User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2006

Wulfrun and Lady Wulfruna
Hi Anthony. I saw your post on the Englisc list. With regards to Wulfrun, I thought it worthy of mention that one is supposed to use the 'move this page' mechanism to rename pages, rather than copy-and-paste, which seems to be what you did in copying content from Lady Wulfruna to Wulfrun.

The rationale is that the 'move this page' mechanism preserves edit histories, so we can see who contributed which paragraph. Right now the edit history for Wulfrun makes it appear that you wrote the entire article; if moved properly, it wold include the edit history for Lady Wulfruna. Wes þu hal, --Saforrest 00:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, if you created the page in error initially. I didn't realize that was the case, so sorry if I seemed overzealous in describing the page move procedure. Regards, --Saforrest 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Human feces.jpg
This image is neither vandalism nor disgusting. It is directly relevant to Human feces because it is encyclopedic. It is the only one that exists in Wikimedia Commons. Besides, an orphan (OR) you were asking about is an image which does not link to any articles except user page. Please use Talk:Human feces for talk about the image. Why did you make link to it instead of being displayed on the article? Adnghiem501 07:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, guess what I found!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/magazine_enl_1138097571/html/1.stm which accompanied http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4642780.stm Nicholas 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There
The new title is really cumbersome, surely something shorter could be found. 'Internet service' would do fine... we don't need to distinguish it from some other non-subscription Internet service also named "There". What other "There"s are there? -- Curps 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: the new "There" disambiguation, I'm really not sure that mere dicdefs warrant creating a disambiguation. We wouldn't do this for Yahoo, for instance. -- Curps 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think in general, disambiguation on Wikipedia is only used to disambiguate one proper noun from another proper noun, not to disambiguate a proper noun from a dictionary definition. There are many examples of common dictionary words that are also used as proper nouns (Apple, Yahoo, any number of musical groups or movie titles), but we don't disambiguate since there is only one encyclopedic meaning (ie, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary). -- Curps 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, unless there is some reasonably well-known movie or book or album titled There, I'd be in favor of just moving it back to There. -- Curps 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nemrod 2hose regulator.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nemrod 2hose regulator.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. - SCEhard T 02:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Article creation
I have been looking through the list of unwatched pages (available only to administrators) and found -ase. I see that you created this but were not watching it. You may want to go to your preferences and under the "editing" tab turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist". This will enable you to keep an eye out for any edits that are made to pages you create and help to revert vandalism. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also if you decide to can you leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

-ane
Regarding that comment you made on the -ase AFD. Shouldn't such a basic naming convention thing be mentioned in the lead of the article? That would make the idea the redirect would bury the info void. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon
Anthony Appleyard! I know you haven't any idea who I am, but I've been perusing the falconry article of late (more about that in a sec) and just noticed your name in the history. I've been lurking on the Old English mailing list for quite some time now, so imagine my surprise and delight to see a familiar name in an unexpected place. I took Paul Remley's Old English classes at the University of Washington and heard your name mentioned favorably more than once in that context, as well. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 08:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, as near to verbatim as you can remember what did they say about me? Thanks. Anthony Appleyard 10:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! I didn't mean to tease you. I'm afraid I can't remember any specifics, but I can assure you that it was good. I would certainly remember much better if it had been scandalous! I seem to remember that one such exchange was between Professor Remley and a young woman graduate student who was taking the class for a second time. I forget her name, but she had very dark hair, probably dyed, and I know she was a mother. She was speaking of you fondly and Remley was smiling that sheepish smile that seems to go along with just about every topic he converses about. Unfortunately, at the time, I hadn't yet subscribed to the mailing list, so hearing your name didn't cause me to sit up and take notice. It wasn't until I joined the list and saw your name that my ears pricked up and I thought to myself, "I know that name. Isn't that the fellow that Professor Remley and that girl were talking about in class? He wrote something, didn't he? Curses! Why didn't I pay closer attention?" Or something to that effect.
 * I have put the deleted training matter back, as a pointer to a page Falconry (training), which includes a boldface warning that the page is not a training manual. Anthony Appleyard 10:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. It sounds like an excellent solution, assuming that the information in the piece was accurate. Someone who didn't sign his post (I feel reasonably safe in assuming it was the same individual who deleted it in the first place) replied to my query saying that, indeed, there was almost nothing in it worth saving. I take it you see that assessment as overly harsh …

It's fun to finally talk to you. I just Googled you (quite a Web presence you have, I must say!) and it looks like we share some mutual interests. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 05:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I owe you an apology. Earlier, when I told you that I remembered you being discussed in my Old English class, it seems I was mistaken. I saw an old classmate on the bus last weekend and I brought it up. It turns out they were talking about Professor Andy Orchard, director of the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto and editor of the Anglo-Saxon England series. When I saw your name associated with the Old English mailing list, my feeble little mind seems neatly to have slid Anthony Appleyard into the slot previously occupied by Andy Orchard as though it were a perfect fit. Please accept my sincere apologies for a mistake that must've been at least briefly disorienting for you. If there are medievalists whispering behind your back at the University of Washington, then I'm certainly not privy to it. Wæs þu hal! &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 05:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This sort of confusion happens. Once I sent an article to a UK Tolkien Society magazine, and they published it as by "Mark Appleyard", ref. the Roman name Mark Antony. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Falconry
On to the falconry article. There's been a bit of activity there that gives me pause. Someone's gone in and removed the Training section. The comments he left on the talk page indicate that he thought it so terrible that it didn't even bear keeping. I know nothing about falconry, but I found that section to be interesting reading. If it was truly as inaccurate as he says, then good riddance to bad baggage; but I wonder if we might not be seeing a bit of partisanship in a controversial area.

If falconry is a topic you know something about, would you mind popping on over to the article and giving it a look-see? Thanks! &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 08:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

a question about Uuo
Is it really true that element 118 would form an oxide in nature? The reason I ask is that the xenon oxides have positive heats of formation for their oxides, and are not necessarily stable. Thanks. Olin 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Head Wrightsons
Head Wrightsons has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Manifold move
Hi Anthony, I have undone your move of manifold. If that page is going to be moved, there are enough links to it that something neeeds to be done about the redirects. Also, moving it to Manifold (topology) was almost certainly the wrong destination. Please discuss on Talk:Manifold. I can certainly see the arguments for moving it, but I think doing it without discussion was too bold. –Joke 17:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Mix
I would like to discuss your article on the cowboy Buck Rogers. You seem to be working from memory. You mention stories from the 1920s with Tom Mix and Buck Rogers, but by that time Tom Mix (his real name) was a famous cowboy actor, and a story with him as a character would have to be a movie spin-off. So where does Buck Rogers come in? I think there was a cowboy Buck Rogers, but where did he appear? In magazines or in books or in films? With Tom Mix or not? More info is needed.

Buck's real name, by the way, was originally Anthony. Buck was a nickname, but I have not seen any hard evidence that he was named after the cowboy. If he ever had any other name, it was in one of the late versions -- novels or computer games -- not in the first fifty years the character was around. Rick Norwood 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My memories of WWII are pretty dim -- I was born in 1942. But I certainly remember Tom Mix comic books, and I don't doubt your memory. But, for the article, we need more than a memory. We need to find out where these stories appeared, in what medium, and when. Anything you can add to what you've already said should help. Rick Norwood 13:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * thats both annoying & automated, oleg... 10:29, 3 January 2007 User:Cannibalicious!

Please stop replacing HTML entities with your Windows characters
Wikipedia calls for the use of "&...;" HTML character entities for a reason - they work cross-platform. See: How_to_edit_a_page. It's a Bad Thing to go into articles and replace them all with Windows-specific (or any other OS-specific) characters. You are breaking Wikipedia for zillions of other users when you do that. &mdash; SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If so, why do English Wikipedia edit pages display below the edit window a big list of clickables to insert the "Windows-specific" characters that display as themselves in edit mode? Anthony Appleyard 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's a poorly-thought-out experimental feature. See How_to_edit_a_page. It's there for a reason.  Even if the character insertion "feature" (which is a fairly recent innovation) were not problematic, there is no global call out to wiki-editors of the world to go through articles and convert entities to characters that, at best, require a rich UTF-8 font to display, so I don't see why you'd feel compelled to go on a conversion spree; "leave well enough alone", as the saying goes.  This isn't meant to sound overly critical, but please look at your own Talk page.  I've yet to see on anyone else's talk page such a laundry-list of disgruntled comments.  You are doing things that a lot of other editors are disagreeing with, on a regular basis.  Please take a step back and re-evaluate.  PS: Someone else went on an entity conversion spree in the same article I'm responding about, shortly after you did, and they also got the same message from me after I reverted those changes; and someone else did the same thing to another article last week, which I also reverted.  I'm not singling you out - it's not a personal thing.  HTML entity codes are a well-established standard (source), and Wikipedia's own documentation (whatever it's feature-of-the-week may be; the "Wikipedia:*" documentation supercedes any such features) says to use them (source).  They are renderable regardless of operating system and regardless of what fonts are installed (barring very strange end-user behavior like removing all fonts from one's system that have these characters in them at all). &mdash; SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: See previous criticism above, beginning "The Cyrillic text in your recent additions to Russian commando frogmen is unfortunately unreadable in most browsers due to character set issues"; if one doesn't definitely know what one is doing with character sets, it is not an area one should make changes in. :-)  &mdash; SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 08:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did this:-
 * I temporarily edited a Wikipedia page to contain πλεονασμóς so it showed in the editor window as the &--; codes, and also so it showed in the editor window as the Greek letters (as here: &pi;&lambda;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;&alpha;&sigma;&mu;&oacute;&sigmaf; ("excess"). πλεονασμóς).
 * I went into "show preview" mode.
 * I saved the resulting HTML page to my PC.
 * I examined the resulting local file with an MSDOS ascii text editor which displays all high-order characters distinctively.
 * I found that the resulting code in the page which Wikipedia's server sent to my computer, contained exactly the same code when Wikipedia's server translated from the &--; codes and when translated from the Greek letters representation.
 * Therefore it seems that, if, as likely:-
 * Wikipedia pages are stored internally in the format seen in edit windows.
 * When a user is reading a Wikipedia page (without editing it), Wikipedia's server translates it into normal HTML code so it displays as usual, and (in this case) in both instances sends Greek letters to the user's computer.
 * The user's computer displays the same from the &--; format and from the Greek letter format, and the only result of using the &--; format is to make the text less legible as seen in the editing window.
 * If some non-Windows computer (e.g. a Mac) systematically displays different according to whether the edit window version displays the &--; format or the wysiwyg format, I will accept that I w as wrong. Anthony Appleyard 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The clickable entities below the edit field insert unicode characters. They are not windows specific, and they are cross platform. I have a mac and a linux box, and the unicode characters work just fine for me. It's true that people who edit with non unicode compliant browsers can muck up those characters, but wikipedia has a unicode standard now (the database stores, and the edit windows display UTF-8. It has been so for quite a while, and our multilingual support would be impossible without this), therefore it may even be more relevant to tell those editors to switch browsers, than to tell the other editors not to use the symbols. In short, continue using unicode. I do it. -lethe talk [ +] 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also come to Anthony's defence here. Wikipedia supports unicode characters and modern browsers do too. Unicode is not Windows specific. Also, despite the fact the &...; markup resulting in correct renderings in any character set, they break search engines. Since all modern browsers support or can support Unicode, I too say keep using Unicode characters. Donama 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I concede . I'm still going to write with &-entities, though, since I've already memorized them, they are a standard, and they work.  I'll stop fussing when people with time on their hands to dig thru UTF-8 characters lists want to replace them though. :-)  &mdash; SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Diving Regulator article links

 * Hi Anthony, I see you restored a link that I'd removed via a revert, citing that "It seems to be relevant"... Given that the user who posted the link has just been banned for adding spam links to articles after being warned, and the site linked to seems to contain no information of its own, only ads and links to other pages, I don't think that it should be in the article. I've left the link in for the time being, but please have a more thorough look at the link's contents. I'm hoping you'll agree that it doesn't belong. Thanks. David Scarlett 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've deleted it again. It seems to point mostly to Google searches. Anthony Appleyard 08:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bale/bail
Bailing out of an aircraft or bailing water is spelt "bail" not "bale. I hope you'll understand me removing them from the bale dab -- there's already a "see also" to point people to bail. Cheers Donama 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First, "bailing water" is never spelt baling water and I doubt you'd find that in Chambers.
 * For the parachute bailing, we use British English almost exclusively for the most part in Australia too, yet I've never once seen this use of bale (as in "bale out of an aircraft") although it is evidently an alternate spelling of bail. But since "bail out of an aircraft" is the way it's spelt at least 50% of the time in Britain and close to 100% of the time elsewhere (according to this WorldWideWords article), don't you think this information should go at the Bail disambig page on Wikipedia -- and there is already a link to this from Bale. Donama 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sonic cavitation
Thanks for cleaning up sonic cavitation. Might want to think about archiving the ol' talk page too :) Isopropyl 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Geocentric model/Ptolemaic system
I have been trying to figure out what happened to Geocentric model. As best I can tell, you merged it into Ptolemaic system, then shifted all the material from Ptolemaic system back to Geocentric model. I really wish you hadn't done that. First of all, since one person in a fairly small group had spoken against a merge, it would have been nice to wait a few more days to see if a consensus would be reached. Second, having decided to go forward with the merge (and I do agree with "Be bold"), it would have been nice to give more thought to the direction in which the merge should go. Third, once you did go forward with the merge, and then apparently decided you had done it the wrong way, it still would have been a good idea to leave it for a couple of days so that interested parties could look it over. Now it's more difficult to figure out just what was included or left out. This merge would probably have taken place sooner or later, and maybe it was time, but please, when you do this again, be less hasty in the actual process. Maestlin 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

New article announcements
I noticed some of your contributions and wanted to say Hi. I thought you might be interested in Portal:Israel and Portal:Israel/New article announcements. I just updated the latter. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Police
Why did you merge police officer with police? The consensus was actually against it. Please check what other people think before you do a merge. Generalcp702 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Directed-energy weapon
I noticed a note that you added to the DEW article about an electron particle beam, electrolaser or similar weapon tested by the US Navy in 1985. I wanted to add it to the Strategic Defense Initiative article, but I was unable to find any additional information or sources via google. I know it was a long time ago (last August), but I was wondering if you could tell me the source of that statement or possibly clarify it. I know the Navy was working on a chemical laser called MIRACL around 1985, maybe this is the weapon the DEW article refers to? I can't find any references to a Phoenix project run under SDI or the US Navy they all seem to point to the AIM-54 Phoenix. I also can't find any reference to the Navy and electrolaser except for wikipedia mirrors. Unless you know the source, I'm leaning towards removing the note or changing it to reflect that it was really the MIRACL instead of the electrolaser. Thanks for your help. --Dual Freq 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have altered Directed-energy weapon accordingly. Anthony Appleyard 07:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Current events
Hello –

I'm trying to get some discussion going on two proposals regarding the current events page, but so far have gotten little to no response. Since you have recently edited the current events page, I'm asking for your input on these two proposals:


 * One proposal (this is the big one) involves putting the daily events from the current events pages into article-templates, a lá the monthly pages from 2003 to 2005, as well and having a consistent number of recent days on the current events page instead of a monthly archive. This would allow for the current events page and the respective month pages to be updated simultaneously without the monthly archival. For more, see the current events talk page.


 * Another proposal involves merging the content of the regional current events pages (such as British and Irish current events and Canadian current events) into fewer continental articles. For more, see the current events WikiProject talk page.

Your input on one or both of these issues would be appreciated. joturn e r 22:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Siebe Gorman Proto
AA, what is this thing? Could you please reword that into um... English? Besides, does this thing really need its own article? Can't we mention it on the Siebe Gorman article? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ffestiniog Railway
Hi Anthony. I saw you reverted my change to the Ffestiniog Railway. I think this is an interesting discussion about whether and how we should link loco names. I've created a section about this on the article's talk page. Would you care to add your thoughts there? Hopefully we can find a consensus about how to handle this. Best, Gw e rnol 17:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ducks

 * They will probably refuse your request for protection because the edit rate is too low and permanent protection of articles is not allowed. Your request caught my eye though as I have a duck mad daughter so I've added it to my watch list and will help with the vandal reverts. I'm not an expert though so I'm afraid I can't help with the article contents! Sophia  08:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted duck for vandalism YET AGAIN (this time linking to a silly hoax Snapofrocruble duck). Anthony Appleyard 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan Dare
G'day. I'm a big DD fan myself, grew up reading him in the Eagle, however please can you attempt to pad out those stubs a bit more? They're destined for speedy deletion from less DD obsessed editors. :P Jachin 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

48 states
This article is kind of dic-deffy and wikipedia is not a dictionary. Could you perhaps merge this info into another article, or add why one would leave 2 states out of the list? Please leave a note on my talk page- Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFL
Haha, no worries mate, just saw your edit to an AFL-related article and thought you might be interested. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers,  R o  gerthat  Talk  00:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Driftwood
See Talk:Driftwood for discussion on one of your edits. Can we discuss on article talk page rather than here? Alan Liefting 04:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Diving regulator and diaphragms
Hi there. I have a question about diving regulators and the meaning of diaphragm in that context. Could you have a look here and say which diaphragm article the links in diving regulator should point at? Thanks. Carcharoth 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Horse sports
Hi, the horse page is quite long, to long actually, would you object to move the sports section to Equestrianism? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like the sports sections of horse need to be merged with equestrianism. Anthony Appleyard 21:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But I just wanted to consult you beforehand because you did recently a lot of editing.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wetsuit boot article

 * Hi Anthony,
 * I was wondering if you'd mind if I were to rename your Bootee article to "Wetsuit boot", as I think that's a more common term. Also, I believe its usually spelled "bootie", not "bootee". Thanks. -- David Scarlett (Talk) 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here in England the usual word and spelling is "bootee" or "wetsuit bootee". Anthony Appleyard 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Radio
Please don't mess up the article on radio. Don't remove the relevant content. If you "must" remove info, summarize some! 134.193.168.244 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeline format in Laser

 * Anthony, Many of your recent contributions in the Laser article have been improvements, but I don't think the change of the history section to a strictly chronological timeline format is one of them. For one thing, you've turned the section into one long list. As discussed at Embedded list, this is considered poor style. Natural flowing text is preferred. More importantly, the strict chronological format disconnects logically related developments (for example, the story of Gordon Gould's patent litigation with Bell Labs) from each other. Rather than follow each important thread of development of laser history, the reader has to read through the entire section and sort out what developments are more and less closely related. -- The Photon 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that I have waded through too much "natural flowing text" looking for a bit of information, where a timetable format would have been clearer. And all the nuisance "essay style" "varying the expression" to make the job more difficult:-
 * Sometimes the date is in one place in a sentence, sometimes in another place.
 * Sometimes a date is replaced by a reference to a previous date and an addition sum to do.
 * A clear repeat of a name or date is replaced by an unclear periphrasis or ambiguous pronoun.
 * Events listed out of time order.
 * Etc. See elegant variation.

"this is considered poor style": it may be not good essay style, but "good essay style" is often hard to search through for any desired bit of information. We are writing for information here, not for prettyness and literary effect. Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I mention "preferred style" I am not describing so much "essay style" but Wikipedia style, which is developed by consensus among many editors. As I mentioned above, the Wikipedia preferred style is to minimize the use of lists within articles. One indicator of the preferred style, and the strength of the preference among other editors, is the example of existing featured articles. I have randomly checked four technical FA's and I didn't see any examples of the timeline style in the history sections. I don't recall ever seeing this style in FAs I've read in the past. Can you point out an example of an article that has been made FA with this style?


 * In this case I happen to agree that the Wikipedia preferred style is the most clear. This does emphasize "teaching" the reader rather than making it easy to search for individual facts. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information (a big pile of facts).


 * On the style issue I can see that sometimes a timeline makes it easier to find a certain fact, but really only if the fact is "what happend in a certain year"? Putting events in time order only helps you find a fact if you already know when it occurred. And the time an event occured is only sometimes the most important information about that event --- it's usually more important how it relates to certain other events, for example as a cause or effect.


 * I agree that often in Wikipedia, writing style (elegant variation, or ambiguous pronouns) sometimes makes it harder to read an article than it should be. These issues could also occur in a timeline format. The solution is to edit to improve the style, as your other edits in Laser have done.


 * On the other hand, I don't agree that your other two bullet points are problems. Often its more important that one event happened X years after another one, than to know the specific year. This can emphasize the short or long time it took for some development to occur. And as I mentioned above, presenting events in strict chronological order is not the clearest way to present them. For example, in the Laser article, the history of the theory, the history of the experimental demonstrations, the history of applications each gets grouped together in a seperate paragraph. If the important relations between certain events aren't clear from this presentation, it can be improved within the essay style. One option to clarify the chronological relationship between events in different threads of laser development might be to add a graphical timeline to the article as an image.


 * --The Photon 23:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Goad prod
I have nominated Goad for deletion, as it is not more than a dictionary definition. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aa tatton bonsai.jpg
Hi Anthony - nice pic! I've brightened it slightly and cropped off the person's arm from the right edge, hope that's OK (revert if you don't like the change) - MPF 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Image:Aa tatton bonsai.jpg

SEFA - you removed AFD template so I could not complete step 2
I had to go back and put the template on SEFA before step 2 (reasons) would save properly. Thanks to you I could not figure out why it wouldn't save -- until I figured out you had removed the AFD template. You are not allowed to remove ADF templates. Mattisse 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Goad
An article that you have been involved in editing, Goad, has been listed at Articles for deletion/Goad. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AdamBiswanger1 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Boot (village)
If there is no objection or better suggestion, I'm going to rename this article to Boot, Cumbria for the reasons given on Talk:Boot (village) --Niro5 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

de:Tauchretter: ambiguity "Er"
Hi,

I answered your question on the article's disc.-page. After all, I was the one who wrote the sentence. To make things easier, I repeat here what I wrote there:

"Er" replaces "der Tauchretter", to avoid too frequent a use of the latter. As you know, we in Germany are somewhat complicated with our language. E.g. we use the articles "er" = "he" and "sie" = "she" not only for persons, but for things as well, where you only use "it". That's what happened in the sentence you asked about. If I'm totally mistaken, Mark Twain has written about it most amusingly. Well, that's how we are ;-)

Greetings from Hamburg --Heinrich L. 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm not totally mistaken, of course. --Heinrich L. 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Southers or Volgans
You wouldn't happen to have a pic of any of them that you upload please? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anything on the Volgans?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD you may like to comment on
You seem to have been active on the article. Articles for deletion/Jabulon (2nd nomination)‎. JASpencer 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for reference
Hello I would like to request the reference material that led to the creation of M2A1-7 USA army flamethrower Namely drawings, pictures and descriptions of this device. If possible I would like to obtain copies of all material used in the construction of this model. Thank you. HellBlazed 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sermon linked from Cleidocranial dysostosis article
The sermon you linked to contains only a very brief, and unsourced, reference to a person with missing clavicles. To quote: "They flew in special equipment, experts, even a person who had no clavicles ... No collarbones" Even were the reference longer, and backed up with some citation, it probably still wouldn't be relevant to the Cleidocranial dysostosis article.

As a side note, I also removed the sermon link from the Jessica McClure article, for similar reasons (very brief, unsourced).

Kfor 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark tourism
Do you have any source for the bit you added about ancient evolutionary origin in this article?

Łańcut (vodka)
Hi, this is not an advertisement. There are many articles about vodkas in Wiki, so I don't see why this can't stay. If I wrote something that you see as advertisement then please tell me or edit the article.--SylwiaS | talk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Perhaps I should explain why I made the article at all. Yesterday I expanded the section referring to the history of vodka in Europe and in Poland in the vodka article. One of the oldest vodka distilleries in Poland (which means in the world as well) is Polmos Łańcut so I made an article about them today. The Łańcut distillery has 10 main brands, so I started to make stubs for them to avoid red links in the main article. I made 6 out of 10 so far. In the vodka articles I give only the main information. I write about the taste of it, but I add "according to the producer..." to keep it NPOV. I can write something else, but I don't know what. I tried to keep it NPOV already, so without a hint I cannot see by myself what is wrong.--SylwiaS | talk 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Flood control in the Netherlands
Thanks for your work on merging content back out to the main articles. I see your edits coming in as I write this and it's already looking much better. Klparrot 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Allah
On June 21, 2005, you wrote in Allah that in the Zabad inscription, the word Allah is spelt alif lam alif ha. But it looks to me as though it's spelt alif lam alif lam ha (see, which doesn't seem to work in Internet Explorer but does work in Firefox). Please comment here or by e-mail. EricK 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Anthony Appleyard 11:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A reading "alif lam alif lam ha" would represent a pronunciation "Alālah" or similar, not "Alāh" or similar. The vertical stroke attached to the right side of the ha, may be one of these:-
 * Part of the ha
 * A spurious lam or alif started as a handwriting blunder and continued into a correct ha.
 * Starting to write the ha with the writing tool in the wrong place.
 * The reason I asked was that a friend of mine is an adamant believer in the idea that the word Allah should not be used for God by Christians. He claims that this inscription should be read al-'ilah, "the god" (as in Greek, ho theos). Makes sense, but maybe you can give me a reference to support the reading of alif lam alif ha, with no second lam? EricK 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Religious doctrine now is not necessarily the same as religious doctrine in AD512 when this inscription was made. OK, it may be al-ilah. I have updated Allah and History of the Arabic alphabet. Anthony Appleyard 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have left that sentence which you just deleted in Allah, but perhaps modified. In any case, I'd still like to know what those who have written articles on this have to say. Did you have a source that said it was alif lam alif ha (without a second lam)? The article references I've seen don't look too easy to find. EricK 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lohamey ha-Geta'ot

 * In your edit of Lohamey ha-Geta'ot on May 21, 2005, you added "It is on the site of the former Arab village of Al-Sumayriyya." A pair of recent edits deleted this information; I reverted the deletions on principle because there was no discussion or rationale provided. However, your original text lacks a citation. Please see to this as you see fit. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just put the reference in. It is to a book. Anthony Appleyard 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Content Forking

 * Hi. As a matter of policy, we try to make sure there is only one article which covers each topic. To this end I have turned Radio priority controversy into a redirect page to Marconi's role in the history of radio, because they were both on fundamentally the same subject. Thanks, The Land 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no content forking before User:Sparkhead messed about with my recent editings. Ezcept for some duplication between Radio priority controversy and the other two, and that duplication would have soon disappeared if User:Sparkhead had let me alone to edit them. Anthony Appleyard 08:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You decided to be a lone editor and go against other editors' wishes. I didn't 'mess with your editings', I tried to clean up your mess.  I'm adding a section below for some constructive criticism.  Please take it into account.  Sparkhead  12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In my namespace?

 * This is what I suggest you do: Take the pages you want to change so drastically, duplicate them into your user space as subpages, edit all the content.  Once you've gotten it into a state where you feel it can adequately replace the history and invention pages without all the interlinked mess, start a discussion in either or both of those pages.  Let other editors review your changes and once the content is agreed upon you can submit them.   Working with the community should not be something to avoid.  Sparkhead  12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Those radio articles again

 * See Requests for arbitration.

Hi. I can see you obviously have strong feelings about this and a lot of desire to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this area. However, I would like to give you some advice. Firstly, I would strongly advise you to withdraw the RfAr you started on this matter - it is very unlikely to have the results you want. Secondly, while there is certainly too much material on the matter for everything to be kept in History of radio, there is almost certainly not enough to maintain a number of different articles. I would suggest having Radio priority controversy OR Tesla-Marconi controversy OR Invention of radio. It is very unusual for Wikipedia to have two articles detailing different sides of the same argument, so I think it's very unlikely that the two articles you have created, one each 'for' Tesla and Marconi, will last. (To give you an example, we don't have World War II (Impact on Hitler and World War II (Impact on Stalin).

I also recommend that if you are actively working on significant revisions to these subjects then you do it in a subpage of your userpage - that way the work you are doing won't be interfered with by other editors, and it won't be flagged for deletion.

Hope this is helpful. The Land 15:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthony, The Land is an admin, and he did see and comment on the arbitration page. You might do well to take his advice, which closely parallels the same advice I gave in the last section, and work on the pages in your userspace.  Once completed we can discuss in in the talk section of the history and invention pages.  People are trying to work with you, you might accept the cooperation.  Sparkhead  16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we seem to be resolved, do you want to clear the RfAr linked above?  Sparkhead  15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the RfAr. Anthony Appleyard 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Invention of Radio - Hertz
You're making History of Radio bigger by moving more information into it. That article is already too large. If you insist on continually editing without regard for other editors, and not communicating when editors ask you to discuss it, you'll see reverts again. I'm reverting both your changes. Stop editing these articles at least until the Arb is completely rejected, or the various AfD's go through. If you want to work with other editors, including myself, I'll be happy to work on reformulating the pages. Making an already too large article even large is not the way to do it.  Sparkhead  19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you've answered on my talk page, you might just want to put a watch on it so we can talk and get on the same page here. Thanks.  Sparkhead  20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Duck
I removed the two links for being parochial, not for being invalid. It's difficult to see why two NAm links are of special relevance on a world-wide group of birds. jimfbleak 07:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very many Wikipedia readers are in North America; and duck hunting happens in many countries across the world. Anthony Appleyard 09:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, duck hunting at least makes some effort to appear global, but the other site is clearly local. I know that many Americans think that only their bit of the world matters, but it's a strange logic that says that a link should be there because there are lots of us. Presumably links to local conservation bodies in, say, Africa shouldn't be added to global pages like duck because they don't have so many wikipedia users? jimfbleak 10:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Walk the Plank (theatre company)
HI Anthony,

I've had that happen to me before too. Did you basically create a stub, or was it deleted non-notable? Sorry, I didn't look... but the trick is to do two things: HTH --Ling.Nut 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't start the article with basically nothing. Play with in your user space until you get at least a couple good paragraphs and perhaps an image. More would be better, of course.
 * 2) Put something clarifying its notability in the very first sentence. Which is standard practice anyhow.

Public media
I have proposed this article for deletion - feel free to remove the "prod" if you disagree and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. --Brianyoumans 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of redlinks
There is no reason for removing references to articles that do not exist yet (redlinks). Therefore I have reverted your three edits with regards to Hang (instrument). __meco 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is nort a case of "do not exist yet". Hang (instrument) did exist, it was created as spam (advertisement), so it was speedy-deleted. I think I was justified in tidying up afterwards. Anthony Appleyard 18:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did take note of this fact, but since this is probably a legitimate musical instrument (I don't know this for a fact but the link has been on the list of musical instruments for a long time) it needs to be listed on those pages whether the article has been deleted or not. __meco 18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Duck
Interesting - I did not say the links were 404s. However I fail to see how the "Urban legend" one fits in to WP:EL and WP:NOT? I do see your point on the Falconry one - I think my brain was after bird links, so Loch looked odd but I understand I think. -- Herby talk to me 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Images
Sorry, all I have at the minute, give me a week at the most for a better pic --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Paraquat
Hi

Is there a reason you prefer using tocleft on the paraquat article? It seems rather cramped where it is. Would it be better not to use any toc template and leave it to the individual user's preferences? --Rifleman 82 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TOCleft and TOCright
I haven't really checked, but I guess you add tocright or tocleft to quite a few articles, depending on whether there's an image in the top right position. If so, why do you do that? If you think that should be the standard for all articles, make a suggestion instead of changing individual articles to your liking. Wikipeditor 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So that there is less blank paper wasted alongside the contents list. Anthony Appleyard 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blunt instrument
Hi, I don't think it's worthwhile to have an empty article about blunt instrument just to turn a red link blue. Maybe it could be listed in Requested articles? –Mysid(t) 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rogue Trooper
Have you got any old Rogue Trooper comics?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you happen to have the "Hit" series, inform me please--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the TOCright in tank article
It really improves the looks of the Irrigation tank article. I didn't know about that method. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of "tank"
Some Indian language words similar to "tak" or "tank" and meaning "reservoir for water". Do you know of any documentation for that to put in the article? I really like that and it fits with the use in India. Mattisse(talk) 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sting
Howdy, I noticed that you disambiguated Sting (musician). There has been discussion on and off for a long time regarding this possibility, but the overall consensus has always been that Sting the musician would be by far the most common use for "Sting". Did you consider discussing this with the editors at the affected articles before making the change? -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Navy Seals pop culture section
The section was removed per consensus decision of the Military History Wikiproject that popular culture sections generally detract from the integrity of articles regarding military history. Thanks for your concern but I'm only following the guidelines of the wikiproject that covers that topic. If you have an issue, please take it up with the wikiproject task force. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  05:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

archive

 * In addition, your talk page is getting very long. You may want to consider archiving it to reduce the length. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Anthony Appleyard 17:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Table in 2000 AD glossary

 * I'm curious why you put the expletives from the 2000 AD glossary into a table. It looks oddly out of place and all crammed together and I can find no precedent for it on things like the main entry List of fictional expletives. Thanks for the work on the 2000 AD entries, esp. Rogue Trooper. (Emperor 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
 * In that table, each line had 3 parts: word, scenario, comments, and so I thought it would be easier to understand as a table Anthony Appleyard 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It just looks oddly out of place as the formatting won't work for the rest of the page. (Emperor 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Invitation to join WikiProject Environment
Hi Anthony, I notice your background and previous contributions to environment related articles. I am seeking to increase participation in WikiProject Environment. I think it will be beneficial to all to stimulate a central point for people from a wide range of backgrounds to discuss environmental issues. Please put your name down if you are interested.--Alex 12:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Law Enforcement
What a weird coincedence (see above comment)... anyway....Since you have shown interest in Law Enforcement articles on wikipedia, I hope you don't mind me leaving a polite invitation to join and work with the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. Many thanks --SGGH 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

TOC
Hi. I wonder why you move the TOC to the right. The default position is the toc to the left with the text below and under it, and I would think that it is not a good idea that the TOC is inconsistent from page to page. Perhaps for really huge articles that would be appropriate, but if you have up to say 10 sections in an article, I would think one better stick to the default. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Leicester
Why have you moved the pic? It looks awful! Jimmmmmmmmm 19:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lehk query

 * I don't know how to do that, I saw the article posted to slashdot. i think with google you can search using link:doman.com but that isn't going to be real-time --Lehk 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Duck
Will you please explain why you have reverted, without explanation, three deletions I made and gave reasons for:- I've seen many of your edits, and I know you don't normally act in this way, just reverting from the hip without explanation or discussion, so I've left the rv for now because I don't want to get into an edit war. jimfbleak 13:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Of all the duck species, only the females of two species "quack". Please provide a source that most ducks of both sexes quack if you contest this.
 * 2) Most duck species do not occur in Ohio or the UK, and are subject to predation by a wide range of species. If you believe that the two fish species are the main predators of most/all ducks, including sea ducks and southern hemisphere species, please provide a source.
 * 3) The wildlife pond bit provides instructions, not the purpose of the encyclopaedia. This may be retrievable, but not unchanged.


 * Quack: OK, I have now specified "mallards and domestic ducks".
 * Ohio: muskies: someone else put that information in.
 * UK: I live in England, and the UK is a major country and not a petty kingdom on the edge of the world. Re Pike eating ducks: I saw it on TV, and I spoke with a scuba diver who saw (from underwater) a pike taking an adult wild duck. Anthony Appleyard 14:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tidied the quack bit, and I'm OK with that. I'll leave the pond for now. that leaves the pike etc. I know that pike eat ducks, and I'm a Brit too. However, ducks are a worldwide group, many living in areas where pike don't occur. It seems parochial to single out one predator in one country. if this stands, why not have lots of sentences on the lines of "in Florida they are eaten by snapping turtles, in India by White-breasted Sea-eagles, In singapore by...". Where does it end? jimfbleak 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus
Hi Anthony,

Thanks for your many recent contributions to Wikipedia relating to dinosaurs. Many of these articles are in need of care, so I appreciate your attention.

However, I'm unsure why you keep adding this assertion into Brachiosaurus:


 * However, nostrils big enough for the animal to breathe through, with the head so small compared to the body, would be so big that they would have to be on top of the head.

This type of assertion needs a source. One paleontologist (Witmer, 2001) has shown the nostrils were near the tip of the snout. Unless there is more recent evidence, cited in a paleontological paper, the above sentence cannot be used in Wikipedia. It has been removed for the second time. You are free to add it as long as you provide a citation such as a more recent study which refutes Witmer's paper. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  09:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops
I should have checked the site out before I killed that link on Scuba set. It should really be a reference type link with no text rather than an inline one, but I'll live with it. --GraemeL (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bayonet (disambiguation)
Hi Anthony, I'm a bit confused why you keep wanting to add that Baynet ISP entry to this dabpage? I've do research into it and I cannot find any places that people make the mistake of refering to "Baynet" and "Bayonet" (although there's plenty the other way round). Plus I'm inclined to think that the ISP isn't really notable anyway, given it doesn't have an article (for example could you tell me its URL?). It's worth remembering that dabpages are not there to list dictionary definitions and everything that could potentially be meant be a term - they're there to help readers find the article they intended to get in the first place. I find it very unlikely that anyone searches for "bayonet" intending to find the ISP "Baynet". Worth reading: WP:DAB & WP:MOSDAB. Thanks/wangi 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

CRS
The CRS are mentioned in an enormous number of French songs, short stories, political tracts, comic books and so on. If some of these got a mention, I wouldn't mind the song being referenced, but as it is, it sounds trivial and U.S.-centric. As a general rule, we should avoid trivia (see WP:Trivia). Any "trivia" section here should be replaced with a "cultural representation of the CRS" section, written from a socio-cultural point of view, not in bullet point. Feel free to discuss, but in the meantime, I'm following the trivia policy-guideline, and being bold. -- Zantastik  talk  05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Blubberhouses
I replaced "Its name originally meant "houses at the bubbling spring"." from the Blubberhouses page, as I had other etymologies with sources. I think you added this original text - do you by any chance have a source for it? Thanks. CiaranG 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested?
Hi there! I've seen you have been a long-time constructive user among wide areas of Wikipedia. The mop crew could always use the help of a dedicated and interested editor. As such, would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? ( Radiant ) 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "mop crew" is just an affectionate name for all admins. If you are unsure what adminship entails, I'd advise you to read Administrators; the short answer is no extra privileges (although you do get deletion/blocking/protection tools), and no extra duties (although your help is appreciated wherever you want to help, which obviously includes article writing). It doesn't matter what times you're online. HTH! ( Radiant ) 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Should I take it from your lack of response that you are no longer interested? ( Radiant ) 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got sidetracked. Anyway, here you go: Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard. ( Radiant ) 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And just a hint, you should try to give lengthier answers to the questions. ( Radiant ) 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And you should put the page on WP:RFA when done, because otherwise nobody'll notice it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Commenting out Clr template

 * On the Portland Bill page, you commented out the Clr template I put in to adjust the formatting so that the TOC didn't break the section bars which looks bad. I note you just commented it with HTML comments, was that because you were unsure or some other purpose?  I've not reverted it, as I wanted to know what your reasoning was. Let me know, cheers. --Orbling 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The caused a big blank area. Anthony Appleyard 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Walk the Plank (theatre company)
I've filed for a third opinion on this, so hopefully that would settle the matter. I would also like to remind you of verifiability, that information removed for lack of sourcing should be reliably sourced before reinsertion. Seraphimblade 03:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon AFD
Your post on the Jahbulon AFD discussion is rather unclear as to what your position on the AFD is. Please go back and add to it, with a keep or delete if you feel strongly either way. Seraphim 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you look at something for me?
Anthony,

I've posted a question in the talk page for Varangians, and I'd like to get some knowledgable feedback on it. My question concerns the interpretation of the name Harald Hardråde. I'd very much appreciate your input. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Placebo, etc.
Great work on what you have done!! Congratulations! I will look at in detail over the next few days.Lindsay658 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cundurango
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Messinian salinity crisis
isn't the toc a little uncomfortable...well, i don't really care much anyway, i won't look it up again. just thought most TOC's are right above the main content. --Sphinxridd 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Riot gun edit
Can you provide a source to support the black powder loading of riot gun munitions? I know that ammo for the 37mm M203 clones often uses BP substitutes to keep working pressures low (and I've also seen fishing bobbers used as projectiles), but I've also seen cross-sections of the 40mm grenade rounds that use a specially shaped powder combustion chamber to give a breif burst of high pressure (to ensure a clean burn of the smokeless powder) followed by expansion into a large chamber to reduce the pressure propelling the round. There's probably little tactical reason to prefer smokeless vs. BP, but BP and most BP substitutes do significantly increase maintainence requirements, due to the large quantities of potentially corrosive residue. scot 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked on the Yahoo email group "Weapons":- See:-
 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Weapons/message/18373 :-
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Teargas_grenade_guns
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_gun#Types

When a teargas grenade gun (if it is powered by an explosive cartridge like ordinary guns) is fired, does it make a visible muzzle flash? If so, how much? Please comment on any faults or errors or omissions in the files at the 2 above links.

Yes, and it can be quite large. Most of them use black powder launch charges, which cause a flash, and a shower of sparks up to 6 feet long from the muzzle. Here are some pics:
 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Weapons/message/18375 answered:-
 * http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40986000/jpg/_40986448_police_afp416.jpg
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/175000/images/_175975_Copy_of_riot_police_fire_tear_gas_300_ap.jpg
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1720000/images/_1722055_teargas_ap30.jpg

Yes and No. Some launchers do expel a shower of sparks and some don't. It depends on the launcher make and the make of the riot ammunition from various company's. I have a hardback book somewhere in my vast library on the subject called; Specialty Police Munitions by Toney L. Jones. A Padladin Press publication printed in 2000. ISBN 1-58160-087-9.
 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Weapons/message/18417 answered:-

Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Norts/Southers allies
They are going in the Millitary list on their page. BTW, do you have the Christmas prog yet?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA
I recommend you remove the transclusion of this RfA and answer the questions more thoroughly before re-including it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In particular, people want to see that you have some knowledge of administrative processes in your answer to question 1 and knowledge of which processes you would be most familiar with and which you would not be.

In your answer to question 2, people want to see reference to specific activities; for article writing, people want some links to a few specific articles you have written or substantial diffs.

With question 3, people want to see that you are reasonable and know what to if you are in a heated situation with angry people. —Centrx→talk &bull; 10:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA Question 5
Hello, I appreciate your answering my questions. Most of your answers are spot on, however I am troubled by your answer to question 5. Would you please take the time to review the blocking policy and perhaps rethink your answer. Thank you! &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Brief Note
Hello.

Just a note, when replying to numbered comments, ( # at the start), using the normal indentation method ( :, and * and etc ) starts the following number over at the beginning, thus making it hard to figure out the total count in a long list of numbered comments. In order to comment withing numbered lists, you can use #: or #*. (Number symbols, for numbered comments, plus the indentation symbol). These make indents while maintaining the numbers of the following statements. Good luck with your RFA. User:Logical2uTalk 17:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi. What happened here? --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Various people have been editing it. Anthony Appleyard 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? What does that mean? You removed it yourself! Was it a mistake or what? --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhh. Sorry. My fingers being clumsy or something. I have just restored the deleted paragraph. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 15:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was just weird. Like someone refusing to get support! :) Good luck. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD note
Hi Anthony,
 * I noticed that you added the following vote to Articles for deletion/Sorce Theory. It doesn't seem to make sense in that context so I thought you might have made a mistake and voted in the wrong AfD.


 * Delete - for lacking any reliable sources. A article like this needs to have some good sources to back all the information up. Jayden54 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

20:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Here is the problem. GabrielF 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This answer was by User:Jayden54, not by me. It appears in the compare for my edit merely because I deleted a blank line before it and that made Wikipedia's version comparer get out of step. Anthony Appleyard 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Marsden AFD
Hi Anthony. In fixing the AFD for Rachel Marsden, your comments got deleted. Do you want to remake them at Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (third nomination)? Thanks. Buck  ets  ofg 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

that pdf (on formatting references)
I don't really have the time to deal with this right now, but the best way to handle the references over at Anti-frogman techniques would probably be to use the &lt;ref> mechanism as outlined in Footnotes. That way, you avoid the distracting and out-of-place comment at the top of the article; an added advantage is that readers can easily hop from the body text to the references section and back by way of the built-in anchors provided by the &lt;ref> mechanism.

The biggest problem with the current system is that the many embedded links to the same pdf aren't helpful in any way: they leave the reader disoriented as they don't provide any context, only a bland link to the whole 3Mb thing. In a &lt;ref> on the other hand you can add more context, such as the page or chapter of the pdf where the citation can be found. &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In Anti-frogman techniques, most of the pointers to the "nlsn" page are accompanied by page numbers: see for example Anti-frogman techniques. I do not know any way to point to places within a .PDF file, only to tell him to go the .PDF file and himself look through it for a page number. Anthony Appleyard 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alicia Rhodes AfD
Just to let you know for future purpose, Googling porn stars is not a good technique to use because porn websites frequently use Googlebombing to multiply the number of hits a particular porn actor has. So, it's best to never use Google as a reference for porn AfD's. =)  Nish kid 64  22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Schleppegrell
Thanks for the link :) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA result

 * I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve.  Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request.  Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity!  Redux 13:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Though it sometimes sounds like just boilerplate, it's true that a lot of second RfAs are successful if the candidate works on whatever deficiencies were raised during the first one. I think you'd do well if you wanted to run again. You'd definitely have my support.--Kchase T 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When should I wait until before running again? Anthony Appleyard 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see others recommending three months, but you have a long history, so maybe longer? On the other hand, you got pretty specific criticism at your RfA, so if you try to address those concerns, two months would probably be fine. I'd suggest continuing to participate in AfDs and maybe some DRVs to see critique of closures there. You might also participate in RfA as a !voter, as that is a good way to find out what the consensus expectations are. I could give you a point-by-point on recommendations to improve (a sort of editor review) if you want.--Kchase T 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kchase, it was a bit obvious that most of the processes were new to you, but if you stick around and participate in the areas Kchase mentioned the next RFA shouldn't be a problem. You can look at GRBerry's RFA for comparison: His edit count numbers and service time aren't overwhelming, but he was well enough known from his contributions in Wikipedia space that his request met with unanimous support. You already got the distinguished edit history, and I have no problems supporting you if the process knowledge is there. ~ trialsanderrors 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could give you a point-by-point on recommendations to improve (a sort of editor review) if you want.: Please tell me these recommendations. Anthony Appleyard 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My advice for next time
OK, here goes. I'm largely basing this on the things in A1 in your RFA. First, I'd suggest carefully reading the policies and process guides for the areas you want to be involved in. Then get involved in them, observe and participate in discussions of whether policy is being properly applied, and then go read the policy again to form your own opinions about it. Things rarely sink in on the first read, and there are some pretty fine points to some of them.

Participation in the processes on the level of an editor helps to prepare you for performing the admin functions. If you'll be speedying articles, do a little new page patrolling to learn the criteria. If you'll be blocking folks for vandalism, do some recent changes patrol. As the last neutral said, you have to warn vandals, because they're not supposed to be blocked if they haven't received 4 warnings. I've found this tool invaluable for warning users quickly and reporting them to AIV in a snap. To proactively find vandalism, User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool is good. AIV also gives a quick guide to when it's appropriate to block vandals. In practice, many admins will block faster, but AIV describes the ideal.

Participate in RfAs for other candidates. It helps you to find out what the community's expectations are, and to see areas that I haven't noticed where you can improve. When you do run again, check out WP:GRFA and the more succinct User:NoSeptember/Your RfA. During RFA week, stick to areas you're comfortable with; a minor error can cascade into no consensus, especially if it was early in the process (I had my own cockup, but it was in the last 24 hrs). When the sting of it all wears off, go back and read the criticism again. I intentionally didn't cover points where you got good advice during the RFA.

Finally, remember that your RFA barely failed, and mostly because of some things that you did during the process. It looked like this half way through. With any luck, your second RFA will end that way. Cheers, Anthony!--Kchase T 09:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Idstedt
Hi Anthony Appleyard,

I noticed you recently created the article about Idstedt. I just wanted to let you know that you can announce any new Germany-related articles at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and Portal:Germany/New articles. That way other users interested in the topic can see them and might improve them.

You may also be interested in the WikiProject Germany.

Thanks,

--Carabinieri

Articles for deletion/Universal grinding wheel
Thanks for fixing this up; sorry I didn't notice myself. Akihabara 12:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oanda Corporation
I've gone ahead and expanded the article, with citations from some reliable sources (with pretty good potential for more, from a LexisNexis search. Would you please have another look, and see whether you'd be inclined to change your opinion on the AFD? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please append your remarks to Articles for deletion/Oanda Corporation. Anthony Appleyard 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles in foreign languages
Hi there. For articles that are not English, could you please tag them with notenglish rather than db. Thanks. --TheParanoidOne 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

stub tag
I noticed you stub tagged the article Kent & Sons. The tag is actually depricated - in the future, please try to find the best specific stub tag on WP:STUBS. Thanks, — Swpb talk contribs 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)