User talk:Darrenhusted: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:27, 16 July 2007

Hello Darrenhusted, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some good places to get you started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, you can leave a new message on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to help you. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

— FireFox ^(talk) _{18:49, 11 August '06}

Prince (musician)

Nearly every musician has won an award at some point or another. The lead sentence is supposed to simply identify the subject of the article, and the article is about Prince, not his awards. If there are specific awards that are for some reason important to his career, they should be mentioned later in the lead. But tacking on "award-winning" to the lead sentence inherently casts him in a positive light and is POV. ShadowHalo 22:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that he's won two Grammys and an Oscar. I'm not denying that at all; I'm saying it doesn't belong in the lead sentence. The part in WP:NPOV that covers this is WP:UNDUE. "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Having the first words of the article be "Prince is an iconic award-winning" puts him in a positive light when all the lead sentence is supposed to do is identify the subject of the article. That the Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep articles have the same structure is irrelevant. I'd hardly consider an article with the sentence "Streep is widely considered one of the most respected and talented actresses of all time" in the lead to be a model of NPOV. ShadowHalo 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

glad to help, hope the explanation in the AFD put any concerns to rest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Osbourne

I have updated the article, infobox and a few citations. The article should pass WP:BIO Athlete now. However it's still pretty poor on citation. Still depends on what you want to vote on it. But being that he competed in ECW and ECWA is passable for WP:BIO Athlete and being that he won belts, should be fairly notable in professional wrestling terms. Your thoughts are welcome know. Govvy 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose carbon dioxide as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week carbon dioxide was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Spamsara 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Something you may be interested in

That Chuck Taylor article that was deleted has been recreated. The new AfD is HERE. Nikki311 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol...I'd prefer if you thank me and curse those who recreated the article. Don't kill the messenger! Nikki311 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see things a little more clearly now --EdWood 22:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You Assume To Much

Don't message me if you don't know the facts and try to explain the "rules" to me. I haven't violated anything, he has given me permission to use, which is good enough, I have it in writing. No, I do not know him. You told that kid, the new one to watch and see what would happen and tehn deleted all his stuff, that is jsut rude and personal. --EdWood 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are rude and I am just responding to you to let you know that sometihign must be wrong on your end because I see my sigs in all my messages. Please do not message me with your immature antics anymore, we will let it play itself out. --EdWood 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Once more, without spelling errors. Darrenhusted 23:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what do you have against Chuck Taylor personally that makes you such an angry person. Please do not message me rudely again. --EdWood 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I shall make it my job to remove myspace External links from every wrestler and the WWE articles. Also jsut because you take it upon yourself to edit all over the place does not give you the right to be rude and sarcastic. I fully intend to report you for your demeanor towards me (I did not re add the article), you have been rude, sarcastic and condesending and I do not need that from you who, judging by the groups you belong to are the TV Wrestling fanboy. YOu come off as one of those people who thinks televised wrestling is the only wrestling. He is a champion, that is all that matters. He is more famous than you or I or any of the users/editors for that matter, that makes him notable.--EdWood 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And? Darrenhusted 00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor

Go ahead and place the CSD tag on there. I created the AfD after the tag was removed earlier today twice. I figured this may need to be debated (again), though perhaps I was hoping an admin could step in and help with this too. Wildthing61476 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It's been deleted, thanks for the help. Wildthing61476 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's back, check out Chuck Taylor (wrestler). Wildthing61476 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored for better clarity

Stop messaging me EdWood (time added by page owner) 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

EdWood socks

Yeah, maybe I did cast the net a bit too wide. The checkuser came back negative which of course does not necessarily establish that sockpuppetry did not occur but I've kept the promise I made to EdWood and deleted the related category of suspected sockpuppets. In any case, this hardly matters since the DRV will fail in any case. On a completely unrelated note, it would be best if you removed the fake "you've got new messages banner" from your talk page. It's not particularly funny and it tends to annoy establish editors who have seen the joke a thousand times before and it confuses newbies. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Done and done, (I only put it there to fool my brother User:hustedcarl a couple of days ago). Darrenhusted 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hung parliment

back in 1992 the Libdems only had 20 seats with others holding 24, that means the Conservatives had to win just 44 seats then labour to have an overall majority, and they had 65 so a majority of just 21. With the Libdems holding so many seats the Conservatives would need to win substantially more to win an overall majority. For example if the Liberals still have 62 seats after the next election and the other have about 20, then the conservatives would need to have at least 82 more seats than labour to have more than 50% of the seats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-man53 (talk • contribs)

Wrestling

Do you not think that it's very dangerous to have someone who hasn't heard of Ice Train as a contributor to Wikipedia Wrestling? I think Wikipedia Wrestling should be reserved for fans of professional wrestling, rather than people who aren't aware of professional wrestling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.131.78 (talk • contribs)

Dangerous?? Very dangerous?? You need to learn how Wikipedia works, like signing your drivel, before lecturing me on what should be reserved. Clearly I am in the company of a Wikipedia editing genius [1].Darrenhusted 12:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Nicolekidmanfilms

Template:Nicolekidmanfilms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IC Title

OK, wow that was a dumb mistake on stepbrother vs brother-in-law, oversight on my part. Not sure why you brought up Dynamite, as I didn't mention him, and honestly wasn't even aware that he was somewhat related to the Harts, if remotely. As for Venis and Edge, that was a lack of fact-checking on my part in mixing up who married who's sister, and, yeah, brother-in-law gaff again. Thanks for the clarification and kick-in-the-pants to doublecheck my facts. CyclopsScott 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

TC

I was adding the total triple crown championships each of them has won. JV7 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, why do you list AJ Styles' 3 multiple triple crown championships. It is unfair that AJ Styles appears as a multiple triple crown while Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock and Edge arent.

Revision as of 18:23, 16 July 2007 edit JV7 (talk \| contribs) 20 edits →IC Title ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:27, 16 July 2007 edit undo JV7 (talk \| contribs) 20 edits →TC Next edit →
Line 108:		Line 108:

	I was adding the total triple crown championships each of them has won. [[User:JV7\|JV7]] 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)		I was adding the total triple crown championships each of them has won. [[User:JV7\|JV7]] 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

			If that is so, why do you list AJ Styles' 3 multiple triple crown championships. It is unfair that AJ Styles appears as a multiple triple crown while Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock and Edge arent.