User talk:Darrenhusted/archive17

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/archive17! 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)

tl;dr, and the Attitude article has 0 sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You've really gone out of your way to undo my work, haven't you? If so, it speaks volumes of your character, and if the edits are anything to go by, is not a very good thing. And since you admitted to not reading what I said because it was "too long", it is above you to try to patronize or tell others what to do. I was going to set you straight, but I won't, because you are not worth my, or Wikipedia's time and I believe that your involvement here is doing more harm than good to the project. I tried to WP:AGF on you before, but your recent edits, that you would've only made by looking at my contributions first (I actually feel offended to know that you ever had the chance to view my good-intentioned work) suggest that it is better to assume good faith on a disgusting cockroach or a low-lifer on the scummiest streets than it is to asusme good faith on you. I am embarrassed to have ever associated with you and I never want to see the name "Darrenhusted" on this encylopedia ever again.--BIG FOUR  ! ! ! ! 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Darrenhusted on ITunes

Hey, I've read a couple of your comments on the Itunes page, and I saw you are pretty much against the massive well known criticism of Itunes that appears. So, I suppose you are the ardent defender, but please "be a Wikipedian" and stop removing other's comments without discussing it properly. Everything linked there is to be discussed about the reliable sources that those specific criticisms needed to the article. Also, it'd be helpful to cite something you are removing instead of trying to be a tyrant and just remove and entire comment, because YOU dont agree with it. So check, yourself. Thanks. Preceding comment added by 98.218.129.248 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you read the guidelines for talk pages before coming here. You are posting a forum reply to a question no one asked. The link you keep posting under is fine to provide editors who wish to improve the article with information about what iTunes installs. No one is asking "how do I stop iTunes from installing bloatware", though you seem to be giving an answer for that question, a question which can be answered at a PC forum, and has nothing to do with improving that article. I don't need to ask your permission to remove your forum post, as it has nothing to to with improving the article. If you want to help improve the article the go ahead, otherwise stop posting a "how to" on iTunes installation. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg's 'religion'?

Hey there. To me, a businessman's personal beliefs seemed to have no place in an encyclopedic article about him. Why did you add it back in? I am interested in hearing what's the wiki user consensus on this. It's not like he is a politician. With your permission, I am going to take it out... soon.(1tephania (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

It has a reference, and he has stated his lack of a religious belief in interviews. It's a field in the infobox for a reason. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because it has a reference, it does not mean it is a relevant information, does it? I am not concerned with the factual accuracy of his having no religion (which isn't the same as atheism!), but the relevance of such an information for a businessman. (1tephania (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

What's the relevance of such information for anyone outside of clergy, rabbis or imams? The information is verifiable and of interest to readers, especially given that most would assume he is Jewish. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of film crossovers

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of film crossovers. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film crossovers. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Production before Plot

Your last post over there seemed to join me in taking up a different topic. Should we start a section? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the merits of spoilers that interests me as much as the bit about reading the film article before seeing the film. I don't think that's a common practice. Many if not most filmgoers would likely rather not have the entire plot laid out for them before seeing the film, and I think we might as well respect their wishes, too. While spoilers belong, I'm not really on board with the idea that we should interfere with the experience of a film with our article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

... with edit summary Do it without the redirect or not at all. Why? Groomtech (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the point of a Wikilink is to help the reader, linking quantonium to the redirect leaves you at the top of the page List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, and in no way provides any helpful information to the reader. Just because a word can be wikilinked does not mean it should be. So link to the right place or don't bother. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the best you can do since the target page is essentially a large table with no section headings to anchor the redirect to. It does at least tell the reader that it is a fictional substance, which is helpful: I dispute your "no way". I also don't appreciate your appearing to issue orders. Groomtech (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the point of the redirect? The table gives no extra insight to the reader about what Quantonium is, and in truth it is nothing more than a MacGuffin to start the plot. If anything the redirect for Quantonium should go to Monster vs Aliens, as it is more likely that someone searching for that item would want to read about the film and not the substance, which is not described in detail in the film. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it tells the reader that quantonium is fictional. They may well not know that. Groomtech (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DBTN

Hey! Let's not bite the newbies (e.g. User talk:Johnebert‎). I tried to soften the tone a bit... Hope that's all right with you. hgilbert (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

True Blood season 3

I've started a page for the third season of True Blood, which you can find here. I'll be adding more information over the next couple of days and as it comes in. Any contributions you can make would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep on my watchlist and give it a look, and hope no one gets zealous and goes for an AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Eli

If you listen to the movie, he says that the flash (nuclear bombs) blinded anyone who saw them. To answer your correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstarsupreme (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet he doesn't say it blinded him. I have a copy of the script. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Did you bother to actually read his [1] post before you reverted that editor? Do you not see how fishy his block is? Did you even bother to take the time to read his claims? There is no explanation whatsoever for his bad block on his talk page. I get the sense that something's not quite right here at all with his block and it reeks of both censorship as well as gaming the system by several editors as far as I can see. Caden ^cool 09:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, and he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, then started a sock to post a complaint about his block. He still has access to his original talk page, that is the venue to appeal a block, not using a sock on Jimbo's page. If you think the admins are acting incorrectly then take it up with the admins, but unless Jimbo has blocked a user he will not start a wheel war and unblock a user. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that I can find that shows evidence that he was blocked for multiple accounts. Can you give me the link? I don't believe the user created a sock to be malicious. If you read his post again, you will see that the user not only identifies himself by name but also appears unaware if he is allowed to post or not. If you look at (what you allege is his sock) his contributions, you will see that he made only two posts to Jimbo asking very valid questions. And no, he does not have access to his original talk page because of a fishy indefinite block by admin Will Beback, who clearly was involved in a conflict with the editor before blocking. Since I believed the indefinite block was done in bad faith, I contacted the admin but so far have got nothing in response to my questions. Caden ^cool 12:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On his contributions list, from the original account and the new account. Creating a new account to protest an indef block on your first account is a blockable offence. I checked through the contributions of the original account, not the second account. If the user has a problem with his original block then he should give reason for being unblocked on his talk page, you know the procedure, you've been blocked before. I don't know how you're questioning my actions when you haven't checked the primary account, take a look at this original block and if you think it is bad then go to the community. The case still remains that a sock of a blocked account will always be blocked and that edits by that account should be reverted; in both cases this has been done. I say it again, Jimbo will not unilaterally undo admin actions, this includes blocks. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg

There are other things: author, date, title of the article. Not all articles are available online. Edenc1 • Talk 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's not enough information in the ref, like page number, issue number or volume number, or given that the implication is that you have the physical copy, an ISSN. That was half a reference, find the rest of the details or don't put a half reference. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Chatroullette

I understand that the source says that the Jonas Brothers might of been on Chatroullette, but are you going to trust one source? How bout the sources that say that it was fake, are you not going to take that in consideration? Do your research before you revert something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scootnasty (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not The Jonas Brothers, but the source is written as if it is, and you can't go around parsing what the source should say, only reporting what it actually says. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, well Im going to add a section about the Jonas brother and here is twitter saying they where never on there http://www.twitlonger.com/show/dh3g4. The source you are referring to is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scootnasty (talk • contribs) 02:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Twitter's not an RS, and the article reflects what the source says, you cannot editorise. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK) GA nomination

I've noticed that you are one of the top contributors to Big Brother 2009 (UK). I am sending this message to inform you that the article is now nominated for Good Article status. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be interested to hear what you think of recent changes to this article. I've opened a discussion on its talk page. —MegaPedant 21:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi. Please don't forgot to follow the instructions at WP:Copying within Wikipedia when you copy text from one article to another, as you did with this edits. Regards, Theleftorium 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox True Blood season one

Template:Infobox True Blood season one has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox True Blood season two

Template:Infobox True Blood season two has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, how are you doing? Feedback ^☎ 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter message

It has recently been brought to the attention of WP:PW that the newsletter is being to delivered to several users who have not been actively editing for several months. As a result, their talk pages have become increasingly large, unmanageable and slow to load due to a lack of archiving.
In response, this message is being sent to all editors listed in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants to say that anyone who does not list their name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16 will be automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, and will no longer receive the newsletter or any notification of it. If you are added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, please feel free to remove your name if you desire.
If you wish to continue receiving the newsletter as normal, please add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If you simply wish to receive notification of a new issue, but not have the full newsletter delivered to your talk page, please add your name to the notification only list.
If you have any queries please contact me at my talk page or leave a message at WT:PW. Thank you for your co-operation. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK)

As you are one of the top contributors of this article, I thought you ought to know that it has reached Good Article status. Congratulations on your efforts, no matter how big, small, minor or major they were! KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Greetings. You reverted an editor's changes without including an edit summary on True Blood (season 2). As you yourself would want to know why contributions you took the time to make were reverted by someone, other editors want to know as well, when you revert their contributions. Please Write good edit summaries when reverting others' contributions, at a minimum, if not planning to discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary was as follows: "Undid revision 363362635 by Noraft". That is not a lack of summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother

I have a text file full of notes related to How I Met Your Mother. It includes a lot of nicely formatted episode citations, formatted citations to Barney's blog, and various reviewers. I find this list helpful when improving articles, I can copy a nicely formatted citation for the AV Club or Barney's blog and update the details that have changed rather than having to type it out from scratch. The episode citations have the most potential for reuse. If you don't want them no worries, if you do please let me know and I'll dump a copy of the film on Pastebin or some similar text sharing site (or a temp page in my wiki space if that will work). -- Horkana (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dumped a copy of my notes. Please copy if interested and share with others actively editing HIMYM articles. Will probably move it somewhere, thinking I might dump it as a subpage of List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes as it might help other editors if they have nicely formatted episode citations. -- Horkana (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a distinct possibility I hit preview a few times but never hit save. And I wiped the document on my computer. Nuts. If it turns out I didn't delete it and I find the right links I'll post it but I think my notes are all gone sorry. -- Horkana (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it in my contribs log. Phew. The correct link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Horkana/HIMYM Hope it is of some use. -- Horkana (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm "Lost"

Just in regards to your revert, do we really need those subheadings? I can't really find anywhere in the MoS which says that we need them. Each season has only a couple of lines describing them, and the subheadings just create an unnecessary clunky mess. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyperlinking Years

Thanks for enlightening me to a youtube rule that I had no idea existed. From looking at the rule, I understand there will be no indiscretion over hyperlinking 2009 to the page 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)