User talk:Darrenhusted/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Indenting 2 Thank you! 3 RE: PCW 4 Mediation 5 Comment 6 RE: Texas Red 7 Reply 8 Changing Plans 9 Big Brother Vandal 10 Sources for Hell in a Cell 11 Citing pay-per-views 12 PCW 13 Uh, articles for deletion? 14 IP 15 not a problem 16 Another crappy article 17 Just a suggestion 18 That Last IP 19 Justin White 20 WP:TROLL 21 The JB Socks, where you can report them 22 Venus (wrestler) and Tony Stetson have been de-prodded 23 Prod's 24 Thanks for the heads up 25 Afds 26 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Sizzerb 27 Message 28 Removed Deletion Prod From JAPW 29 Sin Sizzerb AfD 30 June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter 31 A little advice

Indenting

Hi, I hope you don't mind if I indent your post on the Big Brother Wikiproject for you, I am assuming you meant to reply to that message. John Hayes 12:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that just made me laugh out loud. John Hayes 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks so much for defending me here and here. I really, really appreciate it. Also, it's good to know that I'm respected and established. :) - Deep Shadow 12:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. - Deep Shadow 02:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: PCW

Thanks for the heads up, I will comment now. Also, did you mean that it is "without sources", I think you accidently wrote "with sources". Bmg916^Speak 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I voted delete. We have a hard enough time begin taken seriously without every small promotion on the planet feeling they are entitled to an article. Bmg916^Speak 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - would it make sense to list all related pages for deletion on the same AFD or put them up for Speedy deletion after the main article under "Lack of notability"? MPJ-DK 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will indeed change my vote to Delete All. Thanks for the message. --Nonstopdrivel 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw you added them all, good stuff. I also voted in the TfDs as well and formatted the AFD page so it looked a bit better. MPJ-DK 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also for the heads up and for taking care of all of those Afd's. I've never Afd'd an article and didn't really want to take the time to figure it out. If there's anything else I can do to help with this problem let me know. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Comments can be posted here for this [1] case.

• Your solution sounds acceptable. —dgies^t_c 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Your comment of I can't help feeling thay have encouraged those nine others to edit. at the Vengeance talk page is far from the truth. I've never talked to any of the others (except for Mshake) that add the "TBA" notes in Vengeance, so don't assume. The only comment I've ever said to Mshake, was about my frustration with the wrestling project. I've never once said to anyone "go post champions vs TBA" (or anything similar) in the article. How about not assuming? I'm not going to do that kind of garbage just to have the article changed. I don't appreciate this at all. Because people have similar opinions, it automatically means they are all working together and talking about it? I don't think so, so knock it off. RobJ1981 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Texas Red

Was Semi-Protected, hopefully things slow down a bit. Bmg916^Speak 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yeah thanks... JB still trollin' 'round the net I see...-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing Plans

Sure, plans can change. At WrestleMania 2000, the main event was changed several times (Rock/HHH, Big Show/HHH, Rock/HHH, Roch/HHH/Show, Rock/HHH/Show/Foley). But a possibility of a change is NOT a reason to avoid listing what the match is currently and officially known as. Mshake3 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've been listing it as ECW World Championship Match and nothing more. It states the match is happening (and when JR says that there'll be nine title matches, then that means it's happening), but doesn't attempt to guess how it's going to take place. Mshake3 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother Vandal

Great work on stopping that vandal, he is hard work, I have warned him, if he does it again I will request a block. I have also requested semi-protect again, but there is a backlog on the protection at the moment. John Hayes^talk 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do, but we can't really block him because as he hasn't vandalised since the warning, and also we can't semi protect because of one user, though there have been plenty of others. John Hayes^talk 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. John Hayes^talk 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Hell in a Cell

I like it off hand, but I'd run it by the folks at WT:CITE, see what they think because this is an area where I am weak, myself.. SirFozzie 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing pay-per-views

I like the idea, but I'm not sure it'll fly. I see SirFozzie is looking into it. Let me know what he says. Nikki311 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PCW

While you were totally right on the fact the PCW pages needed to be removed, I wanted to draw your attention to this part of WP:PROD:

Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.

You said, "Unless you improve the article do not remove the PROD," but really, anyone is allowed to remove the PROD, at any point, for any reason. I bring this up not because you're in the wrong here (you're completely not), but because there are some rules lawyers out there will come down on you about it (at which point, it will be all 'you can't follow rules! see! you didn't there!' in some unrelated argument). Anyone can remove the PROD, and even if they're totally clueless, it shouldn't be returned. Thanks for catching the walled garden there, though. --Thespian 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time I see a PROD removal I'll just go to AfD.

Yep, that *is* one of the advantages of that ;-) --Thespian 06:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, articles for deletion?

Considering I only removed the "PROD" yesterday evening, isn't it a little bit ridiculous to jump the gun and nominate the articles for deletion less than a day later without giving me (or anyone else) the opportunity to get some fixing done. There has to be some level of good faith involved here, no? Also, what the heck sparked the numerous article removals in the first place? I can't help but feel like if wrestlers that have achieved some measure of success in the WWE developmental system aren't notable, then just about all indy wrestlers and wrestling organizations are not notable, either.DanZero 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but you still didn't explain what sparked the movement for en masse wrestler page-deletions - something I am (obviously) curious about. Also, it's entirely likely I'll be able to prove notability for some, not all of the pages, so I'm hoping that if this is the case, not all pages will be removed despite being lumped together on the Hagadorn deletion page. Also on the vandalism comment - it says right in the PROD notice that if anyone objects, they can remove that tag in the article. I can't fathom how operating within wikipedia's own rules could be considered vandalism. DanZero 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some additions to the Steve Bradley article that I think address the previous PROD and AfD. I'd appreciate a re-evaluation, if you can.--DanZero 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IP

Tamie Sheffield's prod was removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.123.220 (talk • contribs)

not a problem

but I'm going to reverse them, as the way you changed it is actually contrary to wiki timestamp methods. --Thespian 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Another crappy article

Here is another article to consider AFDing:

‎Tarzan Boy (Oziel Toscano)68.192.123.220 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject is a notable wrestler in CMLL, the largest Mexican promotion (and oldest still running promotion) - I agree the article is really ugly, but that's cause for improvement, not deletion MPJ-DK 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

See better already MPJ-DK 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I see you've added a bunch of articles together in an AFD, my word of advice is that you leave it at the list you got, if you get too many them some people will vote "Keep" to one or two of them causing the votes to get more muddled and less clear-cut. Mass AFDs (Unless they're the same subject like the PCW list you worked on) often fall prey to the problems of few people wanting to delete all articles listed. May I suggest that you follow this bunch with a batch in 3-4 days and keep the list like it is, it has a better chance of succeeding IMO.

And good job on cleaning up the wrestling articles MPJ-DK 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That Last IP

Doesn't look like JB to me, but if need be, I'll keep an eye or two out. SirFozzie 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Justin White

How about I just wait a day or so to vote on White's article...to make sure you absolutely get it listed right. lol. Kudos on trying to clean up the project. Nikki311 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see it's fixed now. Cool. :) SirFozzie 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TROLL

Darren, check out Do not feed the trolls. Wide eyed innocence there is baiting you; just delete his stuff and ignore. I've appended a request for a checkuser to the previous complaint. --Thespian 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. [[2]] --Thespian 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The JB Socks, where you can report them

When he starts using accounts instead of IP addresses at Check User, follow the instructions, if he's using accounts that means we need to go to the IP Check section and have the CheckUser folks find and block the open proxies he's using for the accounts. As for the 3RR review.. I'm going to have to decline to review that. Banned Users CAN be reverted at any time, but in reverting, he was readding information that was removed under the Biographies of Living Persons and that IS a blockable offense. Once Burntsauce stepped in, readding it without a source is DEFINITELY a no-no. Sorry about that. SirFozzie 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Venus (wrestler) and Tony Stetson have been de-prodded

Venus (wrestler) and Tony Stetson have been de-prodded.Major League Keystroke 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod's

Got most of em.. one of them (the one you had trouble with the AfD for), an anon removed the afd notice (which is a no no.) could you keep an eye on it? SirFozzie 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

working through this new list (the one I was working from was on PW. You owe me a beer for this ;) SirFozzie 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Finally. SirFozzie 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I dunno what this guy is blabbing about - what exactly was his point about people's voting history? But thanks for the heads up I was not watching that debate, I am now though MPJ-DK 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Afds

I am not insinuating anything; I am stating a fact so that the closer can take into account the simple fact that the opinion of WP:PW is the predominate opinion being given on those Afds. I am not surprised that you have taken exception to it; you have so far shown no appreciation of outside opinion on these articles. You want every single one of those articles deleted, even if others think that they are notable. To help you understand my frustration, when I was younger I used to regularly watch the wrestling matches organised by Tony Rumble (this is on TV over here in Australia); for him to be considered not notable makes me think the WP:PW definition of notability is completely off base. In the very least it would have been appropriate for WP:PW to have discussed the planned culling with the Wrestling group over at Wikia in order to lessen the "loss" when they were removed here. John Vandenberg 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Sizzerb

Please never do what you did to this AfD. Adding unrelated articles to the nomination after the five days have passed is not a good idea. The three articles you listed were around before the self-promotion began, they only needed to be edited to remove the links. —Xezbeth 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Message

I did a bunch of information. My friends even helped. But you deleted a lot of it. Theperfectone 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is what you were aiming for. Darrenhusted 00:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Deletion Prod From JAPW

There is no need for the deletion prod on the JAPW. It's not as small of an indy fed as you think. So I have removed it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs)

Well, then an AfD it is. Darrenhusted 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sin Sizzerb AfD

Please don't add new articles to a multiple AfD nomination lately, like you did here, at least not without clear indication what you did. There's no clear evidence that Purple City Productions and Big Mike belong to the same "walled garden"; while HarryHall86 (talk · contribs) did edit Big Mike, the article doesn't seem particulary related with Sin Sizzerb. Bassivity Music is actually a notable Serbian record label. Maybe those do need to be deleted, but they should be credited full process.

I understand that you had good intentions, and that you thought that those were part of the same promotional campaign. But please, in such cases, clearly indicate that they were added later to the AfD, by you. Luckily, the closing admin did pay attention so no damage was done. Thanks. Duja► 07:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 07:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A little advice

Can I just say something? Removing a prod is not automatically a negative, disruptive thing - it cannot be "done incorrectly" by the sheer definition of WP:PROD, Remember to Assume good faith or you run the risk of coming off as uncivil and cranky that someone "dared" disagree with you. That's all I'm saying MPJ-DK 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)