Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2008/October-December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Charles H. Baker, Jr.

Anthony - Thanks a big bunch for doing the move on this article. Your speedy work is much appreciated. - Ward Arrington GroveGuy (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultraexactzz/Fake Real Person

Hi. I notice that you deleted this page from my userspace. Which makes sense, owing largely to the big CSD template(s) I had posted there. I'm working on a new version of some of the CSD templates that would introduce a 30 minute delay after tagging and before adding the page to the categories - and thought I had disabled the categories here. Since it's a test page, I went ahead and restored it. The categories should be disabled again, so (I'm hoping) the page is no longer on the CSD list - but, since you deleted, I wanted to ping you and let you know. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Thanks for your interest in the 'Emergency medical services' article. You might be interested in noting that the British article is slated for a substantial revision in the not too distant future, in order to bring it into line, style-wise, with the rest of the EMS by country articles. I'm not sure whether or not you'd be interested in helping out with that, but the help would be appreciated! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Arundel

I don't have a problem wiht the move, just the fact that no one cleaned up after it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. PamD (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of E8 investigation tool page

  • As one of group of conspirators that saw fit to delete a page discussing the relative value of existing E8 investigation tools, I would like you to send me a copy of the deleted page.
    Notwithstanding the fact that you highlight your own math ignorance in the deletion discussion, I am sure that the "wisdom of crowds" will put this page back at some point. This is due to the fact that the topic is so much more significant than things like fictional ray guns - [1]my reality is so much more interesting.
    It truly saddens me that there are so many spending so much time in WP following "the rules" editing/deleting topics they don't understand or promoting ones that don't further the truly significant dialogue related to the one thing mankind is uniquely capable of - understanding the universe.
    Thanks Jgmoxness (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have put a short spam-free new section in E₈ linking to the two programs mentioned in page E8 investigation tool. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, but there are already references to (one of) these in the "External Links" section. I am concerned that the redundancy will become an issue. Also, they are not both "downloadable" as you implied. One is Flash based browser UI and my stuff is Mathematica notebook player download. IMHO it is not appropriate to engage discussion on the tools directly from the E8 page (they are related but different topics). They also link from another more physics based topic on a An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything from the Theory of Everything page. Thus the need for a separate page to discuss the tools. Jgmoxness (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That page was duly discussed in AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E8 investigation tool. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    I understand that, but your last tweek helped NOTHING, and causes confusion. You obviously are not part of that conversation so why are you mucking with the content. Tweak WP topics that you know something about and leave others alone. It's truly annoying. This is what I was referring to above. Jgmoxness (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    BTW - I realize you're doing battle against the idiots & vandals in WP (as evidenced by today's changes to this page). That work needs to be done and I appreciate it, but I assume/hope that you have the ability to see the difference betwween this and that. If not, you may need to take a break (take a deep breath, close your eyes, and step away from the keyboard, ingest your favorite relaxation agent...repeat), lest you become one of them. Jgmoxness (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The best policy here might be to expand E₈#E8 Investigation Tools into a longer description, as long as these two packages are described neutrally and not in a way that tends to advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Beit Nekofa

  • Hi Anthony! Recently you deleted the article Beit Nekofa per CSD A3. It seems strange to me that the article had no content, as the user Number 57 created articles for all Israeli villages without an article, likely including Beit Nekofa, which did have content. Can you please share the deleted content, if indeed there ever was any? Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Page Beit Nekofa has these 3 deleted edits, only:-
    1. 11:38, 19 July 2006 . . User:Huldra (#REDIRECT Bayt Naqquba) // redirect
    2. 13:41, 17 September 2008 . . User:Nudve (empty) (Beit Nekofa and Bayt Naqquba are not the same locality) // blanking
    3. 13:45, 17 September 2008 . . User:Nudve (16 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A3). (TW)) // speedy-delete tag only

Tetragrammaton

  • Hi Anthony. There's a discussion on the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in the article which Tetragrammaton refers to as its main article. This article is not about that pronunciation, and stating conclusions from the main article as a fact in Tetragrammaton is pushing a POV inappropriately. Instead of simply removing the POV content again, I have replaced it with a statement that views on the pronunciation can be found in the main article. Please don't simply revert without discussion. At least two editors are agreeing on the talk page that the statement doesn't belong in that article. Perhaps you might want to give your reasons for disagreeing, rather than simply reverting. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Anthony -- we've been having quite a time with multiple socks from a repeatedly banned user cluttering up a number of articles (two socks have tag teamed you above). We'd appreciate your help cleaning up these articles so that scholarly consensus is represented in proportion to notability and verifiability. Thanks for your help. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "a number of articles": Which articles? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please discuss your reasons for continuing to replace POV text in Tetragrammaton. Simply reverting changes isn't acceptable, even for an admin. You wrote in your reversion of 30 September "rv deletion, or please discussit". I've discussed it. You have not. I have made two different edits today, and you've responded to both of them by reverting. I'm going to repeat one of the edits I made today, and I hope you will not violate 3RR by reverting this one as well. Again, I encourage you to engage in discussion on the talk page, rather than blinding reverting. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I seem to be caught in the crossfire of an edit war. What is going on????? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Anthony. There's a guy named David Amos. You can see some of the guises under which he's edited here in the past few months here. Note, btw, that the "two users" who discussed this with you in the section above, Kght and Kurdle12, appear to be two socks of this same user.
  • David has a very strong one-issue agenda on Wikipedia, and it's all about validating one pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. He has added content to several articles on this subject pushing that one agenda. Each time he has been banned, he comes back with a new sock (or two). In the case of the Tetragrammaton article, however, you have been reverting changes to POV content without being willing to discuss those changes on the talk page. At least, so it seems. Is it possible that David Amos is someone you know in real life, and that he has been using your account to make these edits? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK OK, sorry, I seem to have believing the wrong side in this argument. If David Amos has sockpuppets, please what are the names of those sockpuppets? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective has the details, but here you go:

And those are just the ones we know of so far. And as soon as the latest two have been banned, he'll be back with more. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Anthony, thanks for talking. Some of the articles are Yahweh and Names of God in Judaism. There are others, but those are the biggest two obsessions. The Davidamos socks are especially concerned with proving that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and the Tetragrammaton was in the originals -- as well as the idea that Yahweh is absolutely certain as the pronunciation, that the certainty of pronunciation was preserved within Judaism and Jews won't admit it, that the Assemblies of Yahweh is a major religious group restoring the name, etc, etc. Lisa and I as well as Garzo and some other folks from the Wikipedia Judaism project have had our hands full trying to keep the articles in some semblance of Wiki-standards, and we'd appreciate your help keeping POV from being pushed as infallible fact. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sky. You really do lie sometimes don't you? Lisa addressed your tendency to say such things before [2]. I'm also guessing that you are a Christian - a Jehovah Witness in fact - aren't you? Nothing on the Tetragrammaton that Allecihem said was making Yahweh sound ineffable [[3]]. Your false accusations are only undermining your credibility. Kght (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Davidamos, Knighthood, Alleichem, Kght -- whatever you want to call yourself this minute... the only "identity" I have that objects to your edits is that of "Wikipedia editor." At Wikipedia we do not create new research or establish truth; rather, we report notable and verifiable information in proportion to its relevance, notability, and verifiability. If you found evidence for Aramaic originals, that's fantastic. Let it be properly peer reviewed, and once it becomes notable and verifiable we'd all be happy to include it -- in proportion to its relevance, notability, and verifiability. Wikipedia is not the place to vet new information. Academic peer reviews through accredited institutions exist for that sort of thing. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Please continue this discussion in Talk:Tetragrammaton. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello Anthony. Sorry about the late reply, no one told me about this page, I, as usual, had to find it myself. Once again these two disruptive members are going for the "sly" approach. I think we should hear the full story. Don't worry it won't take long. One person (sock puppet) has contributed to the Tetragrammaton article. That's right one. Not all those sock puppets mentioned by Sky and Lisa: one. That was Alleichem. No other sock puppet has had any input on the article. No one is misleading anyone here: Ruby Lady, Austin , Anthony and Alleichem are not sock - puppets and these are the ones that agreed on the quote being mentioned.
    Lisa has a problem with the Name Yahweh because she is an Orthodox Jew and doesn't believe in any pronunciation. Sky I believe is also a Jew, but his reasons may be a little different. I've told them on multiple occasions to keep their own POV out of the article and keep it to scholarly evidence, but they are not listening [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] As you can see from the links, they're actually deleting any instruction or warning given to them about their conduct. [[7]] Also see the "Aramaic Priority" and "Time for another overhaul" section:[[8]] Kght (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PSX

Please continue this discussion in User talk:Silver Edge#PSX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about wrong moves, I really confusing and I ask your help. The "PSX" article shoud be the main article and "PSX (disambiguation)" the content you reverted. The PSX (DVR) should be reverted or redirect to PSX. I made an statement here about this, I'm just following other articles conventions, PS2 (Video game console) as a name don't make sense and the name of the device is "PSX" only. I ask your help for properly moves. --Ciao 90 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Giordano's Pizza

  • I must question why you deleted this page. It fell within the scope of Wiki Chicago and Wiki Food. I created this article, I do not work for Giordano's. I have also done work for Lou Malnati's, Gino's East, Sbarro, and created the Rosati's page and Giordanos page. Why would i create pages for 2 companys if I wanted to advertise. Bad call, I worked hard researching that page. If you delted that, delete all restraunts. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted and AfD'ed page Giordano's Pizza. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beating up

I have nominated Beating up, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up. 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. Prince of Canada t | c 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Prince of Canada t | c 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing page history

Fictional drug users speedy delete

Thank you

Thanks for translating the article of Viniegra de Abajo

Gracias por traducir el artículo de Viniegra de Abajo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gominolo (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Dear Sir or Madam

I am expressing regret at the deletion of Navjot Singh. You mention that the reason is that he is a real person but not significant or relevant- but this is not true...I think the article spoke for itself that he is of significance and that he has done something for China- he is a well established and upcoming author of books on China...so why have you deleted him? Please kindly put back the page...this is very embarrassing for the author and for his publishers as they have worked hard to create a page which has been seen as basically "rubbish", and this is seen as an insult to his integrity and hard work.. Please kindly re initiate his page. Thanks in advance. 05:35, 8 October 2008 User:Gurpalo

  • Page Navjot Singh had already been deleted twice before.Its deletion log reads:
    • 05:06, 8 October 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard "Navjot Singh" ‎ (db|reposted spam / nn-bio)
    • 04:37, 8 September 2008 User:SatyrTN deleted "Navjot Singh" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)
    • 20:07, 11 April 2007 User:Anthony.bradbury deleted "Navjot Singh" ‎ (NN bio)
    "nn" = "not notable". I could undelete it and AfD it, but the resulting verdict would likeliest be "delete". There are very many book authors in the world. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bank South Pacific

Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

please restore Talk:Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois)/Temp

You had me very worried!

  • Just how the script could have been so creative was beyond me ... but I'd already typed in an apology. Cheers 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC) User:Tony1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Istighfar

Hello. Earlier today you deleted Istighfar. I have restored the article; the deletion rationale was in error, as I have explained to the original nominator. I would ask that you please be a little more cautious before fulfilling deletion requests in future. Thank you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Milton Hindus

05:00, 13 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Milton Hindus" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person

Hi. Could you restore this article in my user space? I would like to work on it.[9] Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Histmerge of Chopped N Skrewed and Chopped & Skrewed

Hi
You rejected a histmerge of Chopped N Skrewed and Chopped & Skrewed since they had "long parallel histories". I did actually look at those histories before I requested the merge, and it turns out that they were in fact hardly worked on in parallel, but copy&paste-moved previously, too:

So the only parallel (and discarded) development were those 5 revisions I mentioned above. Do they rule out the histmerge?
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyler Galloway

Orang Laut

  • On the Orang Laut page, you write
    In one of Rudyard Kipling's stories the word is misrendered "Orange Lord".
    Can you be more specific? In the story "The Disturber of Traffic", the character Fenwick makes reference to an "Orange-Lord", and the narrator replies "Orang-Laut?" That is surely not a misrendering but the misstatement of a fictional character. Was there another example you had in mind? SeanWillard (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That is the example. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • So perhaps it should be reworded? After all, Kipling clearly knew the correct term. In fact I question the value of this factoid; it's surely not a good idea to cite every instance in fiction where a character (as opposed to the author) misstates a name. SeanWillard (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Scopolamine

  • Please see Scopolamine Talk, and WP:MEDMOS. The article is now in a bad shape. Please allow that I refurbish that a bit that you see what I mean.

I propose to leave my changes in. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • See reply there, who gives a shit about "24", its just some Hollywood idiot trash. We are talking encyclopedia here, not idiotopedia. Warning: this dish cleaner is not a healthy lemon flavored beverage. This rear mirror shows objects smaller than they really are. Good that they told me, I thought that 16-wheeler is just 10 inch high. Don't doze this gallon canister of petrol over your red hot charcoal grill, if you still know whats healthy. Thats the kind of things you need to "tell the people"... in an idiotopedia.

70.137.131.133 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I have not been active for only 4 days, and it is not an argument. I have a variable IP 70.137.x.x, which changes on every new boot. See temazepam article and many others for my long and successful work to improve articles. What kind of heuristics are you using here? What is the factual discussion? Don't you take me as qualified? What are you doing? And how does it fit with MEDMOS? You didn't address that concern.

70.137.131.133 (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • See below examples from July, also look at talk:temazepam. This article was much improved, look at the history. It was also a whole lot of argument involved, until finally a good result was achieved.

(Delete below after reading, sorry for cluttering your talk page, but else you think I am a vandal kid.)

In my opinion it is not really required, that people and admins can follow what one is doing, to determine the validity of an edit or claim. Such heuristics should be abandoned. I am an old man (compared to the avg kindergarten of WP) and I think my edits are constructive.

To the scopolamine page: Please read MEDMOS, for what are preferred refs. In the case of newspaper refs we have absolutely no access to their raw information, sources, raw data, methodology. So these reports are not verifiable. In particular in medical articles we need verifiable sources, with reproducible results, well defined methods, accessible raw data. It is even preferable to only include broadly reviewed results or results from recognized text books. Peer reviewed article in themselves may not be commonly agreed. Mere communications in peer reviewed publications and anecdotal (case) reports are not enough.

The newspaper report about forged rohypnol with scopolamine does not contribute to information about scopolamine and is anecdotal. It belongs into some "forged medications" article, and then with a primary reference.

The report about burundanga is in danger of being a sensational mixture of truth and urban legend, and we have no way to determine how WSJ reporters arrived there. We need the primary reports.

Date rape claims are also always a mixture of truth and fiction, in particular, as this is an American cultural phenomenon, similar to other mass hysteria outbreaks.(like the catacombs, where children are held by satanists) Nobody else in the world wants to have sex with unconscious women, the yankees are either hysterical, or they are sick perverts, or both.

Insofar such claims and news reports have nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry, which claims to be scientifically founded. The same is true for self reported drug abuse experiences, which can also not be substantiated. There is enough valid material available on pubmed, to not spoil the article with such popular crap. The sobercircle ref contains a clear factual error. (7 g of scopolamine) It also links to some youtube crap of questionable truth. So out with that. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I intend to delete ref sobercircle now: factually incorrect, unreliable, see above. This time please do not revert this again without discussion, or with arguments *has only been active for 4 days* It is against WP policies. Discuss. I have given reasons above, and you don't want your edits trashed by me either, do you?

70.137.131.133 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done; no contest, no discussion; 70.137.159.126 (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

hello.

I don't think you are silly or inept, stupid or foolish. you do seem kinda dorky tho. answers.com is off on this definition. do you ever use the word dork or hear it used? what do you think it means? do you think it's ncess pejorative. I think most people realize it's not, and if they don't they are geeks. also, I think answers's "synonym jerk" is way off. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 16:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Liz Carroll (musician) speedied

Donek

  • Hi, Anthony. I would like to ask a question about the article donek. One user claims that the category "Turkish words and phrases" that I added in the article is trivial or non-defining. Actually I do not think so, but I am not sure, perhaps he is right. But one thing I cannot understand is that if a word is of Turkish (or another language) origin, won't I be able to categorize it under the suitable category? Take coffee for example, it is of course an Arabic origined word, and we can naturally categorize it accordingly. Is it possible to take your thoughts about this? Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you have gone offline, thanks anyway. --Chapultepec (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It partly depends on how much the word is still thought of as being Turkish. For example, to most people "coffee" is merely yet another English word, and not many out of 100 know that it came from Arabic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot properly estimate, since donek is not a widely known word in English, only in the ornithological terminology maybe, unlike the word coffee. But my objection is that, items in all the related categories, namely "Fooish loanwords" or "Fooish words and phrases", do not define the word or term, less or widely known, under which article they take place, so they are all indirectly related. The word coffee was only an example. So the article donek should not be an exception for that. I scanned WP:OCAT, but I could not find anything against the language categories. --Chapultepec (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, I just wanted to discuss the matter with an administrator at first since the topic is a little bit obscure, and the objecting user is relatively new. Thanks anyway for your kind help. --Chapultepec (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for all the history merges. Your work is appreciated. :-) --Iamunknown 05:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Posera

  • Anthony, I have requested a review for your Oct. 14 deletion of the "Posera" Wikipedia entry. I am an editor of numerous Wikipedia entries, and I have never had an article proposed for deletion before, much less had one deleted. According to official Wikipedia policy, an entry proposed for deletion should be afforded 5 days between the notice of a deletion and a potential deletion, but according to the deleted page's files, the only record is a deletion on Oct. 14. Neither any notice nor explanation is given. I expect a full explanation. If something needs to be changed, I am open to changing it. Thank you. --Johnnygoat00 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • At 15:38, 14 October 2008 User:Timneu22 speedy-delete-tagged page Posera Software as advertisement, and at 16:34, 14 October 2008 I accordingly deleted it. At 16:35, 14 October 2008 I deleted page Posera, which was merely a redirect to page Posera Software. See WP:SPAM.
  • How is the Posera article spam/an advertisement when the rest of the pages in the category "point of sale companies" are not? What is the significant difference between this entry and the other entries in this category? The article is formatted correctly using the conventions of Wikipedia, is written from a neutral point-of-view, contains copious citations, and does not promote the company as much as it explains pertinent, cited facts in its history. If the Posera page is not worthy of inclusion, then by the same standards the rest of the company profiles in this category (if not the entire encyclopedia) should be deleted. Either delete them all or permit them all; don't pick and choose. If there is some content deemed objectionable, then tag it or start a discussion. Please don't delete an entry swiftly without adequate grounds. It's this kind of seemingly random, autocratic deletion that gives Wikipedia a bad name.--Johnnygoat00 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted and AfD'ed page Posera Software. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It failed AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Two in a similar number of days. Thanks! Aille (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Topps

Thanks for straightening out the Topps baseballsports cards products pages. --DAW0001 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Template:Bulgaria Singles Top 40

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Bulgaria Singles Top 40, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Bulgaria Singles Top 40 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Bulgaria Singles Top 40, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ross River fever

Hi thanks for my requested move of Ross River fever. However I have undone the merge though. I am still discussing this with other users (I would prefer not to merge). I am trying to make a point (in a non-disruptive manner) I hope this is not an issue.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Striker

*That move is in the Backlog section of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=246256164#Uncontroversial_proposals ; it was requested by PeeJay at 09:57, 13 October 2008.

Question

Assessment computer-supported collaborative learning

  • Perhaps I'm being dense, but what is that article purporting to advertise? It's not that well formatted for a Wikipedia article but contains various valid points about educational assessment and group work. I didn't yet check the citations, but on first glance they seem valid as well. I'll keep watch here, so reply here to keep it all together if you don't mind. - Taxman Talk 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • At 22:16, 30 October 2008 User:Arbiteroftruth speedy-delete-tagged it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to check. It was tagged incorrectly and thus you speedied it incorrectly. Please check more carefully in the future. What this amounted to was a new user posting what can end up as a very good article and getting smacked with multiple warning templates and their article getting speedy deleted. That's the definition of newbie biting. I only randomly happened to see it because of the incorrect report on WP:AIV. It's just lucky that the user persisted and reposted the article. Hopefully they stick around to improve it. - Taxman Talk 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Short Program

Please don't make moves such as Short Program to Short Program (manga) as it's absurd to have Short Program as a redirect to a longer title like Short Program (manga). This move has been reverted. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Usafl notes.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Watched?

Lasers on USA aircraft carriers?

sorry, no can do. the info re: displacement/power generation ratio came from a tv documentary on the cv21 class vessels. the conclusion on what they are going to use that excess energy for was my own. at this point i don't even remember the context which led me to post this to your talk page, especially since a quick review of your archived talk reveals no particular involvement in things military. nonetheless, i think it's a good guess, although it seems unlikely that sources exist.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section as subsection under criticism section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [11], please let us know your views/opinion so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysees

Probably going beyond the call of duty, but would you mind dropping by the talk page of the creator and explaining why you agreed that it ought not (at least in its current form) to be present. I am having some difficulty explaining my rationale for nominating it! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Gwen Araujo

Now that makes sense. Actually, after reading that I would agree with the move, thanks for the answer. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show some sympathy to those of us who don't know how to read minds?

00:14, 2008 July 27 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:United States Congress" ‎ (delete|it is unused, and the redirect being broken will encourage people to find the right one, not that anything currently links to this anyways)
  • Do you think there would have been any value in rather than "encourag[ing] people to find the right one", the deletion log note instead told people which category you considered the "right one"? Alternatively, a link to the discussion that arrived at the consensus that this was the wrong one, and decided another category was the right one would be just as useful.
    Is it possible for you to temporarily restore the category, and then delete it, making an entry in the deletion log which doesn't punish those of us who don't know how to read minds? Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done. That remark is a copy (automatically copied by the deletion process) of the first part of the last edit of that page. It was added to that page at 20:47, 26 July 2008 by User:Ktr101. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Derbisol

ty

Thank you for the history merge at the Lucy (poems) page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

About Mongolia during Qing

"Mongolia during Qing rule" is not necessary. I have renamed and redirected your article to the old one. Dagvadorj (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Dagvadorj

Deletion of Vebnet Limited page

  • Anthony, looks like you deleted my Vebnet Limited page due to the speedy deletion policy. I had added the hang-on tag to address the issues raised by another member but when I came to update the page today it was gone (as was the talk page where I addressed that users issues and my rationale for adding the page in the first place). I would be grateful if you can restore the page (don't know if this is within your power) and expand on the the reasons why you deleted the page. As detailed on the talk page of the Vebnet Limited article, it was added as part of the companies portal group and gave additional context to the Employee Benefits providers based in the UK. The goal of the companies portal "seeks to analyse companies by country and industry", so, as a significant contributer to the UK Employee Benefits sector I thought that this filled the companies portal remit.
    Significantly, this company has been bought by the Standard Life group and the tone and content of the article is based on that of Buck Consultants which also appears in the Employee Benefits article.
    The main objection from the other member appeared to be that the references were links to the company home page - this was one of the issues I intended to address this morning when I came to edit the page but found out it had been deleted. BinoIchi - (talk) 11:55 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Page Vebnet Limited was worded much like an advertisement. See WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Anthony, thanks for the feedback. Again, can I respectfully ask, that you restore the page so I can make the changes required. It is tricky to write about a company and not make it sound like a sales pitch, for reference I used the Buck Consultants page as a guide. After reviewing these guidelines I will try to re-write this article based on a more neutral point of view. BinoIchi - (talk) 18:46 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted it, but it is unlikely that it would survive AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Anthony, any reference to a company related article that meets all of the wiki criteria? As I said previously, I based this on another Employee Benefits provider, maybe I should have chosen differently. Okay, now the hard part, writing this in a style which will survive AFD. BinoIchi - (talk) 23:35 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool Tramway

See the replies at both WP:RM and Talk:Blackpool tramway. Simply south (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Americans of Irish descent

Scopolamine

Please stop reverting "anon edits" in unqualified manner. We had that before. Even if it itches you, but anon edits are perfectly legitimate, even if "you can not see what they are doing". Besides you are not the only retired guy with a degree here. So stop treating people like school boys. This is not Umanchester undergrad course. 70.137.153.142 (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Heracles

Where are your sources for this?: "Some Greek sources say that the Indians worshipped Heracles. This may have arisen from Greek-speakers mis-hearing Hindu Sanskrit "Hare Krishna" as "Hēraklēs"." The Krishna article seems to suggest something different and besides, it shouldn't be only mentioned in the lead. Also, my knowledge of Greek suggests that these two names aren't easily confused to the untrained ear. They also differ in the number of syllables. I'm taking it out unless you can prove otherwise. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe move

Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cruciate ligament

Speedy question

  • Hi, Anthony, could you please take another look at the speedy deletion on this one: Jeff Halevy. Sure, the page was a mess, but it did seem to have sources. Maybe userfying it might have been better? I see that the page creator was trying to place a {{hangon}} tag, but he did it on his own talkpage rather than on the article. --Elonka 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I could undelete it and AfD it, but the AfD verdict would likeliest be "delete, advertizing a non-notable athletics coach". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Possibly, yes.  :) Okay, how's this? I'll try to engage the user in dialogue. If it looks like there's hope, I'll undelete the page and move it into their userspace for cleanup. If I can't get anything coherent out of them, we'll just leave the page deleted. Would that be alright with you? --Elonka 21:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sirius XM merger

Jedi

I'm pretty damn well nonplussed by your rv-&-mod of the Dab Jedi:

  1. I AGF'd your summary
    (Jady link restored. Google search for "jedi" found Arabic placernames e,g, AIn Jedi)
    to the point where i got
    Your search - "AIN JEDI" OR "ALN JEDI" OR "AIN JADY" OR "ALN JADY" - did not match any documents.
  2. Can it be anything but obvious that
    1. users consulting Jedi (disambiguation) bcz of variant spellings of "Jady" are being misled by a lk to "kid (young goat)", which bears no relation to places with Jady or Jedi in their names, and does not mention either word, and
    2. the sum of information provided by the entry and its target is an low-quality DICT-def?
  3. I will risk seeming sarcastic by telling you (after all these years of your tenure) that DAB and MoSDab make it clear that the purpose of a Dab-page entry is either
    1. to get the user to an existing article whose title could reasonably have been (or been conjectured to be) the term being disambiguated, or
    2. to elicit the creation of a viable article on the topic the user had in mind.

My judgment is that List of places whose names involve Jady plausibly would be viable, but (based on my attempt to get it started) cannot be compiled from scratch by editors without special subject-matter insight. IMO that makes it reasonable to insist that someone with subject-area knowledge demonstrate feasibility by starting a stub that at least lists Jedi and the other plausible variant spellings of Jady (i presume including Gedi and Giedi) in its lead section, as the basis for an "on speculation" entry

* List of places whose names involve Jady

for the stub, under "See also".
I request the courtesy of our continuing this discussion among other experienced Dab editors, in the forum of MoSDab talk, if you're still dissatisfied with my approach.
--Jerzy•t 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mess

Really appreciate your fixing the mess I made of moving Maharishi Vedic Medicine to Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Had never noticed the Move tab. TimidGuy (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Cone Cow

...before I even got around to figuring out how to make the request in the proper way. Much appreciated! Siawase (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore crowdSPRING to my user talk?

I think the tribune article proves WP:NN. It's a MAJOR paper in the US.Stuartfost (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stuartfost/Crowdspring Updated Article w/ Neutral Language. Thanks Stuartfost (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Will do...also I'm cutting and pasting this to the talk page :) Stuartfost (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Old redirect

Deletion for Destination Imagination!

  • I crearly do not understand why you are deleting DI and why you deleted OM without clear discussion. I got the notice that it was going to be deleted today and didn't have a change to discuss. Please discuss deletion before deleting pages such as OM. Di is an internationally known corporation that host kids from around the world and holds competitions. I don't see what is wrong with the page and have never been engaged in a discussion regarding an article's deletion. PLease give me a link to the page where this matter should be discussed. Thanks    Juthani1   tcs 20:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not deleting it, I am asking for an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. That is what AfD is for. If Destination Imagination is notable, the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination ImagiNation will show the result. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • To be clear, AAppleyard deleted OM Association, Inc., not Odyssey of the Mind. I created the OMAI page (a few months back?) when I had trouble distinguishing in article contributions what "OM" was when referring to the organization that is now Destination ImagiNation but which prior to 2000 ran Odyssey of the Mind (and which in the 1999-2000 season was the sole active player in this kids team creative problem solving organization, directly serving almost 200,000 youth). For an example of this confusion, see the opening sentence under Odyssey of the Mind. Anthony, is there a way to undelete OM Association, Inc.? I put a lot of time into unraveling the various legal entities and providing sources for same, and am just now learning that Wikipedia is not a reliable place to keep that information [I did not save a personal copy -- thank goodness for Google caching]. I do dispute that, as an organization that directly affected so many people, the A7 deletion is "uncontroversial". bokabu (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted and AfD'ed OM Association, Inc.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rhythm of Sickness Records

Jay Jay...

Thanks for doing that revert, Anthony! I was just about to jump on that and warn Sidonuke for removal of pertinent information. They clearly did not read the article or the versions before going ahead with that double revert...Cheers again! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram Demonstrations Project

I've decided to take issue with your speedy deletion of Wolfram Demonstrations Project. I have restored it. I think you should take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. The fact that the person who proposed speedy deletion is the same one who shortly thereafter embarrassed himself by proposing MathWorld for speedy deletion, that proposal being the most ill-considered Wikipedia edit ever, should give one pause. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Haggis Horns deletion

  • Why did you delete this page? The article clearly noted a number of significant things about the band in a factual/informative way.
  • Page The Haggis Horns was tagged for speedy delete at 00:06, 30 November 2008 by User:Tavix as "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". There are thousands of small local music bands. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Flatpack disambiguation

Image:Aa riotsquadhead 40x40.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aa riotsquadhead 40x40.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. Skier Dude (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blasters

Not really - I had a look at the original merge, he(she?) took across the useful content - it's hardly his fault or mine that once you strip out the in-universe tone, the original research, the guesswork, the essay, that you are left with a couple of paragraphs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing fact tags from unsourced information is seen as vandalism and can lead to blocks. If it's unsourced, source it - don't removed the fact tags. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll afd both articles in one week, so you can't cry foul about it - that's plenty of time for you to bring them up to minimum standards right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll be there to help defend them. The above plan, Cameron, seems a matter to dedication to removing content by destructive merges or afd, whichever works. Deleting because you don't have consensus for the merge the way you want it is not a good use of Wikipedia processes. There is no deadline on improving articles, and its wrong to threaten one. DGG (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm I, German Emperor

I honestly think your thumb slipped with this move close. There have been three move requests on this article:

You closed placing the box around all of these, which suggests you were looking at the first discussion, which was indeed unanimous but in the other direction. Please doublecheck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Join Network Studio of NENU

Thanks!

Thanks for the move, Anthony!

Jonathan.s.kt (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Issue?

I saw your edit here: [12]

Which issue of the Radio times are you referring to, and which page? That way we can format the reference properly with {{Cite magazine}}. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary Yang

Hi, you recently deleted an article I had written about Gary Yang and I was wondering about your reasons for not finding it notable. I thought that the article might be notable because Gary Yang has been involved with some major names in the Chinese music industry and seems to be starting a solo career. Maybe you would be willing to consider undeletion?--Captain andy frain (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aa southers fort neuro.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aa southers fort neuro.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for SPoT Coffee

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SPoT Coffee. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dweeebis (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mothernight speedy delete

I think, RfD is better idea; metal scene is very specific and this group isn't so simple to qualify to guidelines. Greets, Szwedzki (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Hi! In modern mongolian, Nohoi (or Nokhoi) means a dog. But its spelling is Nokhai in classic mongolian (BTW, it is just like Nogai Khan (his real name was Nokhai, foreign chroniclers corrupted his name)). Bar means a tiger, Arslan means a lion. Bar is singular form of a tiger. But if you say Bars, it is plural. But I guess the word Arslan's (lion) spelling was arzlan in ancient turkic language. --Enerelt (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

World Chess Championship

You could ask for opinions about this merger at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sak Yant Move

Impossible to use.

  • I have set up a page (notability criteria included) under Nigel G. Spencer, then tried to change it to Nigel Spencer, but they both seem to have been arbitrarily cut out with no explanation. What's going on?
    WHO IS ANTHONY APPLEYARD AND BY WHAT RIGHT HAS HE DELETED MY WIKIPAGE? The notability criteria are right there on the page, if you bother to read it.
    Nigel Spencer70.81.141.186 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • At 22:43, 12 December 2008 User:Supercriminal speedy-delete-tagged page Nigel Spencer as {{db-bio}}, i.e. "this page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

dupe talk page

Hi, I wondered if you would look into a - talk - page move/deletion/merge (?) that might be needed. I *think* it requires admin capabilities because it can't be a "redirect, to current title with no prior versions in its edit history - the potential target has content", etc.

I tried working out doing from the various guides (WP:RM, WP:MGA, WP:SPLICE, WP:HISTMERGE complex/troublesome cases, WP:MOVE w/content requiring preserving history) what exactly needs doing, and where I should request it. Help, I'm so confused. :o(

Here's the dull minutiae:

  • Article created - 3 word proper noun title, with only first letter capitalized. Somebody moved it to initial caps for each word during its AfD. This isn't mentioned on the AfD though; the links all point to the original-now-redirect (article itself redirects). History for article redirect itself only has the redirect edit & my adding {{R from other capitalization}} now.
  • Article was actually moved @ 17:58, 28 November 2008. No talk page existed at this point.
  • Current talk page created, with content @ 15:20, 1 December 2008 - major edit history (couple of chitchat edits + a project template)
  • New dupe talk page created by closing admin @ 17:42, 13 December 2008 - minor edit history (just has oldafdfull template, following article's afd). It's attached to old article revision history, etc.

I can't imagine any changes will be controversial, nor require discussion on the dupe talk page, but figured I couldn't just c+p the afdfull template and request deletion of the duplicate page, because...page history and links etc. It's probably far simpler than it seems to be to me! :) Thanks. – Whitehorse1 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Box Games

Yes and Yes (disambiguation)

  • Ah, I was not aware that history merge can not be carried out when parallel history exist.

Does it help that this parallel history is of a dicdef article on Yes that currently not exists? Ie. this diff effectively replaced the old article with the dab then at Yes (disambiguation). Taemyr (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes/old version nominated for deletion. Taemyr (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Gulzar

Raygun

Hello. As requested, I've initiated a discussion on the talk page, and would be interested in knowing why you appear to think that my rewrite reduced the quality of the article. I'm not at all opposed to merging back in any pertinent content from the previous version.  Sandstein  11:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob Charles Beers

The Branson School

why is this deleted?

Controversial v. non-controversial

I have moved this discussion to Talk:Archbishop of Armagh#Plain name as which archbishop or disambig page?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about histmergers

  • Hello. I've been watching what you've been doing with histmerge requests (both via {{db-histmerge}} and on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen) in the last two weeks. I have a mild admin-interest in getting active there as well, but I haven't yet figured out why you're noting performed and non-performed db-histmerge requests at WP:SPLICE like you did e.g. here. Do you like keeping track of histmergers out of personal interest (it's apparent that histmergers are a pet project of yours), or is there another purpose? I ask because I don't want to screw up, and I don't know whether e.g. I should note my own histmergers there as well (I have only performed two non-controversional ones yet). – sgeureka t•c 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In years to come, people may want to know what surgery and hacking-about has been done to articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • So it works as a manually-maintained log, got it. Thanks for the reply. – sgeureka t•c 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-Wiki Question

  • Hi Anthony,
Totally un-wiki-related (and this is certainly not the forum for this, for which I apologise), but my partner has been trying to get back in contact with a Jean Appleyard (married name) who she lost touch with some years ago (Jean last sent a letter saying her new address was enclosed - but forgot to enclose it). Jean was married to Derek Appleyard, who died aged about 45 in 1979 or 1980. They lived at the time in South Humberside. I know it is a long-shot, and we don't know whether Jean is even still alive - if you could help this would be great. In any case I hope you had a great Christmas and wish you all the very best for the coming year. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help with {{Cite ngs}}

I appreciate you doing the history merge. I should have thought over what I was doing so that this would have been unnecessary. If I ever need to do this sort of thing again, I'll know better. Thanks again. --DRoll (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2008/October-December&oldid=1138276180"