User talk:Darrenhusted/archive16

re Cytherea
I thought about semiing it too, but then realized that what we were protecting wasn't sourced either. It needs to be reliably sourced first, then it can perhaps be protected. --Golbez (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it *did* end up just saying squirting, but then you reverted again (though the IP had left a very misleading edit summary for that one) :P --Golbez (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slapsgiving 2: Revenge of the Slap
You trimmed the guest list but since the episode has not aired yet some of the names you trimmed may hold some significance so it seems a bit early to delete them. I reverted you edit in whole rather than in part because I didn't want to guess at your intentions by trying to partially revert it, if you had included an edit summary maybe I could have taken a better guess at your intentions and gone forward with changes rather than a revert. I'm explaining my reasons here so you can know the revert is in good faith. I understand some editors do not like WP:REDLINKs but I encourage you not to automatically remove them and think carefully if maybe some of them should stay as they can be useful for targets such as peoples names (upcoming actors) it can be good to use them to help generate statistics about what pages might be worth creating (explained in detail in the Redlinks guidelines).

Until the episode has aired the reference helps show the guest list is accurate/verifiable, and it also shows the list in full. Even after the show is aired I think it is a good idea to leave the link so that the full list remains referenced. WP:Redlinks are something to think about but if you wan to reinstate your all your other changes just don't remove the reference to the full guest list so that if minor guests become more notable later it won't be so hard to verify and add them back in. Please keep the conversation intact or in context, please reply here on your talk page or on Talk:Slapsgiving 2: Revenge of the Slap or just make the changes to the article. -- Horkana (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All the guest actors are on the imdb page. I'm fully aware of redlinks, there's no need to link it twice in one message. Lily's parents; signifcant, Marshall's family; significant, Boy #1; not significant, not likely to ever be significant. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks
Allow me to outline a scenario. On an article about a TV program there is a redlink to an actor who appeared in a one-line role, and were know as Taxi Driver #2. The article is created, but as they have only ever appeared in one episode of a TV program where there part consisted of six words, the article is tagged with a CSD A7, another user removes the tag, the article is PROD-ed, on day 6.5 the PROD is removed the article goes to AfD, then five days later id deleted, because the actor fails the GNG and WP:ACTOR, the link turns red again. I would argue that Marshall's brothers and Carl the bartender may have appeared in enough episodes of HIMYM to get articles, but if HIMYM is all they have done then they fail the GNG. Given that day players are unlikely to ever bass the bar for GNG there is little point in redlinking every extra on HIMYM. The director of Zombieland deserves an article, Boy #1 in episode 9 of season 5 of HIMYM does not. Red links are useful, but redlinks everywhere do not help. On a related topic, using the FA 30 Rock season 1 as the template I have started a season one page for HIMYM, feel free to edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment included here for context and keeping the conversation here where it started. I'm not making assumptions about what you do or don't know. I was making a general point and of course generalisations have exceptions. I know most guest cast are not notable, I'm asking that you keep an eye out for edge cases and that one or two redlinks might be justifiable in the episode articles. An example would be in the episode The Rough Patch the pizza guy was played by Matt L. Jones who also played a small role in Breaking Bad and in that case a redlink also helps prevent an incorrect link to a not particularly helpful disambiguation page (although I did update the disambig page to mention the actor).
 * Imdb content is user generated and is not always a reliable source, so it is better to reference the press release.
 * You mention the Season One page you are working on but I think I will stick to mostly editing the individual episodes for now but I'll ad the Season list page to my watchlist, I might change my mind. The main How I Met Your Mother includes a paragraph for each season, and the List of How I Met Your Mother episodes includes more information so I'd be concerned about spreading things out too thin and too far especially so soon after a failed proposal to delete all the individual episode articles. -- Horkana (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Production
Uh yeah I demand to know on what grounds did you revert my contribution here?!

lol No, I'm joking -- I figured since it was already under "Production" it would be fine, if it did change, then of course remove it. Apparently they are going to start filming January (instead of March), but yet they have not announced a cast. So, yeah who knows what will happen with Saw VII. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Declined SD of Gorewang Kgamane
Hi Darrenhusted! I just wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion tag of Gorewang Kgamane. A7 only applies to individuals, etc., who do not have a credible claim of importance or significance. This person is alleged to have been the chief of a group of people, and it is supported by Google and related articles in Wikipeida. Therefore, there is a credible claim of importance or significance. If you believe the subject is not notable, feel free to nominate the article for WP:AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A7 speedy request declined on Shanghai Alumni Primary School
I declined your speedy deletion request on Shanghai Alumni Primary School as being a school it is ineligible for A7 deletion - schools are explicitly excluded as actually stated in the text of the tag you used! Best, Nancy  talk  18:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Hey there, I just thought I would let you know I replied to you counter-argument on the Saw Fictonal Chronology template deletion page in case you wanted to rebut your reasoning for this discussion. I was just wondering, have you seen all of the Saw films and/or are very familiar with its storyline? I was just wondering because if you weren't, does the template display a good picture for a reader unfamiliar with the series? If you are familiar, does it make sense how I did the template to correspond to the current timelines of the films, rather than their supplementary flashbacks? Just let me know. Happy edits, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

re A Serious Man
I would strongly advocate keeping the prologue in the movie page as it's an important thematic setup for the rest of the movie, including the dark providence that the protagonist himself might be cursed as a consequence of their actions, as well as another theme in the movie which contrasts the perils of being certain versus the paralysis of being uncertain. The woman was so certain that the man was a ghost that she actually killed him, and the viewer is left guessing whether she was right or not. The film itself is about uncertainty, imperfect knowledge, and the need to overcome the frustration of never knowing the answers. The fact that people have commented (including you) that the prologue seemed disjointed from the rest of the film is itself an encyclopedic fact and deserves treatment on this page.

In your effort for being concise, which I respect, you also over-edited down some important key details of the film which connect several of the movies plotlines. I would ask that you carefully review edits versus just revert them, which as we all know is a low-effort way to maintain an article.

I also think that wiki guidelines are aspirational, not firm rules, but I think we can achieve a good overview in less than 700 words. I would invite you to help me improve this article, which is actually poorly written as it stands, by preserving the prologue, keeping key details in the plot, but ensuring the summary doesn't exceed 700. Will that work for you?

How you edit has ramifications on how users regard Wikipedia. I would only ask that you try to help me improve this article, versus just undoing every change.

Regards,

97.116.142.212 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline is fairly firm, anything past 700 is far too much, that is why there is a tag, for such purposes. The prologue has no impact on the plot at all, and so should not be listed in the summary, it can be listed under production in a sub section about the writing. In addition, I have no way of contacting you as you have jumped IPs five times in 24 hours, discuss this on the article talk page, not here. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw V
Darren, with all due respect to your Veteran Editor III status -- I thought my contribution here was valuable, verifiable, and reliable. So what if it added 20 more words to it. It actually added positively to the plot -- more than I can say about most of it. Perhaps some people know that... but I bet a lot didn't. That pretty much explains HOW those 5 characters were connected to the Saw universe. I don't know... maybe it shouldn't be in there... but at least I did source it and it's verifiable from the man himself (writer). I'll be interested to know what you think about it, probably not happy, but thats beside to point. :-) -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be in the plot, trying to explain how the five are connected to the wider series needs to go on the character pages or under the production section, taking an aside in an already long plot section to explain an event which is not seen in the film (an therefore not part of the plot) is not needed. The plot is for what happens when you see the film onscreen, imagine if the plot of The Dark Knight started by going off on a tangent about how Chicago was used for Gotham. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Patrick said that there were clues in the movie, but yeah.. I never "got it". However that doesn't go without saying someone else didn't.  I thought maybe if that was it, someone didn't add it because it would be based on speculation. Do you suggest it go under all 5 of those characters, or just Mallick?  Oh I'm still learning what goes and what doesn't.. and not get upset if it goes, lol. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
I saw you had nominated Orio Palmer for deletion. After leaving an explanation for why it should be kept I took a look at your recent activity. I saw you had recently nominated a whole bunch of articles that, like the Orio Palmer article, were about 9-11 victims.

Let me offer you the feedback that, like the Orio Plamer article, I think you were being far too hasty and aggressive in your nominations for speedy deletion. I think your assertion that the A7 criteria applied was not really appropriate. And, frankly, I don't understand why you thought speedy deletion was appropriate, instead of prod?

Here are the two hangon messages I left: , .

Yours in collegiality, Geo Swan (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you review Articles for deletion/Abraham Zelmanowitz prior to slapping on your speedy? Are articles that survived an afd even eligible for speedy deletion?  Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags
Darrenhusted, I am slightly concerned that you are tagging articles for speedy deletion that don't meet the criteria. Specifically with regards to A7. Besides having a narrow scope of subjects, A7 is only for articles on those subjects who do not make a credible claim of importance or significance. This is a lower standard than notability (i.e. something may pass A7, but ultimately not found to be notable). Any claim of importance or significance, as long as it is credible, means that A7 does not apply. Instead, you have to go through PROD or AfD.

It is also important to take a look at the history and discussion prior to tagging an article for any type of deletion process. Your concern may have already been addressed, there may have been a prior PROD (which means there can't be a second PROD), there may be a prior version of the article that is appropriate, and there may have been an AfD that resulted in a consensus for keeping the article. (I note that the last one has been an issue in some of the recent articles you have tagged with A7.)

This is especially important for new page patrolling and dealing with new editors. I don't think anyone would disagree that a new user gets discouraged when their first article is tagged for deletion - even when tagging the article for deletion is appropriate (I'm not saying not to tag articles when appropriate - I am a new page patroller, and I tag new articles for deletion all the time when it is appropriate). Therefore, you can imagine how upsetting it is when a new user's article is tagged for deletion when it is not appropriate. The user thinks they did everything right, and then are told their article is going to be deleted for certain reasons - when those reasons don't apply to the article! We may lose valuable new users for no reason.

I strongly urge you to carefully read through WP:CSD, and make sure any article you are tagging meets the criteria. If you have any doubt at all, don't tag for speedy deletion. Use PROD or AfD instead. Also, I would be more than happy to discuss the appropriate use of CSD tags if you have any questions or if you think I am mistaken with my concern. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD
I believe I have. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it too late to add List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters on, or will I simply have to inform those who have already !voted. It's basically a bunch of said articles bungled together. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with The Jones Family. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if it is eligible for speedy deletion, leave the AfD notice in place. That way, if an administrator speedy-deletes the article, (s)he also knows to close the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Wait for the speedy to be declined, then PROD, then AfD. There is no need to get a vote on an article which is mostly gibberish. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Darren, I'd listen to C.Freds advice if I were you. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, there is no provision for a non-admin closure under those circumstances. Had I declined the speedy, the article would've had to be relisted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I would have done in the circumstances would be to leave the AfD open but make a speedy delete !vote. The AfD logs draw lots of eyes; when I post an AfD, I usually scan the other open ones, and a discussion with a few calls for speedy deletion gets my attention. Nothing says an article can't be tagged for speedy deletion and AfD (only PROD and AfD are mutually exclusive). —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

JAMS Scheduler
Hi there, I declined your speedy deletion nomination of JAMS Scheduler becuase it isn't just a promotional article. Please take it to WP:AFD if you strongly feel that it should be deleted. Kind regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello, Darrenhusted. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you continued to make questionable speedy nominations after your response on AN/I, I have disabled your access to Twinkle until this issue is resolved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I have said all I am going to about the matter at the ANI thread. If you see a page written in all lowercase that provides no immediate evidence of secondary sources (or notability after an "exact phrase" -Wikipedia google search) and don't think it needs to be deleted, then fine, you're the admin and it is your choice. I won't bother to patrol new pages, I won't bother to tag, I'll stick to basic editing. You say "continues to make questionable speedy tags" and yet my contribs history is showing three deleted articles after I tagged them that weren't questionable, one of which you deleted yourself. To me Zalongwa reads like gibberish, and seems to be the editor testing making an edit, which then turns into an advert but Singularity42 thinks it fails WP:NEO, and he wants it PROD-ed, fine with me, the end result is the same. Sampsonite (rapper) was easily a CSD A7, but the creator removed the tag and the PROD and now it is wasting time sitting at AfD for seven days, which I'm fine with, 'cause the end results are the same. So I'll stop looking at new pages 'cause this rigmarole isn't worth the headaches. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But you see, right there you understood that Zalongwa had an advertisement for it's last sentence. You probably were also able to see that the first sentence was a description about a specific word. There's nothing to suggest it was a test page (even if the article is badly written). Yes, the ultimate conclusion is the same (deletion), but there has been constant concern at WT:CSD about trying to force articles into CSD slots they don't actually fit into. If it doesn't fit into an SD criteria, but it is an obvious delete, just PROD it. Seven days until the article is deleted isn't going to hurt anyone. Singularity42 (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To me it looked like a test, that is why I chose that category. That you don't see it as as test and want to change it to a PROD does not really make any difference to me, and the odd conclusion that my way of viewing that article means that I am using CSD wrong is your perception. I would not disagree with it being labelled as G3, but I wouldn't do so because G2 assumes that the editor was merely acting in good faith whereas G3 is calling the editor a vandal, and I don't think that was what the editor intended in this case, they simply wanted to make an article about two things that they want on WP, but they clearly are inexperienced. But if you want to wait 7 days for what is obviously a page without any merit then wait, it is off my watchlist and I have moved on. Though the irony is that another editor already tagged that page, last April, so it may actually be a G5. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: iTunes 9
Message to Darrenhusted: why did you delete the section I created called "Criticism" at the iTunes page? It was properly sourced. There are numerous references to this problem. See, for example, http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2151907&start=0&tstart=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.1.199 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR discussion involving you
Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Looks to me like you and the IP may have both taken things too far. Wuh Wuz  Dat  19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm the one who has made the plot too long, then made 6 reverts in a row, then slapped a copy and pasted mess of an attempted 3RR report at the 3RR board. Yes, clearly I'm the one at fault. Except of course that another editor made the same edit this morning, and my first revert today was to the version that he did. That the guidelines for plots says that they should be between 400-700 words, and the plot summary now lies at 1034, so needs a tag, but then it's not as if anyone has tried to shorten it to meet guidelines. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly. And they wonder why editors leave Wikipedia. At this point, I don't care, fuck it. I've taken the page off my watchlist. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time try asking for semi-protection? I have that page watchlisted now, but I do not think anyone saw that page until it was too late. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Old Dogs
The article doesn't have POV problems, but the plot is way too long for an 88min comedy. - I agree with you on both points. I did not expand the Plot subsection - some IPs did it. Do you think the other tag can be removed? Cirt (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I will not be the one to remove it. I am not saying you should, just wanted to get your take on it. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Semi-protect
Userspace pages generally aren't fully protected unless there's a reason to so I won't do it. You may wish to get other opinions via RFPP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)