User talk:Darrenhusted/archive 10

Then...
Why doesn't WWE mention the Hardcore Champions who've won all the other belts to be Grand Slam Champions? The accepted definition has always been world title/IC title/tag belt/Euro title. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a specific reason why I didn't capitalize world and tag because it's blatantly obvious that WWE recognizes the other major belts (World Heavyweight, WWE Tag) and there was no reason to try and create a straw man argument based on that. The point is that WWE's definition of the title no longer includes the Hardcore Championship, as I have contended. And if WWE's definition does not include it then neither can ours. The Hardcore Championship is a fourth-tier, if that, singles belt. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is it doesn't NOW, and the ones who could've been considered before cannot now. Again, a world title/IC title/a tag title/Euro title. None of the people I took off the list met that criteria, therefore they are not Grand Slam Champions. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN, the definition is world title/IC Championship/tag belt/Euro Championship. I am starting to get a little annoyed and offended at this. WWE does not recognize the Hardcore Championship as part of the Grand Slam and does not consider ones who held it and no Euro title to be Grand Slam champions any longer. You are making straw man arguments to try and bolster your case and it isn't working. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And further, I don't see how WWE's choosing to completely distance themselves from Chris Benoit after he murdered his family is anywhere CLOSE to relevant to this case. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Again. Why am I not surprised. If WWE does not consider the Hardcore title to be part of its Grand Slam then it isn't part of its Grand Slam and no one who could claim one without a Euro title can do so now. The Benoit thing is irrelevant because Benoit actually won the Royal Rumble in question and the only reason WWE doesn't have it listed is because of the circumstances surrounding his death and the death of his family. Repeat. WWE or World/IC/World Tag or WWE Tag/Euro. No Hardcore, and no Euro=no Grand Slam. By that definition, we should also include the US and ECW titles- hell, why not have the ECW Tag Titles? There has to be someone on the roster that's won all those, right? A Grand Slam does not include the Hardcore Championship by WWE's definition. To use Benoit's example to support that it does is a straw man and irrelevant to the argument. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One more time: Grand Slam does NOT include Hardcore Championship. I don't care how many irrelevant occurrences you cite. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT THE GRAND SLAM DOES NOT CONTAIN THE HARDCORE TITLE ANYMORE. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're only giving up because you're wrong. The fact is that it is no longer a part of the Grand Slam and therefore WWE no longer recognizes anyone who held a belt in the other three components of the Slam without holding a European Championship to be in the Grand Slam list. Your conduct is really starting to reek of owning and I really don't appreciate your continued talking down to me. The fact is that you're wrong, you refuse to admit it, and you continually try to use straw man arguments to make your point- failing every time, BTW. Repeat, one more time: a world/IC/a tag/Euro. No Hardcore. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown template
Wouldn't it be simpler to just make a Triple Crown template? Not a WWE one. That way we add both TNA and WWE to it so I don't have two make one for three people?-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm stating something like this:

This way, we don't have two Triple Crown templates, we just have one.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just stating since the championships are on one page, TNA only has three champions. What is the use of having two templates. We could create Template:Triple Crown Championship. Put that above in it. Kill two birds with one stone.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand it will be no use on HBK's page, but what is the use of telling the user Angle is a triple crown champion on HBK's page. Plus, I also wonder what use the template is in the first place. The championship isn't even acknowledged by WWE anymore. Just trying to make things even here between TNA and WWE, seeing that (not to sound like an ass) without me no one would even remember TNA has articles on here.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think it should just be one template. With both accomplishments on one page, why not just have one simple template, that way we save space. Most of those championship templates were supposed to be deleted. They served no purpose other than having a Good of Featured topic. That is why IMatthew created the heavyweight, WWE, and woman's one since good or featured topics were in the work for each. I'm trying to get the X division and world heavyweight ones deleted. Maybe we should take this to WT:PW.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 00:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I checked the history and saw your edit, so I thought you were the one who created them. I'm just trying to make sure TNA isn't left behind. Though, the Triple Crown link should state WWE in it somewhere. Just so people will know. Without WWE stated, it makes it look like the TNA Triple Crown means nothing and is forgotten.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

re. phor,
Hi there,

Regarding this revert, I believe that the first part of the edit (re. Berners-Lee) was OK, and had references to reliable sources. I agree that the second part (re. petition) would require suitable seconary reliable sources. Therefore, would you object to my reinstating the first part (and the references)? Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Darren I have added this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phorm#10_Downing_Street_Petition

If you could comment?

--  Silver123456789  ►  23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kane
Huh, there use to be a source for that Bruiser name. I know there is a video on YouTube of his match with Sting, but I don't like using YouTube as a source. eh, I don't care. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

US Template
Thanks, it's amazing what bored Sunday mornings can do. You forgot Radio 7 also makes the license fee worthwhile. Tony2Times (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pike
Hey Darren, I was wondering why you removed the paragraph I put up on Bruce Greenwood on the Star Trek movie page. I am happy to tweak it as need be, but he is far more of a lead than many of the other actors (his voice opens both trailers) who have paragraphs so it didn't make sense that he just had a line halfway down in the middle of the cast list. What changes do I need to make so that including the paragraph on him will be okay? Many thanks, Karen Karendawn1 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Darren, I appreciate your response but you suggest that for all we know he might be a "featured extra" and that nobody knows how big his part is as the movie isn't out. I wonder if you might not have had a chance to read the paragraph before you deleted it. He plays Captain Pike, the space ship's captain, and Kirk's mentor. JJ Abrams, the director, personally called him to ask him to play it so you need not worry I had tried to give billing to a featured extra. Articles about both him and the film, which I cited, refer to his many weeks of filming. It is his voice doing the voiceovers in the trailers, because he is the ship's captain. He is one of the leads. Yet, indeed, the way he was listed and is again listed as you have reverted the page does make it look like he might be "a featured extra." As I know you would like the wiki page to be as accurately representative as possible may I send you some information to allay any of your concerns that I might be "padding" a section with information about somebody who doesn't have much of a roll in the film, rather than adding information on one of the leads?

Thanks again, Karen Karendawn1 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Darren, you wrote that Captain Pike is not a member of the Enterprise crew. The movie is a prequel. Kirk is a child for a good part of it. He is not the captain. Pike is the captain. You state your personal doubt that his character appears for more than a few minutes in the film. Apparently you didn't notice him in the combat scenes in the trailer commandig the ship. It seems unfortunate that an editor's personal guess -- in this case an inaccurate guess as you have written to me that he is not one of Enterprise crew -- controls what gets edited off a page.
 * Far more importantly to me personally is that as a result of my concern here, you saw fit to go my personal page, irrelevant to this discussion, which other editors had already been to and tweaked only slightly, and slash up the work that other people had spent time contributing. I don't know all that much about wiki rules but I am hoping there is a way to solve disputes when it seems that an editor is taking a query as a personal affront and responding against the person who posed it. I think if a neutral source saw the comments that you had left on my page, for example the insulting terms such as "weasel words" and the references to "name dropping" (when in fact the only such references came from a Los Angeles Times article) they might suspect that perhaps the edits had been made in the heat of the moment and that you might have overstepped. Perhaps a neutral source could help us resolve the issue of the immense changes you made to my personal page -- like removing the whole Hollywood section, which other editors found fine, because you personall didn't like it or were annoyed with me. Can you let me know how such issues generally get resolved? I am sure wiki doesn't wish to have its editors use their power to change information about anybody who has inadvertently insulted them, and I think anybody reading this exchange and then reading the comments you left on my page would suspect that has happened here. Please do let me know how such disputes are resolved.

Thank you, Karen Karendawn1 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again Darren,
 * I have a taken a closer look at your edits. While the timing of them, and the tone of your comments are still of much concern, I can see why you removed some of what you did. For example I can see why what you refer to as "name dropping" -- the list of celebrities who endorsed my book --might not belong there. I believe it was added by a supporter not to name drop, but who hoped to drive traffic with the links. But I understand that might be frowned upon. Yet while removing the list of celebrities makes sense, removing a cited reference to somebody as being involved in that world doesn't seem to. Other removals -- such as the reference to a front page Los Angeles Times article about my pitbulls in the section on my pitbull advocacy seem particularly extravagant. Also, as DawnWatch does not have a wiki page, I wonder about removing the brief description of it, unless you are hoping to encourage the creation of a wiki page for DawnWatch, but that seems to me to be overkill.
 * I hope some of the references and information you deleted can be restored.
 * Karen Karendawn1 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again Darren,
 * I have received the information you provided (thank you) and your threats about removing the page about me entirely. What I didn't receive was an answer to whether wiki has a system for dealing with disputes, when the timing and tone of edits suggest something more than just an adherence to wiki rules. As we are all only human I am sure wiki realizes that must sometimes happen, and has a procedure for dealing with it. Just as when one has a dispute with a salesperson, that salesperson cannot refuse to let the customer speak with a manager, I am guessing that the buck does not stop with you and that if I have concerns that a specific editor's interest has become too personal and seems like a little personal vendetta of sorts, there is somewhere to take those concerns. How does one resolve such disputes on Wiki? I appreciate your now detailed explanation of the changes to the page but am concerned enough about the timing and the tone of the original remarks, and now the threats, to think that it might be better if somebody who seems less personally invested be involved.

Many thanks again, Karen Dawn Karendawn1 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to respond to the above anymore Darren. I found the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI and will note that I asked you for it repeatedly with no response -- just threats of removal of the page about me. I have also found a lot of information on editor's etiquette, which brings into question the way this whole issue began, with your choice to remove a whole paragraph about actor Bruce Greenwood without explanation, and then, when politely asked why, your suggestion that the Golden Globe nominated actor who plays the Captain of the Enterprise in this Star Wars requel might be "a featured extra." Ironically, the edits you made on that Star Wars page and the reasons you offerred are more obviously of a reasonable concern than those you made on mine, as they stop wiki users wanting to learn about the cast from getting accurate information. (Your suggestion that Captain Pike is not one of the crew was inaccurate.) The edits you made to the page about me might be seen as reasonable, but again, the timing, the tone, and now the threats of removal would seem to fall into what wiki calls editor harrassment so I will investigate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karendawn1 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That should have read "Star Trek prequel" not "Star Wars requel" of course. Karen Karendawn1 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI
I realize a lot of uncited information was on the page and that's why you put the redirect back. All the information I found was properly researched and verifiable from reliable resources, I just didn't finish the citations because I was tired and was planning on putting them back today.

Therefore, I am going to revert the page again and finish all of the citations, making it a proper and encyclopedic page with no need for a redirect to Saw V.

Thank you for you time,

GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Undertaker
Why are you warning me when you are editing with the wrong date. Please stop posting false information. Just look up his information on a websearch, and you will find the true date of birth. I don't want to report you to wikipedia unless I have to. Thank you. Keeping It Real! (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandope (talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple H's Nephews and neices
Hi there, thanks for the comment on my talk page. To keep all comments consolidated, I replied at the article's talk page. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please leave the names out for now, until we get to a consensus as to whether they should be in or not. I'll post at the third opinion page if needed, if we don't get enough people to comment at the talk page. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please keep it at the article talk page, I have it watchlisted. No need to carry on a separate discussion on our talk pages. Thanks! Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

the late heath ledger
I do agree with you, regarding not adding "late" every time a deceased person's name appears. In this specific case however, Downey DID lose to a deceased actor. Heath was not alive at the time of either the awards or the nominations. When a deceased actor is nominated, it is meaningful to mention it as it is not the norm. It's not like we're going back and modifying the 76th Academy Awards page to say that Clint is "the late Clint Eastwood", as he wasn't dead at the time. SpikeJones (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot
I forgot to tell you about the discussion. I guess it must have slip my mind. But we have been discussing the Grand Slam and Triple Crown templates at WT:PW. There is an agreement to replace those templates with just one. It has the grand slam champions and triple crown champions from both companies adding into it. It is located here: WT:PW.-- Will C --- Joe's gonna kill you!!! ) 04:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Watchmen
No problem. There's been quite a bit of disruptive editing on that page as of late, so I figured a month-long duration would be appropriate. –Juliancolton Talk · Review  17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaestroZone
Can you check my edits on the afd you made at Articles for deletion/MaestroZone? Something bizarre happened when the article creator posted; his signature somehow merged his and made gibberish and it took 4 edits for me to fix it. Not sure what happened, as my signature never caused problems before. :P - Warthog Demon  17:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me...
Excuse me, why did you undo my edits on the Kurt Angle page, I was improving it with the one created by Nikki on the Daniel Puder page, because her edits are better than mine, and please note that I was the original creator of the Daniel Puder note on the Kurt Angle page, I will undo what you undid, thank you... Gregorynovella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

Re: Watchmen
Why can't my edit stay? It's fully sourced... FMAFan1990 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men
You might take another look at your edit on the film page. I've shortened the plot summary by about 15% since you last contributed to it a month ago. It's shorter, sharper, more accurate, and avoids the conflation of plot points with interpretive elements that belong elsewhere.

You may be unaware that this film seems to attract overdetermined interpretations. I've done a nice job of avoiding extraneous or speculative material in that section.

I'd like to see you reverse yourself. Ring Cinema (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

What are you drawing on for your standards of plot summary length? I'm unaware of them and remain skeptical. Not that I don't think this one could be shortened, because of course it could be summarized in two sentences if that was the goal. Ring Cinema (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. Setting is important, neither accidental nor incidental, and introducing Bell thus is a story decision. In fact, that's more than obvious. And again, the plot is more complex than you're crediting. Three main characters that do not appear together is quite unusual and lengthens a proper synopsis. I'm not a butcher. Thanks again for your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Ring Cinema (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a certain inconsistency creeping in here. Referring to "the film" in a plot summary is admissible if you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries. However, I agree with you that it's bad style. It would be an insertion of commentary to do more than "reiterate the plot" in a Plot section. Apparently your note at the head of the NCFOM plot summary is inaccurate though since it says "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." What is the source of that inaccuracy? Ring Cinema (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing for you that you don't admit your obvious error. Clearly I'm your superior as a writer and editor. You have a lot to learn from me. I hope you pay attention as I judge your work, which at the moment is not looking very good. How do you intend to correct the mistakes I was nice enough to point out? Ring Cinema (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." When are you going to recant this heresy? Do you want me to do it for you? Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what it means when someone clumsily avoids a substantive reply instead of fixing their glaring error: they're wrong and they are too small to admit it. Busted, Dude. Ring Cinema (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Wilkins
I would like to know why you are editing my work. Check the articles before disputing them, they are quality works and add to the unsourced information on the articles. It complies to Wiki standards section 3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Wilkins (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek
Thanks for removing the sequel info, since it's in the Star Trek article. But it's not speculation; as we speak Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof are typing and pacing in a room discussing the plot. ;) Alientraveller (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

wiki-links
You've reverted me twice in the Stone Cold Steve Austin article. Debra is already linked. A link should only appear once in the text of the article. It doesn't need to be repeated simply because there is a new section. That article is already a sea of blue links, more than really need to be there. I'm not sure why you feel Debra needs linked twice. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because a link CAN appear once in a section, doesn't mean it should. You are twisting what the policy says. WP:Overlink says: "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." It does not say "as long as it's a different section, it's ok." The possible exception is when the first link appears MUCH earlier. Fine, we'll leave that one and just eliminate the link much earlier in the article where it's mentioned more in passing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't usually count any links in infoboxes or tables. I tend to leave them alone (except for common terms being linked). I look at the links in the article body. Overlink is not sorted sectionally. In fact the part I quoted talks about "much earlier", not about "in each section". Niteshift36 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cheers
No problem! - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)