User talk:Darrenhusted/archive20

On the mass revert by you
I do doubt if adding these links was a good idea [even if they are relevant within the scope of history of technology - let's not tell the readers what to be curious about] but at least see what you're reverting - among your reverts was several non-controversial edits by me. 85.113.197.170 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Several'? No, I see maybe two. And while I have just rolled back most of your 'see also' additions there were editors who removed your links before I did, I am not alone in the assessment that 'list of Russian inventions' does not need to be on a hundred pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I see maybe two. Then look at the diffs a little closely before you mass-revert. And user history for that matter. 85.113.197.170 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this; one user reverts you, a second reverts you, a third reverts you, a fourth editor reverts you, a fifth editor reverts you. This isn't vandalism, and neither is this, or this. You label simple reverts as vandalism and have been reverted by six different editors, including me. Your constructive edits are outweighed by the spamming you did yesterday of List of Russian inventions and Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records to a number of 'see also' sections. So don't add those links back to the articles, though I would also question your spamming of List of Russian weaponry which would be more useful as a category (so don't be surprised to see mass rollbacks of those as well). Darrenhusted (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted several of my constructive edits. You don't have to go that far to try to justify your mistake. 85.113.197.170 (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Implicitly you admit the others were nonconstructive; two hours after those mass reverts ended and you have three constructive edits? I can live with that. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposal to add these links to Russia-related articles was entirely reasonable. I guess I'm gonna have to roll-back half of your reverts. Can you live with that? 109.195.112.185 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Superbad
Another user clarified why my section should be deleted with reference to Wikipedia's rules. I now know not to make that mistake again although I think you should make references to such documents when deleting sections of other wikipages in the future, as it can be frustrating for the user who spent time and effort researching and contributing to the page. Thegrillman (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit contains the reason why I deleted it. You took single answers from junket questions from three different actors,some of which are years old to give the impression that the sequel was an actual concern, when it isn't. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ruby Sparks Cast List
Hi there, I just undid your removal of the cast list of Ruby Sparks as it is a part of the Film Manual of Style to include a cast list for films. It provides a quick reference and as a place to include cast notes on any background to them taking the role should they be so added. Have a nice day. MisterShiney (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
MisterShiney (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother
I have been editing the episode pages for this show for several years now. I recently went through all the episode pages to review changes that had been made, and reverted a lot of original research, trivia, and false claims. I tried to note with each reversion what the basis for it was. You have just reverted a whole series of my edits without any explanation at all and seemingly based solely on the fact that they were made by me. Unless you can provide reasons for each of those changes, I have to conclude that they were not because of the content of the edits but because of some opinion you have formed about the person who made the edits. If you disagree with any of the edits based on their own merits, please open a discussion on the appropriate talk pages for the episode and I will respond to you there. Otherwise, the edits just look like vandalism, which is why I have reverted them. 99.192.85.63 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For someone who has been editing for years you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'vandalism', and calling those who do good edits vandals is bad form. While some of things listed as continuity might be something else you can move them to an appropriate section rather than picking and choosing random facts to delete. Before you go through a revert my edits learn the meaning of vandalism, and it costs nothing to register; if you are serious register as a user. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When someone reverts edits systematically that were all made by the same editor and does not explain any of them, it seems clear that the edits were not made based on the content of them. As such, they are at the very least unconstructive. But setting aside all that, I have made edits and explained in each case why I made the edit. You have only reverted without any explanation for those reversions. If you want to revert them again, please look at each one carefully and, if you disagree, start a discussion on the appropriate talk page. I will reply and we can discuss them cases by case as need be. I see you already decided on your own that the reversion you made to Twin Beds (How I Met Your Mother) should be left as I had edited it, and I hope you will find the same of the others. But if not, then discussion of them is the way to go. Check the edit histories in each case and you will see that I have said individually what is wrong with each edit so you can reply to that justification on the talk pages. 99.192.60.28 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually you don't explain you simply say 'vandalism'. Users adding correct information to articles is not vandalism; users adding false information or vandalising article is vandalism. I don't need to discuss every single edit, because your edits are mainly wrong; and this is more difficult to do because you aren't logged in and your IP address changes each day you edit. For the moment I will revert your edits that are wrong. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Actually you don't explain you simply say 'vandalism'." Not true. If you check the edit summaries, different reasons are offered for the edits, only one of which was "vandalism". some make false claims, some involve original research. The reasons offered are varied and appropriate to each edit. If you think that "vandalism" was the only explanation, you should check more carefully.


 * "I don't need to discuss every single edit, because your edits are mainly wrong." If two editors disagree about content then the first step to resolving the disagreement is to discuss it. If one of the editors just reverts the other and refuses to discuss the matter, that is not constructive editing. It only leads to long slow edit wars. We can call in third parties for assistance if needed, but it would be constructive if first you tried discussing the specific edit disagreements.


 * "and this is more difficult to do because you aren't logged in and your IP address changes each day you edit." Also not true. The fact that I am not logged in and have a dynamic IP address has not made it at all difficult for us to discuss this matter right here on your talk page. Also, as I have suggested a couple of times, it is the talk page for the articles where edits are in question that is the place where specific discussions of edits should be had. And again, my not being logged in does not make those discussions any more difficult. If you want to discuss the edits, we can. It's up to you. I will begin by trying to offer more detailed explanations for my edits. I hope you will either accept those explanations or, if you still disagree, start a discussion on the talk page for those particular articles. As I have said a couple of times already, if you do that, I will respond. 99.192.54.127 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I just finished making the re-edits. In each case I made as full an explanation as I could for them. Please consider those explanations before deciding whether you agree or not with the edits. The one reversion you made that I have left was the continuity error on The Sexless Innkeeper. I had previously not noticed that the episode specified April 2007, and so thought that this was not an actual error. But since it does say "April" and they married in May then moved in November, I agree that the item is accurate. 99.192.54.127 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So you accept they are not 'vandalism' because you have stopped adding that. And you have had three different IP addresses just posting to this page. Your edits are still incorrect. Justify your removal on the talk pages if that is where you want to go with this, but with your IP address changing so frequently it makes it difficult to continue any discussion, so register if you are serious about doing this. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that we are making some progress. Originally you reverted my edits on eight different HIMM episode pages, then it was only seven, and now it is only three. I'm glad to see you now agree with me about the other five pages. Of the three remaining pages, I looked at your edit summaries. I took your advice and googled "finish him" and found to my surprise that the phrase is strongly enough associated with Mortal Kombat that it seems fair to leave that item. So that just leaves two pages where we still disagree.


 * "Justify your removal on the talk pages if that is where you want to go with this" - Well, I have already explained the edits in the summaries and you have expressed your disagreement, so I thought that it might be time to get input from others into the matter. I have left a note on here: User talk:Eaglestorm asking Eaglestorm to look at the items still in dispute and to offer an opinion on them. He, like me, has been editing HIMYM episode pages for a long time now, so I suspect that he will have an opinion and be interested in contributing. If you know other editors with a similar interest and involvement in the HIMYM pages you want to ask, that would also be welcome. The more voices the more likely we are to get it right. That's the Wikipedia philosophy!


 * "with your IP address changing so frequently it makes it difficult to continue any discussion" - The fact that we have been for two days now successfully discussing the matter with all those changes proves that it has not been at all difficult. I get that there are editors who want all editors to make edits from registered accounts, but Wikipedia policy does not require it. So whether or not I use a registered account and whether or not I have a dynamic IP address is really entirely beside the point. 99.192.51.50 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to give you a quick update: Eaglestorm has not yet replied to my message on his talk page, but he has only made one edit in that time so I'm not sure how much he has even been on Wikipedia since I left it. But if he decides not to offer an opinion on the edits still in dispute, I'll look for others to provide input. Once again, if you want to do the same that is more than welcome. 99.192.88.58 (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Eaglestorm has made a few more edits to other pages and chosen not to reply to my request that he offer an opinion on the disputed edits, so it looks like he is indifferent to the issue. Also, it seems you have stopped responding or doing anything to help resolve the matter. So I have again restored my edits and added a response to your last offered reasons. If you still are concerned about these edits, it would be helpful if you did something other than revert them. That will only lead to a stalemate. It would be helpful if you also made some attempt to get other editors involved if you want to continue to object to my edits. Perhaps the time has come to ask for a third opinion? 99.192.91.27 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The time has come for you to justify your removal of material on the talk page before you remove it, not remove information then tell other editors to justify inclusion. If you want to continue to edit then do so, but given that the pages in question are on my watchlist I'll simply revert. if you want to continue to discuss it then start a discussion on the relevant talkpage, otherwise stop posting here. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

SPs at DDD
Hi. This may be of interest: Sockpuppet investigations/TrackSparks. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head-up. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SModcast, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Billings and Bryan Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Money as Debt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.