User talk:Darrenhusted/archive6

IC Championship Article
I saw that you edited the article and took down my edit. I added a footnote with video evidence that the "Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship" was a former name of the belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt
I'm not sure, why don't you ask WP:PW.  iMa tth ew T.C. 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's like it's been years...
...And maybe it has. One thing's for sure, it's been a long time Darren. How've you been? Cheers,  -  The Hybrid  -   09:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, bad weather, one of the bitter-sweet blessings of living in a desert. It's going to be unspeakably hot (115oF usually by June and through August), but it will consistently be unspeakably hot :P. BTW, the guidelines about no chit-chat aren't enforced at all, unless the users do nothing but chit-chat, play with signatures, etc. It may not even be a guideline anymore. Anyways, the IC Title thing, you made a good call when you said that the video can't be cited, but luckily Mshake knew the way to allow the information into the article. Though, Lid made a good point when he said that WP:IAR would allow for the information to be in the article, even if it had to be unsourced (WP:IAR doesn't trump the law after all ^_^). Cheers,  -  The Hybrid  -   09:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to do it. I hope we continue crossing paths like this. Cheers,  -  The Hybrid  -   09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Moulton
Hi Darren. I thought that redirecting Jeremy Moulton to Southampton was a rather odd thing to do; given that, as you stated, he isn't even mentioned in that article it seems rather unhelpful. However, I agree that his notability is borderline at best, so I've sent it to AfD instead (see this for the debate). So you may like to join in that. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My WWE Employee Edit
Please don't take down my edit. I have shown a properly reference indisputable fact from WWE Corporate that WWE Wrestlers are independent contractors. And to take down a properly referenced indisputable fact is vandalism; especially without using the talk page to do it. So please don't vandalize this article. I've used a properly referenced indisputable fact and I'm right. What you're doing is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign
I have nominated Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Loonymonkey (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Redlink on AfD
Yes, I was in the process of fixing that at the time you did. Twinkle messed up somehow. I re-did the nomination through Twinkle and now it's fine. Thanks, --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 12:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all :-) --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult list
Darren, please withdraw your nomination of this page for deletion, in whatever capacity that is possible. I do understand that you nominated it in good faith based upon the talk page commentary of those who share my view that that the page should get the axe. It is, however, entirely irregular to nominate without a deletion rationale, which is why the very instructions for creating the discussion page ask for a "reason the page should be deleted." See Articles_for_deletion. As UltraExactZZ has pointed out normal discussion cannot proceed, because conventionally most AfD comments refute the rationale for deletion or agree/expand upon it. This rationale is essential so that discussion isn't all over the place. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote, so now there is a basis for discussion. Darrenhusted (talk)
 * Darren there is no basis for discussion. This process is built upon a nomination with a rationale for deletion.  Please read Guide_to_deletion.  You are correct that there is no clear policy language saying: "Do not nominate a page without a clear reason to delete," but I think this is implied rather clearly on every policy and guideline page regarding this matter.  As I've already shown you above the instructions you should follow in listing the article even ask for the reason to delete, something you haven't provided, nor would you since you don't want it deleted.  If you read the other link I just provided, you will see that the Guide to deletion treats nomination as if the nominator wants to delete the article and has some reason for believing this is correct.PelleSmith (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for admins to have a look at the AfD. As I've already said, I think you're entirely acting in good faith, and have made that explicit in my request (which is not about you at all but about the AfD).  Either way here is the link to the AN/I request. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What?
I would just like to know why you erased relevant and nonbiased information in my article on the speaker Scott Hammond.--EloraC88 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)--EloraC88 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Jade

Sure are a lot of socks in that AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt

 * I'll ask LAX, later on. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Facts about Mario
Hi Darren, could you please explain why you Undid revision 222072469 →Mario: added reference to Facts about Mario at Digital Spy? Thanks for your time and attention. I'll check back here for your reply, for want of which I shall restore the addition later today. 92.21.113.187 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the words '"and in Mario's case this number is 3,583 (as of 2008-06-27) and rising."' makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say, what are the "facts" that have been counted up to 3,583? It is gibberish. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you explore the link? And the number of facts about Mario that the link leads to? The number is now up to 3,591, on page 144, and since it is rising so rapidly, I deliberately phrased the addition as "this number is 3,583 (as of 2008-06-27) and rising" - is there a better way to phrase this, in you opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.113.187 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not facts, they are posts on a forum. I am not going to read through 144 pages of posts on a forum. It has no value and does not need to be added to the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rex and Jen
Hello, :-) my source is dailystar.co.uk. Goodbay :-) --Frank90t 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A Girl's Guide to 21st Century Sex
Hello. You reverted my edit with the summary, Without a reference only the topics should be listed, not a story from one episode. Could you please point to the policy that states this? Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

bukkake
why did you revert me, if you wished to reinstate the text I removed, then fine. but your revert changed the subject back to female. please change your revert so that it only reverts the removed section and does not change the gender back to female

Murdoch
Hi Darrenhusted. Could you source Murdoch's real name in his article (William Mueller) to avoid BLP issues. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for sourcing it. D.M.N. (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BB9/2008 Weekly Summary
Hi. What would you say to a complete re-jig of this section? Things like the ordering of the table, it has no order! It should go something like: Entrances>Tasks>Punishments>(Incidents)>Exits whereas currently (for example), week 2 has T>P>En>Ex...if you know what I mean. Also, the some of the info is in the wrong week. For example, Stephanie's Exit is in Week 1's section when surely it should be in Week 2's (Days 8-14) and Stuart entering on Day 16 in Week 2's when it should be 3 (Days 15-21). I just think it'd be better if it had an order and everything was in the correct place? Let me know what you think and either one of us could do it. Cheers, Dan (db1987db (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC))