.7 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino
I'm confused about your comment. You advised me not to give his opinions "undue weight," but how are they any different from the opinions of someone like Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott? True, he is not a movie critic, but he is an important filmmaker who has done film criticism in the past.

The individual opinions of other filmmakers like Joss Whedon and Darren Aronofsky are also posted in The Matrix page, why are those allowed?

Bardego (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not. If you see unsourced random actors, writers or directors giving opinions on pages then remove them, don't add more. And your reference is a youtube clip, which does not fit WP:RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Are youtube clips never allowed at all, or are they only allowed if they meet the guidlines of a reliable source (i.e. a recording of an interview, footage of an event relevant to the article, etc.)? The page you referred me to isn't entirely clear on that.

Bardego (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Youtube refs are not reliable, because they can be taken down without prior notice, they can breach copyright (thus causing WP to breach copyright, for which it can be sued) and they can't be easily verified, especially if a user is using dial-up or does not have access to youtube. By all means list the films on Tarantino's own page (if you can find a printed ref) but don't re-add the paragraph to all the individual film (never movie) articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, then. Thank you for your help.

Bardego (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
{| width="100%"


 * Thanks. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations totals debate
As a regular editor to Big Brother 2009 (UK), I am writing to inform you about this discussion on the aforementioned issue. Dale 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Grudge 3 And Boogey Man 3
Grudge 3 Sequels ummm it was ANNOUNCED like 3 weeks ago. Boogey Man 3 ummm get it in your head the Reaction needed some help there Saw V RE: uh so yeah i am not liking you oh this is where i ATTACK YOU isnit FǓČKẽṜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to see the level of debate is as high as ever on wikipedia. The stuff you added had no source, find a source, learn how to write properly, then feel free to re-add it. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: ~lala~ ~hehe~ im bad at editing but im good on getting infomation-Rejace
 * No you're not. You are a poor editor whose edit only make any page you touch worse. You're "information" has no sources so you are nothing but a liability ruined pages of Wikipedia, and doing it with badly written English at the same time. Plus you can't even be bothered to sign your own posts. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw 6
Okay, i know you dont like me i still like you but Shawnee Smith did an interview on Saw VI with me like 2 days ago when i went in the casting booth for Mothers Day (2010) i lost sadly she told me the Budget was near 11.5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about you, but you keep making bad edits. And you asking Shawnee Smith is not a reliable source. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

u do that, what&ever leave my edits be for other users NOT U to fix if wrong you act like a kid you only disturb others to make yourself feel better since you have a little D!(k —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are cautioned against personal attacks in Wikipedia. Continuing may result in loss of editing privileges.Alan (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming your talking to Rejace, and not me Alan. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

hey hey hey here he also attacked me all u r hey here if i make a mistake tell me dont delete it if you can fix it with out taking it away do it k.k.k. im not on my own side im on everyside i am the reason for this AH a also Darrenhusted would not be in the right zone and tell me and delete it instead i had Proof and you just deleted it all well since your a know it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A conversation with Shawnee Smith is proof of nothing, and you blanked my talk page and stated " this is where i ATTACK YOU isnit FǓČKẽṜ". Also nothing has been deleted, it remains in the edit history. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

it don't matter i dont care what you do ive been put in  Mothers Day (2010 film so i'll be gone for a week then i'll just stay at Bloody Disgusting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, now stop making bad edits, and learn how to speak English. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Im here im american i am bad at editing but acting im okay. Rejace3836
 * You are a terrible editor, and no doubt a terrible actor. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply.
Darrenhusted, I have been watching this person's edits. The most recent on the Saw VI page I was about to revert with a similar edit summary (yours: "get a grip"). This person doesn't seem very content with improving and expanding Wikipedia, except for their own personal gain. I'm not sure exactly what I can do to help, but I will leave a message on their talk page. I'd also like you to know that in this case, I believe you are mostly right, but, seeing as you and this editor seem to be at odds, I believe that if you feel something "major" needs to be done (blocking, reporting to admin, etc.) I will support your view. That is, of course, granted the user doesn't change their attitude. I hope you find this fair enough. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what you think of the note I left on their talk page. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding Rollback and User rollback to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering!  upstate NYer  23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder
Hello, hope you are doing well. I plan to take this article to FAC in the coming days/weeks, and since you've been keeping an eye on the article, feel free to point out any glaring issues you see that should be addressed. I'll probably continue to replace some sources, rearrange details, and expand on information where possible. In addition, I'm going to ask a few people to consider giving it a copyedit. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know before it continues to inflate your watchlist. Keep up the good work! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I think the biggest issues that may hinder the FAC is the prose and some sources may be considered unreliable. We can deal with the unreliable sources in the FAC, but I'd like to fix the prose as much as possible before nominating. Feel free to reword what you think is necessary, I usually don't catch my own writing issues. Later this week I'll starting asking a few people who may be interested in cleaning up the prose. As a side not, I remember now that The Mooney Suzuki were in the extended edition, but am not sure if Christopher Meloni was in it somewhere. I don't know if somebody added that legitimately (maybe me) or if it was vandalism. I'll watch the director's cut of the film at least one more time all the way through before nominating. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

TB Template
Any idea why Adina Porter is listed as a former actor when she's still in season 2?Ravenscroft32 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think because she moved off the titles, but I'd put her back in to current cast. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a kitty and pass it on
 I dream of horses @  has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

RE: Articles for deletion/Dan Brown (YouTube)
Would you consider redirecting this article to You Tube right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD. Ikip (talk)

If it is recreated in its current form, let me know and I will vote to delete also. Ikip (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion Thanks for trying :)Ikip (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Agnitum
Hello Darrenhusted, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Agnitum has been removed. It was removed by 193.232.254.217 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 193.232.254.217 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Warning template on my talk
When did I put copyrighted material on a page, and if I did what was were the specifics? I think you may have given that to the wrong person. --Brandon 5485 23:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK never mind it was because a lot of the page was blanked and I thought it was vandalism. I didn't know that it was copyrighted and I wouldn't have added it if I did know. --Brandon 5485 23:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you even see Tropic Thunder?
Tom Hanks, Christopher Meloni and Sean Penn don't appear. Alpa specifically states that he wanted to date Lance but didn't have the courage to ask. And finally, Flaming Dragon calls Grossman twice. Watch the movie before reverting edits for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.97.162 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen the film, and they do call twice, and its not relevant. And Hanks and Penn's pictures do appear in the film. Otherwise you were reverting too quickly for me to edit, and lay off the insults, the editors at the New York Times are watching. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

True Blood individual episode pages
People have created pages for the episodes before and it hasn't really worked. I think it would be a great idea if there was relevant information to be found, which I think is the case with the later episodes. The problem is the first season was very under the radar and I don't know how much relevant info can be found on them. Then again, if you're confident it's out there and are willing to go and look for it, I'm on board and will help out as much as I can. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started doing work on the season two finale, but I don't know where to put it. If you could send me a sandbox link or something that would be appreciated. I'm not exactly sure how all that stuff works. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. I'll get to work adding more stuff. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, would it be possible to upload a screenshot from the episode? (I was thinking that great shot of Maryann reaching out to touch the white bull) I think I could do it, but I'm a little iffy on some of the legal stuff with regards to photo usage. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just added a ratings section to the episode page. Once the character stuff is done, I'd take it live. Thanks for your help. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a little preemptive, but I've started work on the page for the first episode, which can be found here if you have something you want put in there User:SchrutedIt08/Strange_love. I figured since there was a lot of information available on it that it would be an easy page to create. Maybe we should start a True Blood WikiProject? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to respond to you about this. I can help, but I'm not quite sure how it all works. I see you gave somebody a sandbox link - is that where you want to start? Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I started it off, as you saw. I'll try and do some more tonight. That annoying thing called work tends to get in the way!Ravenscroft32 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs, SchrutedIt08 has the link as well, so with the three of us we can get something done. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I totally misunderstood. I didn't realize we were meant to be copying and pasting the plot! I spent a couple of evenings watching Frenzy and then writing up the plot from scratch. Do the plots have to be the same as the episode listings? A lot of them aren't so well written... Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the plot summaries should be extended for the individual episode pages. The plots taken from the season pages should be treated more like placeholders in the episode pages until they can be worked on. I'm probably jumping the gun a bit, but I started working on 2.4, it's my favourite episode of the season and couldn't wait to get started. Anyway, it's here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchrutedIt08/Shake_and_fingerpop) if you guys have anything to put in there. I'll try to do some more work on 2.11 tonight as well. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reports about other users
I had to notify User:Vlchristianlv about your ANI post as you failed to do so. Notification is REQUIRED. Exxolon (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek.
Hate to disagree but it would be a reboot. [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * apologies on that. I will instead leave a note reminding you that you are close to violating the 3rr policy. I will ask for a third party comment as the term reboot can be found on several reliable sources classifying as a reboot. Please point me to a policy that says the director has to name the film a reboot? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked Julian Colton to help adress, my comments can be found at [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, I have been asked to weigh in here. I'm not going to comment on the merits of the reverts, but edit warring is obviously unacceptable. Darrenhusted, as you're close to breaking the 3RR, I suggest taking a step back for a while and having a calm discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. – Juliancolton  &#124; [[User_talk:Juliancolton| Talk ]] 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I already said that I was going to the talk page at 16:14., a full 14 minutes before Hell in a Bucket posted at your page. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the main problem of your insistence that it has to be coined as a reboot by abrams or creative team. As exhibited above and the sources added to Star Trek there is a consensus in reliable media that it is a reboot. Is there a specific policy you are basing your claims on? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the "reliable sources" do anything other than use reboot in passing, none of them explain what is meant by that, they just use it as lazy shorthand. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I just stasted on the talkpage. If you can't back your position through a specific policy I will gather every source thatcalls it a Reboot even if it means 15 sources in the lead and will add tonite. If you can show me the relevant policy that says a creative team or producer/director has to term it that way then I won't. Until then you have no valid defense other then a personal objection. So far I've backed my claims with sources can you do the same for yours? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like any of your sources, and this is now on the talk page so leave others to comment. Nothing has changed since February. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not add that star trek was a reboot in the opener per your talk page comment. I did however label it as "the eleventh film based on the Star Trek franchise and reboots the main characters of the original Star Trek television series, who are portrayed by a new cast." I see you have no objections to using the term reboot somewhere within the article so I wanted to seeif you had a place you'd like to see it instead or a different phrasing? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So would you say the phrasing above is ok with what you are trying to achieve? I am trying to make sure your view and mine will be represented in a fair manner. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Angel
Hi Darrenhusted. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to communicate on a talk page, but I'll just go with it......

The reason I have attempted to revert edits in favour of giving Angel extra coverage is because she has received considerably more media interest than some of the other housemates. I was even debating whether to make a separate page.... However, since you have been working here for a while, I will courteously respect your expertise in this field.

I apologise if this edit has caused any trouble, and I wish you all the best in your future work with Wikipedia. Keith1234 —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

Emanuelle's Daughter (movie)
Hi. You removed (quickly) my addition to the Emmanuelle (movie) portal template, Emanuelle's Daughter (1979). This was one of the best of the series, so I don't understand why you removed it. Is there some rule that each of the movies in the series listed in Wikipedia has to be made in France, or some other such limitation? Why isn't it sufficient that it is in the same genre? Please reply here. David spector (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a portal. And the name of the template is at the top, it covers the original French series. As the name "Emmannuelle" has been used by hundreds of unrelated films the template would be too large if it had no specific limit. The film Emmauelle's daughter does not belong to the French series and as such does not come between Goodbye Emmanuelle and Emmanuelle 4 in the continuity, but the spinoff Black Emmanuelle series. In addition is has no article, and navboxes are to help reader between related pages, if there is no page then there is no point adding it to the navbox. If you want to make articles for the BE films, and make a template for those films then that link would go in that navbox. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think it should be considered part of the series even if it is technically a spinoff. David spector (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Risk Management
Hello Darrenhusted. Thanks very much for taking an interest in the Global Risk Management article Articles for deletion/. You believed the article fails WP:COMPANY. I'm a new editor, so I'd really appreciate a more specific pointer i.e. which aspect(s) of WP:GNG did you feel it failed (significant coverage, reliable sources, type of sources, independence or presumption)? If you have the time, I'd really appreciate a little more feedback. It would really help me improve my article writing and avoid similar problems in the future. Cheers. Dkeditor (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mason Novick
FYI - I removed you CSD tag on the article. The article asserts notability.  ttonyb (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Notability is not inherited, Juno is notable, Jennifer's Body is notable, Diablo Cody is notable, Mason Novick is just one of the thousands producers. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is saying notability is inherited.  When a movie is nominated or wins an award such as an Oscar or an ISA, the producer is credited.  He may be one of thousands, but very few of those thousands have had movies nominated or won notable awards.  My best to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well other than wikilinks to a few films there is nothing else to assert notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Novick discovered Diablo Cody when she was writing a blog and encouraged her to write a sceenplay. He was the producer of 500 Days of Summer and Redeye, neither which involved Diablo Cody. He was an agent at ICM before starting his own production company MXN Productions. User:llnt
 * Producer discovers writer is not notable. Being an agent in Hollywood, unless you are Mike Ovitz, not notable. Having a production company, not notable. Take a read of the WP:GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Novick won Independent Spirit Award for Best Movie (Juno) and also was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (Juno) both very notable accomplishments. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1259504/ Please check his IMBD page for his many notable accomplishments. Thank you. ((User llnt))
 * No he didn't. Juno won the ISA. And Juno's best picture was down to Reitman, Cody and Page, not Novick. The story of agent has client, who wins award and he takes a producer credit is not notable. Having an imdb page does not qualify a person for an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When a movie receives a Best Picture Award it is the Producer who wins the award, not the director or the writer. http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/wfwT4-0llwc/2008+Film+Independent+Spirit+Awards+Show/ACTJh2iUVgk/Mason+Novick This  is a picture of the producers winning the award.User llnt187
 * Stop posting on this page, I have answered you more than once. Producers are not notable as their input to a film cannot be measured, unless they are studio head (like the Weinsteins). Improve the article, stop trying to lobby me. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ack. I hate to stumble on this discussion, but in this case, I have to agree and was coming here to say that. In checking the awards through the actual website databases for the Academy Award, Producers Guild, Independent Spirit Awards, etc., and while IMDB lists 10 different producers for Juno, including John Malkovich, the awards don't list them all. For instance the Academy Awards only lists three ( and run search for Juno and 80th). They do list Novick, and that makes him notable, albeit on a smaller scale than the Weinsteins. He comes in like a Don Murphy, who, like it or not, is notable in the same way, and believe me, if I could manage to delete that article, my life would be easier on Wikipedia (don't ask - highly contentious, sock puppetry to dabble on pages related to his films, yada, yada). Sorry. :( Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However as you cannot quantify Novick's contribution, and no article I can find says anything other than a passing mention to him "discovering" Cody then he cannot pass the GNG. Producing a notable film does not make someone notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * actually you should stick with what you know which isn't much. It has been established that a film producer is notable.  If not then you need to nominate the Don Murphy article for deletion for a fourth time.  Go ahead we'll wait.  Oh I see Don has noticed your shenanigans already.  Poor you! http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26661 ItsWhatYouKnow (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you fuck off, and come back once you have done something other than spam me with your dumbness, fuckface. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)