User talk:CFuller: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:53, 10 October 2010

Welcome!

Hello, CFuller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Robdurbar 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Clancy

I'd be interested to know from where you dug up his date of birth. I've been unable to locate it for ages, and your source might be of some use. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind - I see Blackpool's official website now lists it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of WikiProject:Darts

I have proposed a new WikiProject, named WikiProject:Darts. If you think the idea was good, you can support this proposal there. Armbrust (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darts

Hi, I would like to say that I also am very involved in darts and created alot of pages and templates, I fixed alot of things on darts recently and made a couple of articles on tournaments, find the links on my page and take a look, thanks for the work you are doing aswell. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Darts

I have created this WikiProject an need all the help possible. PLEASE SIGN UP AND HELP OUT Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for expanding the 2009 US Open Darts article, Nice work. It's great to see people are helping the Project. Remember, try and get more people to join. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Its great to have you doing so much edits to darts articles, just remember to put in references for all your edits, I recommend using the WP:refToolbar gadget, you don't have to download it and I have starting using it recently, just go into My prefences then Gadgets, hen just tick the RefTools box an save. It is a very good tool that is easy to use. Remember, feel free to ask me any questions if you are having problems with anything. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 10:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished discussion at WikiProject Darts

Hi, I invite you to finish the dispute for the importance ratings on darts articles.

Click here to see discussion.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Darts at 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

2010 World Grand Prix Darts lead

Discussion moved to Talk:2010 World Grand Prix Darts

Hi, I don't want to be edit-warring with you so we have to resolve this now. According to WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the main body of the article which is what my version does. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:LEAD should be a summary of the main article. Your version contains too much of the information that is already in the main body. Take a look at the leads for the 2009 and 2008 WGP articles. Yes, they do include the prize fund - fair enough - but they don't include the qualification criteria or TV coverage/sponsorship info, which your lead does. I hope you can see my point, because I can understand what you are saying, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. CFuller (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they are wrongly written aswell, thats why I started WP:DARTS, so I could fix darts articles and make them into GAs and they will not get that far if you don't follow the criteria. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take a look at the articles for the 2010 and 2009 PDC World Championships. Are they poorly written? I say not - the leads in those articles display the venue and dates, defending champions, tournament winners, but NOT the qualification criteria, sponsors, TV coverage etc (these come in the main body of the article). This is how I believe the WGP leads should be written, and this is my interpretation of WP:LEAD. CFuller (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion to the talk page of the WGP for more points of view. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 == [[2010 World Grand Prix Darts]] lead ==
+: <small>''Discussion moved to [[Talk:2010 World Grand Prix Darts]]''</small>
 Hi, I don't want to be edit-warring with you so we have to resolve this now. According to [[WP:LEAD]] the lead should summarize the main body of the article which is what my version does. Thanks. [[User:Mr.Kennedy1|''Mr'''''.Kennedy'''1]] [[User talk:Mr.Kennedy1|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 :Yes, [[WP:LEAD]] should be a summary of the main article. Your version contains too much of the information that is already in the main body. Take a look at the leads for the [[2009 World Grand Prix Darts|2009]] and [[2008 World Grand Prix Darts|2008]] WGP articles. Yes, they do include the prize fund - fair enough - but they don't include the qualification criteria or TV coverage/sponsorship info, which your lead does. I hope you can see my point, because I can understand what you are saying, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. [[User:CFuller|CFuller]] ([[User talk:CFuller#top|talk]]) 08:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 ::Yes, but they are wrongly written aswell, thats why I started [[WP:DARTS]], so I could fix darts articles and make them into GAs and they will not get that far if you don't follow the criteria. [[User:Mr.Kennedy1|''Mr'''''.Kennedy'''1]] [[User talk:Mr.Kennedy1|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 :::Okay, take a look at the articles for the [[2010 PDC World Darts Championship|2010]] and [[2009 PDC World Darts Championship|2009]] PDC World Championships. Are they poorly written? I say not - the leads in those articles display the '''venue and dates''', '''defending champions''', '''tournament winners''', but NOT the qualification criteria, sponsors, TV coverage etc (these come in the main body of the article). This is how I believe the WGP leads should be written, and this is my interpretation of [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:CFuller|CFuller]] ([[User talk:CFuller#top|talk]]) 10:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
+::::I've moved the discussion to the talk page of the WGP for more points of view. [[User:Mr.Kennedy1|''Mr'''''.Kennedy'''1]] [[User talk:Mr.Kennedy1|<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)