User talk:Atlantic Ranter 9705

Hello, I'm UnsungKing123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to GameCube have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. UnsungKing123 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Em: Kay thanks, BTW when I made that edit I was pretty upset about all the hate that the Wii u had been getting lately, so I wasn't really thinkin. So thanks!

That seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Neither your emotional reactions, nor any of your other opinions or beliefs, are relevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emilyiship'05! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Virginity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyiship'05: Sorry, I just think that Lesbian sex doesn't qualify as auctual sex.

No one cares what you think. (And it doesn't help that you're so uninformed.) -- Jibal (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Ranter 9705: I’m sorry but that was really rude. I’m sorry for what I did, I have since changed my name and I would like to forget about the stuff that happened back then. While I still hate Lesbians, I promise to never bring that factor up when I’m editing Wikipedia articles. This happened 3 months ago I would like to forget this, so please don’t attack me and remember that this happened months ago 11:00 AM, August 22nd 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Josy The Rabbit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in my reverts of your recent edits regarding the Leisure Suit Larry and so on, I cited WP:GAMECRUFT. This is a subsection of the WP:VG/GL guidelines, which govern the content on all videogame articles on Wikipedia. More specifically, the part that applies is #6; Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing. In the bigger scope of the overall plot, mentioning the names of these characters doesn't do anything for the average reader. WP:VGORDER is another, more general section of VG/GL that touches on plots in videogame articles; Is the plot important enough to mention? Could it be merged into the gameplay section if it really isn't? In this instance, I'm not sure a plot section is really needed given it's not a story-heavy game, and this is where it becomes problematic to start mentioning characters - Does mentioning them help the average viewer understand the arguably minimal plot any more than if they were not mentioned?

You also mentioned my revert of your edit here, and the reason I reverted this is because Wikipedia deals with reliable, third-party sources, not what fans think, unless such a fan reaction has been covered by said reliable sources, and even then, one has to be careful about undue weight by adding big, or otherwise notable details that could divert from the main article in what is supposed to be a simple character description. Sorry for dumping all these links on you at once, but these are the guidelines I operated by when I made those reverts. Eik Corell (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you make edits like this, this and this again, do not be surprised to find yourself WP:Blocked. We go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight, not asinine conspiracy theories, like the one you made at the article talk page. Also read WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

If you continue to engage in disruptive behavior, the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Em you call that disruptive, so acording to you, being disruptive means to say that all lesbians are virgins, Homosexuality is not taboo, I'm Almighty, and that you can't "Become" another sexuality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyiship'05 (talk • contribs) 15:28, June 15, 2018 (UTC) modified, unsigned, by Emilyiship'05 at 15:31, June 15, 2018

Your opinions and beliefs, true or not, are not relevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockist (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Clockist (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Grimace (McDonald's) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Grimace (McDonald's), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. New articles generally need at least two (but preferably more) references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss the subject with significant coverage (trivial mentions do not contribute to notability).^{(See Rule 42)} Information that can't be referenced to reliable sources should be removed from the draft because verifiability is necessary for information added to Wikipedia.
I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on the article with minimal disruption from other users while you improve it.
When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready to be published, you can move it back to the article space yourself. However, I recommend that instead of moving it yourself that you follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template that I have added to the page. This submits the article to be reviewed by experienced editors that specialize in helping new editors write their first articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Riverdale episodes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 13:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Josy The Rabbit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. byteflush _Talk 01:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you understood what others have been saying, so let me try again. Please do not create the article again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue to do so. It's great that you're so passionate about your project, and I wish you best luck with it, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise it. The character is still not well-known (famous/notable). If some independent sources (newspapers, magazines, etc) write about the character/comic, it may then be eligible for a wikipedia article. Only then, and not before. byteflush _Talk 01:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Fat Slags, you may be blocked from editing. You cannot arbitrarily change the wording of a Wikipedia link to something you like better. It will not work if there is no article at that name. Meters (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I stop editing for a few weeks, I'm sorry, but the using the word nymphomaniac is/could be considered OFFENSIVE!!!

It's not. Even if it was, Wikipedia is not censored. Anything that is written can offend some group, so it's best to ignore it. Please take the Wikipedia Adventure Tutorial - it may help your understanding of what we're doing here much more than you expect, and you'll learn a lot on how to constructively edit an encyclopedia. byteflush _Talk 01:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither what you find offensive, nor any of your other opinions or beliefs, are relevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sesame Street English, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Currently, none of the provided sources can be considered independent coverage in a reliable source.

I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbie Dreamhouse Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pioneer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what's up with this edit? You have to know that isn't appropriate right? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry!!! (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Billy Tipton that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Billy Tipton, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I was tried and angry, so I went to Wikipedia to read about 1000 ways to lie, and of course stories about trans people interest me the most. While I know that my behaviour was inexcusable, THEY SAID THAT BILLY WAS A FEMALE!!!!!!! (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Oh and Eli said something REALLY transphobic and mean. BTW, other users have said things like “she’s not a male because she wasn’t born as one” and “she was in a lesbian relationship.” (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Not all of us have the experience of being around transsexual, transgender, gender-fluid, or pan-sexual people. I think that it is better when we try to educate rather than attack. "Eli" edited from an IP address, 60.242.30.23, that is in New South Wales, two-thirds of which is agricultural. It is possible that Eli has never come in contact with a trans person, let alone understand gender identity issues.

I wish we had guidelines like those set forth in "New Member Info". Seattle Relationship Anarchy. I hope that we Wikipedia editors would support "each other through our mistakes and triumphs. For example, you may misgender someone or say something thoughtless. Please know that if you do, another community member may gently correct you." I know that it is unlikely that the recipient of a corrective statement will apologize and correct themselves, given the diversity of culture & opinions of Wikipedians, but I do believe it is incumbent on us to try to ask for adjustments with civility. I think that attacking someone only calcifies their polarity, & it is best to try to operate with something like Nonviolent Communication.

Peaceray (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Thank you for showing the Peace in your username! (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Thyrd. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything that is not you or something you are connected to, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.

If you are writing about yourself, or someone or something you are connected with (such as a friend, family member, or your business), the following steps are different:

1) If the subject really was notable, you wouldn't need to write the article. Remember that articles are owned by the Wikipedia community as a whole, not the article subject or the article author. If you do not want other people to write about you, then starting an article about yourself is a bad idea.

8a) If the article is accepted, never edit it again. Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page.

8b) If the article is rejected, there will be a reason given. Read it carefully and closely. If there are links in the reason, open them and read those pages.

All articles must cite at least three reliable sources that are specifically about the topic but independent of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Atlantic Ranter 9705. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Grimace".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something is very important to you. And something has ticked you off at me. Unfortunately, I have really no idea what and what. Even though I haven't made many edits lately, it is still hard to guess 'what'.

I can see this edit where I worry about undue emphasis on the word 'they' in another person's edit (later changed to be less clumsy). There I mention that I personally prefer using the singular they to avoid restricting a person's identity. And I always have.

I can find this where I state that someone has claimed some particular fact without showing any evidence of that. False facts may be 'in' in some quarters, but not here at WP.

And following that line, you say "And some people like you, think that there are only 2 genders, and why is that?" Can you point me to anything I've said that in any way supports your claim? It would be useful to me to see how words could be misinterpreted/misconstrued. Shenme (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Wilthacheerleaders talk page, one of the stuff you said in your reply included,

"there are only two genders milady"

Though, it’s okay if you don’t understand. (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• link to archived discussion DlohCierekim 20:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits, treating wikipedia as a soapbox, posting threats etc.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atlantic Ranter 9705 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not a Vandal, nor was I a Troll. I simply have these very extreme viewpoints about life. You see, I’ve got problems. Problems that you couldn’t solve seeing that Wikipedia, is sick of my work. I’m always being completely honest when I’m saying how much I hate stuff. No exeptions. I think that with my help, we could fix Wikipedia for the better. I don’t want to be an Admin, I just want to help. The biggest issue in my life are my endless feelings of loneliness. They’ll just never end. I just wish I had made more good edits before I typed down that massive rant. I’m Sorry, and I will always be sorry. I am a strange creature, but I am proud of it. I just want to make someone happy. And if you were wondering who or what twisted my soul so badly. It was the media. The media did this to ME! <cries to death> Awful awful reboots come out every week! And I can’t stand it! Stop making timeless cartoon characters GAY! Oh please! Just staaaaap! Before you do it to Alvin and Turbo! But other than that, it’s fine. It’s fine if you have me remain being banned. I will behave. If you unban me, I will be a little more happier... Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. DlohCierekim 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Interesting edit summary on the unblock request. Clearly not ready to return to editing. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Legacypac: Could not be more convincing the the unblock request itself. DlohCierekim 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atlantic Ranter 9705 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven’t edited this Site in about 3 Months, and I promise to no longer Vandalize the site as “Atlantic Ranter”. If you want me to make a new account, than I will (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

In about 3 months? It's been two months and five days. Your earlier behaviour was extremely problematic and this unblock request does not convince me you understand why, nor that we can trust you'd only be productive from here on out. You are welcome to make a new unblock request but will need to more directly address your earlier disruptive editing and outright trolling. Yamla (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, Atlantic Ranter 9705. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sesame Street English".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 16:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but I cannot edit the page. Because one, it’s deleted, and two, I’m banned/blocked. (And currently, I would like to know what sex position was shown in Rocketman. Do you know? Does anyone have the mental sanity to tell me?) (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Talk page access revoked. You are free to request an unblock via WP:UTRS, no sooner than six months from today. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]