Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 24 June 2007

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

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

— FireFox _{18:49, 11 August '06}

/archive1

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 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 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 case.

• Your solution sounds acceptable. —dgies_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 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yeah thanks... JB still trollin' 'round the net I see...-- bulletproof 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 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 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. John Hayes 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)

Sara Calaway

Delete the page. You're right. Sara is not significant. The only reason I did an article on her is because someone reqested it and there was no article on Sara. Also in the article The Undertaker, there was a link to Sara Calaway highlighted in red meaning that there is no article on sara in wikipedia. so i made an article on her. But it is stil a biography and this the first page I ever created. This is a great website but people like yourself are ruining it. You think you know everything but you just don't. so delete the fuckin page.

Thedeadmanandphenom

you jerk. i hope you burn in hell.