User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2014/January-June

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

Proposed deletion of NuvoSonic[edit]

The article NuvoSonic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can find no evidence of the continued existence of this company. Both external links are dead, the domain is up for sale, and http://www.trademarkia.com/seascout-78396357.html says that the tradename has been abandoned. May not have been Notable in any case, but defunct, it's certainly not Notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Machina.sapiens (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Anthony Appleyard![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello Anthony Appleyard:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

merging from Articles for Creation?[edit]

Deleted user account[edit]

I have asked User Casliber at User_talk:Casliber#Deleted_user about what to do about deleted user pages. The talk page may need a history merge, so you will probably be interested. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_19794758563875 edit history is User KimvLinde's edit history. I can not see deleted pages, but it looks like the account has been moved. The edit history of the vanished user shows that the edits were made by User KimvLinde's edits, because her name is seen in the edit summary of moved pages. Read the edit summary of this file-move edit. Snowman (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see User KimvLinde's talk page now, but her contributions are on the vanished users account. Perhaps, the vanished user's talk page and user page need to be moved back to their proper place at User KimvLind's account. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edit histories of User KimvLind's user page and user talk page look fine now. However, User KimvLind's contribution history (that includes all her Wikipedia article edits) is missing from the KimvLind account, but is present on the vanished users account. I presume that KimvLind's talk page together with her contribution history was moved to the vanished users talk page. I also suspect that she deleted her own user page without creating a user page for the vanished user. The edit history of the user pages are completely different to the users entire contribution history. Will User KimvLind's entire contribution history be returned to her account (and not just the edit history of the talk page) if you moved the vanished user's talk page to user KimvLind's talk page and then repaired the edit history of the talk page. There might be a different way of moving users contribution histories between accounts. Snowman (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Anthony Appleyard[edit]

Jhenderson 777 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Jhenderson 777 17:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Wizard of Oz[edit]

  • Simply stating that opinions are "close to 50/50", as you did in your decision at Talk:The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)#Survey is unhelpful. Your job as a closer is not to count !votes, but to evaluate the arguments in terms of basis in policy and guidelines. It's one thing if both sides have strong arguments based in policy/guidelines. But that was not the case here, IMHO. Please re-evaluate your decision, and, at the least, explain what you believe are the arguments based in policy/guidelines. Thank you. --B2C 23:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion had run for 48 days without reaching a consensus. Every so often a discussion about something goes on endlessly repetitively and looks unlikely to reach a decision. I have known such arguments to make approaching a megabyte of arguing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it reached a consensus; maybe it didn't. But saying the opinions are "close to 50/50" does not tell us whether it did or not. Maybe the !vote count is 50/50, but if one side is dominated by policy-based arguments, and the other side is dominated by JDLI arguments, consensus has been reached. Your apparent failure to recognize and appreciate this critical aspect of consensus determination after all these years is disturbing. The failure to make this distinction is why closers did not find consensus for eight years at Yogurt/Yoghurt, despite its presence there. SEE ALSO: WP:Yogurt Principle. --B2C 05:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just read the discussion, and I saw the same roughly equal mixture of opinions for both sides and no consensus reached, that I saw before, reaching the limit of what people can say without repeating each other. I have several times seen that stage reached and passed in megabyte-sized endless discussions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter how many times you read it, if you don't evaluate what you read with respect to basis in policy, you will keep seeing "the same roughly equal mixture of opinions". Whether other megabyte-sized endless discussions did or did not develop consensus is irrelevant here. Unfortunately, you're not the only closer who tends to count !votes rather than evaluate arguments in terms of basis in policy, so findings of "no consensus" are all too common. But usually when a closer finally comes along who evaluates the arguments with community consensus (as reflected in policy) in mind, consensus is found, and the matter is settled. --B2C 16:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)[edit]

Eric Orr and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Orr[edit]

Dear Anthony:

The above Afc submission was about to be deleted under G13. It's a copy-paste remnant of the mainspace article. There is only one edit by Huon other than bots and templates that overlaps. His edit didn't include any of the article text - just some technical tweaks. Can the two articles have their histories merged? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sherman Way (Los Angeles Metro station) and Sherman Way (Los Angeles Metro station)[edit]

Well can you please do that then? The remnant will fade away eventually, and in the meantime would not be doing any harm. Better to save some of it than nothing, IMO. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song)[edit]

  • Anthony, Thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song). As I pointed out here, the article was historically at the title Run Devil Run (song) until it was moved without discussion here (occasioning the RM). These recurring moves clearly are controversial; as I said if the result was (as it clearly was) "no consensus" the article should be restored to its stable title. Would you consider moving it back? Cheers,--Cúchullain t/c 13:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and as support would point to Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, which states: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Cheers! bd2412 T 14:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of consensus seems to show that opinion is roughly evenly divided for Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song) (treat it as one of a disambig page's alternatives) and Run Devil Run or Run Devil Run (song) (treat it as a dominant meaning). As some have said, the Beatles song is notable to many Beatles fans, even if it does not have its own Wikipedia article. If I moved this article across, I would then likely get flak from people who wanted this article to stay at Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song). I have been caught between two conflicting parties before in this sort of unresolved move dispute. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, what policy requires is to return the page to whatever title it had before the controversy began. It can not be the case that one editor can override consensus by making an undiscussed move or other such edit, and then forcing the community to achieve a consensus to undo that bold move. bd2412 T 18:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "bold move" was at 05:48, 3 December 2013‎ by User:In ictu oculi. Someone listed this move back as uncontroversial, and I have changed it into discussed, at Talk:Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song)#Move? (2). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If In ictu had started an RM instead of making an undiscussed move, as he should have considering the song title issues are all controversial, it would have closed as "no consensus". Anything other than a consensus to keep In ictu's title should have returned the article to its status quo. BD2412 is right, this kind of close just encourages editors to make undiscussed moves knowing it will be harder to undue than if they'd put it up for community discussion. I urge you to reconsider.--Cúchullain t/c 22:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Anthony, to my mind all this effort to produce an ambiguous disambiguator by removing (band name song) is inexplicable, particularly in the context of a Japanese song vs a Paul McCartney song, and against WP:CRITERIA and WP:NCM.... but that's as I see it, ....the more important issue perhaps is status quo, so I would agree with just putting it back at (song) now that all have had their say. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whichever side I support, I am liable to get flak from the other side. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you won't get flak from me. Also I would expect that ambiguating the song by deleting the offending Japanese girl group's name - and thereby going back to status quo - is the less flak option. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing above I've forked the Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song) into its own article. Hopefully that will end this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a cut and paste move[edit]

Hello! A little bird told me that you would be an excellent person to ask about fixing a botched move.

If you are willing and able to help, thank you so much! heather walls (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism in India[edit]

Splice script[edit]

If there is a "history merge" script that can take parameters, I'd like to modify {{histmerge}} so that all you have to do is click on a link to activate the script. The link would be pre-populated by the editor who placed the histmerge request with things like

  • Merge-to page
  • Merge-from page
  • Starting edit of merge-from page to be merged in (default: oldest edit)
  • Ending edit of the merge-from page to be merged in (default: newest edit)
  • Any other parameters that are needed for the script.

If I can figure out how to do it, the updated histmerge template would show an alert if there were overlapping edits and/or edits that, by virtue of edits not included in the starting-to-ending range, edits which the requester indicates should be discarded. As I don't have admin access, It would be helpful to have a copy this script to study it and someone willing to beta-test it when it was ready for testing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Other complications are:-
    1. Already-deleted edits in the merge-from page and in the merge-to page.
    2. What to do with their talk pages and talk archives and any other article subpages and talk subpages such as sandboxes and information pages. Some pages have quite a collection of xxxxx/..... and Talk:xxxxx/..... -type subpages. Sometimes talk pages also need to be history-merged, and sometimes not.
    3. In a pair of corresponding subpages, of the merge-from page and of the merge-to page, one may redirect to the other.

Blue World[edit]

Hallo Anthony, in the course of your moves you seem to have lost the article about the Moody Blues song completely: Blue World now redirects to Blue world where the entry for the song is ... Blue World. (Well, that was the case while I was typing that paragraph - see below).

If there was a recent RM it was not uncontroversial, as there was a lively discussion of this title a few months back, which is why it was on my watchlist. As far as I can remember, the song had been at that title for ages and someone claimed it was not the primary topic but after discussion it stayed there, as the primary topic for the form with capital "W".

.... Ahah, while I've been typing this, someone has now amended the dab page to link to Blue World (The Moody Blues song). And we can see there the discussion at Talk:Blue_World_(The_Moody_Blues_song)#Requested_move_20_November_2013 which was closed as "Not moved", and to which an editor added a later comment and, presumably, made the RM. Please revisit this. Thanks. PamD 08:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely where there has been a RM within the last two months a page move is not uncontroversial, and should have been discussed on the talk page? As a contributor to that discussion, and with the article watchlisted, the first I knew of the RM was seeing it moved today (and, temporarily, in a muddle). Pehaps the new song is now sufficiently notable for the Moody Blues song no longer to be primary topic, but it should have been discussed. PamD 08:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the talk page reminds me that there are over 100 incoming links to the song, which will all now be pointing at the dab page. Who is going to clear them up? PamD 08:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I now see that the editor who requested the move has updated the Moody Blue template, and the number of links is falling while I watch ... only 6 in article space just now. Good. PamD 09:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't really much to fix, a majority of the pages just needed purging as they all had the navbox template on it. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China University of Petroleum[edit]

Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request move for King Dedede[edit]

Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen[edit]

New request at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen#New requests. --Bejnar (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: article history repair for El Boricuazo[edit]

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen#New requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cut and paste move[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Academics Stand Against Poverty[edit]

  • Dear Anthony: This article was copied and pasted to Academics Stand Against Poverty. After that a reviewer edited the article, but only to remove duplicate material, and then declined it. Can the history be put back together? If not, the Afc article will be deleted within a day or two. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eye dialect may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • carful of firewood") has the main character say "Што?" for "What?" instead of the expected "Что?" (что is normally pronounced {{IPA|[ʂto]}}, not {{IPA|[tɕto]}}, as if it was spelled "што"⟩. The

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

  • Hi! Someone boldly made a move that maybe could've used an RM instead; someone else raised an RM to revert it; would you mind speedily moving this so that a new, proper RM can be filed? I'd honestly probably support leaving it at the unadorned title, but it's going to be a lot simpler if the bold move is reverted first. Thank you for your help in keeping RMT up, by the way; I definitely appreciate it. Red Slash 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is proper procedure for me, to let the RM at Talk:Maori All Blacks#Requested move run its course and leave it a week to be discussed, unless WP:SNOWBALL applies in the case. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clifford Stanley Kwan-Gett and Clifford Kwan-Gett[edit]

  • Dear Anthony: Here is another pair that I hope can be merged. The older article does have one edit that overlaps, but it is only the removal of some Afc material and comments, nothing that affects the text of the article. Please take a look and see what you think. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - have you noticed that the more helpful you are, the more work comes your way? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker)All of the work, and not enough of the thanks. Is it too early to thank you for histmerging the next pair of pages that need it that I run across, even though I don't know what those pages are yet? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indef semi[edit]

See also link at Verbosity[edit]

  • Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You added a hatnote at Verbosity saying, "See also Pleonasm". There is a 'See also' section on the page, which includes a link to 'Pleonasm'. I don't understand what the hatnote is for. Cnilep (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, me again. Your edit summary at Elegant variation says, "The matter which was in page Elegant variation and was merged into page Verbosity, has since been deleted from there by other editors." It hadn't, though. I made the merge only seven hours before your edit. If you think the merge was inappropriate, that's fine, but you may want to remove any duplicate bits from Verbosity. Cnilep (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query about a history merge[edit]

Hello, Anthony. When you did this you had presumably seen this, so you must have explicitly decided that I was mistaken. I am puzzled as to why you disagreed with me. Had I somehow missed some copied content? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the same applies at Hallyuwood. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on "Suggestion to split Guilty Gear XX/X2 updates into different articles"[edit]

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Wikipedia:Kaiperambalur listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Kaiperambalur. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Kaiperambalur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical requests (3 categories)[edit]

Hi could you help me move a couple of pages? I can't seem to request their transfer since they're categories and don't display properly in the template. They are:

Thanks if you can help! --Prosperosity (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Egyptian Revolution of 2013 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Revolution of 2013 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renderosity[edit]

Repost of Renderosity[edit]

Information icon A tag has been placed on Renderosity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 11:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Poser figures for deletion[edit]

Changed my mind about AFD and just reverted you. The article does not come even close to meeting WP:GNG. GDallimore (Talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LIII[edit]

Requested move[edit]

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there are a further four I can't move, which i don't think are controversial. OK if I list them here? Rothorpe (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Misses001[edit]

  • Thanks for your help in sorting out the Misses001 user pages. It appears that this move discarded five talk sections, and I don't think the user had seen at least the last two of them. Those sections were edited on 23 February (one by me and one be 70.50.151.11), but Misses001 last edited on 22 February. Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Heathrow Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • establishments around the airport, some having no connection with aviation, such as the Heathrow [[Garden centre[Garden Centre]] in [[Sipson]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About "AP.9"[edit]

Hi Anthony. This article is now a redirect but still has a current talk page with two archives. There appears to be a lot background to this article that I'm not aware of. Your thoughts about where to go to from here with this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At 06:18, 28 February 2014 after history-merging I left AP.9 as an article. Later, at 15:57, 28 February 2014‎, User:STATicVapor redirected it to Mob Figaz "Reverted to revision 574183942 by Qwyrxian (talk): Fails WP:MUSICBIO, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.". AP.9 is a member of Mob Figaz. I have restored the article to text and AfD'ed it, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP.9 (2nd nomination). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I get it. After checking the first AfD, I declined the speedy. I'm inclined to agree with STATicVapor that it should be a re-direct, but was hoping STATVap would take to AfD number 2 first. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Russian invasion of Crimea[edit]

I contest this move. Please move this back. There is discussion happening on the talk page if you're interested. USchick (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can undo it, right? According to this [1] USchick (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Georgia war → Russo-Georgian War (move)[edit]

I see that you have implemented a so-called "uncontroversial technical request" to change Russia–Georgia war to Russo-Georgian War. I am sure that changing "Russia" to "Russo" is uncontroversial. But changing "–" to "-" on Wikipedia is controversial. They are are not the same symbol. The former is an em-dash or en-dash (I am not sure which). The latter is a hyphen. Apparently the "–" symbol is preferred. Please could you make the change from "-" to "–". I am sure that the proposer of the change was not trying to sneak in a hyphen.

If you feel that changing the hyphen to a dash is inappropriate, I will create a request on WP:RM and we can have a move discussion. I hope this can be avoided.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Russo-Georgian War[edit]

Hi, regarding Russo-Georgian War, that title has been so contentious in the past (see latest move request in the last talk archive, and continuous debate during pretty much all the talk history before that) that it really ought not to have been filed as a "non-contentious" move. Personally, I don't object to having "Russo-Georgian" rather than "Russia–Georgia", but I believe the consensus last time round was in favour of lower-case rather than upper-case "War". Not sure how best to proceed now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest renaming, I'm sorry to be pedantic, but according to MOS:ENDASH this is a combining form and an example of where we should use a hyphen rather than an n-dash. Favonian (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, yes, this must have been a misunderstanding. I was definitely not asking for it to be moved to an en-dash version. I totally agree that with the adjectival compound "Russo-Georgian" only the hyphen is correct. My point was about the capitalization of the "w". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fut.Perf - suggest you do this as a move discussion at WP:RM. That way, whatever change is wanted can be explained very carefully and the pros and cons can be discussed by a variety of editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want any move. I was the neutral administrator who implemented the last move, after an exceedingly acrimonious series of renaming disputes that lasted years. The article finally became peaceful after that, and has been quiet since. Now, three unfortunate mistakes have been made in a row: some editor erroneously filed a well-intentioned new renaming proposal as "non-contentious"; Anthony, in processing it, apparently failed to check whether it really was, and now, on being questioned about it, he seems to have misunderstood something and reacted with yet another move that went to a location that absolutely nobody wants and nobody ever asked for. Now, feeling sort of responsible as an admin for preserving the outcome of that consensus back in the last RM, I wouldn't actually mind a purely cosmetic move over some stylistic detail (such as "Russo-" versus "Russia-", which was not the object of contention in the previous discussions), but the matter of capitalization was part of that discussion, so it shouldn't have been changed unilaterally now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh f... I wanted to undo the move to the status quo ante, but there are 35(!) archive pages, and as a result of the chaotic circular moving they now all have a history of changed redirects, so they can no longer be moved back automatically... :-( This situation is seriously messed up now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "Russo-Georgian". Whether "war" should be capitalised is up for debate. However, there is no doubt that "Russia-Georgia" is an unusual and false construction. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd actually agree with that. That aspect of the issue wasn't discussed during the last RM, so if we all feel "Russo-" is preferable over "Russia–", and are confident that's just an uncontentious stylistic correction, that's fine with me. As for the capitalization, I'd still prefer to leave it in the state it was in as a result of that discussion, because experience shows whether or not something is a proper name often is a matter of disagreement with possible POV implications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes good sense to me. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wars sometimes get every-word-capitalized proper names, as a look at page List of civil wars will show. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is currently at Russo-Georgian War. Please do not want it moving again until this dispute has been sorted out. Every time this page is moved to somewhere it has been before. I or some admin would have to delete one by one 35 old redirects before the talk page archives could automatically move along with their parent page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and unfortunately this situation is all your own fault. There is as yet no dispute. There is only the fact that you made a mistake in processing a mis-labelled move request, and performed a move that never should have been performed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does no serious harm. We should let it stand, and see if anyone cares to contest it. RGloucester — ☎
Well, it does some harm, and I do contest it. The presence or absence of capitalization makes a meaningful difference: capitalization implies that it is a conventionalized, fixed proper name. The consensus at the last move request was that it is not. I have no dog in the fight over this article as an editor, but as the uninvolved administrator who closed and implemented that last move discussion, I must insist that this aspect of the decision be respected, and not be changed without a renewed formal consensus process. The decision over "Russo-" versus "Russian–" was not implicated in that outcome, so I have no formal objections against tinkering with that (and, personally, I would be sympathetic to the new "Russo-" version myself). So, this article needs to be moved, either back to Russia–Georgia war where it was, or forward to Russo-Georgian war.
Anthony, I will perform either of these two moves myself, unless you do it first, which I would prefer. I am assuming you touched this article only with the intention of performing what you thought was an uncontroversial technical issue, so you won't have content-related objections against this restoration. If, as an editor, you do believe it ought to be capitalized to "W", I expect you to step aside as an administrator, let it be restored to the status quo ante, and file a move request as an editor yourself. If you wish to insist on your move as an administrative issue, we will have a serious issue of wheel-warring on our hands (technically, you alreay wheel-warred with your second set of moves yesterday), so I'd recommend you take it to a wider forum in that case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that much of this argument has been debunked in the recent debates that moved Syrian civil war to Syrian Civil War, along with Libyan civil war to Libyan Civil War. I have no interest in a debate, however. RGloucester — ☎ 15:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Georgian War part 2[edit]

  • To avoid confusion, am I right in thinking that Russia–Georgia war is the "status quo ante" that you want me to move it back to? What should I do if people object or bring up other issues before I can get to making the move? My move that the complaint is about, was not my idea but obeying a request by User:Toddy1 at 10:11, 2 March 2014 in #Russia–Georgia war → Russo-Georgian War (move). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Russia–Georgia war is the status quo ante, though Russo-Georgian war is also fine with me, if you prefer the adjectival form (as did RGloucester above, and I think he has a point about that). It also has the advantage that as a move target it's still pristine, so we won't have all the technical trouble if we go for that one. If anybody else should object, it's the same as with any assumedly uncontroversial move that is subject to BRD: the status quo ante gets restored and those who want it changed file a move proposal. That goes for Toddy's idea too: first, it ought never have been performed so hastily, because by the time you processed it, you already had been notified by me that it would be controversial; second, I think we can safely discard it, because it's plain as day to anybody who can read a guideline that it was mistaken. WP:HYPHEN is crystal-clear about this: we use a hyphen iff we use the "Russo-" form, and we use a dash iff we use the "Russia–" form. No wiggle room about that one, at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now at Russo-Georgian war. But a point: the status quo ante gets restored: here, if that status quo is a name already used, someone will have to delete 35 talk redirects one by one there before making the move, to let the talk archives follow their master page. Or, is there a special admin tool to delete a page and all its subpages in one action? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. No, I'm not aware of any such tool. The only thing I can think of – not as a means to fix such a mess but as a precaution against creating it – is to never perform several moves in a chain, but always move stuff back to the original point first before moving it to the next target. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. As someone who spent hours and hours reading (and occasionally writing) talk page entries surounding the name of that page, I was properly amused by seeing how, even now, it creates one page of discussion about hyphens and capital letters. --Xeeron (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Background of the Russia-Georgia war?[edit]

More sub-articles[edit]

Mr Appleyard, if I may ask, I've found many more sub-articles of the Russo-Georgian war article that need moving to be in line with the new name. There are a lot of them, more than I've ever seen, to be honest. Could you please move the following articles?

Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Love[edit]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 10:27, Friday, May 24, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hannah Arendt (film)[edit]

Okay, thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andromeda galaxy[edit]

Regarding my {{Histmerge}} request that was on Conflux (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

Hello Anthony Appleyard,

I noticed that you had "denied" the history merge request that I had posted on Conflux (Magic: The Gathering). I consider you to be the SME of history merges, but I'm a bit confused to why this one was denied. The reason I asked was due to article-subject correlation of the titles. Prior to Conflux becoming a disambiguation page on this edit, it was an article page that had a subject. It seems that what the editor who did so should have done was move the article that existed before that edit and moved it to an appropriate title to preserve the edit history; per recent disambiguation that I have noticed with related articles, the content and edit history should have been moved to Conflux (Magic: The Gathering) prior to turning Conflux into a disambiguation page.

It could be a misunderstanding on my part (so this may truly be an invalid edit history notice), and if so, I'd like to know. However, I did review all of WP:CUTPASTE that I could, and the only denial reason that makes sense to me is the fact that the version of Conflux (Magic: The Gathering) at 1 April 2010‎ might cause a parallel history issue. Is there something I'm not understanding? Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alones[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless work in history merging. It seems like whenever it's requested, you're always the first one to carry out the task. Thanks for your contributions in that area, and keep on doing what you do.

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar is awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. Mz7 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar sequels[edit]

Enham Alamein[edit]

  • Thankyou for undoing the revisions on Wikipedia. However the content is very confused and inaccurate in relation to the naming history of the village and history. I am in possession of many of the original documents pertaining to the Earle estate. Please can we work together to get the facts straight? 13:24, 21 March 2014‎ User:JAMESOWENNASH
  • Thanks. Please what information do you have? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original deeds pertaining to the Earle estate. Found in a locked strongbox just after we moved to Home Farm Upper Enham.

The Enham Trust:


1919 a 10'000 acre estate inherited by George Hughes Earle of the Cavalry Club Piccadilly 1919 Earle estate sold to the trustees of the Village Centers for Curative Treatment and Training Council (inc) 1921 License granted by the board of trade for the Estate to hold any lands required to carry out its objectives not exceeding 10'000 acres.

Enham trust was I believe registered as a charity post WW2.

Regarding earlier history, and naming,

- The actual Entry in the Domesday book is Ethan, with the closest translation being an enclosure or Island. This is reinforced by the local topography being, at the time, a hill surrounded by marshland.

- Ean Ham is not a truly translatable Anglo Saxon phrase. The only reference that I can find to it is online and it is noted as being no more than a guess.

- There is no reference in the Domesday book of sheep held as an asset

- The first reference to Upper and Lower Kings Enham (and Knights Enham) is in an Edict given by King John for the Inhabitants of Andover to collect their own taxes. Adding "Kings" and "Knights" and splitting the three must have made taxation and ownership easier to manage.

- Lower Enham became Enham in 1919 and subsequently Enham Alamein in 1945 and is in the parish of Enham Alamein

- Upper Enham (Previously Upper Kings Enham) still exists (I live here)and is in the Parish of Smannell. It was renamed in the deeds of 1919.

- Knights Enham is entirely separate and has no link to Enham Alamein other than that prior to 1201 it was part of the singular "Enham"

Feel free to mail me at JAMESNASH01@YAHOO.CO.UK (I am new to Wikipedia and still finding my way around)

Many thanks

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAMESOWENNASH (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Serge Lamothe, Anthony Appleyard.

Unfortunately Scalhotrod has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

There's no explanation as to what the connection is to the Theater, Circus, and Opera sections are. Please establish it.

To reply, leave a comment on Scalhotrod's talk page.

Not sure...[edit]

Yeah, second was mine. No worries - thanks for the note. Stalwart111 02:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“two quickly-reverted cut-and-paste attempts from somewhere”[edit]

[2]

Could you change your wording to remove an implication that I made something wrong? My edit summaries clearly indicated from where did I reuse a content, and why did I create a new page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical request[edit]

Mr Appleyard, if I may make a request, I'd like to ask you to implement the move listed above. The official name of the state was 'Hungarian People's Republic', despite this common misconception. This is evident in the Constitution of said state, as seen here. This is also evident in documents found here, detailing the HPR's accession to various conventions at WIPO. Hence, the page should be moved as a technicality, considering the present error. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another move blocked by a duplicate[edit]

  • Man, you're awesome! I thought that was a really tricky case with the histories overlapping in time and all, but you speeded through the case, cutting the knot as if it were nothing :-) Thanks! Do you enjoy these challenges? Well, I ask because I discovered that Template:ArchEnemy lacks the space only because the correct Template:Arch Enemy is blocked by a duplicate (apparently the result of a cut-and-paste move), and I can't see a way to merge the histories here, personally, because the templates existed in parallel for some months and the histories overlap completely ... so I guess the template is going to have to stay at this slightly ugly (if old-school) CamelCase title. (I don't think we can simply discard the whole history of the duplicate, or can we?) Oh, well, can't have everything, and it's a minor quibble! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the overlap was not a real problem! Thank you so much! :-D --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Korea Greens[edit]

Excuse me, sir. I think you might be mistaken for my request. My opinion will be as follows:

  1. Only vision 523247953 ~ 590826580 will be move to Green Party Korea.
  2. Another will need to be move to Korea Greens.
  3. All edits of Green Party Korea/version 2 will be move to Green Party Korea, too.

Also, see the this image. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edit[edit]

Hi - your recent edit [3] was unconstructive as it deleted referenced content, and so it has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.202.57 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust[edit]

Thanks for the page move. PamD 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GTAO[edit]

Hey—I saw that you're active with histmerges. I've been waiting on a histmerge on Grand Theft Auto Online (from User:Czar/drafts/GTAO), if you have a chance and can take a look. I appreciate your help czar ♔ 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! czar ♔ 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arlo Kay Atkin[edit]

Movie history undeletions[edit]

Gladiators histmerge[edit]

Ping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black genocide[edit]

  • Anthony, you moved my workpage /Binksternet/BG to Black genocide and merged the history. Why? I don't see any need for the new article to have my workpage expansion work in its history. Also, I was not done working with the workpage; there were further resources listed there which I expected to use in the next few days. There was also a nascent section about AIDS. Can you restore my workpage? Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:George Ho asked me at 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC) in Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So tell, me, who is in charge of whether my sandbox gets deleted or not? Is it George Ho? Who decides whether my months of big and little tweaks to the sandbox are made part of the article history? I thought I was.
My request is simple: I would like the article history to have only my intended history, starting from the April 16 move to mainspace, signaled by the edit summary "create article from sandbox". And I would like to have my sandbox restored. In the future, George Ho would be advised to refrain from suggesting histmerges from my sandbox work. It would also be wise to take a moment and look at a requested histmerge from userspace to mainspace to see whether the person requesting it is that same user. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think George Ho should have even the slightest authority over my userspace? This is between you and me. George Ho was the unfortunate interference. Binksternet (talk)
That would work, yes. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of separating sandbox revisions from mainspace revisions? To refrain readers from knowing the concept of revisions? George Ho (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
George, I don't appreciate your interference in this matter. My sandbox work included lots of notes to myself. I don't need these notes in the article history. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that suggestion would work quite well, Anthony. I would appreciate you implementing it. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, my next step is WP:AN if you don't stop pinging George Ho with regard to this question. George fucking Ho has nothing to do with the restoration of my sandbox and my intended article introduction. Please talk to me and only me about this. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kepler[edit]

  • The histmerge hasn't taken into account that some of the material began in the article's present title before being moved to the other title and then moved back again with all the other material. Astredita (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the edits in Kepler-186f were after all the edits in Kepler-186 f, except:-
    • One late redirect edit in Kepler-186 f.
    • These 2 early edits in Kepler-186f: "18:28, 17 April 2014 . . Astredita (26 bytes) (←Redirected page to Kepler-186 f)" and "18:25, 17 April 2014 . . Drbogdan (2,051 bytes) (Created Kepler-186f article - Enjoy! :))".
  • The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kepler-186f&oldid=604627134 was a merger of the two stubs, with most of the layout of the article created by user DrBogdan in the now deleted history. Astredita (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re-histsplit it. DrBogdan's version is at Kepler-186f/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. I thought the edits could have just been included in one history but thanks anyway for restoring the history. Astredita (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Frogmen Plot Faults Section[edit]

I see that you re-added the "Plot Faults" section in January 2013, with the edit summary "This is relevant to some; please discuss", even though when I deleted this section in November 2012 I very clearly discussed on the article's Talk page the Wikipedia policy that explains why such sections are not allowed; specifically, the Manual of Style for Films, subsection "Historical and scientific inaccuracies". The policy is very clear, and the precedents for arbitration on such sections are clear. If you insist on continuing to replace this section, regardless of what name you try to give it, then we need to take this to some conflict resolution board to get consensus from others. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "The Frogmen Article". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ty[edit]

Thank you again, Anthony, for your help with the page move – thank you very much! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RM[edit]

  • Hi Anthony, thanks for the move. Something went wrong with this RM, the article seems to be lost? Thanks, Matty.007 15:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put it right. Sorry :: something in the system hiccupped and my move request was obeyed 3 times. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for moving the page so quickly. Best, Matty.007 17:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for all your help today with history merges and page moves, it doesn't look easy, so thank you for being there to do it. Best, Matty.007 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved! specially for this histmerge – Thank you so much! again! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Mary Rose[edit]

It's been semi-protected for over a year now and I figured it might be safe to allow unregistered editing. Whaddya say? I'll let you know if the vandalism starts up again.

Peter Isotalo 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seal 6[edit]

  • Would you consider unclosing and relisting it? I had just made my mind that DEVGRU is the best title, and was about to !vote, explaining why (that it is an acronym, like NASA or NATO). I know it was a long time in the backlog, but it's an important article and I think it deserves deliberate consideration. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 11:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion about page SEAL Team Six had run for 20 days with a big majority for "move". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Like Me[edit]

I find it outrageous that an author who just cpied my version from somewhere else to another page (although he was able to move it) so that he can be mentioned as the user who made the first edit in the view history without mentioning me as the author of the text (like I did with the work of Koala15). So it is definatly a copyright infringement (even it was a Wikipedia text) and I hope that you don´t support such methods. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems me that Koala15 finds the way I tried to regulate the problem okay: I mean he was the user who applicated the speedy deletion, did he? --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that I could move the first 2 edits of Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) to the start of Brick Like Me without running into WP:Parallel histories, but that would confuse the history. It would be clearer to put a history note in Talk:Brick Like Me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The first option would be definatly legally the right one. Or can you edit the edit summary of the copied version, too? Than you could mention me like I mentioned Koala15 here. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put a history note in Talk:Brick Like Me.
    The first option would be definatly legally the right one.: unfortunately, copyright does not apply within Wikipedia. Sorry.
    Or can you edit the edit summary of the copied version: Sorry :: Wikipedia edit summaries cannot be edited.
    • The action that started the first edit of Brick Like Me was not a cut-and-paste but a copy-and-paste, which created a history fork, and reconnecting one of those two histories would cut the other history. That problem with copy-and-pastes has arisen many times. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Than it is time to stop that imidiantly. I mean everyone should respect the work of others and no one is allowed to call the work of others his own work. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of a signature on an edit entry in a history, means that he made an alteration to the next, not that he wrote all the page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..................... SORRY TYPO in the previous line :: "next" should be "text". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The signature means that someone made a differance between the new and the old version. So it means that someone wrote a part of a text. → And Djole 555 did NOT wrote this text although it is poorly still shown in the view history. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC) I don´t know why you don´t want to fix the problem, but this is the task of an admin. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Machine (2013 film)[edit]

If possible, maybe sort out the page history and related re the The Machine (2013 film) page - after a recent move/rename to The Machine (film) on 04/28/2014 by ip 86.173.147.245 - thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Brief Followup - all's well - thank you *very much* for any help you may have provided - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent history merges[edit]

Yesterday I tagged several pages for histmerge. Thanks for effecting these merges. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bald eagle[edit]

Hey, there are zillions of bird pages to decapitalize, unifying with other lifeforms, but this was strongly opposed by the WP:BIRD project, always. Did they give up finally? If so, where? Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Bird_common_name_capitalisation just recently. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard out Here[edit]

Usher[edit]

History Merger's Barnstar[edit]

The History Merger's Barnstar
For your tireless efforts splicing and dicing pages after copy-and-paste moves, I hereby award you the very first History Merger's Barnstar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Europeana 1914-1918[edit]

Move request[edit]

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit war over Halkomelem move[edit]

  • This is all connected to the filibuster he's pulling at the WP:NCL talkpage and on the WP:Languages talkpage CANVASS post. What's really stupid here re this is his "≠ the people" comment....he doesn't even know that there's no people by that name; this is the language of the Sto:lo, Musqueam and various peoples of southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, none of which go by "Halkomelem". This is just more evidence/proof to that he barely reads the articles he moves, and that he doesn't know squat about the peoples in question. How is it possible that a non-admin can "move over redirect" anyway??Skookum1 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out I was able to move it back myself, as it had had no edits; I'm expecting a "move war", given his conduct at NCL and NCET and in various RMs.Skookum1 (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If page X has only one (not deleted) edit, which is a redirect to page Y, then a non-admin can move page Y to X. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move any of Skookum's requests as "uncontroversial". Expert sources contradict him, as they do on most things. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folkton Dums / Folkton Drums[edit]

  • Hi! Another user set this up with a typo in the title, then moved it to the correct title (only he having edited it). Not sure how much this needs a tidy - I'll leave that to you. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mangoli[edit]

Halo 5[edit]

Moving the birds[edit]

  • I see we are being asked to move a lot of birds at WP:RMTR, due to the change in standards for capitalization. Each move may call for redirects to be updated. How bad would it be to assume that a bot will fix the redirects? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there is a bot which clears up double redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Burma[edit]

Talk:Southsiders (album)[edit]

  • Hi - I left you a note at the talk page. What's the point of having a category "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" if those requests are ignored? According to WP:RM, this was meant to be the R in BRD. I would have done it myself, but it wouldn't let me, so we needed an admin to. If you or anyone else object, then it is on that person to start an RM - from the other way around. The whole point is that when a title has been stable for seven years, and someone comes along with an undiscussed move, that we put things back as they were. I'd appreciate you moving the page back to its previous title. Thanks! (BTW - I very much appreciate the gruntwork you do at WP:RM. I'm just confused by this action.) Dohn joe (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Anthony - response to the above? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion in Talk:Southsiders (album)#Move? shows two opinions on this matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the question was one about process. This was an undiscussed move, so I put it in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section of the RM/Technical requests. My understanding is that titles in that section are supposed to get automatically reverted. Then, if someone still wants to move it, they start up an RM like usual - but from the original title. Correct? Dohn joe (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Least flycatcher[edit]

  • I'm not sure how, but this page seems to have disappeared entirely, leaving only a redirect loop. Since you seem to be the last user who edited it, I'm letting you know in the hope that you can fix whatever went wrong. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put it right. 2 admins moved it at the same time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear states, lists of tests[edit]

Portal:Molecular and cellular biology[edit]

Thank you. Coreyemotela (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Konqueror Media Player[edit]

  • Sorry, I just deleted Konqueror Media Player before realizing you had just restored it. Since it still contained a speedy deletion tag, I'm not sure what the intention is, so please feel free to reverse me as you see fit. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to have undeleted it accidentally when I was reading it from deleted. Sorry. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of hatnotes[edit]

Hello, Anthony

Thanks for your work in WP:RM. I wonder if you could do me a favor: In the future, if you wanted to add a hat note, please use an appropriate template like {{redirect}}, {{about}}, {{Distinguish}}, etc. and if you didn't find a suitable one, use {{hatnote}}. But whatever you do, please do not use the colon (:) plus italic ('') form.

Also, adding an external link to hat notes in not approved by WP:HATNOTE, WP:DAB or MOS:LAYOUT. Thanks.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History undeletions[edit]

History merge[edit]

Well, I mainly did it that way to avoid having the late edits with AfC templates left in the the history of the article. They weren't needed, since the article was already in mainspace by the time they were added. Is there a better way to do it? I like the reverse method because it doesn't involve deleting the current article, only the old fragment. It seems neater to me. Thanks for logging it for me; I'll remember that next time.
The next pair that I have in mind is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dnyaneshwar Mulay and Dnyaneshwar Mulay. The draft was edited by two people, and then copy-pasted to mainspace. The problem is that the original editor came back later and blanked the page. Should the history merge still be done, leaving the blanking edit in the history of the old draft/redirect with the AfC junk? Or will this cause a problem I haven't thought of? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Anthony. You explained the process clearly. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, I read your post on my talk page. Yes, I had read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, and I also received some advice from Jackmcbarn at VPT and from kelapstick. Having combined these with your explanation here, I think I'm pretty clear now on the technical process. Thanks again. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adithya Srinivasan[edit]

  • Most of the previously-deleted revisions on Adithya Srinivasan were deleted because they were copyvios. Can you re-delete these ones? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Many of the copyvio edits were by User:Gr8adithya, and I suspect from the name that he may be Adithya Srinivasan and that he may have uploaded both the website and the Wikipedia page, what I call "selfcopyvio". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help[edit]

Hi there. I've nominated a redirect page (Turkey-PKK conflict) to be deleted for paving the way for moving the main page(Kurdish–Turkish conflict) but the redirect hasn't been deleted so far. Can you help me with it, it complies with the Wikipedia:CSD#G6 rule but i didn't nominated it for a speedy deletion cause i dunno how to do.

By the way there was a conversation for doing my thing, you can find it in here(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkey-PKK conflict). Thanks. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much mate. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heathrow in Cantonese[edit]

希斯路 is pronounced hei1 si1 lou6 in Jyutping. My best IPA approximation would be /hɛɪ˥ si˥ loʊ˨/. Deryck C. 15:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) article moves[edit]

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. I have undone all of these Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) moves, per what I stated here. I messed up on the move for season 1, though -- forgot to put "season 1" in parentheses; so if you would fix that (needs a WP:Administrator to fix it), I would greatly appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BAP (German band)[edit]

  • Hi Anthony. It looks like we edit-conflicted on this move. I still think that a formal discussion is wise, so could you reinstate the discussion that you removed here? You don't have to undo the move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please revert your move from Bap (band) to BAP (German band)? It clearly is a controversial move because there was a previous move discussion based on capitalization at Talk:BAP (German band)#Move? that was closed as no consensus to move to the all caps BAP. I was going to contest it on WP:RM but there is no instructions on how to contest something placed in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section. I could either move it to the contested section, but it says to only do that from the uncontested section, or I could start the discussion as Anthony Appleseed Ed did. Anthony Ed starting the discussion is another sign that this is a controversial move. Also the move was not to revert an undiscussed move because there was three moves in total, BAP to BAP (German band) in September 2006, BAP (German band) to Bap (German band) in October 2009 and the most recent Bap (German band) to Bap (band) citing redundancy for there not being another Bap band. I was preparing a statement at the requested move discussion, when I noticed that you had already moved it. All in all, this was not a very good technical request. Aspects (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please discuss this at Talk:BAP (German band)#Requested move 28 May 2014. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am discussing the technical move that you made, now the requested move is the exact opposite what it should be. The article should be moved back to the non-capitalized Gap and the request should be to move it to the capitalized GAP. You should undone this move and fix the requested move, especially since Ed's support is now an oppose. Aspects (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pálenka[edit]

FeRmAt's LaSt ThEoReM[edit]

Amorite[edit]

Hi Anthony, I have found another case that may need a histmerge: Even though it is about an ethnic group, Amorite uses the singular rather than the plural as title, and I found out that this is due to an old merge and redirect that has resulted in Amorites having significant history. Per WP:PLURAL, this article should be at Amorites. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allahabad railway station[edit]

Hi there, Noticed your moved on Allahabad Junction railway station to Allahabad railway station. I would like to point out that i believe such a move is a mistake as both the Indian Railways website & the images of the Platformboard & stationboard show Allahabad Junction. Hence the page must be maintained as Allahabad Junction railway station. Superfast1111 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have moved it back and started a move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that. There is a discussion at Naming convention for railway stations in India where i have placed pretty much the same point. Would appreciate it if you could pop over for a comment there.

Superfast1111 (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and i am taking the stand that the article should be named as per what the railway website shows although it is a major confusion when for example Nagpur railway station shows as Nagpur Junction and the same thing for Old Delhi railway station which is mentioned as Delhi on the website but as Delhi Junction on images taken. Superfast1111 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pervasive Developmental Disorders[edit]

 Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you! Coreyemotela (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
P.-S. The page Portal:Hindu ideology/Intro (also from a technical move request) was not properly moved either but I manually fixed the problem. Coreyemotela (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Flammenwerfer M16[edit]

Hello Anthony Appleyard,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Flammenwerfer M16 for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Lelindaelizabeth (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DNO ASA[edit]

Nintendo requests[edit]

Zindagi, per WP:MALPLACED[edit]

  • Greetings, Anthony. Once a consensus has been reached that a base page name should be moved because the title is ambiguous, rather than redirecting the page title to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, please move the "Foo (disambiguation)" title to the base page name (i.e. move Zindagi (disambiguation) to Zindagi). This is per WP:MALPLACED, and for conciseness and consistency within the encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry[edit]

Hi Anthony, Please restore this to this title after an out of process move. Many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested move request[edit]

Sweet. Thank you very much! Яehevkor ✉ 10:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kashif Saleem for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kashif Saleem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashif Saleem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Metroparks Farmpark[edit]

  • Well, I know you know what you're doing, even if I don't. Turns out there was a copyvio there after all, though not the one that was flagged. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Al Khaimah move[edit]

Your created page is on deletion[edit]

The page Kashif Saleem, which was created by you is on deletion. I did a research and I found the subject notable. Your input on the subject's deletion will be appreciated.Hison Here (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi (disambiguation)[edit]

Thanks and please add this page in your watchlist, may be someone move this page again. Chander For You 05:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the WP:RMTR "discussing a contested request" date issue...[edit]

...with this edit. I noticed that you had been doing some formatting for the WP:RM bots in move discussions from the WP:RMTR page due to the new text not being on a different line, and thought of my referenced edit. Hopefully, this helps. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a "technical barnstar" to Steel1943 for figuring out how to edit that subpage! Wbm1058 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2014/January-June&oldid=1090482315"