User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2015/January-June

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

Deletion of the 2nd Battalion 3rd Field Artillery Regiment article

Happy New Year Anthony Appleyard!

Happy New Year!

Anthony Appleyard,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 10:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Pérrine Moncrieff

  • Happy new year! You've kindly tried to help out with Pérrine Moncrieff, but that page now appears to be a redirect to itself. Can you please have another look? Schwede66 10:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the article is now in place. Sorry to bother you again, but what I couldn't see is the history merge. I'm by no means an expert on that topic, but expected to see Stuart Yeates' edits creating the other article (I think it was Stuart, at least; obviously, I can't go back and check). Schwede66 03:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Great! I've put a note on the talk page explaining the situation. Thanks heaps. Schwede66 08:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SAC vasanth

"11:13, 2 January 2015 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page SAC Vasanth (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasanthsac (talk • contribs) #

  • @User:Vasanthsac: Page SAC Vasanth was speedy-delete-tagged at 10:23, 2 January 2015 by User:Kges1901 as "as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See WP:CSD A7.". He decided that S.A.C Vasanth and his described deeds are not noteworthy; also the article looks like that it was intended as an advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ramdas Palsule article

  • I am surpriced to see the deletion of article Ramdas Palsule in just few seconds by you. Why do you think that this person is not notable? I had added good information with referecnes in the article but you deleted without viewing it. Is it because, Ramdas is an Indian? There are few articles in English Wikipedia on Indian notable personalities. The people like me are trying for the same, then why those are getting demotivated? Rather you should help and guide on such articles for more completeness. Coolgama (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Coolgama: The speedy delete was asked for at 11:55, 2 January 2015‎ by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This appears to be copied from here and here can you please take a look Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Pharaoh of the Wizards: @User:Coolgama: I have started an AfD about this query. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your move of T2 (roller coaster)

  • That shouldn't have been done. We just closed an RM discussion about that exact question two months ago that decided otherwise, and the article hasn't been edited at all since then to show that the situation has changed, and the park is currently closed for the winter so the coaster has never actually operated under the new name, and it's obviously not uncontroversial to move the article under those conditions (as decided in the RM discussion). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:BarrelProof: That move request (from T2 to T3) was at 21:16, 2 January 2015‎ by User:Stevietheman. And see Talk:T2 (roller coaster)#Move reversion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Understood. I'm just saying that "uncontroversial" requests should not be obeyed (without pre-move discussion) when recent RMs made the opposite decision. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Flula Borg article

Sandbox histmerge request

Closure

  • Can you please consider closing the move request at Talk:Cabinet of France? It opened 30 days ago. I've asked another administrator to close it, but he didn't. I think this is a clear case. RGloucester — ☎ 06:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Running With Scissors

Thanks. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Government of France (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Government of France (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Blackout Rugby

  • Hi I am one of the users for the Blackout Rugby game. Would it be possible to put the Blackout Rugby page back onto the wikipedia page? There's a fair bit of useful information on it (such as when the world cups for the game etc) that users use on the page. We're a community of 5000 so we'd much appreciate if the page was added back in. From when I've read it before I didn't really see it unambiguous advertising but rather just a description of what the game is about.

Cheers, Jegaggin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jegaggin (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your question at AN about Template:RMassist

Hi Anthony. The quickest way to get an answer about that template is from User:Wbm1058 who has done the recent upgrades. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted move

Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children

Move of GoodSearch to Goodsearch

  • Please note that this move was done against MOS:TM. Typically, CamelCase is permissible on Wikipedia where a company name is always typed as a compound word. In fact, CamelCase can assist our readers by making the individual words more readily apparent.
    Lowercase made-up words are normally avoided on Wikipedia, by contrast, even if the company prefers to stylize their name that way. See Talk:FilmAffinity#Requested move for a similar discussion and resulting consensus. Would you mind reverting your page move, please? – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Flip-flopped on posting this (I requested the first move), but I'm not entirely sure I agree completely with the above interpretation of the policy (especially as it's not a stylization or a total lowercase... ness? They capitalize the first letter in their company text materials; the logo is the only fully lowercase incarnation), but after a cursory search, it appears the jury is out on common capitalization even in recent sources, with a slight preference to where it's at now. I... don't really know what the point of posting this was, as I'm not contesting the reversion of the move (especially with the search showing that it reflects general usage XP), so I guess the only thing I can add now is that I'm glad I'm aware of that piece of the MOS now that I saw this? - Purplewowies (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Purplewowies: A Google search a minute ago for goodsearch OR goodshop showed majority CamelCase, a fairsized minority of uppercasing the G only, and some with all lowercase including the company's logos. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Straightener (disambiguation)

I almost had to start a new discussion on Straightener (disambiguation) to get it moved, but I am in no way opposed to the fact that you went ahead and moved it. Seeing the edit conflict caused by your page move was one of the most accepting edit conflicts I have ever run across! Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Andy Hill (Film Music Supervisor)

  • Hi, Anthony. According to the records, you are the administrator responsible for deleting the above article. Can you confirm this and provide specific reasons for the deletion? I have corrected all formatting and citations errors cited in the previous deletion, and can see no reason why the piece should not stand. I would appreciate a response that is as "speedy" as the deletion! (-; Derwydd23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Derwydd23: At 16:19, 8 January 2015 User:Cyphoidbomb tagged Andy Hill (Film Music Supervisor) for speedy deletion as "A10. Recently created article that duplicates the article A.W. Hill" and "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Derwydd23, I don't understand your confusion. The rationale was explained in depth on Fuhghettaboutit's talk page where you originally asked the question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Derwydd23: @User:Cyphoidbomb: The articles Andy Hill (film music supervisor) and A.W. Hill look as if they are NOT about the same man:
    • Andy Hill is an American music supervisor, record producer, and music educator. ... Andy Hill was born in Chicago and educated at New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. ...
    • A.W. Hill is an American writer of speculative fiction and mystery. He grew up in the Midwest ...
While I would never propose LinkedIn as a reliable source, I found this which mentions both his Elmo in Grouchland work, as well as his novel writing. Also, the photos in each article were obviously of the same guy. This might just be mirroring Wikipedia content without attribution, so I wouldn't use it as a source, but it seems to reflect that the guy wears mutiple hats. The AW Hill article and at least one of the duplicate articles contained external links to the same official website, which mentions Belgium (Brussels). His Twitter account says that he's a composer and author. Pretty sure it's the same dude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sacramento

Page move

Copyright issues and page move

  • It was an undiscussed page move and the user believes that it is nothing wrong to move Siddha to Siddha (Hinduism) only because he has created a page called Siddha (Jainism) in violation of copyrights.[2] Undiscussed controversial page moves are usually moved without discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done I have reverted this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Vemulwada

Please restore Template:Article section

You may have deleted this template by mistake. Pigsonthewing has tagged it CSD-G4, but he created the page as a redirect. I repurposed it into a working template, in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 10#Template:Sectionlink, because it adds functionality was overlooked in its deletion debate (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 27#Template:Sectionlink). Pigsonthewing has readded the CSD template twice after I declined it on those grounds, and minutes after his last revert, you deleted it. If you checked the history, I'm sure you would have declined as well. Can you please restore the template? It has already been used, and those transclusions are now broken. I could do it myself, but I want to avoid the appearance of a wheelwar. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Request - Real Time Action Technology

  • Hi Anthony, I see that you have deleted my article on real time action technology. Although I have been using wikipedia as a reader for several years, this was my first contribution as a writer. There has recently been a surge of content regarding implementations of real time action technologies but there is no content on wikipedia. As such, I attempted to write an article on it but it keeps getting deleted. I have rewritten the article in a more academic tone and am ready to resubmit but I'm not sure what the process is as my initial posting was flagged and subsequently deleted. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated.B2Btechguy (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:B2Btechguy: I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it :: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Action Technology (2nd nomination). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Anthony AppleyardAnthony, thank you for continuing to work with me to restore my article so that I can get it into publishable format. Unfortunately the window that you're providing me to make said updates is too short as by the time I have an opportunity to access the article after it's been reinstated, it's already been deleted. I have the article written so that I can cut and paste it in, but I need to be able to access the article while it's restored in order to do so. Can you please restore and then give me 24 hours before deleting again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B2Btechguy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:B2Btechguy: This matter has already got me caught in dispute. The best procedure here would be for you to submit a request in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, but as regards other opinions on the matter, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Action Technology (2nd nomination). Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Anthony AppleyardAnthony, I'm sorry this is causing you trouble. I will proceed as recommended. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B2Btechguy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pattern of mistakes

  • Your restoration of Real Time Action Technology was completely inappropriate. I honestly don't know what to do about you – nearly every time I've encountered you over the years, you've been screwing something up. I've seriously considered nominating you for de-adminship, because I honestly believe your pattern of mistakes is serious enough that your presence is more of a detriment than a benefit to the wiki. I don't believe you qualify for de-adminship, since your pattern is one of apparently honest mistakes rather than abuse, so I can only encourage you, as I've done before, to re-read and absorb every policy relating to the areas where you choose to edit, and to edit with a little more common sense, for all our sakes. —Swpbtalk 14:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:swpb: "(without even notifying the creator)" :: Reading User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Undelete Request - Real Time Action Technology will show that I did include his username in a way that would cause the system to tell him that I had mentioned him, and where. User:B2Btechguy wrote that this was his first go at writing an article, and "Do not bite the newbies" persuaded me to be sympathetic towards him. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't try to justify your error with BITE; what nonsense. And as User:FreeRangeFrog pointed out on WP:UND, that's not the appropriate course of action either. Maybe you should step away from this case entirely, since all you seem to be doing is repeatedly screwing up. —Swpbtalk 21:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes GLE-Class

  • I confess that I don't understand your page moving of Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class. The article covers two versions, the ML facelift, and the GLE coupe, so adding just the coupe code name is not appropriate. I wonder if you might reconsider? Warren (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Message to @User:Warren Whyte: :: User:Arado asked here for it to be moved, and I obeyed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry , i thought it was better to start an article only about a car that has already been unveiled. The M-Class facelift is due probably late only this year,but the Coupe is already unveiled. So when the M-Class facelift is unveiled, the redirect from Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class can be removed and you can write an article on that one. It should be like Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W222) and Mercedes-Benz S-Class (C217), only that in this case, the coupe was unveiled before the SUV facelift. You can move Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class to Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class (W166). We need the codes in order to differentiate between coupe and normal SUV. There cannot be one article for two different cars.--Arado (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • New move to Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class (W166) request  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Arado: It's a shame you have made it so complicated. You have ignored common name policy, and no reason why two body shapes could not share an article (as they do in pretty much every other car related article!) The requested move wasn't mentioned in the talk page, so what was the rush? Warren (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Warren Whyte. There was no rush. I apologize for ignoring naming policy and for not mentioning it in the talk page. I should have done it before requesting move. But they are 2 different vehicles, even though very similar (exactly the same situation with BMW X5 and BMW X6. They are technically the same car, but the body is different, but BMW was wise enough not to give them the same name. The fact that the 2 GLE versions use same name makes it only more complicated, that is why i thought it is better to differentiate them by vehicle code. And the W166 GLE is still in prototype testing phase, so does not officially exist yet.--Arado (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Warren Whyte and @User:Arado. For now, we need just one article: Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class. I'd put the W166 details mainly at Mercedes-Benz M-Class#W166 as it is merely a facelift of that car (and thus a rebadge). A brief mention would also be welcome at Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class. Coupe information would be best contained within the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class article. I do not believe generation articles are required at this stage as there has only been one generation. Mercedes-Benz M-Class covers three generations of one model; separate pages are unwarranted given the lack of details noted under each section. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

deletion of new material without proper justification or attempts at editing it for suitability

  • Anthony Appleyard why did you delete the Mountain Gate, Arizona page? I did not get a chance copy the material down that I had wrote to improve the article further. Instead all the content is gone. Please send the content back to me as I spent a some time on it. Also, explaining a neighborhood within a community is not new to wikipedia and is done in city articles all the time. If you think it sounds like an add or promotion then you should help me improve it so it only gives factual data instead of just deleting it within hours of me posting it. Please send me back the content of the article if you wish not to help me improve it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb enfilade (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Reb enfilade: Reddogsix speedy-delete-tagged it as advertisement, so I deleted it. It is now at Mountain Gate, Arizona. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:MCI Management SA

  • If a user was asking for the page to be undeleted, why didn't you take it to WP:REFUND or WP:DR instead? Listing it at MFD makes no sense if you want it to be undeleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. We live and learn. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Souni-Zanakia move

It's run for over a month (since Dec 16), Anthony. Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Bahamut (website)

Hello! You deleted the article Bahamut (website) because it is "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The website is ranked 27th in Taiwan in alexa,[bahamut 1] and it's THE largest video game website in Taiwan, even in Chinese language video game industry.[bahamut 2][bahamut 3] Western media might not interested in Chinese websites, however I can't believe it's not important. Regards.--QQWWEE112244111155 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources
  1. ^ gamer.com.tw. Alexa. "Global Rank 1,066 Rank in Taiwan 27"
  2. ^ 華義今年主攻手遊　月推1款衝業績. Apple Daily. "台灣最大電玩社群網站-巴哈姆特"
  3. ^ 《Final Fantasy XV》 傳奇技工「席德妮」登場. udn.com. "《巴哈姆特》是...目前華人區最大的遊戲社群暨資訊網站"

Leo Stolz

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Teahouse logo
Hello! Anthony Appleyard, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! →Enock4seth (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests: Pansexual pride flag

  • Regarding this, what do you mean "1 WAS ALREADY DONE, DONE 3"? The Pansexual pride flag matter was not "done," and it is still isn't "done." It was a copy-and-paste move that needs to be fixed with a WP:Histmerge, as I explained there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Flyer22:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if I came across as frustrated; I was, but mistakes happen. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kashif Saleem concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kashif Saleem, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:MaranoFan

  • Hi Anthony. Any reason why you've deleted this user's talk page? --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:NeilN: At 05:56, 20 January 2015 MaranoFan replaced his talk page's contents by "{{db-user}}", and at 05:56, 20 January 2015 he extended this to "{{db-user|rationale=I am leaving Wikipedia and would like this page deleted too.}}" (I have now undeleted it. He seems to often have deleted messages from his user talk page.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Talk pages are not usually deleted without very good reason, even if the editor asks. The user is still editing and is the subject of a SPI. Thank you for the undeletion. --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Naturalopy

Hello,

You deleted the "Naturalopy" article 20 minutes into its first draft. I have no qualms about your editorial decision. However, since you have removed the article, please remove all references to "Naturalopy" from Wikipedia. I have 21 books on iTunes and Google Play (google: naturalopy) on the subject. I also own the trademark.

Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungedm (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • At 08:54, 20 January 2015 a user (not me) speedy-delete-tagged it for:-
    1. G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes
    2. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
    3. A1. No context
    4. A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)

I’ve consulted with an attorney and here is the gist of what she said:

1. This is a clear case of cybersquatting or misuse of a trademark.

Using a domain name or trademark with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. There is nothing on the page that assists users about the subject, good or bad.

Any future economic loss or loss of goodwill can be attributed to the Anthony Appleyard and Deunanknute and the Wikipedia Foundation. This could be significant since the link is #1 on Bing and #3 on Google.

2. Clear failure of editorial duty by Anthony Appleyard and Deunanknute to review the work in question. It took them 20 minutes to mark the file for deletion. Moreover, no citation, references, or links to support their G3 reason. Just repetitively quoting the G3 criteria.

3. Baiting. Luring users into a page without information about the subject, causing loss of goodwill, time, and confusion to the user.

These are two viable options:

1. Remove all references of “Naturalopy” from Wikipedia so search engines can no longer link to it.

2. Leave the page up, but provide proper critique of the work citing sources, references, and other material, per Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines. If you think the work is garbage, that is perfectly fine. Provide reasons as to why you think so, per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

3. Do nothing. I have always donated to wikipedia in the past when asked, but no more. Furthermore, I will encourage everyone I know through social media and website to never donate to Wikipedia again. When this influence reaches 10,000 or more, I will let your superiors know about it.

Best regards.

04:38, 21 January 2015‎ User:Trungedm

User:Trungedm

I must have been getting the details for my Admin notice while you posted yours. Thanks for the help. Deunanknute (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

History merges

Afghanistan rename

  • Did not see a reason for your move of the request to the talk page of that article because a three-week discussion already happened and ended with a majority in favor of the move? Making an official request now at the talk page is highly redundant at this point. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:EkoGraf: Someone put a new move request in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests about page War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and I felt doubtful about obeying it as uncontroversial, so I transferred it to discussion. The matter centers on whether that war ended in year 2014 (now last year) and a new war started, or whether the same old war continued. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a discussion, at the article's talk page, and in the end 11 vs 3 editors agreed based on sources that the war ended. And the opposing editors made no more objections after they were asked if they still had them. Not seeing how its controversial? EkoGraf (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:EkoGraf: Oh, the discussion in Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#The war is over, although this was not a headed discussion listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves. I better let the new discussion run a day or 2 more. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. EkoGraf (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

PEGIDA

  • You have moved Pegida to PEGIDA but on the talk page of this article/survey re page move to "pegida", there seems to be a consensus for Pegida. JimRenge (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:OccultZone: See Talk:PEGIDA#Requested move 22 January 2015. Again I was caught in a running dispute with people submitting a move request both as uncontroversial and as controversial, so I obeyed the last move request, which was a "please put it back where it was" move request, and I also started a move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • George Ho had made this request in good faith, I have no problem if he deemed it non-controversial. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Universal Congress of Esperanto

Hi Anthony Appleyard,

Could you move World Congress of Esperanto to Universal Congress of Esperanto? This is the literal translation, as well as the more common term in English (Google Books search results: 1460 for "Universal" title and 869 for "World" title). There is also an unaddressed request on the talk page for the same move. Thanks!

Sonĝanto (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rv'd this and another move. Normal translation of universala is "world", and that's used by the orgs themselves. Yes, lots of people are mislead by 'false friends', but that's not encyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Trivikram Srinivas project

Thanks for clearing this up after my misjudged move (and someone else's unreliably-sourced move before mine, and the cut-and-paste move someone else did afterwards which I cleared up ... quite a chapter of accidents to add to the basic weirdness of a film due for release next month with no official title as yet!) I'm sorry I created the problem - I should just have reverted the initial move as unsourced. PamD 15:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

recreation of Ché Aimee Dorval Page

re: Ron Burman Wikipedia entry

Hi Anthony - Filing a request to un-delete the Ron Burman page from the last few months. I will try one more edit and submission - Burman is an important figure in the field of A&R and pertinent to understanding the U.S. business management of Nickelback.... I filed a similar request on the page's Talk but it was deleted nonetheless Scottmcph1999 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yung Stet deleted article revised

  • Hello Anthony, I noticed that you deleted the article about musician [[yung stet]]. I have reviewed the article further and added more to the article.I was also told the article is much better now as well. I have included other notable artists, producers, music networks to the article as well that the artist has worked with. I also noted the major networks the artist material is a part of and etc. When you are able, please take a second look and consider to undelete the article. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks Topdog2014 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Topdog2014:  Done see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Stet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Anthony and I also just did some updated edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topdog2014 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also will the AFD tab be removed fom the page later or should I just remove it? Topdog2014 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Topdog2014: That the page was speedy-deleted, shows that someone saw grounds for deleting it, as the page was then. If the page now is good quality, it should survive AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Inch Abbey railway station

  • This move was done twice, once by User:Welsh and once by you. It appears that the talk page was already set to be a redirect even before the first move. I have over-written the current talk page (a circular redirect) with a WikiProject banner. can you please check that nothing was deleted or moved elsewhere to make way for these moves? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC).
  • @User:Rich Farmbrough:
    Talk:Inch Abbey railway station has 3 deleted edits: they are 2 calls of template WikiProject Trains, and a page-move.
    Inch Abbey railway station has 3 deleted edits: they are all redirects.

deletion in Wikidata

Hi, Anthony Appleyard. Thanks for your work on the page history merge. But when you temporarily delete a page during the history merge, its link in Wikidata will be also automatically deleted (see, e.g., this edit). Would you please re-add the link to Wikidata item after the history merge is completed? You may check your contributions in Wikidata to see how many links have been deleted. Many thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sveti Lenart, Železniki listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sveti Lenart, Železniki. Since you had some involvement with the Sveti Lenart, Železniki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Eleassar my talk 17:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Don (character ) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Don (character ). Since you had some involvement with the Don (character ) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Away team (disambigtuation)

I would ask at WP:RM/TR (Away team redirects to Away team (disambiguation), per WP:MALPLACED this should be reversed), but there is a move discussion at Talk:Away team (disambiguation), along with some slow edit warring at the Away team redirect. Since you're uninvolved in that discussion, I think that you could close it (it's been open 9 days) and if any edit warring continued, it could be dealt with swiftly. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Heathrow OS map

  • Greetings, Anthony. Am I correct in assuming that you uploaded the OS map image which covers the area of Heathrow, viz. File:Heathrow Before World War II Map.jpg. Do you possibly have a version which included both ends of General Roy's baseline? If so could you possibly put it up on Commons. I could then make a version which brought out the baseline by simply editing on a heavier line. I would like to add it to a new page that I am constructing at Anglo-French Survey (1784–1790). Many thanks. Peter Mercator (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Peter Mercator: See File:General Roys Baseline.jpg :: is that any use? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your prompt action, that's just what I wanted. I may make another version with the outline of the the airport superimposed, but editing expands to fill the universe. Peter Mercator (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

By the Throat

Anthony, I've got another fun one for you. By the Throat (Eyedea & Abilities album) was an article about an album by Eyedea & Abilities from 2009 until December 2013. It was then copy/paste moved to By the Throat, which was a disambiguation page (there's also an album of the same name by Ben Frost, along with a few songs of the same name (no links)). A month later, the (disambiguation) redirect was turned into a disambiguation page, since the base title had the E&A album at it.

Yesterday, the Eyedea & Abilities album at By the Throat was moved to By the Throat (Eyedea and Abilities album), and the base title By the Throat was turned into a second disambiguation page (By the Throat (disambiguation) was still a disambiguation page). Today I redirected the (disambiguation) title to the base title before I researched this.

My reason for bringing this to you is that there probably should be a history merge of some type (I'm not sure exactly how it would go). My take is that the end result should have the Eyedea & Abilities album at By the Throat (Eyedea & Abilities album) (since that matches the actual name of the band), have By the Throat (Eyedea and Abilities album) redirect to By the Throat (Eyedea & Abilities album) (or delete it) and leave the disambiguation page at By the Throat, with a redirect to it at By the Throat (disambiguation). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monochromacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fovea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Julep Beauty and Julep

  • Dear Anthony: This draft appears to have been copied, improved and pasted into mainspace over a redirect that you created years ago about another topic. I'm pretty sure the correct thing to have done in the first place would have been to delete the old redirect and then move the page to that name. Would it be proper to do a history merge, leaving the two old edits in the mainspace article deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Anne Delong:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

!!!!

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gaming the outcome of a requested move.
By the way, would you consider fixing the talk page archives? They are now attached to the new article, rather than the old article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:2014 Odessa clashes/Archive 1 (there are more). These should be attached to the 2 May article, not the 2014 article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. What about the Talk:2014 Odessa clashes edit history? It seems that that should be attached to the old article, 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, as well. That stuff isn't about the new article, but about the old article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did request the logs to be moved to "May 2014 Odessa clashes" because extra precision is discouraged. Sole oppose wanted "2" to stay; many at RM wanted removal of "2". --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's for a different article. The precision is not "extra". It is the long-standing title, and it is only about clashes on 2 May. ~ RGloucester — ☎
Could you at least revamp the article then to be about the month's clashes? Also, you can propose renaming 2014 NYPD officer killings if you wish, but that would lead to nowhere. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't deal with American articles. They are distasteful. I'd delete that article on the spot. A summary execution. I shan't expand the article. It must retain the present title, as it has done, and always will do. For eternity, it is the article about the 2 May clashes, not about the non-existent "May clashes". RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Existent or not, the accurate title should not be too precise. Voters said so in RM, even when they weren't aware of December bombings. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
What is "too precise"? I'm sorry, but in normal English speech, when an event is limited to one day, we refer to it by that day. When we write letters, we write the date at the top, including the day. We do not write "May 2014" at the top of letter sent on "2nd of May 2014". It just doesn't make sense. It is non-standard, imprecise, and often wrong. It does not define the scope of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
...Let's discuss this at your or my talk page. I'll request a page move at another time. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

...malformed title for Super Halcón, Jr. that you had to deal with. Thanks for handling... Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Henry Peacham (born 1578)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Henry Peacham (born 1578), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Henry_Peacham.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kashif Saleem

Hello Anthony Appleyard. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Kashif Saleem".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Kashif Saleem}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For all your work with History merges. — kikichugirl speak up! 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No Original Research Noticeboard Discussion for The Frogmen

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page: Sphere 3D

Hello Anthony Appleyard. I'm curious as to why you deleted the page Sphere 3D [3] and marked it as "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I have no dog in this fight, but I think this is a huge mistake.

Sphere 3D competes with Citrix, EMC, VMware and several others in the Information Storage and Virtualization sectors - all of which have Wikipedia pages.

Sphere 3D recently purchased Overland Storage (this page even has a link to the deleted Sphere 3D page) and Tandberg Data.

Per Wiki guidelines, there are plenty of credible third-party sources with information about Sphere 3D: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q="sphere+3d"

I think the page should be restored.

14:28, 23 January 2015 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Sphere 3D (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Minnesconsinite (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page disappearance

  • Hi, somehow the talk page of Nike, Inc. disappeared when it got moved and then moved back. Can you figure this out and fix it? Here's the complete talk page as it should be, with its lengthy edit history: [4]. Here is its last iteration before any moves [5]. I'm not even seeing a difference in URLs, so I can't figure out what happened. Anyway, can you restore the complete Talk page? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC) EDIT: The issue seems to be that the period after the "Inc" fell off the Talk page title (but not the article title) during or after one of the moves. The period needs to be replaced on the title of the correct Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Softlavender:  Done: It was at Talk:Nike, Inc without the fullstop. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracking page move request

  • Hi, on 11 February 2015 22:42 you processed the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section of the WP:RMT page. There were 8 requests at that time. You did 6 of them, but only 1 remained, so 1 disappeared (for Bow shock): where did it go? 130.179.72.179 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Bow shocks in astrophysics. User:130.179.72.179 added it while I was working on the list. Sorry. Thankyou. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks. I have now re-structured the page and checked the linked pages. 130.179.72.179 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Series of page moves today

  • Hi. Can you please revert the pages you moved earlier. Of course they're going to be controversial - what news sources use the term "Great Recession" referring to the economic crisis of the last few years? An anon IP is pushing an agenda. The pages/revert requests are listed here: Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. Thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. The name has some currency, as a google search shows, but is only (afaics) referenced in Great Recession to a single headline in Forbes Magazine. A problem with using the term internationally is that the recession, a strictly defined term in economics, had significantly different timings in different countries. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

History merge

Tincture of Cannabis

Hello Anthony Appleyard,

Could you possibly make the "c" lower-case in the title of Tincture of Cannabis? The most common way on Wikipedia to refer to the drug is "cannabis", and the title should reflect that.

Thanks,

Sonĝanto (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sonĝanto (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Thanks

I did not catch that it was spelled incorrectly in the genus article. Usually I just paste for my reference searches, but, since it was such an easy specific epithet, I did not, and it did not occur to me to check where I got the red link. Good job for doing the extra checking and correcting. MicroPaLeo (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Posttraumatic stress disorder

Hi Anthony. You recently carried out a request to move Posttraumatic stress disorder to Post-traumatic stress disorder. That is a controversial move as it moves the article away from the name used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which pretty much defines the name used for all mental disorder articles on Wikipedia. Would you please move it back to Posttraumatic stress disorder as we really need substantial discussion to use other than the DSM title. I'd be happy to have the discussion on the PTSD talk page. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Troy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Abdur Rahkman

  • Is this not real?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Bbb23: It still looks not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bbb23: This was my mistake. The article looked like a copy of a different article with just the name changed. I hadn't heard of the player (I haven't followed UM's most recent games), so I tagged it G3. I should have tagged it with a different rationale. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's up to you, Anthony, but if you think it should be deleted per A7, then you should restore it and delete it again with that criterion. Having an article deleted as a hoax when it's not a hoax casts an unfair aspersion on the author.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Abdur Rahkman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It wasn't necessary to take it to AfD unless you thought it did not qualify per A7. Just so you know, I generally stay away from deleting sports articles tagged with A7 because it's one of those niches where it pays to know and understand the notability guidelines, and I always have trouble with sports guidelines. Anyway, you'll get people who are knowledgeable about such guidelines at the AfD, and I'll follow along. Who knows - I may even learn something, although I doubt it'll stick. I think it comes from being an old-fashioned geek. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Another history merge

Abbey Brewing Company

  • Hello Anthony Appleyard, I want to draw your attention towards article Abbey Brewing Company. I am not sure why is this notable expect for one claim that "it is the first American monastery brewery founded since before the Prohibition Era". I had nominated the article for CSD but was declined citing "add ref for first in US". The company was founded in 2005, 70 years after the Prohibition Era and am still not sure why should this have an article on Wikipedia. Once bitten, I am not putting this for AfD. May I request your inputs please. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:AKS.9955: Unfortunately, I live in England and I am teetotal, and I know little about American breweries. Some people may consider this brewery to be notable. If you think that this article's notability is queryable, then AfD it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Anthony Appleyard, I don't want to get into an unpleasing confrontation with anyone and hence I thought I should check with you first. If your judgment is that some people might find it notable, then I will rest my case. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RM closure

Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 05:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
While I understand why you did the move to the "old version" title, Is there any reason why these redirects were moved? Shouldn't they be deleted? They don't even have an edit history. In addition, it appears as if Talk:Gravity (old version)/Archive 1 should be history merged with Talk:Gravity/Archive 1. Unlike the other two, this was a cut-and-paste merge to that archive. I also wonder if a history merge between the old version gravity page and the gravitation page is possible. It seems that the gravity page was previously text merged into the gravitation page. Either way, I feel like this mess should be tided somewhat, as much as is possible. RGloucester — ☎ 06:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Mr Appleyard, I think there is a history merge that is possible and should be done. I've figured out that Talk:Gravity/Old is actually the talk page of the original article Gravity (old version). The edit history of Talk:Gravity/Old is from 2004, before Talk:Gravitation (now Talk:Gravity, created with this 2005 edit) existed. I'm certain that Talk:Gravity/Old's history should be merged into Talk:Gravity, as Talk:Gravity/Archive 1 is an archive of Talk:Gravity/Old. RGloucester — ☎ 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much cleaner. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging

Hallo Anthony, the @[[User:PamD]] in your edit to Talk:Passed (band) did not create a notification for me. I think if you had used @{{User|PamD}} it would have done so, or {{ping|PamD}}. There are a confusing number of subtly different templates for identifying users, and I don't know whether there's a helpful list anywhere to show their comparative effects and which ones generate a notification.

I only spotted that talk page discussion because I (a) had the RM page watchlisted, (b) saw that you'd removed the proposal and another with a note "discuss 1, done 1", (c) found that N-rule had been moved so concluded that Passed (band) hadn't been moved and wasn't going to be, (d) looked at your contributions list to find that talk page. PamD 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete

List of Nike sponsorships

  • Would you please consider permanent semi-protection of List of Nike sponsorships? You created it as a redirect back in 2013 because "There were 1070 attempts to access this page in a week." I split off the overwhelming sponsorship data from Nike, Inc. ten days ago into that article space, because the data was taking up more room than the actual article text. Since then, IPs have been deleting stuff from List of Nike sponsorships almost daily (including section blanking), always with no explanation whatsoever. Since there is no official list of Nike sponsorships that I am aware of, there is no easy way to confirm these random unexplained deletions. I'd rather have any IPs wanting edits to provide explanations and citations instead of possibly vandalizing at will. Anyway, if it could be permanently semi-protected, that would help a lot. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

John D. Rockefeller Jr. and others

Can you point me to the discussion for the move from "John D. Rockefeller, Jr." to "John D. Rockefeller Jr." The majority of the incoming links use ", Jr." and I believe the MoS harmonizes on ", Jr." You say it is based on a discussion, but I do not see it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The discussion for WP:JR was at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Comma after "Jr.", "Sr.", etc.? and has links to other areas of the MOS. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, seven people !voted on a major style change with a 5 to 2 split. 20:56, 25 February 2015‎ User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

John D. Rockefeller Jr. and others : end of list

These were not controversial when done, and there's still no indication that the guidance on these will be changed; if it, then they can be moved again. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dohn joe:: I thought that the matter had been settled as "leave the comma out", and now it seems that it is not settled. That is about 60 articles to move, and the titles are clearly understandable with or without the comma, and I would prefer to leave them where they are until the dispute about policy about this comma has been settled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand that Anthony. At least now we have a list all in one place if we need to revisit. And in the meantime, I would ask that you not process any more similar moves until the guidance is more settled. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
      • No matter what happens with the guidance, many of those will not move back, since the moves were undoing of unilateral addition of comma to names that don't normally use it; for example, in the Category:Mexican_male_professional_wrestlers, the Jr. suffix is very common and almost never appears with a comma. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello Anthony. The comma debate finished with the result that using or omitting the comma are both acceptable. I've been restoring the titles to their previous status quo, but there are two I was unable to. Would you please move William Ray Norwood Jr. to William Ray Norwood, Jr. and J. J. Walser Jr. Residence to J. J. Walser, Jr. Residence? I would appreciate it. Dohn joe (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the J.J. one per WP:JR. I've added the following comma to close the appositive, as required by WP:JR. RGloucester — ☎ 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Those can stay where they are. I am not aware of any names that need a comma removed at the moment. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dohn joe, Dicklyon, and RGloucester:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Anthony. I would also appreciate it if you treated future "uncontroversial" requests to add or remove a comma to Jr./Sr. titles as controversial. The MOS allows for both styles, so there needs to be a good reason to move an article in either direction. Thanks again - and thanks for all the work you do. Dohn joe (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Queensgate bus station

I have replied at Talk:Queensgate bus station. I hope that it addresses your concerns. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves of "Islam/ic" to "Muslim"

Documentation page move

  • Hi, Anthony. Could you perform this move? The page has been tagged for 31h, but it seems it's gone unnoticed. Alakzi (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Phir Se film

Deletion: Oregon Senate Bill 166

Object

Page move

  • Can you move Boosie Badazz back to Lil Boosie? Its a controversial move that needs to be discussed first. Thanks. Koala15 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Koala15:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Is this matter still considered controversial? He changed his name back in October of last year and his first album under his new moniker was released this week. sixtynine • speak up • 02:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Last Dragon (2004 film).

  • I note that, in this diff you re-instated the overlong plot at The Last Dragon (2004 film).
    The generic rule of WP:FILMPLOT "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" - has been discussed on the talk page. Currently the synopsis is 2615 words - so is 4 times too long.
    Several editors, including 2 sysops, User:Materialscientist and User:JzG. have repeatedly tried to control the length of this synopsis. Can you please explain why you feel this plot should be so long - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Arjayay:: As I noted in the edit comments, some readers want this information, if it is not easily available in full elsewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That argument could be made about almost any synopsis - so there seems little point in having any guidelines at all. PS "ping" isn't currently working Arjayay (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's not easily available elsewhere is a massive red flag. It's not there because it's in-universe trivia that most sources consider not relevant and not supportable. It is also fundamentally unsourced (personal observations) and massively over-long, written in essay style ina din sundry other ways not appropriate for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Arjayay:: Often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. For example, I have no interest in football, and I skip over it in the newspaper, but I do not go around Wikipedia deleting football articles, because I know that some other people want to read them. There will always be inclusionists versus exclusionists. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Hill (film music supervisor) (part 2)

Hi, Anthony Appleyard. I'm not sure where to take this since it has a bit of a convoluted history. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Hill (film music supervisor) received a non-admin closure to merge Andy Hill (film music supervisor) and A.W. Hill into Andy Hill (American composer). It appears as though you moved it to Andy Hill (American music producer) with this edit, User:Steel1943 moved to Andy Hill (American composer) this edit, and User:Ghostrider51 - who is the subject of the article - moved it back to Andy Hill (American music producer) with this edit. While I have no strong opinion on the name of the merge target, I am wondering what now should be done with A.W. Hill. Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of clean-up is necessary, but I essentially copied and pasted the writer's biography to a subsection in the musician's biography. - Location (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WILV

Hi

I see you did a histmerge of the WILV article... care to have a look at Talk:WILV#Requested move 3 March 2015?

My interest is not just in this article but in the use of callsigns as article names generally. We frequently get RMs such as this one which blatantly ignore policies and guidelines (WP:BALL in this instance for example).

The appropriate WikiProject I'm sure is doing a good (and huge) job overall, and their practices make sense mostly, and I don't want to hinder them and fall foul of WP:IAR and WP:BUREAUCRACY. But... well, I think there's room for improvement and I'm not quite sure how to help.

There's been some discussion already, see Talk:WBRN-FM#Move closure for example (but warning.... long discussion with long posts). Andrewa (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Stasi Records Agency

I see that you corrected the loss of editor audit trail after I renamed this entry. I note that if ever I need to rename a page again, I need first to locate and digest various wiki-guidelines and/or wiki-rules. But (and THIS, is really my principal purpose in contacting you here) thank you much. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Rain in England

Hi - the request was to revert an undiscussed move, per WP:BRD, and as specifically allowed at WP:RM. If the original mover wants to start an RM, that's up to them, but it should be moved to its original title in the meantime. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony - I appreciate the prompt action. And if you disagree with the current setup, feel free to start the RM if you wish! Dohn joe (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RM of Martial Race

Hi, how do I challenge the move of Martial Race to Martial race? The rationale was something to do with standard casing but the fact is that the article deals with an official classification and that there is a world of difference between a so-called martial race and one that was defined by the British Raj administration as a Martial Race. I am not even sure that this request was notified on the article talk page, which certainly should be a requirement given that RM is for moves that might be controversial.

I am winding down my activity on Wikipedia because of the increasing gender-based politicisation etc but if contesting this ends up as being my swansong then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

History Undeletions

History merge for ETC Group

ETC Group (AGETC) was created by a copy/paste move from ETC Group, which is now a disambiguation page. The history of ETC Group from before today needs to be moved to ETC Group (AGETC). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17 and my mistake

If you look at the history of your user and talk pages, you'll see what Pablo did. I'm not taking any action because my first action was absolutely wrong (egg on my face) as I blocked the user who fixed what Pablo did. (I've unblocked the user and apologized.) I'll watch Pablo's contributions until you see this post but otherwise leave it up to you to do whatever is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rlendog indeffed Pablo.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to unblock or shorten the duration if you feel appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Pablo has a history of disruptive editing (unlike the poor user whom I blocked by mistake), so my view is an indef is justified. As an aside, you used the wrong template on Pablo's talk page. I'd fix it but I don't normally touch other administrators' work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to fix it once and it didn't take, but it looks like it worked now. No problem with you fixing it if it is still wrong. Rlendog (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23:: In "As an aside, you used the wrong template" hereinabove, I have worked out that "you" means Rlendog. I (here = Anthony Appleyard) at first thought that it meant me and I was trying to work out what I had done wrong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry you were confused. I thought it was clear, but what do I know? Next time, I'll do something like "@Rlendog".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Bob Sheil biography

  • Hi Anthony, in December you rightly deleted a biography of Bob Sheil which included copy/paste from another website. If I create another would you be willing to have a look at it? I have rewritten it from scratch. I am a learner Wikipedian. Thanks!

Archigirl01 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I Remember Mama

Hi Anthony. Any chance of you being able to move I Remember Mama (the article's film contents, at least) to I Remember Mama (film), then turning I Remember Mama into a type of disambiguation page or something, to show the links listed below? The play actually takes precedence over the film, which (the play) was adapted from the novel Mama's Bank Account. The play precedes the film by four years. So, really, the film should not even be at I Remember Mama.

Most appreciation should you do this. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a drink on me

A beer on me!
Thanks so much for always moving pages for me! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo NX

Kanak

Carthorse listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carthorse. Since you had some involvement with the Carthorse redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

LATEEF RENAME

Is that OK now?--Petebutt (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dawn Porter

A tag has been placed on Dawn Porter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Help, Page Wrongfully Edited Then Deleted

Talk:Reactions to the death of Lee Kuan Yew – merge?

OK, great. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Technical request timing

Hi Anthony

I don't know what the official guidelines say on this, but would it be possbile you to give technical requests at WP:RM a bit more time before effecting them? The request for Yeshivat HaKotel was put in at 15:55 and you moved it just three minutes later, at 15:58. I later moved it to contested, because it didn't seem like a clear cut case to me, but it was too late by then. Number 57 has now moved it back again, so the situation is resolved for now, pending a possible full RM, but it seems like it would be better to allow some time for contests to be made. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Teenage Time Killer

Hi, I see you moved this page after a new user requested it at RM as uncontroversial. However, I think it should be moved back to its previous title (Killer rather than Killers), because most of the cited sources refer to it in the singular, not plural. See here, here, and here for some examples. Everymorning talk 01:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Thanks, Anthony. Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Assistance at RM/TR

That's unacceptable. The burden is on the person who made the change, and purposely prevented a revert. The burden is not on me, who wants to maintain the status quo. The reverts need to be carried out. Each case is individual. There is no room for mass changes here. RGloucester — ☎ 06:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
On a further note, I would've been content to do the reverts myself. The only thing preventing me from doing so is the modification of the redirects. I'm sorry that I'm asking you to go through ten moves. Your work is always appreciated, as it is an area that others don't often touch. Nevertheless, the reverts must be carried out. No evidence was provided at all for moving these articles away from their longstanding titles, and only evidence in RS determines capitalisation on Wikipedia per MOS:CAPS. There was no consensus for the moves. There is no way that it is acceptable for a user to make mass changes, prevent reverts, and then make the situation a fait accompli. That would set a horrible precedent. This fait accompli-style change cannot be allowed to occur. The burden to provide evidence is on Dicklyon. He must attain consensus in an RM. Until then, these moves must be treated like any other bold move, and reverted. RGloucester — ☎ 06:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @RGloucester: User:Wikimandia (alias Мандичка) seems to dispute this. I have been caught in the middle of disputes before. There was an occasion like this when the disputed revert list was about 30 long. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
What Wikimandia says or does not say is immaterial. His arguments centre on whether the move was "correct", even though his arguments fail completely in that regard. This has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. It has to do with Wikipedia processes and consensus. This is very simple. The moves MUST be reverted, so that they can be discussed. They are contested. Bold moves are subject to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. The burden is on the person making the change to attain consensus. There isn't any consensus, because there was no discussion prior. I cannot believe that this travesty is lingering because of the protestations of someone who clearly hasn't read any of the policies in questions. Do not allow spanners to be thrown in the works. In fact, the redirect modification was itself a spanner of this sort. The reverts must take place. If Wikimandia or Dicklyon want to change the longstanding titles of these articles, they can do so through an RM where they provide evidence and attain consensus, as is specified by our policies. RGloucester — ☎ 06:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm getting very impatient with this matter. No one else's bold page moves would be granted special status. This is gaming the system, clearly. Modify the redirect. Make too many changes to easily revert. It is all gaming the system. The goal was to make it as difficult to revert these incorrect and non-consensus-based changes as possible, and that's worked. The administrators at RM/TR, usually quite dilligent in carrying out requests, seem to be facilitating this gaming. This means that whenever someone makes a bold page move and modifies the redirect, they will be protected from reversion and the usual WP:CONSENSUS-based BRD system. Who needs consensus? Just modify the redirect, make tons of moves at once. Make it a fait accompli, and there is no problem. No one will bother to even try to revert, as it is too much work. This is an absolute travesty. A disgrace. Disgusting. This is totally antithetical to all Wikipedia processes. I will not rest until it is fixed as it should be. RGloucester — ☎ 06:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey there Anthony Appleyard FYI I'm not the only one who disputes it, and I did not do the original rename. I was on the page requesting another move and saw this discussion already going on — I just added to the discussion that the moves were done correctly per WP naming conventions for articles about things like "disaster/crisis/crash/attack/earthquake/oil spill/avalanche" etc. (see WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCEVENTS and the gazillion articles in Category:Disasters by country) —МандичкаYO 😜 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (not a HE! 😄) 🙅🙆🙋
  • Comment. RGloucester is correct in this case. I do not know what the ultimate proper destination is for those ten pages, but they should be moved back to the previous status quo per WP:BRD. This is why we have the section at RM/TR to revert undiscussed moves. Anthony - you have shown a willingness to do this before. (See above section at User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Rain_in_England, for example.) It's not about whether something is controversial - it clearly is. It's about following an established WP process which was set up for the overall fairness of the system. Please consider reverting the page moves here. Dohn joe (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wikimandia, RGloucester, and Dohn joe:  Done 9, 1 was already done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr Appleyard. Your work is always appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting in the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The heading for your comment has been changed for consistency. You will be added to the list of participants in the moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject History Merge

Given your regular activity at WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen, I have added your name to the list of participants at WP:WikiProject History Merge, partly to keep the list from being empty. You are, of course, free to remove your name, if you so wish! Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Surface 3 / Surface Pro 3

I noticed that you recently moved Microsoft Surface 3 -> Surface 3 and Microsoft Surface Pro 3 -> Surface Pro 3 per RM/TR request by User:TranslucentCloud. While I think that those should be the names of the articles. Both had active RM discussions ( with at least 1 initial oppose even though switching towards support ) so was a bit surprised to see the pages moved before the RMs finished. It looks like TranslucentCloud's request was based on a separate discussion at Talk:Microsoft Surface. PaleAqua (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My request was actually based on the recent moves of the majority of Surface-series articles moves, the discussion in Talk:Microsoft Surface makes little sense. And the opposition to move is not really strong, since the Surface brand itself now is very recognizable. You feel free to start a new discussion for moving of all of the articles back. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with the moves, just surprised that they were done as RM/TR while there was an open RM. PaleAqua (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PaleAqua, while in this case subverting process is probably inconsequential, in the next case it might not be. We should not allow for bad precedents like this. --В²C ☎ 18:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving page while RM discussion is open

Perhaps you're not aware that you moved Microsoft Surface 3 to Surface 3 while there was an open/ongoing RM discussion about that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surface_3

While it's true that no one is opposing it, it has been open for only a couple of days so far. After your move, the nom closed the discussion, but really I don't think we should be moving and closing proposals like that. --В²C ☎ 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I just noticed that there was already a section about this just above this one. But you have not yet responded. --В²C ☎ 18:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Born2cycle and TranslucentCloud: I have reverted these 2 moves and reopened the 2 discussions. "But you have not yet responded" :: At that time I was having my tea and watching early evening TV :: I am in England. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Atbarah -> Atbara move

Help Please Restore DJ Many Page!

I was not aware of this process and i would like a chance to voice my opinion on this article, the people who commented on this deletion review don't even know who dj many is.... "writing for huffington isn't exactly notable either. Sounds like a cool guy but not noteworthy." Was one of the comments made in the deletion article. how ignorant could these people be to someone who writes for the huffington post and also has tracks with Grammy Award winning artists... Even you anthony said it makes no sense that this article would even be considered for deletion, i would understand previous articles from 2011 but now dj many is becoming more prominent and should be recognized on wikipedia. Supermusicboom (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Supermusicboom: Of course you were aware of the process. You created the same article (DJ Many (Disc Jockey)) in December 2013, vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Many (Disc Jockey), and then recreated the article after. You're fortunate you haven't been indefinitely blocked thus far, and you're quickly heading in that direction.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I want you to honestly read the article yourself and check the news references and tell me that my article is not wikipedia worthy when dj many has numerous notable achievements such as his grammy features and writing position at the huffington post... this shouldn't be such a big debate i have scene complete stub articles just sitting around wikipedia with no reference or notability... there is a whole category for writers at the huffington post like dj many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Huffington_Post_writers_and_columnists Supermusicboom (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Greenbelt "s/Station"

You just moved "Greenbelt Station" to the lowercase. You might be aware that an RM to achieve that goal was closed as "not moved" yesterday. In fact, tens of station articles that were part of that RM have been summarily moved despite a clear lack of consensus in that RM, as written by the closer. This is total failure of procedure. Please address this situation. RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Closer also noted that "we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution". Yet there is an obvious consensus that there is a problem that needs resolution; so, yes, the process has failed. Why not follow up via the discussion link that I left there, and help to find a resolution instead of just balking? In particular, if you would reiterate the position you articulate here, that would help support the orderly resolution of this mess. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I most likely support the lowercasing in this instance. I do not, however, believe that circumventing consensus in an RM is acceptable. I agree with many of your moves, but until you start to bow to consensus and Wikipedia processes, everything you do will be tainted. RGloucester — ☎ 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. But here there was no consensus to circumvent, except the WP:USSTATION that the capitalization was circumventing. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon:, are you familiar with the guidance at WP:RM? The procedure is that if there is no consensus, the pages stay at their existing long term titles. So if the request is closed as no consensus, then they should not have been moved. I also suggested they should be at the lowercase titles, but I don't think they should be moved there if the move request was not closed that way. If you have new evidence, or a different way to convince those in opposition, then feel free to discuss it on the page or even start a new request, but in the mean time, please could you move them back, then we can move on from this procedural discussion and avoid a need to escalate the discussion at WP:ANI. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with the process, and how broken it became in this particular case. Have you looked at the history since the December RM and close review? Anyway, if they're to be moved back, it should be by someone who actually thinks that's an improvement, not just for pointy reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Oh well, we'll just have to see what happens then. "How broken it became in this particular case" just seems to be another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You proposed a move, some people disagreed, for what seemed like valid enough reasons, and there was no consensus. To me that did not give you a right to go ahead and move, but hey ho. Anthony, apologies for continuing this on your talk page, but this is my last comment here! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not that I don't like it or that some people disagreed, but that the process that put them at capitalized Station in the first place was so broken, and nobody likes it, yet we can't seem to either unwind that or conform to the agreed conventions. It's like some kind of black comedy going on here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎Page moves of DC Metro stations. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know how closely you looked into this, but I'm really baffled by Epicgenius's decision to request this as "uncontroversial". It has been anything but. If there's consensus to make such moves, I say again that that's ok with me. But there's no way this should've been treated as a procedural matter. Anthony, I'm not especially upset with you, because I've made mistakes like this before as well. But this is definitely a mistake. ---BDD (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Anthony. I did not see that the RM discussion was already closed as no consensus. BDD, where can I find the relevant discussion? Epic Genius (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfinished move?

Histmerge: ScotRail

Pomiculture listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pomiculture. Since you had some involvement with the Pomiculture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

B L A C K I E listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect B L A C K I E. Since you had some involvement with the B L A C K I E redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Graduateland article deletion

  • Hi, I saw that a few years ago you delete the Graduateland page because of A7:Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. As the company now is one of Europe's largest student portals, I think it would be appropriate for it to have a page. Is it possible to undo the deletion or must a new page be written? <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graduateland&action=edit&redlink=1</ref> NiklasBorg (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @NiklasBorg: Page Graduateland was last deleted on 12:11, 3 February 2011, i.e. over 4 years ago, and looks like advertisement. If Graduateland was as noteworthy as claimed, by now someone would have started another article about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

History merge for user talk page archives

History merge for user talk page archives, part 2

  • The history of these pages seems to be:-
    • User talk:Mdrn/Archive 1 builds up from 1 section at 11:31, 26 August 2006‎ Jeremy Visser to 62,063 bytes at 00:00, 25 October 2007‎ STBotI, then moves and small changes.
    • User talk:Mdrn/Archive 2 builds up from 1 section at 19:27, 9 November 2007‎ STBotI to 15,919 bytes at 00:01, 27 August 2008‎ Normangerman, then moves and small changes, and in May 2012 copying much other text in and re-deleting it.
    • User talk:Mdrn/Archive 3 builds up from 1 section at 03:13, 25 October 2008‎ Soundvisions1 to 11,506 bytes at 31, 27 February 2009 Josh the Nerd, then moves and small changes, and in May 2012 deleting much text and then restoring it.
    • User talk:Mdrn/Archive 4 builds up from 1 section at 05:25, 15 March 2009‎ BJBot to 38,277 bytes at 13:12, 9 May 2012‎ Sfan00 IMG, then wiped, and again builds up from 1 section at 15:06, 26 May 2012‎ Tom Morris to 13,807 bytes at 21:52, 29 June 2013‎ EditorE, then at 13:29, 30 June 2013‎ Mdrn the messages previously deleted were restored, and oddments up to 16:36, 30 June 2013‎ Mdrn
    • User talk:Mdrn builds up from 1 section at 00:59, 3 July 2013‎ EditorE to 2,551 bytes at 21:35, 17 December 2014‎ Stefan2, then archived to User talk:Mdrn/Archive 5, and a move and oddments
    • User talk:Mdrn/Archive 5 builds up from 1 section at 19:05, 3 August 2013‎ MiszaBot III to 9,847 bytes at 01:35, 18 January 2015‎ Lowercase sigmabot III, then a move, with automatic archiving by Lowercase sigmabot III.
      • @Mdrn: I have bolded the apparent cut-and-paste points, i.e. the archiving incidents; but after each archiving incident the next archive (and at the end, the current talk page) starts again at blank,and I feel that these archive files should stay separate as they are, so that people can easily read all the old messages in case they are relevant to anything that rises. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I respect your views on this matter, and if this were an article to be history merged, I would likely defer to your opinion here. However, these are archives in my userspace (and ones that I myself originally split off), and so I feel that if I want the archives to merged and there is nothing actually preventing that then they should be merged. Therefore, I ask once again that you please history merge them, but again EXCLUDING Archive 5 (I'm adding another reminder since you listed this page again). Mdrn (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mdrn: "nothing actually preventing": The preventing factors here are: Archives 1 2 3, after their "cut-and-paste-away" end-points, have long tails of events which are WP:Parallel histories to later archives in the list, and for each history-merge event, not including these edits in the "delete-move-undelete" history-merge process, would reconnect one history at the cost of breaking another history. And, some people may want to re-read the many discussions which these archives contain. It may be better to put in the start of User talk:Mdrn a "history section" describing what happened to these archives. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • By "actually preventing" I mean a policy or guideline which actually prevents doing so, as opposed to the mere possibility of slightly inconveniencing some hypothetical page history viewer at some point in the future. Simply put, I am quite unconcerned about those very few edits that you deem Wikipedia:Parallel histories on the pages in question. Yes, they would look a little strange after such a history merge, but it's really no different from simple mistaken edits and reverts. Mdrn (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mdrn:It may be easier for me to merely copy the latest versions of all the discussion sections from the talk page and Archives 1 2 3 4, onto another new page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • But I can do that myself, since no admin action is needed for that as far as I'm aware. What I want at this point, though, is for the page histories in question to be merged. Whether such cutting and pasting as you suggest is done afterwards is rather irrelevant here (and in any case a prior history merger would actually be helpful here, as then there wouldn't have to be cutting and pasting between different pages for what you suggest). Mdrn (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mdrn: Unfortunately, what you seem to want to be done, as I explain above, cannot be done within the bounds of what within Wikipedia administrators would consider to be a competent job. You seem to want me to reconstruct what would have happened if no archiving (except to Archive 5) had happened, instead letting all the messages accumulate in the main talk page. To do that I would have to change the texts of many recorded edits; but that plainly physically cannot be done, however many rules I might break in the process. At various times before, if a page X has been split into two pages Y and Z, a user has wanted me to history-merge the history of X before the split, to Y and to Z, to give both daughter pages their full history; but a recorded Wikipedia edit cannot be in two places at once and cannot be duplicated. It seems that, when you archived, you moved the talk page to a new archive name and started a new blank talk page, each time :: that is not a cut-and-paste move and not what history-merging was intended to correct for. SORRY. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide

Hi Anthony, you moved that article to a title that is not the common name for the event and is a much more convoluted title. That's not uncontroversial. Could you please be more careful with these requests, especially with relatively high-profile articles that have been at their current title for several years? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please consider assessing consensus here and closing the debate

That's fine. If you like, and are looking for something to do, you might well look at Talk:Soviet war in Afghanistan. RGloucester — ☎ 22:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Moonraker protection

  • I noticed you protected Moonraker (film) indefinitely a couple years ago. Does it still need to be protected? It doesn't seem to be a likely target for vandalism (even at the time of protection, I don't see too many harmful or controversial edits, honestly). I don't have a specific reason for asking the protection level to be lowered other than general maintenance in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, so if you consider it appropriate to decline, I would not push the issue. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Aimlessness

The article was in fact created at Aimlessness (album) and it's elevation to primary was an undiscussed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In any event, it was not uncontroversial, and you knew as much, and it was poor form to request a move as such. Dohn joe (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I stand by the return to the original article location. I cannot possibly be perfect with you dogging every edit I make. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Bamar people was moved to Burmans

Hi there,

I see you moved Bamar people to Burmans as a non-controversial move, however it is not; discussion on the talk page supports the original page name of Bamar people. How do I go about requesting this move be reversed? Discussion is definitely necessary. Ogress smash! 00:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Diesel Exhaust

  • You brought over some applicable information but the reference didn't come with it. Could you go back and include the reference? The source in the section was just the shortcut name. MartinezMD (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • User:AnomieBOT already did it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It hadn't at the time. Thanks. :) MartinezMD (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Joan Crespí?

Castelseprio (Archaeological Park)

It has been there quite happily for several years now. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I now remember it was the subject of mediation in 2007 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Castelseprio, resulting in the old situation, which persisted very happily (empty talk page) until just now. So we respect that lengthy process and should restore the old position by giving the "park" the plain name again. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Request undo delete

Hi, as I had cited on the contestation, here once again is proof positive that I (as well as anyone) has permission to quote directly from the publisher <ref>http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=utk_graddiss</ref>

please see page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongo_B%C3%A9ti_ou_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9criture_d%E2%80%99un_r%C3%A9volt%C3%A9_en_exile:_anatomie,_analyse_et_impact_de_ses_critiques_%C3%A0_travers_ses_articles_dans_%C2%AB_Peuples_noirs,_peuples_africains_%C2%BB_%281978_%C3%A0_1991%29

you deleted this page on copyright infringement grounds (did you not read the part on that reference that says we have permission and in fact therefor the is NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!! please be more careful what you delete!!!! you are cleansing Wiki like hitler cleansed Germany, this article is important, and the world should not be punished or denied it simply because I needed a nap and couldn't finish it all in one go... in any case no copyright infringement so your reason for deletion was not only wrong but know-ably wrong at the time you made the decision! congratulations: your a buttface! Nolanpowers (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: what does that mean? I have already created an entirely new page for this same title, sense you pointlessly deleted it despite SPECIFIC and OBVIOUS citation of right to use, you deleted it based on copyright infringement...you make Wikipedia a nightmare for new people like me...please be more thoughtful and more careful of others despite what your individual motives to cleanse Wiki of the unpure (you feel kind of like Hitler right now). Mostly I would like to follow up because as I say, I have already rebuilt the page entirely, and it is ONCE AGAIN up for deletion. It is most certainly a notable book, I will immediately justify this in it's talk page, and if you care to join : <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongo_B%C3%A9ti_ou_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9criture_d%E2%80%99un_r%C3%A9volt%C3%A9_en_exile:_anatomie,_analyse_et_impact_de_ses_critiques_%C3%A0_travers_ses_articles_dans_%C2%AB_Peuples_noirs,_peuples_africains_%C2%BB_%281978_%C3%A0_1991%29&action=edit&redlink=1</ref> thank you, you will also notice that your comments on the current standing delete are no longer valid. Please do not be so hasty to delete, use your HUMAN judgement to tell whether a page has sincere value and CAN meet (as you know Wiki only deletes articles that show NO FUTURE PROMISE of meeting the criteria, wheras the ones you delete or try to are usually just unfinished/ poorly done (sorry about mine)) I imagine Wikipedia gives you some incentive to try and clean it up and keep it free of riff raff? perhaps this is why you seem so keen on deleting things, and if so keep it up, build your score as you like, keep wikipedia clean (there certainly are trolls), but do not mistake this topic, this author, or any of his works as 'not-notable'. You are a fool to believe so, and I happily continue my work to present a bold encyclopedic series of pages on this author and his works. 20:08, 20 April 2015‎ User:Nolanpowers

Speedy deletion nomination of Blood Eagle (band)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blood Eagle (band), is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Histmerge request

  • Hi King Of History Merges! I have one that to me seems slightly more than the normal ones, so rather than just tag, here's the scoop. Main article, John B. Tsu was flagged as a copyvio. The author worked on the re-write sub page at Talk:John B. Tsu/Temp. Once completed, another editor did a C&P of that content back into the main article, so is now the attributed author of the re-write. Can you fix that so the original author is properly attributed? Thanks as always! CrowCaw 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashtun people

  • Can you please undu the name change because it is considered controversial. The person who requested it had presented a misplaced argument. Pashtun people is an ethnic group, not nationality as he tried to put it.[6]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have started a discussed move request on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cap: Civil War

Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

User:MaranoFan

North West London Polytechnic

Thanks for your reply, but North West London Polytechnic is not (and has never been used as) an alternative or wrong name for the University of North London. North-Western Polytechnic is a predecessor institution; I was about to redirect that (with the hyphen) myself. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to have missed this, but I would appreciate your reply. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lady Thetis (artificial shipwreck)

  • Hi Anthony - would you please undo this move and restore this article to Lady Thetis? It's unnecessary disambiguation, since the base name redirects to the disambiguated name. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archives, Histmerge, etc.

  • Hi, Anthony. I don't think we've ever worked together before now, but you've been recommended to me by User:Alakzi. I have come to rely on Alakzi for template coding and other technical solutions, and I had asked him what I could do to revamp my present talk page archive system. After six years on-wiki, my monthly increments of archives have become inconvenient and do not take advantage of better solutions such as indexing, etc. Given current archive search and indexing functions, Alakzi suggested that yearly archive increments should be more than adequate, but a HISTMERGE would probably be required in order to properly reorganize the whole mess. Can you take a look at our discussion thread (see User talk:Alakzi/Archive 1#Personal favor) and my current talk page archives, and let me know what you think? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1: How wide in pixels is the screen that you use to access Wikipedia?
    • Unfortunately, a clean history-merge of successing archivings of the same talk page, cannot be done; it would leave the last edit displaying only the messages which were in the current talk page, if that was included in the history-merge, else the messages that were in the last archive included. I can see a way to make the archive page list less sprawly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Anthony, my primary computer (my 15.5" laptop) is set to a resolution of 1366 x 768. Is there a reason to be concerned about the HISTMERGE? Wouldn't that scramble the actual edit history of the talk page? Isn't the page talk edit history the ultimate back-up/archive of my talk page? If we created new archives by year -- 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 -- is there any reason the current monthly increments for those year can't be combined, manually, if necessary? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1: At the top of your main talk page User talk:Dirtlawyer1 I have put in a link to User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives, which is a list (one year per line) of all your talk achive files. For each year xxxx I have created a page User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/xxxx , so that by clicking twice on "Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page." you can ladder back down from an individual archive to page User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives, and again to get back from there to your main user talk page. (I use a similar system for my user talk archives.) (I have left your current archive file name list alone.)
    • The effect of clicking on "Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page." seems to be to remove the end of the page name back to and including the last '/' character.
    • Page User talk:Dirtlawyer1 will have to be updated at the end of each year, by adding links for the next year's months.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe the request was unclear? The aim is to histmerge all of the monthly archives into yearly ones, i.e. merge Feb 2013 with Jan 2013, Mar 2013 with Jan 2013, and so on, until Dec 2013, and move the resulting page to "2013". I thought this would be fairly trivial, because the monthly archives' histories probably never overlap. This could all be easily done manually, but it'd be handy to retain the original archiving dates. Alakzi (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alakzi and Dirtlawyer1: I had a similar discussion with another user recently.
    • If each archive is made by moving the talk page to the archive name and then cut-and-pasting the permanent matter back to the talk page (like I do with my user talk page), if I history-merge e.g. /Archive/2013/Jan with /Archive/2013/Feb, the result would contain a connected edit history of Jan and Feb 2013's talk page editings - - except that January 2013's messages would disappear (as if deleted) at the history-merge point and would not be present in the edits listed as being made in Feb 2013. See the end part of section User talk:Anthony Appleyard#History merge for user talk page archives, part 2. And it would need me to make 57 history-merges.
    • But with User talk:Dirtlawyer1, at month end the messages are cut-and-pasted to the archive name, and all the talk page edit history is still at User talk:Dirtlawyer1. What would have to be done (57 times!) is ordinary text-editing, appending each year's archives end-to-end. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep. I hoped the histmerge interface would make this easy - but clearly not. Thanks anyway, Anthony. Alakzi (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Guys, is there any reason why I cannot manually combine 12 monthly archive increments into a single yearly increment? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alakzi and Dirtlawyer1: That is plain text-editing and is possible to anyone. Presumably User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2009/January to User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2009/December inclusive could all be cut-and-pasted to User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2009, and so on for each year, and edit User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives accordingly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks

helping me
hi there

I needed to contact you and was not sure how to can you write so I can write back? (I created an article which you deleted which was too promotional - I want to re-write and submit it to wikipedia however they said to contact you first best Penguincafe (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

hi

It was ' mega-t album '

thank you

best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguincafe (talk • contribs) 14:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Badults (redirects) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Badults (redirects). Since you had some involvement with the Badults (redirects) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wimpy (brand)

  • Hi Anthony Appleyard. In this diff you removed my technical request, saying that you had done it, but it doesn't appear that you did it. Can you please reunite the talk page with article which it is a talk page for, currently at Wimpy (restaurant)? Thanks in advance for taking care of it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • now  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection

Would you consider removing the indefinite semi-protection from hedgehog? It has been that way for over four years, and had only two prior instances of protection. Conifer (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Andresbfarrera

Andrewbf is return as new user and focusing David Guetta, as you can use WP:DUCK. Anyway can you please block indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.85.179 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Super Bowl LIII

Vocademy deleted

  • Hey, it looks like the person who wrote the second draft of Vocademy wanted it deleted. Not sure why but since they did write the second version of the page I figured that it was their prerogative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I had previously been working on Draft:Vocademy and just noticed it's now gone - do you know who requested deletion?JennaSys (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @JennaSys: At 05:26, 18 May 2015 I history-merged Draft:Vocademy to Vocademy. At 06:41, 22 May 2015 Tokyogirl79 deleted page Vocademy (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) . I have restored Vocademy and moved it to Draft:Vocademy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that works for me. I haven't had much time to spend on it recently, but plan on getting back to it. JennaSys (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Armenians in the United Kingdom

Thanks for this histmerge. I thought about doing it, but it looked messy. A cut-and-paste in 2012 and two regular moves after that. To avoid repeating the issue soon, I put move protection on the article. The intention is merely to require a discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Language articles

Just a reminder about the existence of WP:NCLANG. So just like Latin, really.

Peter Isotalo 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Transtator

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

No references, no evidence of notability.

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. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mull

Hallo Anthony, and @Florian Blaschke:

The move of Mull (disambiguation) to Mull was not uncontroversial. I can find no recent discussion which supports it (only one editor opining at Talk:Isle_of_Mull#Name_of_article.2C_again), and the page was moved after full discussion in 2010. The long-standing situation has been that the island article was at Isle of Mull and the base name Mull was a redirect to that article. This is a perfectly normal situation where it is agreed that (a) the correct title for the island article is "Isle of Mull" and also (b) that this island is the primary topic for the word "Mull". The dab page was incorrectly formatted, as it did not reflect that the island was recognised as the primary topic, although the name of the dab page recognised that there was a primary topic out there. The comments at Talk:Isle of Mull don't seem to recognise that these are two different decisions.

Please revert this move as it was incorrectly assertd to be uncontroversial.

If the multipage move (dab page to Mull (disambiguation) and island article to Mull) is ever proposed again it should be done as a formal multi-page potentially controversial WP:RM and notified on the talk pages of those two and also Isle of Mull. Thanks. PamD 08:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • There were two previous Requested Moves:
  1. April 2010: Page moved from Mull to Mull (disambiguation), leaving "Mull" as a redirect to Isle of Mull.
  2. May 2010: a proposal which was closed as "No Consensus" to move Isle of Mull to Mull. PamD 08:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reinstated the redirect at Mull and belatedly formatted the dab page to reflect existence of primary topic. PamD 14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Golden Pectoral from Tolstaya Mogila

Thapki Pyar Ki

  • Hello {{User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard}}, I created Thapki Pyar Ki which is the correct name for the serial. There was another article with wrong name "Thapki Pyaar Ki" which I redirected to the correct page. I am a little confused now as the history of the correct page name is totally wiped and my name wiped too. Magically, my entire edit history is stored in the wrong page name. Even my "contributions" say the same thing. I have never seen this happen. Can you please help? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @AKS.9955: I had history-merged one to the other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help Anthony Appleyard, slight issue still remains. Actual name of the serial is Thapki Pyar Ki (with one "a" less). Hence the content and the entire history needs to be in this page and the existing name should point to this one. Can this be done without much trouble? Just wondering. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with Thapki Pyar Ki. You are always a great help. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Li Lingwei (athlete) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Li Lingwei (athlete). Since you had some involvement with the Li Lingwei (athlete) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Need direction on where to send request

  • A few days ago, a editor in good faith created Template:2015 IndyCar Series by moving it from Template:IndyCar Series. IndyCar series is used a generic template across all Indycar teams/drivers to avoid creating year specific ones and overloading the team/drivers individual pages. The editor attempted to fix there mistake, but the issue is, the page history from IndyCar Series is now with 2015 IndyCar Series. Where is the best place to post about getting this fixed? Esw01407 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Esw01407: Done I have histmerged Template:2015 IndyCar Series (except its latest 3 edits) to Template:IndyCar Series to match what was done in previous years. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much! Esw01407 (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kieran Wallac

Immigrant ethnicity format for Mexico

Hi, you recently moved Venzuelan Mexican to Venezuelan immigration to Mexico- how I originally created the article. What I was wondering about is the reason behind the format "XYZ immigration to Mexico"? I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning- I've been slowly creating articles to get rid of the red links in the "Ethnic groups in Mexico" template. However, I don't know why Mexico was singled out. Why is it English Argentine, Japanese Australian, German Peruvian, Lebanese Brazilian, etc., but not for Mexicans?

It's not like the terms aren't used- some quick examples from Google books: Japanese Mexican, Lebanese Mexican, Chinese Mexican, German Mexican, Korean Mexican, Spanish Mexican, Irish Mexican

I also created Romani people in Mexico, but that one makes sense to me. That's the format used in the other countries and it makes sense since the Romani are nomadic people. But for the other immigrant-descended groups in Mexico, what is currently being used doesn't make sense. The majority of people that would identify with one of these groups are Mexicans by birth (for example, the 400,000 Mexicans of Lebanese descent vs 513 Lebanese immigrants) so categorizing them as immigrants is unfair. AuroralColibri (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mission Community Church

Hi Anthony,

I was about to create an article for Mission Community Church and then noticed that you deleted an article at that title five years ago. Since 2010, the church has since grown to be a megachurch and has generated what appears to me to be a sufficient amount of news coverage to justify an article. Would you mind if I recreated the article? I can do so from scratch with new sources.

Neelix (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Grampian

I see you have recently moved Grampian to Grampian Region, claiming this to be an uncontroversial move. I think this should have been discussed beforehand – although the region was often informally called "Grampian Region" the formal name was I believe simply "Grampian", and this move breaks the consistency with the naming of other regions for which we have articles: Strathclyde, Tayside and so on. Can I suggest that you revert the move, and propose a move for all regions if you think they should be moved? --Deskford (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Histmerge request

The article 2015–16 Pittsburgh Pengiuns season was recently cut and paste moved to its correct title of 2015–16 Pittsburgh Penguins season. Could you please merge the edit history for these articles. Dolovis (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Above and Beyond

Above and Beyond
I ask for a page to be moved to make room for a disambiguation, but you go above and beyond, creating the disambig page as well. Thanks! (talk to) TheOtherGaelan('s contributions) 05:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm SwisterTwister. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Veeam Software, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and disregard this message, I thought the page was unreviewed. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fallout 4

Front-end processor

They look like the same article. Peter Flass (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The original article that should be Front-end processor (IBM) seems to have disappeared, FWIW. Peter Flass (talk)

Thanks + Queries

Hi Anthony Appleyard. Thanks for your efforts regarding merging the history for my work Draft:Advaiya. I noticed a lot of changes and efforts made in doing so. Would like to thank you, and also would like to learn something about that. I din't knew that while using a sandbox, the entire efforts can be directly migrated to the actual page, i always used to copy-paste the backend code. Moving the page along with its history seems a good way, and i would like to learn how this can be done, so that i can leverage it for my upcoming work. can you provide appropriate guidance/directions from where i can know this procedure. Thanks again. Vishal0soni (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vishal0soni: if you are using sandbox file X to develop the eventual article Y, and the times has come to move X to Y:
    • If the history of X contains only the story of how Y was developed, then move X to Y.
    • If the history of X contains also other irrelevant old history, then you will have to call an admin to splt the history of X into the part about Y and the old previous matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anthony Appleyard. Ok. i got the logic. But what i intend to ask is the technical steps involved in moving X to Y. What steps should i follow to move article from X to Y? Vishal0soni (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

European Parliament election, 2004 (Ireland)

Moving 72 subpages

Hi Anthony Appleyard. Thanks for being such a regular reviewer at WP:RFHM and at WP:RM/TR. I was wondering whether it would be possible for an admin to move the 72 non-redirect subpages of the page Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion to Miscellany for deletion in one go. These are listed at WP:Misplaced XfDs#Miscellaneous deletion. Note that the page actually has 114 subpages in all (including redirects). The moves are uncontroversial since Miscellaneous deletion was one of the old names for the MFD and the bringing them in to the newer baking section aids search and makes them viewable through {{Priorxfd}}, which is necessary so that these old nominations don't get lost or go unaccounted for when new nominations of the involved pages are made.

I am not sure if the following method should work: First, move WP:Miscellany for deletion to WP:Miscellaneous deletion. Then, move it back along with the subpages. Moves should not be done in cases where they are obstructed due to the existence of a page at the target, of course. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you do the same with subpages of WP:Images and media for deletion? At least in this case, I think the method I described above would work. (Move FFD to IMFD, move back along with the subpages.) 103.6.159.66 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Page moves prior to establishment of consensus

Re: Cape of Good Hope (landmark)

This page was presented for RM at 15:32, 22 June

Without closing the discussion of giving explanatory comment in the TP thread you moved the page at 05:13, 23 June 2015

The result is that the RM listing reads: * (Discuss) – Cape of Good Hope → Cape of Good Hope. Without explanation I think that this has the potential to inhibit discussion. GregKaye 06:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @GregKaye: I was obeying an uncontroversial-type move request. I have now moved the page back to Cape of Good Hope (landmark). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Anthony, regarding the above, the article was at that title (with no disambiguator) until yesterday, when it was moved without discussion (not generally a good idea when it comes to high-profile pages). I think usual practice when a page is moved controversially is to restore to the original title, with the burden then on the mover to gain consensus. (I'm sure the initiator of the RM would've done that themselves if they were an admin). IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @IgnorantArmies: Page Cape of Good Hope (landmark) is under move discussion. I better let that discussion run its course. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a very good idea to set a precedent that a single editor can move a page to whatever title they like, and then have other editors required to go to an RM to restore the original title. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Chitlin' circuit move

Morris Brown

We both seem to have started histmerging it at the same time. I'll leave it to you for now so we don't get in each other's way again, ping me if you need anything. Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Broken Redirect

Hello, I recently signed up for a wiki account and I thought I would get involved in doing something constructive like fixing broken redirects which have been bothering me for a while. I did not know what to do about numbers 1 and 2 on the list but number 3 seems like it could be fixed by someone like me with minimal experience. I see in the history of that page [8] that User:Dennis_Brown moved the page to Hashem Minaiy which was deleted by User:Bbb23 then restored by you before being deleted again by User:Graeme Bartlett. I thought I would just check with you that this info has not been removed to another location which I should redirect the broken link to before assuming that I could set about getting the broken redirect also deleted. Looking forward to a reply soon. Bulgarios (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have also deleted Hashem minaiy. Does anyone here want to contest the prod for Hashem Minaiy? In which case it can be restored. However for the information of Bulgarios, I would suggest that he tags Hashem minaiy for deletion using the G8 reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the info User:Graeme Bartlett, and User:Anthony Appleyard. I see the broken redirect has been cleared up now too. What is a G8 reason? Bulgarios (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

uncontroversial request for category moving

Many thanks! --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Radical right

Radical right is a disambiguation page because an editor moved the original article to Radical right (United States) and turned the original page into a disambiguation page. I do not think that disqualifies a technical move. If disambiguation is required, disambig links could be kept in the article. If an editor thinks that neither article is a primary topic, then they can argue their case while regardless of whether there is a disambig page. I do not see why it should lie to me to set up a discussion.

Also, my arguments for moving the article back were technical and if I wanted to argue in a move discussion, I would have presented arguments similar to those I made in the last move discussion.

TFD (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

John Butters Power Station

Oriya -> Odia

  • Hi Anthony, could you please revert your revert of the Odia-language films move? The film articles are also categorised as Oriya-language films because of the infobox film template which adds a language-based category to the page. The languages in the infobox are yet to be changed. As per this move, Odia is now the preferred name for the language. Thank you! --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cpt.a.haddock:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I Am (Leona Lewis album)

dog domestication

  • It seems you are the main contributor to the Wiki article on dog domestication. I believe the article is amazingly accurate, up to date and well written.
    How are you connected to the subject of dog domestication? I am member of a group that is very interested in the subject of dog domestication and some of the members occasionally contact authors such as Skoglund, Lee, Germonpre, and Morey on the subject.
    I realize you are very busy and I will not bother you for information but I would very much like receive e-mail links to papers on the subject you might find in the future so that I can share them with my colleagues.
    Kingsbury king.parker3@gmail.comKing.parker3 (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @King.parker3: Page Dog domestication has one edit, which is a redirect to Origin of the domestic dog, where I made a FEW edits over the years. I am not an expert on dogs. I have never had a dog, nor did my parents. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Editing of that page is blocked and rightly so. How do I find out who is the last editor or at least the editor who included the Skoglund article?King.parker3 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @King.parker3: Page Origin of the domestic dog is semi-protected: see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection and Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. This is because of too much vandalism by unregistered users. To see a page's edit history, click on the tab marked "History" at the top of the page. In the history display, on each line, the date and time is a link to a display of that date and time's edit of the page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2015/January-June&oldid=1146024070"