User talk:COMPFUNK2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Zergatheart

I would like to request that the page I created on Syllableality be allowed to exist on wikipedia. It is a word used in World of Warcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zergatheart (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Uh...you don't ask me for that; I'm not an administrator. Anyway, the word isn't notable for a Wikipedia article because I Googled it and couldn't find one article. Anthony Rupert (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It got deleted at the same time I got the message. . .and Google does Google know everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zergatheart (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag on New Edition Page

Ok, I agree it's not well written, but my concern is on the lack of verifiable sources. Whoever wrote this page has inside information on the group (especially early beginnings) that is not likely verifiable other than trusting the source. When I get a chance, I'll work on making it more like an "encyclopedia article," but in the meantime, please let me know what elements you feel are missing to make it meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. MissKriss 04:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes M. Bauer

Hi, I would like to know what is wroing with those references, why are they considered unverified... I just really cannot understand... No one did not complain for months. But I would love to change just do not understand it.

I added a more appropriate tag. Anthony Rupert 04:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[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)

[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)

[edit] James Braid Taylor

Regarding the cleanup requested on James Braid Taylor page, I want some tips to go about it. Since the article as such being very short, I am unable to proceed.--PremKudvaTalk 05:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use images

Greetings! I've observed that you have uploaded a significant number of fair use images for use in userboxes. Per our policies at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted. This includes prohibiting their use on userboxes and userpages. Taggings such as {{logo}} and {{albumcover}} are "fair use" tags. You tagged the images appropriately, as they are indeed copyrighted images. However, you may not use them in the way you have been using them.

Furthermore, all images used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia must, by our policies, be used in main article namespace articles somewhere, at least once. The images listed below are not used in this manner and are thus subject to deletion seven days from now unless they are used in the main article namespace by then:

  • Image:Culvers ubx.jpg
  • Image:Orangejulius ubx.gif
  • Image:Arcticmonkeys ubx.jpg
  • Image:Becktheinformation ubx.jpg
  • Image:Halloatesourkindofsoul ubx.jpg
  • Image:Davematthewsbandstandup ubx.jpg
  • Image:Mayercontinuum ubx.jpg
  • Image:Jonblogo.jpg
  • Image:Keane Logo2 ubx.jpg
  • Image:Billboard ubx.jpg

If you have any questions about these issues, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 06:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • While there is technical means to scale down such images, using fair use images on userboxes is simply not permitted. For how to resize images, see User_talk:Drcwright#Sizing_of_images where I discussed this with another user. But, again, you may not use fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If you have other questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused as to what the main article namespace is. Anthony Rupert 03:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Any actual article of the encyclopedia. Note above how this page is titled; "User talk:COMPFUNK2". This page is in the User talk space. Your userpage is in the User space. If a page title does not have a prefix followed by a colon then followed by a title, it is in the main article namespace. --Durin 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garfield question

Hello, I'm new this world of wikipedia but noticed you seem to be updating the garfield and friends episodes on here and was hoping you'd be able to answer a question for me. I'm trying to find a particular episode (which I very vaguely remember from my childhood but impacted me nonetheless) in which orson the pig obtains the power to read people's minds and begins to go crazy with new found talent. while most of his friends are beginning to think he's acting quite strange, one animal (the duck if i remember correctly) is worried about him because he is his friend and cares about him. I know that's not much to go off of and may actually be fairly incorrect since it's been well over decade since I actually saw the episode, but any help you may have would be very appreciated. Thank you!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hartspark (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The episode is called Mind Over Melvin. Anthony Rupert 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation.

Heya, noticed you are interested in LGBT issues and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We would be delighted to have you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Would love to, but don't know if I have the time right now. Anthony Rupert 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, whenever you do, we'll be here. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a test

You put {{uw-test1}} on my talk page for an addition to the trivia section of one-hit wonder. For trivia, I thought it was a suitable addition... You can revert it if that makes you happy, but it was no test. Please remove the tag.Qevlarr 13:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. To me, what you wrote seemed irrelevant to the article, and I was actually looking for the tag that referred to such an addition, but after the template messages were revamped, I found that that kind of tag no longer exists. Thus, {{uw-test1}} was the only option I had.
As for removing the tag, it is my understanding that non-administrators aren't supposed to do that. Anthony Rupert 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with you removing a tag you put there yourself.
Was the addition so bad it even needed a tag? According to WP:TRIVIA, trivia is interesting without being notable. My addition very well matched that description. My addition would not pass WP:NOTE... So? Even if it needed deletion, I disagree with putting a tag on the editor's talk page. It was only one line in the trivia section, for crying out loud!
Where did you come up with the idea to use some random other tag, when you could not find the one you were planning to put on my talk page? I am dumbfounded by your choice to knowingly use an unsuitable tag, where none was needed in the first place. Remove the tag, pretty please. Qevlarr 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between "other" and "unsuitable". I already explained myself, so if you have such a problem with the tag, I suggest you remove it yourself. Please don't bother me any more about this. Anthony Rupert 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:planet copyedit

I just polished the "Indian planets" addition to the Etymology section and added a [citation needed] tag. Was that it, or was there more in the section you thought needed attention? Serendipodous 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the very last paragraph in that section, where several spaces are needed when the belt of planets is discussed. I would fix it myself, but I'm in the middle of fixing a few other articles at the moment. Anthony Rupert 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

  • Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
  • Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Mayer

I thought you might be interested in this userbox: Template:User John Mayer.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Hurley

Because somebody posted

"= charli murray == loves andy more than anything in the whole world and she thinks he is the most gorgeous guy eva !! she loves him more than pete wentz and more than dougie pointer and everyone else she has ever liked"


Oh no, I apologize... it was an accident that I put your username as I was trying to get the code working from the "help:revert" page but in fact I had to revert the page to yours. I'm sorry..

--Jennica 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert verify

Hi. Could you explain why you added the Expert-Verify tag to the Earth article? I'm already getting citations to confirm all the information. What sort of expertise do you think is needed? Your request was much too open ended. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed the tag because the revisions were so involved that it was getting hard to tell what was true and what wasn't. Anthony Rupert 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Jones

I put in a request for semi-protection on the Miss Jones pages so you don't have to keep reverting vandalism. BaldPete 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Flintstone Kids facts dispute

I noticed you put a fact dispute tag on the Flintstone Kids article for the episode list section but you did not provide any explanation on the talk page?! What don't you agree with and why do you think the lists are wrong. Find the episode information from an official source and correct it. HeMan5 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I placed that tag simply because some of the episodes are in the wrong order. Anthony Rupert 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aiv report

Hi Anthony. Am I missing something with 66.99.237.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? Looks like they vandalized once 7 hours ago and then stopped. Usually we don't block for such intermittent vandalism. — coelacan — 04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I reported the user because s/he blocked several times after the last warning (and after a previous block). Anthony Rupert 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but old vandalism doesn't need a block. We try to only block to prevent ongoing further vandalism, not as a punitive measure against people who vandalized in the past, or vandalized very little and then stopped recently. Here's another report you made: 24.227.104.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) which just hit closet once. If it was vandalizing several times, and seemed likely to continue, I would have blocked, but there's not much to be gained by blocking this one; it doesn't appear that further vandalism would be prevented, since they've stopped anyway. Here's my advice on warning and reporting vandals. I find that this usually works well: If it's light vandalism, start with {{uw-v1}}, and if they continue, go straight up to {{uw-v4}} (to be honest I find that if the level 1 warning doesn't deter them, 2 and 3 are a waste of time). If it's heavy vandalism, skip level 1 and go straight to {{uw-v4im}} (that's the only warning message). A lot of vandals stop completely once they get a level 4 warning. I couldn't explain the psychology of it, but I've seen it work. If they do one more within a minute or two of the level 4 warning, don't report, that was probably an edit-conflict and they didn't get the orange bar until they'd already vandalized. But any vandalism at all more than a couple of minutes after the level 4, report that, and a block is pretty much assured (and necessary). You can find all the warning templates at WP:UWT. Hope this helps, — coelacan — 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there was a time limit to consider when vandalism came up. There are some users that revert but don't warn, so that's why it seems like a long time sometimes. I don't warn for good faith edits or anything, and as far as the {{4im}} templates, I only use them on three main occasions:
1) {{uw-vandalism4im}}: If a user gets unblocked and then immediately vandalizes again, regardless of the severity.
2) {{uw-delete4im}}: If a user blanks (or deletes most of) an entire article.
3} {{uw-defamatory4im}}: If a user makes very racist vandalism.
I apologize if I'm coming off overzealous; I'm just trying to help out in any way I can. Anthony Rupert 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 67.49.11.35

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. fishhead64 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


XantheV7 is my user ok

[edit] Tupac Shakur

First of all, who are you to me?

Second of all, when have I ever vandalized anything on Wikipedia? How dare you accuse me of vandalism! And a last warning at that?! Please feel free to produce all Prior Warnings you claim to have at your disposal. I have spent countless hours for over a year now updating, sourcing, copyediting, and adding considerable value to the Tupac Shakur article, as well as other articles which were largely non-existent until I started the process of editing them. As a matter of fact, feel free to revert every single one of my changes to the Tupac Shakur article since the time I started working on it. Take it back to what it looked like over a year ago, when it couldn't even reach Good Article status. And while you're at it, revert all my additions to the Null (SQL) article and any other article I've written in whole or in part since you feel I've been Vandalising. Do me a favor and revert every vandalism I've ever done, and while you're at it, block this account until the year 2176 because I don't intend to contribute anything to Wikipedia ever again. SqlPac 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You know happened? User 68.59.202.190 posted that and signed my name. The history on your talk page proves it. Anthony Rupert 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I apologize man. I thought you were coming after me for vandalism when all I've done is try to add value. Glad you caught me, I was so P.O.'d I was about to stop doing anything on Wikipedia. I think I know who did this, there's a guy who's really stuck on reverting any edits on Tupac Shakur that he hasn't done himself. I told him to stop it on the talk page, so he's probably trying to get back at me. Sorry again! SqlPac 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's no problem, man; I can understand why the mistake was made. I warned the user, though. Anthony Rupert 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, is there any way to see if that IP address was used by a specific user previously? I think I might know the user who did this - he's referenced on the Tupac Shakur Talk page. I saw the Talk Page on this IP address, looks like he's been a busy little man. SqlPac 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That I'm not sure. Anthony Rupert 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, well thanks again, and I apologize again. I'll be more careful in the future. SqlPac 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Your signature isn't working right. You might want to check the raw source code box here. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truesilencer mess up

COMPFUNK2, I messed up an article, yes, but only for 2 seconds. I seriously deleted that mistake and all I say is a big sorry for what I did. Goes to show that you should never trust a friend with your Wikipedia name and password...even for homework. :) sorry for what happened, just nothing much, so enjoy Wikipedia once again. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truesilencer (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Canoe

What are you talking about? My contribution to Canoe has not been reverted. If you are tring to say something please use plain language. The only thing I did on the canoe page was remove a repeat of the word "to." If you are upset I didnt call my change a copyedit than say so. Otherwise I would like you to be more specific as to what I have done that would require reverting as I made sure to read the Welcome page when first joining. I also see from previous postings here that people have previously impersonated you to rile up other users, If that is the case please accept my apology for any perceived hostility. Text has a way of not conveying tone. David Eagan 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if it was just an honest mistake, but I issued the warning because you linked to your userpage within the article. Look here. Anthony Rupert 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Aah, I see. Ya I was trying to sign my contribution, not link to my user page. David Eagan 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a smile!

QuasyBoy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

QuasyBoy 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV Request

Thank you for making a report about The Crawling Chaos (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, blanking a page is considered vandalism, but it didn't happen after the final warning was given. It looks like another admin blocked the user, however, so the point is moot. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Article

I didn't delete the article on Pink with vandalism in mind. If you looked at the history, what I deleted was simple "THE COLOR PINK" in all caps. Since I am sort of a newbie in terms of editing, I felt it was more appropriate to delete those words than to leave it there, looking unprofessional. If you could please tell me how to mark it correctly for it to be fixed that would be better. Puffy1632 04:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's what happened, then I apologize. Anthony Rupert 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ming-Na

How could I have deleted information that wasn't there when I looked at it? -Malkinann 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I used the wrong tag. But why did you place {{uncategorised}}? Anthony Rupert 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The article didn't have any categories when I looked at it. I put that on there so that it'd get categorised.-Malkinann 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It must have been a vandal that removed the categories then. Sorry for the mix-up. Anthony Rupert 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries mate. -Malkinann 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrub radius

what's wrong with the reference given?Greglocock 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that maybe the reference should be cited the way most references are on Wikipedia: between <ref> and </ref> enclosures. Right now, it's a little hard to determine whether the entire article is derived from that reference, or just part of the article. Anthony Rupert 00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Henry (delegate)

Hello: I'm new to this, so I may not be doing this right, but could you let me know what additional references are necessary for the William Henry (delegate) entry? All the information there is in one of the two references listed. And I wonder if you'd consider moving the heading back to "William Henry (1729-1786)": the "Delegate" tag, while accurate, is the thing for which Henry is least remembered. He's remembered for his patronage of West and, most of all, for being an important eighteenth-century gunsmith. -- Jericlifs

Read WP:REF. That should help you out. Anthony Rupert 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I figured out how to embed a footnote; thanks. Does it look OK now?

[edit] ComponentOne

Hi Anthony:

Thanks for the feedback. I’m interested in placing an entry about ComponentOne into Wikipedia in order to tell about our 20-year history in Pittsburgh, PA and San Francisco, CA and the interesting evolution of our products. This is my initial entry which I don’t believe to be “Blatant Advertising” as it has been categorized, given the definition of the same that has been provided. In addition, a company that is similar to ours in history and product called “Developer Express” has a detailed entry which has been accepted by Wikipedia and revised many times by an employee within that company.

If you could give some detail as to how the submitted text falls into the “Blatant Advertising” category I would be most appreciative. I will revise and resubmit upon your feedback.

Thank you, Tracy

[edit] Lilly Allen

You messaged me (rather, my IP or whatever) about editing the page for "Lily Allen" and not using a neutral point of view. For one thing, I try to always use a neutral point of view. Also, I never edited that article. I don't even know who Lily Allen is, and this is the first time I've seen something about whoever it is. I looked into the History to see if someone had used my account/computer to edit anything, and I still can't find anything at all. Could you please explain? Not trying to sound rude or anything, but I have no idea what this is about. IronCrow 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um...what is your IP? Anthony Rupert 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: {{flagicon}}

As you'll hopefully see, on Talk:John Cusack I linked to a discussion about this very issue. I'm gradually becoming okay with national flags in infoboxes (for birthplaces or, in sport, for a person's national team), but in my eyes regional/state flags are a step too far. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't move pages by cut-n-paste

Hi, COMPFUNK2. I recently undid the move of Angels. See WP:MM#How to rename a page for reasons why you shouldn't cut-and-paste an article's text to carry out a rename. If you feel that the episode should be at the base name, you can request the move at WP:RM. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Kylie Minogue

Hello! I have created a Kylie Minogue WikiProject to help expanded and create articles concerning Minogue. Please feel free to join up. :) -- Underneath-it-All 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Footnotes

Please do not remove valid and important footnotes. [1]. This may be considered vandalism. Giano 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things:
1) I don't think that is a valid footnote, and I explained so in my edit summary.
2) In the future, copyedit your warnings.
Anthony Rupert 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Dyslexics such as Giano are used to rudeness about their spelling and formatting, but you take the bisquit. And for an edit that was spellchecked and corrected within one minute! In the future, think before you bite. Please. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

I was being civil. It doesn't say anywhere on his/her userpage that s/he is dyslexic, so how would I know that? (By the way, what's a bisquit?) Anthony Rupert 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Just fuck off! Giano 20:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah; that's civil. Anthony Rupert 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping jack (music)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Jumping jack (music), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SarekOfVulcan 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know if this is the right place....

Below is a message I received from you regarding an edit I made to the 'lie' article.

Lie Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Lie on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Anthony Rupert 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


I tried to answer your message but I didn't know how to do so.

I want to thank you for providing direction in such a polite manner, but I wonder what you meant by experiment. I don't recall an experiment; I generally make very minor edits and grammar corrections. Can you let me know what I did that prompted your message? Also, if this is the improper forum to respond to your message, how should I have responded?

Thanks for your time, Jason

[edit] Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 7)

Please note that Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (Season 7) was moved to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 7) because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The "s" in season should not be captalised. Regards, Ladida 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting clarification on "expert-verification" tag

Could you please give (in the talk page of the article in question) a little more guidance as to what qualifies as "expert verification" in regards to Ross the Intern? e.g., Does someone who watches a lot of TV count for this? (I ask you because according to the history you added the tag back in April). Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a better tag right now. Anthony Rupert 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bathtub

Hi, I've reverted your edit to Bathtub, as it seems to me to be much too harsh a trim, deleting a large amount of perfectly good information about the history of the subject. I perceive no conflict with WP:SOAP that you cite; what was the reason for your concern? I agree the article is not perfect, but it's better to improve rather than slash great chunks out. Cheers, DWaterson 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

When it got to talking about the price of bathtubs, it sounded a little too much like advertising. Anthony Rupert 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Overlinking

Hi. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you've been "overlinking" many articles - that is, you've been adding far too many wikilinks into articles. These are unnecessary and make the article less legible.

Please limit Wikilinks to unusual or highly relevant terms; you may wish to examine my revisions of your edit to the article about that L&O:SVU episode, to get a better idea. Thanks. DS 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't come off as snotty, but...is there a guideline as to how many links to add? Anthony Rupert 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "otheruses" on Battery (crime)

Hi!

I removed teh "otheruses" hatnote in the Battery (crime) article. My edit summary specifically references the WP:HAT and WP:DAB guidelines, both of which deprecate "otheruses" linkbacks from disambiguated pages to the disambiguation page. You reverted my edit without comment. Am I missing something?

Thanks -Arch dude 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to revert it; I haven't even looked at that article in a while. I was just adding the tag that I thought was necessary. (Incidentally, I wrote "tag" in the edit summary.) Anthony Rupert 02:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. However, we appear to have a discrepancy here: You feel that the link should be there, but WP:HAT and WP:DAB disagree with you. Should we ask for some additional opinions, or is it OK for me to remove it again? -Arch dude 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:HAT and WP:DAB agree with me. If they didn't, then there wouldn't be any purpose for the {{otheruses3}} tag at all. But for the record, I really don't care all that much, so if you want to remove it, go ahead. Anthony Rupert 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony, I'll remove it. Please look at subsection WP:NAMB of the "improper uses" section of WP:HAT. -Arch dude 15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited to join this discussion.

Since you removed the headnote, and were right, it would be nice if you would share your opinions. TheBlazikenMaster 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half-wit dab notice

Why did you delete my dab notice that I added? Cburnett 00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • At first it wasn't clarified that half-wit redirected to that page. Sorry about the mix-up. Anthony Rupert 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victimology

Hi there. I saw you put a ref-improve tag on this article. What sorts of cites do you think it needs? Bearian 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just do that when there is more than one unsourced section of an article. Anthony Rupert 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The B-52's

You added the "non-referenced" tag (I think) back in July. Would you please review the references I've supplied and remove the tag if you approve of the changes? I don't know what to do about the "trivia" section. I don't like those either; they have no place in an encyclopedia entry. William (Bill) Bean 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Articleissues

Check Wikipedia:How to structure the content it says that This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. So the guidelines described there don't apply anymore. A tag indicating this guidelines will be confusing and useless. Friendly, Magioladitis 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc

Hey - I saw that you added update to the above mentioned template - which is great, but I'd just like to remind you to remember to add the template to the doc page--danielfolsom 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the update one for you - but I can't find the template for inappropriateperson - although I've only tried Template:inappropriateperson - so if you could give me that - or if you could add everything yourself, that'd be great.--danielfolsom 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything should be okay now. Anthony Rupert 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Another Bad Creation Playground.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Another Bad Creation Playground.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've moved the tag you attached to Jump rope. The tag now comes before the "Notes", "References" and "External links" sections. This seems like a more appropriate location for the tag because editors may use the references already present to improve the article's sourcing, and those references may provide guidance to additional related references. Casey Abell 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:404px-Christian cross ubx.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:404px-Christian cross ubx.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove tag

  • [2] - do the edits address your concerns sufficiently to remove the tag? WLU (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks fine, but you realize I'm not an admin, so it doesn't have to address my concerns. Thanks for the consideration though. :) Anthony Rupert (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, but I figure there's merit in asking in case I missed something. I'm not perfect despite my pretentions : ) WLU (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There seems to be a mistake.

  • I was messaged with a notice saying that a page I created had been listed for speedy deletion. I didn't make that page, I was the one who tagged it for deletion. Teh Rote (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beniam

Hi there. {{db-nocontext}} did not apply to the article because it was legible and clear, and of sufficient length, but {{db-copyvio}} will work fine, because it is a copyright violation. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Nick Kuhr" and Nick Kuhr

  • It's common courtesy to remove attacks in attack articles, so that the creators cannot reference to pages to their little friends, allowing the disparaging repmarks to be seen until it is deleted. Just FYI. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deal Chalet

  • Did the hangon tag mean anything? I'm open for discussion, and would rather discuss an item before being summarily zapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirkeyw (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acústico MTV (Cássia Eller)

Please note that "not being in English" is not itself a speedy delete criterion. However, I plan to speedily delete this particular article on other grounds, because it's a copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] villages

All real villages are notable, and as long as a stub says where it is, it is acceptable, however short. It may need expansion, but that;'s another matter. DGG (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BKS Air Transport

The speedy delete tag on this article was not warranted. It was obvious that an inexperienced editor intended this article to take users to another article. In such cases, the correct action is to make the article into a redirect, as I have done. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Langston Hughes article 2

I wrote without even looking @ the other article, but whateverrr. --Asaroyal81 (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Perry's House of Payne

  • Your recent removal of content under WP:TRIV has been reverted. I'll quote from WP:TRIV

"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."

[edit] CSD:A7

Hi. :) I came across your speedy deletion tag on Sombrero Man, and I just wanted to point out to you that {{db-a7}} is specifically for people (individually or grouped) and websites. There is currently no consensus for speedily deleting other articles types under this criterion. Other articles that fail to assert notability should go through proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You're fast. I was about to PROD it. :) I'll wait until it's transcluded to respond. (Might well be, by the time I finish typing this.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Langston Hughes article 2

why did you delete my article. it is original. it is a school paper that i wrote.

--Asaroyal81 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it because I'm not an admin. And if it was a school paper, maybe you should read WP:SOAP. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Jim Gildea

  • Still not sure the page was banned..? Seeing as I am Jim Gildea, I don't see how that could be a personal attack on another. Please don't pass this off as nothing, because I feel somewhat neglected that my information was simply deleted with no investigation.

Jiimmeh (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massasspy

You got my article on the history of Massassapy. It's really an unknown fact, and im kinda peeved that you guys keep trying to kill it. It's actually a real thing. I learned about it in US History. Slaughterbourg (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's an "unknown fact"? That doesn't even make sense. At any rate, maybe you should take time to read WP:n, or better yet, WP:MADEUP. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 163.153.134.19

HI. Can you review your comment to 163.153.134.19's edit Beastie Boys? While not an edit that I would make, it appears to me as if it was factual and made in good faith. It is a shared IP (NAT'd), so that it is likely that the various edits were not made by the same editor. Thanks --NERIC-Security (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I removed my warning after reading the article thoroughly. Anthony Rupert (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIV Mixup

I think this may have been a timing issue, but the edit you made to WP:AIV removed the user I had posted into AIV as a vandal. I've re-added my user onto this list. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spring (store)

*I understand your stand regarding WP:NAMB, but I would like to know if all you read was that guideline, or the discussion about it.

    • I have read the discussions about it, and my general practice is to try to steer a middle course. I'm far from being anti-hatnote; they're useful when used appropriately. I do think hatnotes should be used when there is a reasonable chance for confusion with an identically or similarly titled topic, even if the article titles are unambiguous. But I don't think that every article listed on a dab page should be hatnoted just because somebody might land on it wanting something else instead. In the case of Spring (store), I looked at all the other topics on the Spring dab page and found nothing that might be confused with the store—no other stores, no other Canadian businesses—so I decided that the hatnote on the store article was gratuitous, just a piece of clutter that's extremely unlikely to be useful to anyone. If you really insist that Spring (store) needs that hatnote, though, please link to the dab page by way of the Spring (disambiguation) redirect, which will let editors cleaning out the ambiguous links know that the link is intentional and needn't be fixed. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I hope you don't think I'm trying to violate WP:OWN. Anthony Rupert (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: the redirect--yes, that's the point. From time to time, I clean up the "What links here" links to Spring--that is, the article-namespace links that are intended to go to a specific meaning of the term, but are incorrectly linked to the dab page. If a page is linked by way of the (disambiguation) redirect, then I know it is an intentional link and not a mistake that needs to be fixed. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Intentional links to disambiguation pages. As for the other, no. I assume good faith, and I think we have a difference of opinion, and that's all. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kanye West

  • Of course, Kanye did not die from surgical complications, but his mother does not have her own Wikipedia article. Until she does, should not this important event be cross-referenced under her son's article? Norm mit (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, because it causes confusion. In fact, some people might look at your adding of that category and instead of assuming good faith, they might think you're trying to vandalize the article and then send you a warning. Anthony Rupert (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Articleissues}}

Hi. Nice contributions to the Articleissues template. Always remember to update the manual after you end your changes. And please... can you also add in the summary which option do you add? I really helps. Thanks. -- 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I was going to update the manual, but someone else beat me to it. And as for summarizing the options I add, sure, I can do that. Anthony Rupert (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of O.B. Macaroni

Another editor has nominated O.B. Macaroni, an article you tagged for speedy deletion, for deletion. That editor does not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.B. Macaroni. I consider that the current version of the article is acceptable, but your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure what to do

I got a message about vandalism and I never edit wiki, especailly not the pages of Hip Hop/R&B artist and I'm not sure how they managed to edit into future either(May 19th-25th and it's only the 16th - where I live). Can this be fixed? It seems that they made a few other edits too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.246.122.99

I'm not sure how we even have the same adress, I know this might happen for aol but others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.122.99 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That message is from last year; why are you bringing it up now? Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Another Bad Creation Grady Baby Compilation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Another Bad Creation Grady Baby Compilation.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Thom Huge

I have nominated Thom Huge, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thom Huge. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big 'n' Tasty. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I apologize; I am just trying to make a point. I'll try dispute resolution next. Anthony Rupert (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Two reverts do not make a WP:3R violation, so I cannot see why you would report me there. I stopped after the first two for that very reason. If you feel that that a 2R equates to a 3R, go right ahead report me. My mistake on that one I misread the short-link and came to an incorrect conclusion, for that I apologize. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

the following has been moved from the Talk:Big N' Tasty page

  • Read WP:3. Can't we agree to leave the subject alone until someone else gives an opinion? If no one answers in a week, then we can use other options. Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You tagged the article, all I did was to finish it following the rules for proposed splits. You need to understand that your methods are what I annoyed with and as well as you taking of my comments on a personal level. I took the time to properly perform the Merge discussions, which you can't be bothered to. Hell, I love a good debate, it is the fundamental way we get thing done in society; if you are going to do something that someone else won't like, at least come prepared. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't take anything on a personal level. What you don't seem to get is that WP:3 refers to a neutral party giving a third opinion; neutral party, meaning not you and not me. I've stayed quiet, while you keep doing the same thing you've been doing. Anthony Rupert (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am guessing you are withdrawing the proposal. I therefor closed the discussion as such, if you feel I am doing so in error please comment on the talk page of the article. Also, I realized my error on the WP:3 and waited for the opinion. As per the rules of proposed merge/splits, an article can still be edited, which I did. You inadvertently pointed out problems and I fixed them. Nothing personal, and if you can come up with a better sourced article that will pass a split proposal, I will still argue that it doesn't warrant it; if my argument fails, I will accept the outcome. See the Shamrock Shake split proposal. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dang, man; leave me alone. Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mentioning redirects in hatnotes

  • Despite the page being redirected, do you think someone might be looking for Jennifer Lopez (meteorologist) when they arrive at Jennifer Lopez? I was also wondering if the hatnote at Vizard should mention Vizard (Shakespearean English) (which also used to be an article.) Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I just don't see the point of hatnotes that refer users to articles that no longer exist independently. Anthony Rupert (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • For starters, have you read WP:R2D? I think there's that slim possibility that these articles may be recreated in the near future. Don't you agree that someone may try to look for such terms and end up on the "wrong page"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • But the article no longer exists. If you want to create whole new article about the meteorologist, more power to you. Anthony Rupert (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)