User talk:COMPFUNK2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Userboxes
Please state your comments about my original userboxes here.
[edit] Very Special Episode: Mea Culpa!
I'm sorry about the changes to the Very special episode page and the outburst on the talk page. I thought that an agreement had been made to delete the examples from the article, and so this morning, when I saw that someone had put them back up, I thought that I would fix the situation of people wanting them on the list, or at least make an effort. It was a spur of the moment decision, done in a state of extreme pissed-off-ness, and I apologize. I hope this doesn't label me as a vandal, or get me blocked from wikipedia. Bkissin 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, man. Anthony Rupert 03:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Siedlecka
Thanks for the comment. It was most helpful.Poeticbent 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, but the article still needs work. Anthony Rupert 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Done deed. Poeticbent 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moberg
What did you change? If I recall correctly, I put the Sweden stubs there. Correct me if I'm wrong. --The monkeyhate 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I changed one to {{1950s-novel-stub}} because that's more accurate. Sweden stubs refer to the geography of Sweden itself, not necessarily works by people who lived in Sweden. Anthony Rupert 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)
Did you pull the Article for Deletion request?
- If so, thanks;
- if not, trust the revision to make it look as it appeared in the original site is up to wiki standards...and if not, please do not get me banned for vandalism (that has happened before)
- Thanks!
Bacl-presby 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Why are you adding the tag prior to discussion? It is intended to grow into something such as this Roman relations with the Parthians and Sassanians. It's a stub.--Eupator 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that wasn't clear at first. And as far as adding a tag prior to discussion, um...since when don't people do that? Anthony Rupert 21:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess so, but since the tag says see the talk page for more info it's expected that there is some sort of a clarification along with the tag.--Eupator 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- The tag says that because that's just how it's formatted. I didn't create the tag; I just added it to the page.
- And just so you know, I wasn't trying to vandalize your page or anything; I was just doing what I thought was necessary. Anthony Rupert 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess so, but since the tag says see the talk page for more info it's expected that there is some sort of a clarification along with the tag.--Eupator 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kooser State Park
Hi,
I removed the National Park Service stub tag from the Kooser State Park page, because the park is a Pennsylvania State Park, not a national park. Squamate 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1648 in music
Hi, Anthony! Regarding the clean-up/restructure tag that you placed on the new 1648 in music article, can you be more specific, please? I created the article yesterday, along with some others, to fill some gaps in a series of articles (see List of years in music). The article is in the same basic format as the other Year in music articles. It is skimpy on content at the moment because it is new, but there is actually lots of info "out there" about "music happenings" in the 17th century, and the intention is that I and other editors will be filling more in, now that the article exists. Thanks for your interest in the article, and looking forward to receiving your reply. Cheers, Lini 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I put the tag there because there are a lot of empty sections. Anthony Rupert 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] W.C. Bradley Co.
How is the W.C. Bradley Co. page an advertisement. While I haven't completely finished all I want to put on the page, it is hardly an advertisement. It is very similar to the General Electric page. Should GE be marked as an advertisement and deleted? I don't understand your logic.
- Hey, calm down; it's only one man's opinion.
- By the way, in the future, sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know whom I'm talking to. Anthony Rupert 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to understand why you felt like it was any different than any other company page. Bryanw03 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Stanford
Anthony, following WP:DRV, the Peter Stanford article has been restored and placed on AfD. I've significantly expanded the article. Alan Pascoe 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of rainbow tech article
This article was created based on information I found on slashdot and other news sites to highlight the new technology. NOT to advertise the company.
I am nothing to do with the company in question and tbh, if I was, I would have added a lot more information.
Wikipedia cannot be useful without information on technologies even if they have been developed by a person. Tuxish 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dream (band)
What major edits were you planning, since you put up the "in use" template? Can we just restore the page to this edit, in which you added some info about "Miss You", since it seems an anon was blanking the page for no apparent reason? Fabricationary 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I went ahead and restored the page. If you have any more edits to make, feel free to make them - you don't need to add the "in use" template to pages which you're planning to edit later on :). Fabricationary 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm editing it as we speak; you barely gave me a chance. The template even states that the tag should be removed only if the page hasn't been edited recently, and it's only been a few minutes.
- I'm not trying to start an edit war, but I'm reinstating the tag for the time being. Anthony Rupert 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but you don't have to leave an almost-blank version of the page up while editing. I think that "in use" template is intended for pages that get a lot of edits - Dream (band) isn't particularly heavily-edited, so I doubt there will be edits while you are trying to edit. Dream was a group I followed for many years (and I was fortunate enough to maintain contact with one member and her family), so I'm excited to see your edits :). Fabricationary 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I decided not to do it after all because what I was going to do was restore things that you've already restored. Ah well. Anthony Rupert 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but you don't have to leave an almost-blank version of the page up while editing. I think that "in use" template is intended for pages that get a lot of edits - Dream (band) isn't particularly heavily-edited, so I doubt there will be edits while you are trying to edit. Dream was a group I followed for many years (and I was fortunate enough to maintain contact with one member and her family), so I'm excited to see your edits :). Fabricationary 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Home Improvement
Apologies for the slow response - I'm just back from holiday.
The links I removed are those which the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) recommends against because they add no value and detract from the readability of the article by cluttering it with useless links. In particular, there's no value in linking individual months, and individual years should only be linked if there's some special significance (see WP:DATE). And there's no value in links to common words like 'friend' - anyone who can understand the article at all knows what a friend is, so the link will never be used (see WP:CONTEXT). By contrast, the links to, for example, related TV shows, articles on the actors etc, are likely to be used, so those links do add value to the article. Colonies Chris 09:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
