|
User talk:Darrenhusted/archive1
Welcome to WP:Films!Welcome!
Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page. A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Supernumerary 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) TC ChampionshipIt really needs protection, but I don't have time to file the report right now. Could you do it if you read this before I get back? Cheers, -- The Hybrid 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks man. -- The Hybrid 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Hey, we should really start warning that Angel 850 with stern warnings, I honestly don't think he's going to stop until he's blocked and well, you know the route we have to take before that can be done, I really don't feel like edit warring *sigh* Bmg916 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I don't mind and edit war, I've got both copies of the TCC and GSC saved so I'll just paste them in if anyone makes any vandal edits. Darrenhusted 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC) No problem with the Benoit page, I just reload this guys contribs page every so often, it's a pain...stupid US Title. Bmg916 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Unlike most page protections, this one (the TCC article) has an expiration date. It expires tomorrow. -- The Hybrid 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) WP:Films NewsletterThe January 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. Nehrams2020 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) TC/GS colorsYeah, sure. Didn't think of colorblind people. I posted on the discussion page for the TC article. Anakinjmt 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Re:Triple Crown ChampionshipWhat would benefit from full protection? You may not understand what full protection means, it is when no one can edit it. Cbrown1023 talk 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: The Scientologist pagesJust yesterday I tried to place a neutrality tag in the main Scientology page and it got deleted very quickly. Doing any changes is very challenging. I have had stuff reverted even with proper citations. The reality is that the editors there for the exception of few consider that any Scientology source is false and any anti-Scientology source is true. For example: you motioned the Times magazine anti-Scientology edition. Do you know that all the articles from that edition were written by the same freelance author and that that author had a history of being bias against Scientology and even made treats against Scientologist? You will not find that kind of info there. Just Another was the first to walk into that snake lair and try to change things. He had bolls, very big bolls. Scientologists usually walk in there and don't know where to start. So they bla, bla, complain. Sorry for the resentment but this is how they feel. You just happened to walk in the middle of an argument. I feel guilty because I on purpose said things to infuriate the right. You and Just Another just got drag down into the argument. I really apologize but the right was as guilty as the left for that argument. You need 2 to have a fight. Yes it was a waste of time. I just finished editing the Lisa McPherson page, when I jumped in there it was a mirror image of the Lisa McPherson anti-scientology web site. I changed that with well cited information. I have also worked on the Bob Minton page. Both of these pages have neutrality tags now because the editors didn’t like my edits. But my edits were truthful so they are still there. You should see those pages to see how different they feel. Sorry for the big argument. I was just having fun. Bravehartbear 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 10, February 2007
delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC) RE:Cena as a TCCI think that listing Cena as a potential TCC is redundant. If he is listed in the US Title section that means that he has held a World and Tag Team Title. Like I said on the talk page, I won't cry if he is listed, but I do think that it is redundant. In my opinion, and many others', Cena is a TCC. However, since there is no source we can't say it. So, by Wikipedia standards, Cena is a potential TCC. Like I said, IMO listing him in the PTCC section is redundant, but I won't cry. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 20:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC) WWE PPV'sThe dates were NOT from a press release. They briefly appeared on the WWE Affiliates page (for like an hour), and were quickly removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC). well thanks dudei really appreciate your apology and sorry for my assholeish crime of not signing my pages. qrc2006/email 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC) qrc2006/email 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC) qrc2006/email 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC) qrc2006/email 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC) heres x4, happy? (in jest) i havnt been signing cuz i dont think its been working right, i can never get it to say "talk" and "contrib" like other people. and yes that is so how wikipedia works, you may be a policy purist, but if i see somthing on TV or someone who i think know her shit tells me somthing ill put it up and that is how wikipedia works, obviously youre removal and correction of my contribution to that article just validate the coordinational process of eliminating word-vomit. i still really think he was, im looking for some evidence. and i went on the talk page. and too bad if you had to rm it twice, i didnt break the 3 revert rule it was all in good faith, i truly thought it was lacking and chances were if it wasnt true someone would cut it out on such a popular article. hmm maybe we can suggest any edit on a talk page causes an automatic signature as policy. thanks for the idea. have a great day. hmm hey can i add in that i think hes cute? WikiProject Films February NewsletterThe February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) RE: JBL, Grand Slam ChampionshipThat's fine, my mistake. I have half a mind to take those two articles off my watchlist anyway. Take care, Bmg916 Speak to Me 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC) WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007
delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC) For You This is for making me laugh with the Ric Flair (saggy man boobs) example of Undertaker's opponents "wrestlemania curse" response over on the John Cena talk page. Haha, keep up the good work! Bmg916 Speak to Me 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) er...Listin, I know almost everything about this debate wit RVD and being a ECW TCC and I also know almost everything about wrestling in the U.S. and the WWE and many other wrestling promotions. I know what I was doing and I know wat you are doing to me. I know about the thing where eveyone makes their own opinion and how they debate this thing with RVD. I saw everything that you wrote about me and I know exactly what your telling everyone to do. Your trying to get eveyone to turn on me. And get them to fix the mistakes I make? Whats that? I know almost everything about the WWE, so don't tell me things I already know like that RVD isn't a ECW TCC. But you can't say to me that RVD isn't a ECW TCC because like you said to me it is debated if RVD is a ECW TCC or not. And another thing, stop telling everyone that they should watch out in case I go on an Editing Rush. Why do you have a problem with me editing things? Why? Is it because I edit alot? Why do you care how much I edit? Is it a problem that I wanted to fix the mistake I made even if they were minor? And stop telling eveyone that I am trying to set a record for editing. Because I'm really not! So leave me alone and stop making fun of me! So stop making it sound like and making everyone think I'm stupid! So stop telling everyone to watch out for me! It wasn't that big of a deal. You didn't have to get mad because I edited something. If you sent me a message telling me to delete what I wrote and to explane to me to instead post it on the thing where everyone states thier own opinion about it I would have. You didnt have to make fun of me and tell everyone I was doing something wrong when I really wasn't. You didn't have to send me messages that tell me how ridiculos I was for editing alot of things because It shouldn't even mater to you. You didn't have to send me messages telling me things like I didn't know anything about the subject when I really did. You didn't have to make it sound like I was just puting things there because I felt like it. So mabe we can come to a compromise and if you stop writing things about me like for people to watch out for me and make me sound like an idiot and making fou of me I will try not to edit things you don't want me to and explain why you don't want me to edit them. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charlie1227" At the moment I note you are banned, so if you do stop by to read this I shall let you know that if you want to know just one thing that bothers me it is this, you didn't start a new subject for your message. That would be one thing. You want to correct mistakes, than is fine, but use the preview button at least, 17 edits to one page is ridiculous, particularly as you didn't mark them as minor. If they are a minor edit then mark them as such. You clearly don't know how to use wikipedia or how to conduct yourself, on the Triple Crown Champion page there is a talk page, and on that page is over 5000 words about this issue, before you edited you could have posted there. Now below is a copy of your post above, so once you can post again, start a new topic on this page and post it properly. "Listen, I know almost everything about this debate with RVD and being a ECW TCC and I also know almost everything about wrestling in the U.S. and the WWE and many other wrestling promotions. I know what I was doing and I know what you are doing to me. I know about the thing where eveyone makes their own opinion and how they debate this thing with RVD. I saw everything that you wrote about me and I know exactly what your telling everyone to do. Your trying to get everyone to turn on me. And get them to fix the mistakes I make? What's that? I know almost everything about the WWE, so don't tell me things I already know like that RVD isn't a ECW TCC. But you can't say to me that RVD isn't a ECW TCC because like you said to me it is debated if RVD is a ECW TCC or not. And another thing, stop telling everyone that they should watch out in case I go on an Editing Rush. Why do you have a problem with me editing things? Why? Is it because I edit a lot? Why do you care how much I edit? Is it a problem that I wanted to fix the mistake I made even if they were minor? And stop telling everyone that I am trying to set a record for editing. Because I'm really not! So leave me alone and stop making fun of me! So stop making it sound like ? and making everyone think I'm stupid! So stop telling everyone to watch out for me! It wasn't that big of a deal. You didn't have to get mad because I edited something. If you sent me a message telling me to delete what I wrote and to explain to me to instead post it on the thing where everyone states their own opinion about it thenI would have. You didn't have to make fun of me and tell everyone I was doing something wrong when I really wasn't. You didn't have to send me messages that tell me how ridiculous I was for editing a lot of things because It shouldn't even matter to you. You didn't have to send me messages telling me things like I didn't know anything about the subject when I really did. You didn't have to make it sound like I was just putting things there because I felt like it. So maybe we can come to a compromise and if you stop writing things about me like for people to watch out for me and make me sound like an idiot and making fun of me I will try not to edit things you don't want me to and explain why you don't want me to edit them." March WP:FILMS NewsletterThe March 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. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) John Cena Current WWE ChampionWhat is the point of citing the fact the John Cena is champion, when there is no citation that Undertaker, Lashley, etc are the reigning champions? JAB5 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) ResponseUnsourced information about living people violates WP:BLP. Content must be cited by sources which meet WP:A and what I reverted did not meet WP:A. You say that mass deletion is not helpful, but unsourced content which could be libeling a living person is just as unhelpful. Please read WP:BLP closely before making any reverts. Happy editing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Green342243 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Re: The Scientologist pagesJust yesterday I tried to place a neutrality tag in the main Scientology page and it got deleted very quickly. Doing any changes is very challenging. I have had stuff reverted even with proper citations. The reality is that the editors there for the exception of few consider that any Scientology source is false and any anti-Scientology source is true. For example: you motioned the Times magazine anti-Scientology edition. Do you know that all the articles from that edition were written by the same freelance author and that that author had a history of being bias against Scientology and even made treats against Scientologist? You will not find that kind of info there. Just Another was the first to walk into that snake lair and try to change things. He had bolls, very big bolls. Scientologists usually walk in there and don't know where to start. So they bla, bla, complain. Sorry for the resentment but this is how they feel. You just happened to walk in the middle of an argument. I feel guilty because I on purpose said things to infuriate the right. You and Just Another just got drag down into the argument. I really apologize but the right was as guilty as the left for that argument. You need 2 to have a fight. Yes it was a waste of time. I just finished editing the Lisa McPherson page, when I jumped in there it was a mirror image of the Lisa McPherson anti-scientology web site. I changed that with well cited information. I have also worked on the Bob Minton page. Both of these pages have neutrality tags now because the editors didn’t like my edits. But my edits were truthful so they are still there. You should see those pages to see how different they feel. Sorry for the big argument. I was just having fun. Bravehartbear 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose Government as this week's WP:ACID winnerDiez2 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
BetacommandBot 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) April 2007 WP:FILMS NewsletterThe April 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. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This is what I'm talking about“I posted some NPOV in the intro of Scientology, explaining exactly what is Scientology with proper citations and now they want to delete everything just because they think it doesn't go in the intro. The intro should explain what is Scientology not all that stuff about the controversy, that is still there. This is exactly what we were trying to explain. You told me:
So why it is when it comes to positive info the info is then suppressed and the negative is given priority. Could you please look at the Scientology main talk page? Thanks Bravehartbear 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This was the last Intro: Scientology is an applied philosophy of religious nature that encompasses body of teachings developed by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard.[1] Hubbard began Scientology in 1952 as a self-help philosophy, an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics, and later described it as a new religion.[2] He said that it offered an exact methodology to help humans achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and, simultaneously, to become more effective in the physical world.[3] Hubbard stated that a goal of Scientology is to rehabilitate the thetan (roughly equivalent to the soul) to regain its native state of "total freedom". The body of teachings of Scientology not only includes the spiritual therapy technique called auditing;[4] but it also includes study technology [5], administrative technology [6], a detox program [7], a drug rehabilitation program[8] and a criminal rehabilitation program. [9] The effectiveness of these techniques and programs have been highly debated and have been mostly condemned as nonsense and even dangerous but some of these programs have been endorsed by medical doctors[10] and politicians.[11] [12] In the USA some of these programs have been used by the government in correctional facilities [9] and drug rehabilitation programs. [13] Since it’s the inauguration of the Founding Church of Scientology in 1955; Scientology has grown into more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide. [14] Scientologists claim that Hubbard's teachings have saved them from many problems and enabled them to better realize their potential in business and in their personal lives.[15][16] However, some former members and outside observers—including journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have described the Church as an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses critics and defectors and exploits its members.[17][18] Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition due to their strong-arm tactics against critics and members wishing to leave the organization. While a number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to the protections and tax relief that such status brings, others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation.[19][20][21][22] More recently, in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights held that the Church of Scientology is entitled to recognition in Russia as a religious organization and that Russia's refusal of such registration "had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)". The judgment of this highest European court is valid for all 46 member states of the Council of Europe.[23] The name "Scientology" is also used to refer to the often controversial Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that promote different aspects of the practice of Scientology.[24] All these organization are overseen by another organization called Religious Technology Center (RTC).[25] RTC is the holder of the trademarks and service marks of Scientology. And all Scientology organizations, even the churches have to license the right to use these trademarks and service marks from RTC. [25]
And I have many more. Bravehartbear 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) "I have sought to show in this chapter that according to court-sanctioned guidelines and IRS criteria in the United States, Scientology is a religion, if not according to substantive definitions used by the American courts, at least by functional definitions. Scientology provides its adherents with purpose and the ultimate meaning of life, which is the essence of religion." by Profesor Derek H. Davis June 17-20, 2004 - Baylor University, Waco, Texas http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_davis.htm "The bottom line is the program provided a better quality of life for hundreds of rescue workers that have taken the program," New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate talking about the 9/11 Scientology detox program. Over 800 public worker have taken the program. http://www.observer.com/2007/monserrate-defends-detox-program "The other problem that we see is 'Oh it's just scientologist stuff.' If you look my name up on the Internet, you would think I was a scientology buff. I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church. I am not a scientologist. We have never tried to proselytize for the Church of Scientology. It's just the fact that, by gosh, Hubbard put this thing together. He deserves recognition for that. ... We have no ties to the Church of Scientology. We don't send any money to them. We don't try to sign up people to be scientologists. We're very upfront about how L. Ron Hubbard developed this." David E. Root, M.Dhe runs a Scientology based detox program from his practice. http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=283982 “Scientology is irresistibly a religion.” Australian High Court, 1983 I DO have the links I just have to present my case. Bravehartbear 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPwRY5W6TGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSjygMwSAMI
BHB, do not say "If you chose to ignore those that's your problem." to me. I am giving you clear guidelines, a study to show that saunas work against what Scientology claims they work against, but in tests with hundreds of individuals, with a test subject who takes placebos, in a double blind environment so no subject know who is getting what treatment. These are the basics that any medical company would undertake. Not some anecdotal evidence from a mayor or two or three firemen at a gala thrown by Tom. The problem is no tests that I ask for have ever been done, so you will never find links for them. Darrenhusted 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) BacklundHaha, yeah. And I am glad and most willing to help. It is stupid just to delete an entire page just because we don't have a link from some guy saying it happened. Kris 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Welcome to WP:SCNThere is also an associated userbox: {{User Scientology project}}, and you may not have noticed the section at WP:SCN/P, below where you signed, where you may wish to say something about yourself in the subsection below... Smee 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC). What were you thinking?What were you thinking? With this premature "archive" [3]. Please do not archive current and recent discussions. --Justanother 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Re: ECW TCHow does that even make sense? WWE purchased ECW and everything about ECW, including its championships. The ECW World Title was revived, not created. I don't see how you can dispute that, because I'm assuming that WWE is a credible source. And as far as they are concerned, its the same championship. Even this webiste, Wikipedia, shows that they are the same championship. That's because they are. TNA bought the rights to the NWA Championships. It's not the same thing, but in both cases, the parent company owns the actual championship. RVD is an ECW Triple Crown Champion. You wanted evidence, I gave you the evidence. And I thought Wikipedia operated based upon evidence, not what everyone thinks. I have given evidence sufficient enough, and I'm putting him back. L2K 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Wow. Actually, wow doesn't even begin to explain it. Let me try to explain this. The current ECW World Championship is the same title as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. If you tell me it's not, you are disputing official WWE records, and you are also disputing what has been documented on Wikipedia itself. You can have Wikipedia contradicting itself. The current ECW Title is the same as the one from the original ECW. You really cannot dispute, I don't see why you bother. In that case, if someone in TNA can be a Triple Crown Champion while holding an NWA title while not in TNA, then RVD can be an ECW Triple Crown Champion without having won the ECW World Heavyweight Championship while in ECW. I really don't see how you can argue that. L2K 16:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Hardy BoyzJust wondering why you removed my edits? Jay316 22:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Ahh I see, well I have no source, except I see the program myself, I have no idea how to get hold of the exact episode, but it was definatly featured on the program. Sorry for removing the warnings. Jay316 22:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Vermon CaTaffy 8Thank you for the heads up. Someone should really block that guy. Vermon CaTaffy 8 I also have a question about the triple crown champion's article. Do you feel that the United States Championship qualifies for someone being a triple crown champion? Vermon CaTaffy 8 May 2007 WP:FILMS NewsletterThe May 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. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC) I-C and U.S. TitleI don't really think that listing under what federation is relevant. WWE doesn't make any distinctions about when a U.S. Title was won, they just say so and so was a U.S. Champion. I just figured since Wiki notes those who have held both the WWE/World Heavyweight and World/WWE Tag Team Titles that I-C/U.S. Title holders be listed as well because they are at the same level. Ohgltxg 22:07 June 1, 2007 (UTC) Not notable?!I fail to see how information on the councillors that represent wards, namely Wednesfield North, Wednesfield South and Spring Vale, is considered non-notable. If anything, that is one of the most important and essential pieces of information that should be available on the article. Therefore I will issue you with a vandalism notice. Sign your posts. Councillors and elected officials are not inherently notable, the ward articles are mainly about the geography not the politics, and Alan Hart isn't even a councillor. Other than that I have replied at your talk page with what I feel would need to be done to all 20 stubs to bring them up to standard. Darrenhusted 11:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
