User talk:Darrenhusted

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:

float

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

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}

Archives

---

Those Were The Days, I Remember Them Well, Or At Least I Did, Until My Mind Started To Go And Then I Took My Medication But That Didn't Help So I gave up trying. Then I found a new drug but that stopped working too. And this now works. I am so much happier for it. So I start anew with hope that I will remember what happened .

Hi Darren. Regarding the error of the TV series articles renaming...

Sorry about that. I'll try to rewrite the main redirects. Scott P. (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hi. Please enable your e-mail. It's regarding your recent message on my talk page. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe McElderry

The AfD for Joe McElderry which you participared in closed as Redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6). There is a proposal now at Talk:List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6)#Joe_McElderry_2 to restore an independent article and your opinion would be welcome there. I42 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

something wrong?

Did I hurt your feelings when I posted something less than mindless praise of Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaferk (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but "Ant-Christ" isn't a word. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

True Blood Template

Any idea why somebody removed the TB template from all the actor pages? Also taking away external links with it in some cases... Ravenscroft32 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

It doesn't help us edit warring, let's discuss. Actors should not be used to pad navigation boxes. They only have a loose connection between them. According to the guideline, "Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is "no", a category or list is probably more appropriate". The actors as persons, which is what their articles focus on, have little to do with the second season with How I Met Your Mother, for example. I can't find the original discussion about this, but it is a consensus. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See WT:ACTOR#Cast/Crew in navigation boxes. Feel free to weigh in. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The navbox now sucks ass. Good articles are what is important, so either we ignore all rules and keep the template useful or we ditch it all together. You still want to keep the template you created but allow it to be reduced to something practically useless? I liked your earlier work but I'm ready to delete it from all articles, it feels useless as it is now. -- Horkana (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're talking about the HIMYM navbox? The season list could be re-added, in fact given the amount of detail within the individual episodes it may be worth imitating the 30 Rock layout and having five season pages and directly linking to them. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the HIMYM navboox. Looks good again, at least for now. I was thinking it might be good to add recurring characters like the 30 Rock navbox but beyond Stella and Victoria I'm not sure there are enough characters that recurred often enough for it to be any real improvement.

Maybe from some of the articles about 100 episodes I can get some sort of a critical consensus on notable "episodes" and then we'd be able to add that. I'll give it some thought. Thanks. -- Horkana (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Darrenhusted! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Gaines (pastor)

Hi Darren, I see you have contributed to this article, there are some pretty strong accusations about a living person there, I also notice he has not been charged, I would like to discuss this content with you perhaps on the talkpage there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Darren, I have removed it to the talkpage for discussion. Lets see who comes, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw VI, again

Hey. Would you mind taking a look at this edit? I'm pretty sure that mentioning a torrent isn't really needed (and isn't particularly well sourced), but I wanted another set of eyes to take a look before I did anything about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Any talk of the "director's cut" needs to wait for the DVD, and the plot should not be altered to reflect the changes, but the changes are usually noted elsewhere on the article. I rolled it back. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit, I'm stupid. (sorry for butting in). But someone yesterday made this edit about a "deleted scene" of Amanda and it's posted on YouTube (watch it, it's really interesting, lol). I figured it was released early in some parts of the world, so I allowed it. I didn't think about anyone illegally obtaining it (duh). So should this edit stay, or be removed? Thanks. —Mike Allen 02:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Once the DVD is out then is should be added but YouTube is not considered a reliable source as clips can be taken down. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Darren. —Mike Allen 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw VI & User:Newlifeinlondon

Hi Darren! Regarding the above-captioned editor, an admin blocked him last night for his edit warring on Saw VI. This followed a report that my Huggle automatically filed against him at WP:AIV. The block expires at 04:16EST on January 19.

When I look at this editor’s edit history, I see that he is a fairly new account, being less then six months old. He’s still an infant … so to speak. Also, when I looked at his talk page history, I see that he had never received the standard welcome notices. So, with this edit, I added to his talk page a belated standard welcome message and edit summary reminder. Let’s hope that he uses the three-day block to familiarize himself with the policies, guidelines, etc., of Wikipedia.

As an uninvolved editor — the Saw series holds no interest for me — I wanted to point out that, since it is obvious that his only interest is in editing wikiarticles about movies, and since you are an active editor of movie-related articles, you are going to be running into him a lot. So, I wanted to suggest that it might be in your common interest to introduce him to WP:FILMS in particular, and the collegial manner in which content disputes are resolved in article talk pages in general. Perhaps you could mentor him a bit. An added benefit for you is that it might cut down on future grief for you. Thanks for considering this.

P.S. I haven’t forgotten my promise to add the citations to Watchmen as per WP:LEADCITE. I just do not want to do it on my laptop and am waiting for when I have time to sit down at my desktop and use the large screen since I think that, in order to locate the cites in an article with which I am unfamiliar, I will need multiple windows open. I’ll get to it! :) — SpikeToronto 21:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw he was blocked. I don't have the time to mentor him, and I may have been a little curt with him with my first message, however after I warned them about the 3RR on 13/01/10 they did not edit for over 24 hours and I assumed they had understood the implications of their edits. I also suggested they discuss the edit, rather than reverting. I hope the 72hr block will make them think. Also the Watchmen thing will get done when it gets done, if someone else brings it up then they can be referred to the talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let’s hope he will use the time off wisely and especially read all the things that {{Welcomeg}} points to. When he does come back, if you do not have time to give him tips and guidance, you can direct him to me, if new problems should arise. But, I a rarely edit film articles and am not familiar with the WP:MOVIES guidelines. Thus, I could only give him general advice. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This may interest you. As well as this. — SpikeToronto 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he did add a personal attack after I warned him, to the actual article, so I guess they are just another vandal with a broken caps lock. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It saddens me, though. He might have made a good editor once he learned the ropes. I cannot figure out why new editors ignore the coloured “new messages” bar at the top of their screen. Too often I see editors, either new or single-purpose, who will not read and respond to comments placed on their talk pages. If only they would do that we could guide them to becoming worthwhile contributors. (Btw, I could not find the diff where he did the personal attack as User:Newlifeinrome.) — SpikeToronto 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the little petty tirade he’s been throwing at his original talk page with … what … his fourth admin! … I no longer think he would ever have made a positive contribution. And to think, I was wanting to help him … <sigh> You had the right sense of this editor. — SpikeToronto 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly you get a feel for these things after a while (his first attack was invisible and directed at HelloAnnyong). But the positive out weight the negative and over the last year there have been four of five editors who have been will to engage and that's all you can hope for. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Stereoscopy

re: Stereoscopy#See also

I restored the Integral imaging to the /* See also */ section, as I could not figure out why you removed it. It seems relevant to the general topic of the article. (It was redlinked due to the capitaization of "imaging").

Vicki Delany

When tagging articles for speedy deletion, please take a moment to ensure first that sources could not be added to bring it up to an acceptable level of quality. By tagging the article in question for deletion, you were working to delete an editor's first contribution, a new article on a notable subject, simply because he was not yet used to Wikipedia style and formatting. This is a bit BITE-y, and is destructive to Wikipedia in the long run. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I tagged a number of articles, all after quick google searches. The article in question was an untagged dead-end and had been for a month; either it will be improved and kept, or deleted, in either case another user will look at it and either agree with my tag or disagree and improve the article, both outcomes I am fine with. I disagree that there is any biting, in the end the encyclopaedia has been improved. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

William J. Kelly

Hi, Darrenhusted! The article William J. Kelly does assert notability - the interaction with Pres. Clinton, the producer of Emmy Award winning shows, etc. However, I'm not convinced the article would withstand WP:AFD. Feel free to take that route if you so choose :) Thanks, and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Undos at Watchmen (film)

Hi Darren! You have recently undone some edits to the plot of Watchmen (film), but without any explanation in the edit summary. How are the IP editors whose edits you are undoing going to learn anything if we don’t tell them either through the edit summaries or on their talk pages why their good faith edits are being reverted? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Eli's blindness

Just to be clear, I do not doubt that Eli is blind---in fact, the talk page discussion has been rather ridiculous with the claims that he isn't---I have simply been trying to revert unexplained anon. edits which add opinion and interpretation to the text. My zealousness has led to carelessness, unfortunately, on a couple of occasions. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, and most of my comments weren't directed at you, just at those who keep removing it, and in my last revert I was trying to direct any such editors to the talk page. I understand that in the back and forth of anon reverts stuff can get missed and the "wrong version" can emerge. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

speedy redo

hey, your speedy redo at School_of_Rock#Characters what was that about? andyzweb (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to change a redlink to an external link. The redlink will turn blue eventually. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your revert on Owen Hart

Are you someone trying to help Wikipedia or just someone trying to be an unhelpful nuisance? Because, unless you are actually going to try and help Wikipedia, it would be preferable if you didn't edit at all. You have contributed to great annoyance.the article about the game even mentions the fact about the Owen Hart dedication and if you had actually seen the intro to the game, you would know that this isn't false information, and considering the critical reception that this video game has recieved (and still receives even though the game is 10 years old), a mention of this is more than notable of inclusion in the death section of Owen Hart's article. Is verifability the problem? Well, if you had actually cared about doing something useful with your day, you could've searched for a source. Oh, but that's too hard isn't it...that would make you a helpful contributor. I am going to assume good faith here and say that there is at least the slighest chance that you care about the project and advise you that in future, you will actually cause less inconvenience and far less annoyance to the project if you had simply added a tag to the statement. There would have been nothing wrong with that, and then either yourself or a good-intentioned contributor could've found a good source. But honestly, this fact about Owen Hart is so stupidly well-known that you might as well revert an unsourced claim that Santa Claus has a beard. Your revert was so silly! In fact, it makes me feel sick to know that people would go out of their way to downplay any verifiable good-will dedications to honorable people who are dead on a high-profile encyclopedia, even if they are just looking for any way to be a nuisance.--BIG FOUR  ! ! ! ! 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)