User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 14

I'll reply on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.
Please sign all your comments with ~~~~

For older comments, please see:

/Archive 1 (28.6.2005 ~ 7.7.2005)
/Archive 2 (7.7.2005 ~ 20.7.2005)
/Archive 3 (20.7.2005 ~ 9.8.2005)
/Archive 4 (9.8.2005 ~ 1.9.2005)
/Archive 5 (1.9.2005 ~ 31.1.2006)
/Archive 6 (31.1.2006 ~ 9.4.2006)
/Archive 7 (9.4.2006 ~ 5.1.2007)
/Archive 8 (5.1.2007 ~ 20.4.2007)
/Archive 9 (20.4.2007 ~ 31.3.2008)
/Archive 10 (4.2008 ~ 7.2010)
/Archive 11 (8.2010 ~ 5.2011)
/Archive 12 (1.6.2011 ~ 13.2.2012)
/Archive 13 (13.2.2012 ~ 31.3.2012)

Talkback

Hello, Deryck Chan. You have new messages at SD5's talk page.
Message added 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

S D 5 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your kind attention and the way you helped us by protecting the article Bade Acche Lagte Hain! --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If You Love Me (Let Me Know)

You never put the semi prot on the page If You Love Me (Let Me Know). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Rules (2012)

Why can't this page be semi-protected?, this event is less than a month away and nobody can create the page until the event happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhardyred (talk • contribs) 2012-04-07 13:22 (UTC)

Geonotices

Hi. I just wondered if you have any ideas on the timescale for discussions at Wikipedia:Geonotice. How do things normally proceed, please? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meritocracy. If an admin takes action, things happen. I was half-expecting Tom Morris to put up the notices after discussing with you; anyway I've now put them up. Der yck C. 11:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much and sorry for the complications. -- Trevj (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This topic: [1].--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Rules (2012), again

The build for said PPV has begun, the article must not be unprotected so building of the article can begin per the usual routine. Things added at this time are the infobox, the lead, the background section, the matches, etc. and all can be sourced now. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 01:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I put a "not" there that shouldn't be there. I'm requesting the article be unprotected, for the reasons I said after the mistake. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the previous incarnations don't look notable is because they were built 2 months ago when the for WrestleMania XXVIII was happening, now that it's being built towards notability is established due to the numerous sources and on screen happenings. I strongly suggest you discuss this with the Pro wrestling project, they will tell you how things usually work, and I promise you it satisfies policies and guidelines. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I built the article in my sandbox, this is what the article will and should look like at this point. User:CRRaysHead90/sandbox/Extreme Rules (2012). CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unprotecting the page Deryck. Starship.paint (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and understanding.

CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 20:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Be There and If You Love Me (Let Me Know)

Vandalized again after unlocked. Different IP range for both. Please lock again? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

71.190.53.202 is at it again

Hi, I've had to re-edit this persons cutting stuff off without discussion on the sword and sandal page again. Foofbun (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Deryck,

I strongly believe the Sword and Sandal page should be modified to registered users only. When I first came across the article, not only was it unreferenced, but seemed to be written as one person's opinion on the the topic with this person eliminating any modification of his or her monologue. Reading the talk page seemed to show a collection of antagonism, but produced little that would improve the article. My view is that this individual may at one time have been a registered user, but rather than entering discussion would reedit all edits to go back to his original opinion.

I believe that Wikipedia should have a world view. The sword and sandal topic is, to me an interesting one, but unlike other film genres some people regard the subject as often a ludicrous one based on their only contact with the genre being by only viewing faded English dubbed prints originally meant as a television package in the public domain. In my own experience I first came across serious silent film classics dubbed for comedy on the Fractured Flickers, years later I would see scenes paraphrased on documentaries, but it was some time before I was able to see uncut original versions shown at the correct or near correct speed. In recent years some of these original uncut prints have surfaced in excellent condition with more sensible original dialogue. The point is that one can't base an entire genre on prints seen on MS3TK, as you couldn't base the silent film genre on Fractured Flickers.

In the genre there are the silent films, the 1950s "historical" films featuring major Hollywood stars, then the original Steve Reeves Hercules, and the imitations, then the genre's comeback. Most have been international co-productions between France and Italy and sometimes the United States.

By making the topic one for registered users only we can have people familiar with Wikipedia's policies who can improve the article with references from various reliable source. Thank you.Foofbun (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation notice

Jay Jason

Hi Deryck: On the discussion of a possible conflict of interest for the Jay Jason site, there have been over ten people who have made comments and in general they have been rather positive. I wonder if you can take a quick look at what folks have been saying about this issue for discussion. Many thanks--Jaytribute516 14:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. Thank you. Der yck C. 19:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]