User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2019/January-June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To my talk archives

Moving electronic artists' articles

Hi Anthony, I see you recently moved a slew of Sigala song articles to more simple titles per the request of MaranoFan, after another user originally requested a move of one at WP:RM/TR. There has not been consensus to use only the producer of a song in the title of articles. There may have been local consensus on a few articles, but not that we should do this Wikipedia-wide—this really appears to be the opinion of one, or several editors. Just letting you know before you move an entire discography's worth of pages again—please tell the editors to gain consensus first. If I had seen the original request at RM/TR, I would have disputed it. Ss112 11:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for helping histmerge project Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line

The history of Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line currently contains a mixture of redirect and article revisions. But that page also had some deleted revisions, so you should first move it elsewhere, to a title such as "Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line zxcvbnm". Then, "Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line zxcvbnm" should be deleted and have all of the revisions excluding the redirect and db-move revisions (15:05, 13 June 2011 (31 bytes), 17:03, 18 November 2014 (48 bytes), 17:05, 18 November 2014 (218 bytes), 02:10, 8 December 2017 (60 bytes), and 02:21, 8 December 2017 (62 bytes)) restored. Finally, "Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line zxcvbnm" should be moved back to "Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

But there is still one db-move edit in the history of Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line, at 17:05, 18 November 2014. Please move that edit to Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line (redirects). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And now, someone has deleted Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line (redirects) momentarily after you have answered the above. Please restore that page and move it (without redirect) to Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line, where the redirects were originally at. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @GeoffreyT2000:  Done. At 05:32, 8 January 2019 User:Risker deleted page Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line (redirects). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It's unclear to me what the point of a page entitled Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line (redirects) was - all of this stuff could have been done using draft space so that there aren't weird things in article space - but the reason I deleted it was that it had what appeared to be a quite appropriate CSD tag on it at the time I was clearing out CSD. Risker (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Risker: I found those edits sitting deleted under a long non-deleted edit history. Those two histories were WP:Parallel histories, and in my experience in much history-merging such a situation is liable to accidents, if I must temporarily delete the non-deleted history (e.g. to split some edits off it), so I extracted the deleted edit history out from under and I put it elsewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries, Anthony. Just glad that it all wound up in the right place. I confess I avoid history merges because of how easily something can go astray. I can't see the point where I deleted, but I'm pretty certain it was a standard CSD G-6 template; if I'd realized you were in the process of the histmerge, I would have left things to your capable hands. Risker (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

FEMSA and Gorditas Doña Tota

There is still one more revision in the history of FEMSA about Gorditas Doña Tota that you forgot to move. Please fix this by doing the following:

  1. Move Gorditas Doña Tota to FEMSA, confirming deletion of the target page.
  2. Restore revision 576711269 at 12:04, 11 October 2013 (604 bytes) in the history of FEMSA.
  3. Move FEMSA back to Gorditas Doña Tota.
  4. Finally, restore the rest of the revisions for the FEMSA page.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete unneeded sandbox page

The page User:LavaBaron/sandbox 2 is an unneeded duplicate page for 2020 United States presidential election. You should therefore delete "User:LavaBaron/sandbox 2". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Fakir of Venice

The article The Fakir of Venice has been recreated. You should therefore restore the deleted revisions for The Fakir of Venice, Talk:The Fakir of Venice, and the The Fakir of Venice (film) redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Lucky Patcher

You speedy deleted this after it has survived AfD. Please restore it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat how it survived the AfD? the first AfD was closed as soft-delete and the second one was closed as no consensus which doesn't mean we have to keep the crap. The article is extensively promotional and was created in a violation of WP:ToU so I guess WP:TNT apply in this case. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Use the talk page of the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Matthew Wilson (politician)

I created the page for Matthew, using content he wanted included on wiki. Should I recreate the page and rewrite the content or can you undelete it and I can rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherwhea (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, the whole early life and career section was directly copied from Wilson's website which is copyright-protected, so do we need permission from the original copyright holder or we can simply remove the material as its also unsourced? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 17:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Restore deleted revisions for Lebanon men's national basketball team

The page Lebanon men's national basketball team was moved back to Lebanon national basketball team a day after your reverted move occurred in August 2018. You should therefore restore the deleted revisions for the redirect at "Lebanon men's national basketball team". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Qaem(Anti-aircraft missiles) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Qaem(Anti-aircraft missiles). Since you had some involvement with the Qaem(Anti-aircraft missiles) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Page mover

Hi Anthony Appleyard could you please check that an I eligible to get Page mover rights, so that I could involved more on WP:RM/TR. Thanks in advance! Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Curtis Jones (footballer) - Redirect Deleted

It appears that you deleted this draft. Since the draft was accepted, what would have been at that title in draft space would (presumably) have been a redirect to article space. I am honestly a little puzzled about that deletion, and am wondering whether there is a policy or guideline that says that redirects from draft space to article space are deleted. I have understood that those redirects are left in place indefinitely. When I accept an Article for Creation (which is not as often as I would like, but that is the way it is), I leave the redirect alone and assume that it will stay there indefinitely. If I review a draft that is the same as an article, possibly because the author created it in both draft space and article space, I convert the draft into a redirect. I know that redirects from article space to draft space are deleted, but I understood that was a one-way rule. If there is a guideline about the deletion of redirects from draft space to article space, please provide me with a link. If we are both just guessing at what the policy is, we can take this discussion to Village Pump. Have I been making a mistake in allowing redirects from draft space to article space, or was there a special reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

why, why why...?

So why do you 'delete' MY_TALK page? One can't vandalize oneself's talk? Is wikipedia 'BAN' talking to oneself these days? please enlighten me! thank you. --/* lamo lamo we all die... */ 14:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advo7 (talk • contribs)

Reconsideration requested: BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures

Hi Anthony, on Thursday you suddenly deleted my article BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures about the extremely serious and newsworthy topic of very young children who were raped being woefully failed by forensic investigators. Please clarify whether you believe my new draft of this article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you don't respond, I will assume you are satisfied with it. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not just me. RHaworth has retagged the new draft and, even if this draft were to be improved further, it would still need {{copyvio-revdel}} to clear its history. At its current level of copyvio I would also retag as G12 if it weren't already.
Tots & little ones matter!, the fact that there's any copyvio in the draft shows that copy & paste has played too much of a role in its creation. Write in your own words.
At its heart, the problem here is that the draft isn't even recording a news event (contrary to WP:NOTNEWS), it's recording a news report with a single source. If it's truly significant or notable wouldn't some other news outlet have given it at least a nod of coverage? The situation isn't helped by the fact that Tots & little ones matter!, by username and edit history, is avowedly a single purpose account making no pretence of writing in a neutral encyclopedic way on a topic which is already hard to deal with. As Serial Number 54129 pointed out, "Please also see WP:RGW; if it does not apply now, almost certainly will in the near future." Cabayi (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Cabayi, your assertion that "it's recording a news report " is not quite right. The news report's first sentence ends with the phrase "a BBC investigation has found.", so both it and my article were about the BBC's investigation. Naturally, the BBC's competitors would be unlikely to run a story about the findings of a BBC investigation, no matter how interesting or notable its competitors' reporters might otherwise find it. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1992 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

First off I should say it would have been courteous to allow me to comment before moving the article back. Second, there is now a discussion created at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive73#Moving World Championship articles for a discussion. Note that while I haven't gotten around to moving them all, the proper name is "Ice Hockey World Championship," so there was no need to contest the move. While I have not moved the other articles to match this initial move, that was only a matter of time and effort. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit history fix requests

A few months ago an IP kept creating articles over old re-directs and screwed up a bunch of histories. One of these examples would be Jim Ward (quarterback). Is it possible to move everything from this edit and older back to Jim Ward?-- Yankees10 20:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dave Martin (linebacker) also has this problem from this edit and before.-- Yankees10 20:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. How about Mike Fisher (American football) and Mike Smith (wide receiver)? I believe these are the final two.-- Yankees10 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

History merge

Could you merge the history of Draft:Fantasy Island (film) with Fantasy Island (film)? Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 06:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dong Wenfei

Hi there, please check whether this recently created article qualifies for G4. Thanks in advance. Regards. Hitro talk 15:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SEFA

Notice

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

Article has never had any sources and has been flagged as such since 2012. A recent search suggests no further evidence of notability is forthcoming.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~TPW 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No more typos in merge log reasons

Every time you have used Special:MergeHistory, you have always included the typo "iin" in your merge log reason. Next time, please do not produce any more "iin" typos. Instead of putting "was iin Category:Candidates for history merging" as the reason, you should put "was in Category:Candidates for history merging" as the reason. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Always (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Financial crisis (2007–present) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Financial crisis (2007–present). Since you had some involvement with the Financial crisis (2007–present) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bertux (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Duckworth–Lewis method page move

Did someone request this? A previous move request along the same lines was turned down in 2017 (see the talk page) so I think any further move should be contested. The official name is Duckworth-Lewis-Stern but it needs to be shown that the common name isn't still Duckworth-Lewis Spike 'em (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

A7 deletion of Pong Lang Sa On

The subject is quite clearly notable, if one knows what sources to look for. Would you mind restoring this to draft? Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Girl (Mayday Parker)

I came up with a request to move Spider-Girl (Mayday Parker)’s history to Mayday Parker. But I had no consensus/ objection on it for a long while so I was wondering if an admin like you could do it since you movied Peni Parker for me. Jhenderson 777 23:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jhenderson777: Spider-Girl (Mayday Parker) was started at 00:16, 4 March 2004 and seems never to have been moved, because its log is empty; around 26 January 2012‎ its page length is running at around 39700 bytes, but between 01:11, 26 January 2012‎ and 18:53, 7 March 2012‎ some sort of hiccup happened, until at 18:53, 7 March 2012‎ User:ClueBot NG reverted it to as before. Mayday Parker has consecutive 4 text edits (from 01:33, 26 January 2012‎ to 01:46, 26 January 2012) with page length running at about 29400 bytes, and is WP:Parallel histories with Spider-Girl (Mayday Parker); and the rest of Mayday Parker's history seems to be redirects. There seems to be no need to move edits about between histories here. As regards an ordinary page-move, is she more known as Mayday Parker or as May Parker or as Spider-Girl? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Well her own past comic books titles mostly use her as Spider-Girl in titles. But one issue is there is more than one Spider-Girl too. See Anya Corazon. Another issue she has referred to herself as Spider-Woman recently within the comics. So Spider-Girl is not her only code name. Hence why I believe we should use the civilian name. Jhenderson 777 14:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Well usually with comic book related articles. If they use more than one alias. For example: her using both Spider-Girl and Spider-Woman. Then we just use the civilian name. Just like Anya Corazon and a whole lot of others. Jhenderson 777 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your help with Category:Welsh-language television programmes. Deb (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Cecily Jordan Farrar

I saw that the redirects were restored and you declined to merge the Cicely Jordan Farrar page with the newer page. I read the reason, and understand why the history may not be appropriate. My thought it would just be far to the old work, and could even allow reverts if my attempt was too radical.

I built the new version from scratch using since the piece had wandered so far afield. I wanted to ensure that the article about the person remained and wasn't subsumed into a totally different topic, which is a legal case. My goal is simply to craft an article that refers to Cicely Jordan Farrar and her notability directly. I definitely tried to pull out as much of the information as I could from the original history, as well as doing a lot of additional research.

Knowing nothing about articles being shifted into redirects,

What do I do next? Request administrative removal of the redirect that was replaced? Is this something you can do or I can do? Is there anything else I need to do that I'm unaware of? Any help you can offer would be much appreciated, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Wtfiv (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm requesting that the redirect page that directs Cecily Jordan Farrar to Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute be deleted. That way, the two articles are separated and both can be found separately.Wtfiv (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wtfiv, I have restored the history. I had already declined the speedy deletion and you did not provide any policy based reason here or on my talk page as to why the history of this redirect should be deleted. You recreated it right after it was deleted just with a different target. If that is what you wanted all you needed to do is change the target of the redirect. ~ GB fan 11:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@GB fan: and @Anthony Appleyard: Thank you for restoring the history. I think that is fairest to the article, as my intention wasn't to erase its history in spite of my "bold" revision.

The redirect issue was complicated by a conflict of editors and many people making rapid changes in a short time. (I'm surprised by how many people jumped in on a topic I think is actually quite esoteric). I didn't realize the link that was nuked was actually a redirect based on a spelling change (Cicely instead of Cecily). So, I thought it was the original link, not a new one. But this new one went to the wrong place. Once it was deleted, Google search went to a blank page. That's when I understood what happened. So I rebuilt it and replaced the redirect to the right article.

The whole process was very messy, and I apologize if the replacement seems to have wasted your time. It didn't, as all the redirects that the article generated got very confusing. (I think there were at least three generated in the heat of other people's excited editing debate.) Your multiple interventions has helped sort things out, and now the articles work like they should, the histories are back, and the redirects are okay. I don't think it could've happened without you raising the issues and stepping in in the first place. I appreciate both your patience and your attentive response as an admin. So, thanks again! Wtfiv (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Alan Vaughan-Richards

First of all, the potential sock put a tag of notability, I removed it because nothing was likely to be done and told the person to put in in afd, if they have questions about it. Second, you have to remove the word of COI, that is the most useless accusation I have ever heard, I do not even give a crap about the guy. The potential sock did not read the article or the references, AVR is more of a scholar than an architect as stated in the references. Again, I demand the article to be put back and placed in AFD for discussions and the charges of COI removed.really, this place is beginning to go to the dogs.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The Last Jedi

I don't know which one exactly because I can't view deleted pages, but one or more of the following talk pages:

has to be restored and moved to Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response for purposes of talk page preservation. I'm asking you because you previously moved the archive to draft talk, so you know what I'm talking about. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Coming from this section on Fastily's talk page, Wumbolo, why do both Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response and Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response 2 exist? Also, did you read the "How to preserve this page when we are done" discussion involving GoneIn60, Swarm, Alaney2k and Matthew hk and myself? Having these additional archive boxes, which are separate from the main archives, might be confusing to some. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment/Question – I am glad that the discussion was moved to an archive subspace of the main article, so thanks for that! Is it also possible (and permissible) to move the draft itself along with its revision history to Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response, or is that a violation of article namespace? It would be nice to preserve that as well, because not all changes were discussed on the talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    For clarification, I'm referring to preserving Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Draft or talk page content is not permissible in the mainspace. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Izno, thanks for clarifying. I noticed that the result of this talk page move was to a subspace (or subpage) of the mainspace, out of view from the general public. Does that make a difference, or is it a hard and fast rule that you're referring to? It needs to be archived somewhere, and if someone's userspace is the only option, then so be it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    My rule is basically hard and fast. If you are attempting to archive it somewhere, it can be archived in the talk namespace e.g. as Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response/Draft. --Izno (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I'd be okay with that. Anywhere is better than nowhere. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
GoneIn60, Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response 2 should be deleted. It's just an earlier version of Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response, and is not needed. I'll ask an admin to delete it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay deleted Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response 2 per the request as simple duplicate of the other page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Would someone with access mind archiving Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response to Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response/Draft as discussed above? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nick O'Teen

I figured I'd ask you what this refers to instead of just going straight to WP:RFD. I found this when looking for redirects with a broken anchors in the redirect tool for the nicotine article and I noticed that you created the page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. That seems like something worth mentioning in Nicotine#Society and culture if there's WP:RS-quality sources which cover that. Unfortunately, that material isn't cited in the old revision, so I don't know if it's notable or not. I have my hands full with other parts of that article, so I can't really spend time looking for them right now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denarius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident

I moved it back because it was an exceptionally bad and possibly defamatory title, and there was consensus among pretty much all participants to have this as an interim rename. The argument for deletion was not that it had a bad title, but underlying issues in whether it should be merged or not.--Pharos (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • It was also listed as a "uncontroversial technical move" which was incorrect. There was overwhelming consensus against the old "MAGAkids" name at the talk page and AfD (including from the original author), and this is an extremely high profile article with a title that had serious BLP issues. I think that countervails the comparatively minor issue of AfD title consistency.--Pharos (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Zaake Francis

Why did you speedily delete this under WP:A7 after I had pointed out that the article claimed that the subject was a member of parliament, and substantiated that claim with a reliable source? I was just rewriting the article as you deleted it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Undelete please

RE: National Defense Strategy (United States), I pulled one paragraph verbatim from what I believed was a US Government document and thus NOT copyrighted, but public domain. While it turns out it was not an official US Govt definition of what an NDS was, this is ridiculous. All of the history is gone. It was tagged for speedy deletion one minute, and 8 minutes later deleted, giving me no opportunity to remedy the page. The history is all wiped away and I must recreate it from scratch now. Blindly following bots is ridiculous and giving an author no chance to reply before a speedy deletion is exceptionally unwelcoming and does not promote the mission of Wiki, but serves to dissuade future contributions. Please undelete this page and allow me to edit it. I see the history is hidden from me as well, so I'd have to completely reconstruct it which is ridiculous. Please undelete. Echoniner (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the times over the years when you executed history merges for me. I make the request then you show up and do it. Thanks for making the wheels of the machine turn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cenozoic horses

Hi Anthony

You deleted Category:Cenozoic horses with the rationale "This page is unneccesary", then restored it, then deleted it again.

However, the category remained populated with 5 subcats ... and "This page is unneccesary" I not a valid criterion for speedy deletion.

I have not formed a view either way about the merits of the category, but if you want to delete it, please take it to WP:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

XFDcloser

Have you considered using User:Evad37/XFDcloser? It's a big help with stuff like this. czar 03:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Aegean civilization(s)

Hi Anthony! Please revert the undiscussed move here (see his contribs). This is exactly the sort of thing that typically produces lots of discussion in an RM. I've told him to launch one if he wants it. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)

You handled this as a technical move, but made a typo - an extra ) at the end - Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)) . Can you move this to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) please? -- Netoholic @ 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Unisound

Hello. I see that you have moved Unisound out of draft after its author requested it as an uncontroversial technical move. This page was moved to draft last week as "not ready" and doesn't seem to have improved, so I think it may need discussion first. The existing links to Unisound are about a recording studio and should lead to Dan Swanö, not the Chinese company, hence the previous redirect. Certes (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Shameless (UK TV Series)

I see that you've just deleted the Shameless UK page, are you intending on putting up a corrected version, or leaving it for others? There was a lot information on that page, it seems a shame to lose it. Jaruzel (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation page Shameless

There are still three revisions in the history of Shameless (UK TV series) that belong at Shameless. Please move the edit at 15:57, 31 May 2007 as well as both edits at 12:26, 5 June 2007 to Shameless. After doing that, you should also revert the disambiguation page to revision 880704286. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cards84664 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mario (Mario Series)

When was the redirect page Mario (Mario Series) written on. 150.176.13.103 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Independent Social Research Foundation

This page was flagged for deletion and then deleted before I had a chance to revise it, or send an email granting permission for the material on the ISRF (for whom I work) website to be reproduced.

A lot of work went into the first go at the ISRF wiki page - could you please undelete so that I can make edits or act such that the page doesn't violate copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdgwilson (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Scone

Hope all is well. Recently you performed a move on Scone, Scotland . You said you were responding to a WP:RM/TR request, which I checked out and anyone can see that the request was wrongly entered as 'uncontroversial'.[3] Also, in your move you claimed to be acting as an administrator based on that request, however given that you voted on a previous move request on that page, albeit a long time ago, you can be construed as WP:INVOLVED. The claims that the earlier move by myself last year was unsupported is not accurate, as can be seen in the article's talk page where I posted and cited valid reasons. Essentially, as you will see, the argument was that 'Scone, Perth and Kinross' title is exceptionally ugly and confusing, as it appears to be a list of three settlements, Scone, Perth, Scotland, and Kinross; and Scone is reasonably well known outside of Scotland, or has claim to be, so it is perfectly acceptable even with the guideline cited to use ', Scotlamd' for disambiguation. Maybe you are right that the other name might be preferential, but at this stage it requires wider discussion and scrutiny. Surely you agree? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Deacon of Pndapetzim: That discussion was closed on 04:02, 10 August 2008 -- over 8 years ago. In my experience as a boy living in England, "scone" primarily meant the baked item. My first knowledge of the place Scone in Scotland and the Stone of Scone came via school history lessons. To me, 'Scone, Perth and Kinross' is more precise, because it says which district of Scotland it is in, to those trying to find the place. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any view on my 'three settlement' objection, or any precise reasons why Scone, Scotland doesn't cut it? I'm not saying either name is perfect or perfectly flawed, but I can't get over the fact that it looks like an article on three settlements being considered as one. It's those bureaucrats giving such ill-considered names, they should have just annexed Kinross-shire to Perthshire, it was hardly worth changing the name! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Crouch, if you needed an old redirect deleted, which my clumsiness apparently left apologies, that is a different question from posting a controversial move as a technical request. I believe WP:G6 is the correct process these days, though as you can tell I'm semi-retired and not very active. I'm sure that Anthony would not have completed the move if you'd presented the matter accurately or if he remembered that he had participated in an earlier conversation (I know from direct experience that ArbCom are happy to consider that exact thing, forgetting you had participated in a move vote and then movinh the page as an admin, as a violation of WP:Involved...at least if it suits them). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    I would not have posted the move request at RMT had I known that there had been a discussion on it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We all make mistakes, me being no exception (as you pointed out). It's no biggie. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shogi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please Undelete: Ray Lugo & The Boogaloo Destroyers

Hello, I have reviewed the editors recommendations and guidelines and effected the changes on this page. Kindly review and undelete. Thank you in advance for your attention. (FunkyNYC (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC))

Thank you kindly. What are the next steps towards getting the page live?. My apologies, I am not very experienced in this situation. Thank you (````) 20:04, 4 February 2019 User:FunkyNYC

Ray Lugo: Histmerge

Please merge the history of Draft:Ray Lugo & The Boogaloo Destroyers to Ray Lugo & The Boogaloo Destroyers. The article has now been created. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)

Why did you move Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America) to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting and at Talk:Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) that does not agree with this move. Scouts BSA appears to be the official name now. Would you care to join that discussion?--Bduke (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Anthony - I've closed this WP:RMUM. You know better. Page discussions which are controversial should be done via a full RM request AND with the long-standing title as the status quo. Please stop entertaining personal requests on your talk page. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This case reminds me of some others:
Please try to be more careful about making undiscussed moves that are contrary to RM outcomes or are contrary to recent reverts of stable titles.
—BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Manchester meetup 36 - 9 June 2019

As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your deletion of Jack Mingjie Lin

Can you please undelete Jack Mingjie Lin (or at least Draftify the page for further improvement) please? Coverage such as https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/ATP_Tennis/63100/jack-mingjie-lin-earns-new-york-open-wild-card-after-a-thriller/, and his expected participation at the 2019 New York Open (which will lead to him passing the WP:NTENNIS SNG), should be enough to overcome an A7 deletion. Thank you. Iffy★Chat -- 10:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid

The redirect Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid is useless and is not a search term. Can you delete it? QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The redirect Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid is also useless and is not a search term. Can you also delete this one? QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English-language names given by WWI troops to places affected by WWI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bailleul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sesame Street Animal Music

page Sesame Street Animal Music was deleted by JamesBWatson as a R3: Recently created, implausible redirect on 08:34, 14 July 2011. What does it redirect to and when was it created. 150.176.13.103 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I want you to let me know what Sesame Street Animal Music redirects to and when it was created? 150.176.13.103 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled The Goldbergs spin-off listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled The Goldbergs spin-off. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled The Goldbergs spin-off redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nahissco

Nahissco was deleted by Hadal in May 2011 (a la Dladdy and Woca Wola). What does Nahissco redirect to and when was it created? 150.176.13.103 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • 22:11, 15 April 2011 . . Endingsesame (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (←Redirected page to Nabisco)

When was the redirect Woca Wola created? 2601:584:100:E310:912B:95F4:4105:2723 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • 13:10, 30 May 2011 . . Endingsesame (talk | contribs | block) (23 bytes) (←Redirected page to Coca-Cola) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

When was the page Dladdy created? 2601:584:100:E310:B06B:69EC:8482:F650 (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • 13:11, 30 May 2011 . . Endingsesame (talk | contribs | block) (5 bytes) (←Created page with 'Daddy') Tag: new article with no mention of title or normal opening sentence Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

For other redirects Hadal deleted on May 30, 2011, when was the redirect When John Micheal Howarth (Age 12) is Sick created? 2601:584:100:E310:E46C:6174:105F:3D9B (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simpsons Movie by John Howarth

Can you restore all deleted revisions of page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simpsons Movie by John Howarth and move them to The Simpsons Movie Two? 2601:584:100:E310:1E7:CA4C:4618:EB12 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

List of tsunamis

Hi, thanks for doing that move - I proposed it four years ago and then forgot all about it as no-one responded. Mikenorton (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your Deletion Of ERA Prometheus Article

Hi Anthony Appleyard!

This article should not have been deleted for Unambiguous advertising or promotion (G11) because the citations substantiate the claims in the article. The neutrality is supported by a plethora of verifiable third-party *QUOTES* (not my words) from the New York Times and Vogue magazine.

The tag of G11 for speedy deletion was clearly heavy handed as the page was NOT *exclusively* promotional as it discusses the factual democratization of the tourbillon mechanism from the brands POV. Furthermore, the article does not need to be "fundementally rewritten" because it was already going through rewrites as seen on the history of edits. This action in and of itself shows "the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view" as edits were already being made SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ISSUE.

Given that this page prima facie fails to meet G11 content for prima deletion, it looks like the "Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators" wasn't followed.

Also...there was *no discussion* in the Talk Page and/or a justified "advert" placed by you. It was simply tagged for speedy deletion one minute, and 25 minutes later deleted, giving me no opportunity to remedy the page. I must recreate it from scratch now.

Failing to follow "Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators" and giving an author no chance to reply before a speedy deletion is exceptionally unwelcoming and does not promote the mission of Wiki, but serves to dissuade future contributions. Please undelete this page and allow me to edit it.

I would like to continue to be a contributing member to the understanding and fair community of Wikipedia. Izazii (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Izazii: The tourbillon mechanism in watches is described at page Tourbillon. The rest of article ERA Prometheus is advertisement for a particular brand of tourbillon watches, whether its content is provable or not. Sorry.

As regards "democratization of the tourbillon mechanism", to most people $999 USA (as stated in the article) (nearly $1000) is a big sum of money. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard

The democratization of the tourbillon is cited by The NY Times and fashion blog Coolector.

These are straight from 3rd party sources.

At best there should be a chance to amend the article as criticism that it’s not really “affordable”.

Give the opportunity to continue to make edits.

All the sources come from verifiable 3rd parties.

Please reverse so I can make edits. You already admit notability with "whether the content is provable or not".

Why was there never an attached "advert" tag?

Please advise.Izazii (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Izazii: Page ERA Prometheus was speedy-delete-tagged at 21:10, 18 February 2019 by User:Power~enwiki as "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11)", that is, "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.". If I undeleted it and called AfD on it, the verdict would certainly be "delete as advertisement". "Democratization of the tourbillon" would seem to mean "making tourbillon watches available to the general population", with a meaning similar to "advertizing", but the $999 that you mentioned is still a lot of money. A short paragraph inserted into page Mechanical watch would be enough. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Anthony Appleyard: I'm not trying to be a pain Anthony, I understand. But User:Power~enwiki was being excessively heavy handed as the article is NOTABLE for 1. being the most crowdfunded tourbillon watch in the fashion industry and 2. (arguably) leading to the "democrization of the mechanism." These two points in and of itself necessarily meet the WP:Notable and deserve an article of its own. It is for this same reason why you have many stand alone watch models as seperate entities, they are notable in of itself in their industry. There does not exist a requirement to make a fundamental rewrite. An "advert" tag and a call to action to correct the language would have been sufficient. I ask for the benefit of the doubt that this article is noteworthy, can easily be salvaged with proper edits that were currently ongoing, and that you please undelete and call AfD on it.Izazii (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Izazii: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERA Prometheus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Damask (Street)

Damask (Street) is another page that was mentioned on Endingsesame's talk page. It was deleted on July 24, 2011 by Edgar181 as an implausible redirect. When was the page Damask (Street) created? 150.176.13.103 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

History merge request

Lil Pump history

The history of Lil Pump currently contains 2 extra edits that do not belong with the rest. You should therefore delete the page and then restore all of the edits except the 2 edits at 22:30, 30 October 2017 (revisions 807932778 and 807932833). After doing that, immediately restore indefinite semi-protection for the page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Second Day after Good Friday

Second Day after Good Friday was deleted by Discospinster on July 13, 2011 as an implausible redirect (like Mario (Mario Series), Lario (Mario Series), etc.). What did Second Day after Good Friday redirect to and when was it created? 2601:584:100:E310:5170:2FF4:A89A:E9E2 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Saladax Biomedical

I was given a notification this morning (23 February 2019) about the Nomination for Speedy Deletion of Saladax Biomedical, but the page was then deleted without any time for me to respond with a request to keep the page. Could you please note how the page Saladax Biomedical fits section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and is "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" so that we can improve the article? How is it more promotional vis-a-vis similar Biotech company pages such as Alnylam Pharmaceuticals or Janssen Biotech, for example? —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • 18:27, 23 February 2019‎ JBuckley93

Roslyn, pawnship

Hello, Anthony. This is a heads up about some issues.

Earlier today, you performed a move for Roslyn (compiler), which was effectively a revert, made at the request of an anonymous user, to back out a change that I made the day before.

Unfortunately, I think by doing so, you were being used as a tool of sorts by the anonymous user in question.

It's clear—at least to me as a result of the last couple of days—that the anonymous user is upset with some edit I made to the article Microsoft .NET strategy and is now trawling through all edits I've made in that area and reverting them in some sort of streak arising from a personal grudge related to whatever thing he or she took issue with. You can see this in the edit history of the aforementioned Microsoft .NET strategy article. The anonymous user has more or less stonewalled on all changes I've made, to the point of ignoring unambiguous MOS guidelines and even going so far as replacing half a paragraph of prose I'd written with his or her own unproofread words containing obvious grammatical errors while simultaneously suggesting that any changes to the intro paragraph need to be accompanied by a justification from WP:LEAD before those changes are made or accepted. (They don't; that's not how it works.)

As far as the Roslyn (compiler) article title goes, the reason he or she gave is that '"Roslyn (compiler)" [...] is nickname used by the product's fans only.' This is verifiably untrue; the subject is widely referred to by the name I moved it to ("Roslyn") in both casual and formal use. (This is even acknowledged in the article itself now and prior to the move, which describes the subject as being "better known" as "Roslyn".) ".NET Compiler Platform" seems to be the used only within a subset of some of Microsoft's technical documentation related to this topic. Most articles written on the subject refer to it in their title refer to it as Roslyn, and even its URL reflects this.

Aside from that, the anonymous user made the request to "revert [as an] undiscussed move", but the user hasn't actually tried to open up a discussion—or done anything else to suggest that this is anything other than another act in the series following from the personal grudge I described above.

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@C. A. Russell: I have moved it back to Roslyn (compiler). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Anthony.
Okay, I stopped reading the above when I read "personal grudge". Sure, I disagree with his editing, but I have a reason: WP:NOTBROKEN. And yes, I did track his editing to .NET Compiler Platform but for a very simple reason: It seemed strange to me that the article should have this name. We are in a dispute. Let's not label each other with accusation of grudge or whatnot. He made a bold edit, I requested a revert, and you, an honorable agent of Wikipedia, assisted me in a process that is WP:BRD.
But I am going to discuss contents here, not his person. It is simple: The burden of proof that "Roslyn" is the most common name, is on the person who makes the allegation. Can I see some proof to the effect that "Roslyn" is in widespread use?
Of course, I am no longer sure entering any kind of discussion with this person is of any use, now that he has resorted to labeling and personal attack without provocation. But... just between you and me, if I were an admin and saw one of the dispute parties coming to my talk page and badmouthing the other dispute party, obliging him would be the last thing I do.
37.254.85.6 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, the Roslyn claim did not originate from me. Again, as I noted above, that claim is one that the article itself had carried in its intro sentence, which described the subject as being "better known" as Roslyn. I did a spot check, confirmed that "Roslyn" is how it's consistently referred to (in both casual and official use, as I mentioned above), found that there was an existing source from the article that corroborated this, moved that citation nearer to the claim itself, and moved the page per WP:COMMONNAME.
I'm also not going to spend significant energy refuting other misleading or outright untrue assertions. Enough of my time has been wasted by that sort of thing in the last 1—2 days. There's now an open issue about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
-- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The rename request is from you, the "WP:COMMONNAME" claim is from you and so the burden of proving it is on you. And more importantly, the accusation of "personal grudge" is from you. (And how can I have personal grudge when we met two days ago?) Face it: You are wrong and in denial. And Wikipedia has a nasty history of mistreating guest editors. 37.254.85.6 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ten Talents (cookbook)

I'm totally happy with the dab, it's what I'd asked for in the first place, but I have no idea what just happened. All of a sudden multiple editors were arguing about things I'm not totally clear on, like 'inappropriate technical request' -- what was all that? valereee (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Histmerge of Use Your Words (song)

Thank you for performing that move of Use Your Words (song). However, my original request was only to split the original revision by Ss112 from the primary topic into the title with the ambiguator. I apologize if the way I wrote my histmerge request confused you. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Star Suvarna

Hi sir, I am ZaxoteZ. I am new here. Please approved the page or send the page to Administrator for approval. Star Suvarna page is in draft now, is not available on Wikipedia as a normal page. Please do something. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am new here, don't know how to move. Please please move this page from Draft to an ordinary page. ZaxoteZ (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please make it an ordinary page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan

Per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan, I think this subject is notable. However, I see by reading the above comments left on your talk page you respond to a decent amount of speedy deletes. Therefore, I ask: was this the case for your deletion here (given the result of the AfD)? Thank you! ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 04:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @MattLongCT: Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan was speedy-delete-tagged as "created by a banned or blocked user". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, I won't contest it then. I was under the impression this was done unilaterally, but 2-3 users seem to be in agreement here to delete. That is more than acceptable. Thank you~! :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 16:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Subregions of Caldas Department

Could you also move Category:Districts of Caldas Department to Category:Subregions of Caldas Department? "District" is a misnomer. The entities between department and municipality are either called subregion or province, in the case of Caldas Department the term is subregion. Cf. es:Categoría:Provincias de Colombia, es:Categoría:Subregiones de Caldas 89.14.115.198 (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Dippy

Thanks for the move of the Dippy article. Was there a reason you didn’t move the talk page? Thanks. —В²C ☎ 08:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International School of Temple Arts

Nearly a year ago you moved International School of Temple Arts to Draft talk:International School of Temple Arts. I recently edited the draft to add some citations and expand the content. Both pages are now existing. A Wikipedian who had temporarily argued for deletion (User talk:Quek157) has dropped out of Wikipedia. I hope you will not beat-me up for violating wikipedia rules and I hope that you will not delete International School of Temple Arts, but will instead delete Draft talk:International School of Temple Arts so that Talk:International_School_of_Temple_Art can be cleaned-up. --Ben Best:Talk 13:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Benbest: Before I do that, queries arise:
    1. Do you want me to history-merge Draft:International School of Temple Arts into International School of Temple Arts?
    2. I still feel that the article needs to be renamed :: given a name "International School of Temple Arts", I would have expected the article, or the organization which it describes, to be generally about the type of paintings and sculptures found in Indian temples, but it seems to be only about sexual matters.
    3. Article International School of Temple Arts still looks very advertisory.
    4. I am unwilling to delete Draft talk:International School of Temple Arts, as it contains an important relevant discussion.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
        1. I am not sure what a "history-merge" is, but your implied suggestion on point 4. to Draft talk:International School of Temple Arts onto the Talk page of International School of Temple Arts seems very reasonable to me.
        2. You might as well say that the Roman Catholic church need to be renamed the Italian Catholic church, or simply the Catholic church. Or that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to be renamed the Mormon Church. Or that Tesla as the name of a car should not be named after a person or an electrical technology. You are describing a personal impression, but the actual name of the organization is International School of Temple Arts (ISTA), and if an encyclopedia is to report on an organization, it should do so by using the actual name of the organization. Thousands of people have done ISTA trainings/workshops all over the world under the official name of the organization (look at upcoming ISTA events scheduled). My impressions about the name the ISTA organization has chosen for itself is like ceremonies the ancient Egyptian priests would perform in their Temples. "Art" doesn't necessarily mean painting and sculpture, it can include music, dance, etc. -- and more generally "art as opposed to science", which could include ceremonies of various kinds, such as occur in ISTA. I will try to find out why the name ISTA was chosen, but what is most relevant to this discussion is that that is the actual name of the organization, and it is important to use than name even if your opinion is that the organization has been misnamed. An encyclopedic entry on ISTA or any other organization should not be written by calling it some other name.
        3. The article looks purely descriptive to me, except for the very first sentence. Would it be better to say "which attempts to promote sexual healing and healthy attitudes towards sex" rather than "which promotes sexual healing and healthy attitudes towards sex"? Although I think for most participants ISTA succeeds in achieving its goals, results don't always follow intentions. Drug rehabilitation programs often fail to rehabilitate.
      • Thank you for expressing yourself so reasonably, and for taking me seriously. --Ben Best:Talk 06:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Benbest: If that is what the organization is called, and if the subject is noteworthy, it may as well stand, as long as the organization's purpose is stated prominently in the first paragraph. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Anthony Appleyard: I have reworded the first paragraph to make the article less promotional. I believe that the world-wide workshops and many participants in those workshops, as established by the citations, show that ISTA is noteworthy.--Ben Best:Talk 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Look Now

Hi Anthony - um, why did you move this page when there's an active RM just opened on it? Could you please revert? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

NARSINH DADHANIYA

  • NARSINH DADHANIYA was deleted by Edgar181 on 24 July 2011 like Damask (Street) and other pages. When was the page created and who created that page? 150.176.13.103 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • At 15:43, 16 December 2011 User:RHaworth deleted page NARSINH DADHANIYA as (G3: Vandalism).
    • At 15:19, 24 July 2011 User:Shyamdadhaniya created it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

History merge request

Could you merge the history of Draft:Morbius (film) into Morbius (film)? Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 01:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Dana Lynn Louis

Resolved

Can you please restore Dana Lynn Louis and move the page to Draft:Dana Lynn Louis? This page just created today at an edit-a-thon. Can't we give a little time to improve? I'd like to look into this more, please. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Restore deleted edit for Martin Daly

The page Martin Daly had a single deleted disambiguation page edit. Can you restore that edit please? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: John Serry -- a Redirect Page to John Serry Jr.

Hello Anthony Appleyard: Many thanks for your kind assistance and editing in reference to the Uncontroversial Technical Move of the article John Serry Jr.. Just a quick note to inform you that I edited the Redirect Page John Serry to serve as a Disambiguation Page as per the observations found during the page's creation on Wikipedia Talk (See here Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Serry [1]). I hope that this is OK. The page now serves to disambiguate searches for each of the two musicians who published compositions and recordings using the same name --John Serry. I also attempted to repair those links made in other other articles to John Serry which should be directed to John Serry Jr. I hope that this is also OK. Feel free to let me know if this is problematic in any way and I shall be happy to restore the redirect for you. Many thanks in advance for your kind and thoughtful assistance and best wishes for your continued editorial success on Wikipedia! Respectfully -Ciao104.207.219.150 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)PS

  1. ^ Disambiguation page for John Serry on Wikipedia Talk

Not sure why you speedily deleted my new page for Josephson Engineering

Hi Anthony, Added a new page less than 24h hours ago about a significant mic manufacturer and inventor named David Josephson (page was Josephson Engineering ). It contained a few references to independent / 3rd-party articles that indicated some of the significance of the firm; I was planning to add more but ran out of time last night. I'd appreciate restoring this and allowing it to be developed with a bit of time. I do not understand why this firm would be considered less significant than some of the existing mic manufacturers who have wikis, seeing as Josephson have been manufacturing and providing OEM services for numerous companies for 30 years, have patents, and the founder is the vice-chair of the microphone technical division of AES-- you can't get more central to the contemporary world of microphone development than that! Thanks, --eliotbates (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft talk:Alan Tafoya (actor)

The page Draft talk:Alan Tafoya (actor) had some deleted revisions that you have moved from Talk:Alan Tafoya. Please restore them to complete the history. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alk-

Notice

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this page only describes the definition of a prefix

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Mini Ladd

I noticed you recently deleted Mini Ladd per WP:G4 because it had been deleted at AFD before. But numerous reliable sources exist and were cited in the article that did not exist when it was deleted at the last AFD almost 3 years ago, so I suspect it was not eligible for deletion under G4, as it was not "substantially identical". But given that you presumably disagree, I'm interested in hearing your explanation. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • And you agree with this conclusion why? I just checked a cached version of the article and all 4 of the sources did not even exist when the last AFD was closed in April 2016. Thus the article is clearly at least a slight improvement since the last AFD, contrary to JalenFolf's claim. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Charlie Bresler page

Hi Anthony,

Hope you're well.

I'd like to provide full disclosure here to explain why I don't believe there is a conflict of interest in this article.

I am an admirer of effective altruism and so this brought me to Wikipedia to see which organizations, people etc. are featured. I found that Charlie did not have an entry on here so I wanted to fill this gap. I have never spoken to or met with Charlie, although I do admire his work. I'm not and have never been an employee or volunteer for the organization and I am a self-employed EFL teacher so I don't work in their industry either. I have written a blog for the organization: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/blog/id/1479/minimalism-and-effective-altruism and a supporter story: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/supporters-stories/id/1473/an-intuition-worth-following because I admire the work of Peter Singer.

If you have any questions about the above, I'm happy to answer :)

Warmest regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAuser1990 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for your reply.

I've looked over the article and am unsure what parts of the article constitute advertising. For example, there's no use of positive adjectives to inject opinion into the article and I believe everything mentioned in the article is a fact delivered without bias or hyperbole. I'm new to Wikipedia, so it's possible I'm just missing something obvious. If you can offer any advice on how to amend the article to make it a better fit for Wikipedia, I'd really appreciate it.

Warmest regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAuser1990 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Alan Tafoya (actor)

Hi Anthony. Would you mind taking a look at this article? Jay Odin is trying to create an article which was previously deleted via AfD (see WP:THQ#Help with Talk Page for more details). The original AfD was from 2016, so it's possible things have changed since then. You've already restored and hist merge some of the history of the older version into this new one; so, I'm assuming you felt that working on a new draft would be OK. The creator didn't submit it for review via WP:AFC, and moved the page himself into the mainspace; I think this is based upon the misunderstanding that this means the page will be given an AfC-type review. I was going to revert the move, but figured I'd ask you first if you think it's necessary. I don't want to create any unnecessary cleanup, but I also don't want to tag it per WP:G4 unless it's needed. My original suggestion to Jay Odin was for him to resubmit the draft for review via AfC, but maybe that step is not necessary now. Pinging KTC as a courtesy since she is the admin who originally deleted the article at AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why the previously deleted content was restored and histmerged. Anyhow, I don't see it as substantially identical for G4. Judge the current article by its merit. If you think notability is questionable, could always nominate it at AFD again. -- KTC (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look KTC. The file has been AfD by another editor; so, its Wikipedia notability or lack thereof will be resolved there. I was a little worried that I gave the creator some bad/un advice at the Teahouse and didn't want him to be penalized because of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Christchurch mosque shootings‎

Hi. Not sure whats up here. The talk page and article don't match. Both should be at Christchurch mosque shootings. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay someone moved the talk page. This was not an uncontroversial move. It was move protected in the past because of this, maybe that needs to be done again. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The page move from Christchurch mosque shootings to 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings was made without discussion or consensus. Moreover, the year is unnecessary as there has never been another mosque shooting in Christchurch. I ask that you move the page back to Christchurch mosque shootings so that a proper page move discussion can be undertaken from scratch. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Anthony. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Version 2 page for Geoff Marshall

The page Geoff Marshall (presenter) has been moved to Geoff Marshall. You should therefore restore Geoff Marshall (presenter) (version 2), move that page (without redirect) to Geoff Marshall (version 2), and retarget the redirect to "Geoff Marshall". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

History merge request

Could you merge the history of Draft:Ammonite (film) into Ammonite (film) please? Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

RM

Hi, there was no notice for this move, which can now be considered challenged, if not controversial. Please move it back so the requester can post a proper RM on the article talk page for discussion and consensus. Thanks - wolf 08:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - wolf 09:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex Scott-Samuel

This page has been very rapidly removed, and I am told that it is regarded as an attack page. I'd like the opportunity to contest that and to improve the article. Bigwig7 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, why? No discussion. No proposed improvement, no change. My request stands. Please remove the page.Andydoc1 (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wharton Creek talk pages

There is one more revision in the history of Talk:Wharton Creek that also belongs at Talk:Wharton Creek (Unadilla River tributary). Also, there is currently a MergeHistory timestamp bug, but until that bug is fixed, you should do the following:

  • Delete Talk:Wharton Creek (Unadilla River tributary) and restore only its latest edit.
  • Merge the "moved page" revision at 08:22, 16 April 2017 in the history of Talk:Wharton Creek to Talk:Wharton Creek (Unadilla River tributary) using Special:MergeHistory.
  • Finally, restore the 3 edits for Talk:Wharton Creek (Unadilla River tributary) from 2012 and earlier, but leave the redirects from 2017 deleted.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Rockstone35/list_of_banned_users

The notification that this was going to be speedily deleted was posted after the deletion occurred. Can you reverse the deletion? I don't think it should ever have been deleted, since the material was on my talk page, but I would have appreciated being able to contest the deletion.

Rockstonetalk to me! 23:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

José Manuel Mourinho Félix / Félix Mourinho

Would it be possible to move José Manuel Mourinho Félix to Félix Mourinho? I can't do it myself, as it has been moved several times in the past. I think Félix Mourinho is the common name for the article. He is referred to as Félix in two José Mourinho biographies: Mourinho: Further Anatomy of a Winner by Patrick Barclay and José Mourinho: Rise of the Translator by Ciaran Kelly. He is also referred to as Félix in this 2004 Observer article, and following his death in 2017, in various newspapers and media outlets, including The Daily Telegraph, Manchester Evening News, USA Today and Sky Sports. APM (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

United States Intelligence Community

Hi Anthony. Regarding this edit from a few days ago - it looks like you inadvertently marked United States Intelligence Community as moved to United States intelligence community without actually doing the move. I haven't checked the other three. R2 (bleep) 16:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here to Learn!

Anthony, I recently discovered you deleted an article I wrote about Jeff Beacher. Of course, I was saddened to see it deleted, but I am here to learn and grow and hopefully become a valued contributor. I'm writing to you in the hopes of getting some mentoring so that I can not only re-work the article to your satisfaction but also get better at this in general - I love doing this kind of research and writing!

During my time writing the article, I worked very hard to find the kind of reliable sources that I'm pretty positive are in good standing with the community. I found coverage of him in sources like The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone Magazine, Entrepreneur, Forbes, The LA Times, Variety, etc; and I was careful to avoid including any references from sources that are not respected by wiki. Prior to it being deleted, I was delighted to see many established editors helping to clean up the article, and fix issues; as well as improve the content. Before one of them pointed me to you, I'd been chatting with several of them to try and figure out how to make the article about Jeff Beacher one that would be appreciated by the community. It's been a really great experience for me getting such support for the community!

Anyway, I am here to learn and I would be grateful to have your insight and help in improving what I wrote to enable its re-post/un-deletion. Respectfully DarthBuffet (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: - I saw that you have restored my article! I'm very grateful, and also eager to learn where it felt like an advertisement so that moving forward, I can avoid this situation and build a solid reputation here as a contributor/editor. I do love this platform! Anyway, thank you - sincerely. And if you feel inclined, I would appreciate any deeper insight. Though I am now getting mentored by several other editors, I have respect for your integrity and commitment here and feel I could learn from you! Thanks again. DarthBuffet (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you miss one or am I missing something?

  • Hi. I saw you accepted and purportedly did the move (I think) for iPad Air 3 → iPad Air (2019), except that the 2019 article is a still a redirect to the 3 article. I assume it simply slipped your mind, but in case not, was this done on purpose? Thanks for your help and my apologies if you are still working on it and I'm just being impatient. This is in reference to your edit here. - PaulT+/C 06:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Psantora: Now  Done. Someone likely put it in the list while I was working at the list. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Page Move - Walt Disney Television

Hey @Anthony Appleyard:, since the Disney-Fox deal is complete and we don't seem to have any opposition to moving Disney–ABC Television Group to "Walt Disney Television," could you please move the page? We seem to have consensus with those who had requested for the page to remain unmoved until the deal is complete. Thanks. Starforce13 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Anthony Appleyard:. Just noticed. Starforce13 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Northstar Electronics

Notice

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Sir, a page named Sishamau (Assembly constituency) is tagged for deletion from a long time, please delete it. 117.234.91.160 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.80.137 (talk)

Using various IP numbers, you have tagged it for deletion (for being "useless"). I have sprotected the page. If you want to argue for its deletion, then do so lucidly and persuasively on Talk:Sishamau (Assembly constituency). -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Medicine (Jennifer Lopez song)

Hi. Can you please restore the first few edits to Medicine (Jennifer Lopez song)? It was not just a redirect when I made it; it was the beginning of a page. I created the page before Giangkiefer created their article (in the wrong place), and I did not copy anything from their page when I redirected it back to mine. I tagged the article I made for histmerge because I wanted you to assess whether you thought a histmerge should be carried out (or whether it was a parallel page history type of situation), not because I wanted it to be. Rgardless of that, can you please restore the first few revisions of my creation of the page, because I did not want them to be deleted regardless. Thank you. Ss112 22:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Blue linked module page with an empty history".The discussion is about the topic Module:JCW-selected. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Idai met history

Please do not refer to the depression as Idai in the first paragraph of the meteorological history section. It is incorrect to do so as Meteo France at Reunion named the system on March 9. NoahTalk 11:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for Anthony Appleyard

Dear Anthony Appleyard

I would love to know the reason why my Draft:GALOSKI was deleted "05:49, 23 March 2019 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Galoski"

You deleted the page for reason "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement", while this link http://www.darklightrecordings.com/site/artist/galoski/ was used for citations and it's official link of the record label where the artist GALOSKI is releasing his music

Can you explain, thank you in advance,

best Stefce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefcetodoroski (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving or histmerge request

Hello. Oftentimes, you are making my histmerge request. I writing here to explain a less trivial merge, because a "normal" addmin probably wouldn't look at the talk page first... David Bednar was copy/pasted to David Bednar (general manager) and the former was changed to a disambiguation page. I suggest delete the latter article and move the former article to the new name. No significant addition made (the GA was removed, but should be readded). Or it could be merge. And recreate the disambigation page too. Have a nice day :-) Christian75 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Is everything fine with divya Krishnan? Help me with redirect Abidn2 (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Triangle Factory

Hello, I saw that you removed the article I wrote about Triangle Factory, I'm quit upset about this since I worked on it with other creators. I got help and advice from other wikipedians to remove certains things, such as peacock words and I did. I'm under te impression the article could not be seen as an advertisement anymore. I admit that in the beginning I used too much peacock words and internal links, but after 2 weeks of cleaning up the article (and having creators tell me it was good now) I am sure that it was a factual article with enough references to establish notability. However, you seemed to think otherwise and just deleted the whole article instead of marking it for improvement. The article told me to to contact you if I wanted to have the contents back for improvements, so I would like to do that. And If it is possible I would like to ask you to give me some feedback on what caused you to just delete the article when it clearly wasn't an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindevogelTaho (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @VindevogelTaho: The page was Draft:Triangle Factory. It was reviewed and rejected 5 times: Submission was declined on 24 February 2019 by CASSIOPEIA, on 14 February 2019 by Praxidicae, on 13 February 2019 by WikiDan61, on 12 February 2019 by SportingFlyer, and on 12 February 2019 by CASSIOPEIA. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Request to undo malicious page move

I want to request for Ruth Smith 95 (talk · contribs) to be moved back to Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs), which was done by RuthSmith95 (talk · contribs). I wanted to file a request at WP:RMT, but I get an error, because Ruth Smith 95 (talk · contribs) does not exist and the move was done by an inexperienced editor. More can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RuthSmith95 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: ) to get a better understanding of the situation. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m curious why you made an obviously controversial move as uncontroversial...

...on Concord Coach. Qwirkle (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The bulk of the discussion on Talk:Concord coach is directly about the proper name to use, and I can see no reason why you would look at an article about a bus line. Qwirkle (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Qwirkle (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Just so that it is quite clear. Qwirkle made the move to Concord Coach without any consultation at all. I pointed out on the talk page that the move is wrong, I waited for the proof of the pudding to turn up in the eating and, yes, no one wants to know about Concord coaches. They did want to know about Concord stagecoaches at a consistent rate of 24+ a day, now they don't want to know anything about them — one might say the pudding tastes bad. Eddaido (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
First, as the conversation on the article’s talk page points out, this is simply untrue. Secondly, this conversation belongs there, on the article’s talk page, not here. Qwirkle (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Anthony Appleyard, are you able to close this discussion on the re-naming of an article? I think the "discussion" has run its course. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Men & Little Miss (film)

The page Mr. Men & Little Miss (film) had some deleted edits. You should therefore restore the 3 edits from 17:10, 27 March 2019 to 00:50, 28 March 2019 inclusive, move them to Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss film (version 2), and redirect that page to Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss film. Do not restore the edits that include "moved page" or "CSD R2" in their summaries. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fix mistaken subpage move

In addition to what was reported at WP:VPT#Template:More citations needed section is a talk page?, you have also mistakenly moved a testcases talk page to a non-talk namespace. Please delete Template:More citations needed section/doc and Template:More citations needed section/sandbox, because they are both just redirects that have already been recreated by AnomieBOT at the original titles. Also, you should move Template:More citations needed section/testcases back to Template talk:Refimprove section/testcases. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known. Since you had some involvement with the List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Userspace article

Hi Anthony. Can you please move User:Ss112/JYAI to Just You and I (Tom Walker song)? My request was removed from RM/TR because Alex 21 seems to believe that every article created needs to go through AfC, when what I have made is not a draft, thus I reverted his removal of my request. Would it be possible for you to explain to Alex 21 about not removing articles from RM/TR that have not been submitted for AfC but are requested at RM/TR because a redirect is in the way, thus making it a technical request? The user does not seem to be aware of this and frequently removes these from RM/TR. If he is not willing to carry said moves out, I believe he should leave them for admins like yourself who will. Ss112 05:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Move of Jin Chinese to Jinyu Chinese

Hi, Anthony. I see you recently made this move, responding to a request at WP:RM/TR. I would like to contest this move, as it is inconsistent with our naming of sister articles. The element yǔ (Chinese for 'speech') is applied to several of these dialect groups when naming them in Chinese, but is less common in English. I believe this should be discussed at an RM before any move. Kanguole 16:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi! Could I ask your advice on a histmerge I think is needed? Draft:Tom Longboat Award was copy-pasted into mainspace at Tom Longboat Awards, and then deleted. I believe I would know how to merge the history of the original page into the current one if it weren't for the five edits to it on 29 December 2017; I find that I don't know how to deal with those. Is it acceptable to ignore them, for example, and leave them in the limbo where at the moment the whole early history resides? Or should I restore the draft as a redirect and attribute the copying? Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks – I didn't mean to create extra work for you. But since I have, can I ask you exactly what you did? I would have restored the draft, moved it over the mainspace article and so deleted that, then restored the deleted edits; but I don't see that you've moved either page, so I'm missing a trick. Can you enlighten? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Using Special:MergeHistory? – a page I've only just discovered. Sorry for all the questions, trying to learn here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

EAC

Hi Anthony Appleyard, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your addition to EAC. Since it's a disambiguation page, each entry needs a link to an existing article (which I couldn't find) and external links are not used. Since it's likely that it 'Extend air cartridge' will be added at a later date, I put back a commented-out version of your entry with its reference for future editors. Leschnei (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Restore redirect Sir Asman Jah

You have deleted Sir Asman Jah to make way for a move from Asman Jah, but then immediately reverted the move. Please restore the deleted edits for the redirect Sir Asman Jah. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

My first article has been deleted. Please give me some advice.

Hi,

My article, Becoming Animal (2018 film) (April 1), has been deleted due to copyright violations. Could you please tell me what the violation is so that I can avoid it in the future. I would like to submit a corrected and proper version of the draft next time.

Thank you! Bgos923 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Copy of User:Rockstone35/list of banned users

Hiya! Can I have a copy of User:Rockstone35/list of banned users emailed to me? I'm currently adding a link to the ban discussion for each account who's account has been categorized as banned (the record is really incomplete, and in doing this I've noticed a few users who were listed as banned under the category, but they were actually just blocked). It'd be easier if I had that article to refer to. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Punjabi script

Hello, thanks for the history merge to draft as requested. I notice there are a few revisions left unmanaged though, so the mainspace article now appears to begin with a large revert by an editor who didn't create the article. Can that be fixed please? Thanks, Flapjacktastic (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. The merge to draft seems to make things less clear about the article's history. Maybe the history merge should be reverted then, what do you think? Flapjacktastic (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A good solution to a tricky problem, thanks. Flapjacktastic (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

History merge tag

Good day! Is there a reason why you reverted the {{histmerge}} tag at "Caro"? Also, you may want to begin archiving your talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

bruh, where did you get the models for the firemen?

hi bruh, where did you get those ugly 3d models for firemen, the british firemen? they look familiar! thanks, have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.171.29 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Winelight/David Morley (paediatrician)

Hi, I was in the process of declining this speedy deletion request because CSD G7 does not apply to userspace. Would you mind reverting your deletion? Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Move request

I find the RM you started at Template:Infobox television crossover episode a bit strange. Since the original template that was placed in that title was moved without a discussion, that move should be reverted. There should not be onus on me to gain support to move the template back to how it was. Am I missing something? The template that was at that name, was moved to Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode now. --Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Histmerge request

Hi Anthony,

I've just closed an RM where one user commented that a histmerge would be needed. Please can you check it out (diff)?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Copy for reference

Hello, I'm not sure If you remember me, but you deleted the article about Triangle Factory I made. I was wondering if it is possible to get the article back as reference so I can construct an article with the same references but that is more fit for wikipedia. Someone in the wikipedia help chat told me to contact you through here and see if I can get a copy of the article so that I wouldn't have to redo all my research. Hope to hear back from you soon User:VindevogelTaho (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @VindevogelTaho: I have put a copy of it in User:VindevogelTaho/sandbox. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, I really appreciate it. If I manage to write something new would you be intrested in me contacting you and letting you know or shall I just publish itVindevogelTaho (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @VindevogelTaho: If you want to put it on Wikipedia as an article, then do so, but first read WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I never saw this message you send me. I have read up on everything that I needed to I think, and have improved the article a while back now, currently waiting for approval or denial incase it needs more changes. VindevogelTaho (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Growtopia

Hello Anthony Appleyard, I see you recently recreated this article, overriding the full protection that it should be redirected. Now there are edit requests coming in. If there was consensus to let this page be a normal article again, perhaps you should remove the admin protection as well (or at least update it and put a note on the talk page as to why it still requires protection). — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, any comments on this? The way I'm seeing it either your edit should be reverted, or the protection should be removed. I'd rather not list this at any of the various drama boards if you can resolve it. — xaosflux Talk 15:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to wrap up this thread, I have reduced the full protection to semi per a request at WP:RFPP that was addressed to me as the protecting admin. There doesn't seem to be a concern any more that a separate article on Growtopia is unjustified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Pages related to Estamos Bien

The article Estamos Bien has been restored. You should therefore restore the deleted edits for Talk:Estamos Bien, Estamos Bien (song), Estamos Bien (version 2), and Talk:Estamos Bien (version 2). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MedMen

Hey Anthony. Just curious why you decided to delete my page. I know you think this page is advertising, but I can see many, many other pages on Wikipedia with similar or grossly more advertising focused pages, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedMen

Help me out on this one, friend. Thanks. 17:36, 13 April 2019‎ User:Monolithicfungus

Singapore Changi Airport move

Hi. Why is there a move when the latest discussion on a requested move had no consensus? Please revert the move, thanks. robertsky (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguated monotypic genera

Hi! Regarding Nita (spider) and Paenula (spider) and others, per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA: "The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation." —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

/* Talkback */ Create a new page for Parnia Porsche

Hi Anthony, I think you reviewed this page I created last year, it was deleted but I was wondering if I can create a new page? It has been locked so not able to do anything. Thanks Kelmoo (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Steve Huffman

Hey, I think you maybe accidentally deleted the disambiguation page and the talk page for the reddit founder, and merged their counterparts. Can you check on that? Safrolic (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Modernponderer (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Move module talk page

Please move Module talk:JCW-selected to Module talk:JCW. You have left the talk page behind after merging Module:JCW-selected into Module:JCW. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Biography on James Seehafer

Hi Anthony, I was doing research on this artist and found a biography, which appears to have been turned into a redirect page despite the sources are valid third party. Could you take a quick look please? Here is the latest version of the article before it was redirected: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Seehafer&oldid=892373723

Thank you, --MAureliusAugustus (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:PlayStation 5

Please move this over the redirect-turned-article. The draft should have been used. 71.250.209.46 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

All due respect, I am returning this to draft as WP:TOOSOON. We have the barest of leaks and interviews so far, with no official unveil or announcement (or even name confirmation). -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Or I would, but I'm not sure whats what here as a histmerge has been done... @Feminist: do you know where this previously redirected? Edit: I now see PlayStation 5 (version 2), can we get this reversed cleanly? -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Ferret, I think the Wired interview with Mark Cerny may have pushed this over the edge for WP:N. I don't see this as obviously WP:TOOSOON to be unilaterally returned to draft space. feminist (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Feminist The talk page has 4 editors calling for a return to draft so far, and the topic hasn't been brought up to WPVG yet. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
In that case, yeah I guess that would be a consensus to return to draft. feminist (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted the moves based on a pretty clear consensus at Talk:PlayStation 5. -- ferret (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Two history merge requests

Please merge all of the edits from 11:43, 18 April 2019 and earlier in the history of Talk:PlayStation 5 to Draft talk:PlayStation 5. After doing that, you should then also merge the history of Talk:PlayStation 5 (version 2) excluding the latest redirect to Talk:PlayStation 5. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection request

Can you please protect Template:Rnd? When you moved it, the redirect was created without protection, but the redirect has 270170 transclusions ([4]). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Suno Chanda (season 2)

Hi, will you please wind out the discussion currently open at Talk:Suno Chanda (season 2), as the tag is appearing above the article and i dont think anyone is interested in this discussion. I just want that tag be removed from articles main page. Wikihollicc (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

G6 deletion of Kotra Tehsil ‎

Why did you delete Kotra Tehsil under G6? Sam Sailor 09:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ainu language move

You recently moved the Ainu language article while a move discussion was going on here. Could you please give a closing rationale as the discussion was only four days old? Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  02:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template move

please also move

  1. Template:Infobox Korean settlement/doc -> Template:Infobox South Korean settlement/doc
  2. Template:Infobox Korean settlement/sandbox -> Template:Infobox South Korean settlement/sandbox
  3. Template:Infobox Korean settlement/testcases -> Template:Infobox South Korean settlement/testcases

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AInfobox+Korean+settlement&namespace=10

moves should normally done with subpages moved too, not? 89.12.178.192 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Me! articles

You should probably merge ME! (Taylor Swift song) into Me! (keeping the latter as the page name since it shouldn't be all caps according to naming conventions). Both about the same song and Me! was created before. The disambiguation is also redundant since it is bound to end up the primary topic over the mural. You can clearly see my article about the song was created before the other user created any content about the song.--NØ 19:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Have seen it. Thanks for that so far, but please merge ME! (Taylor Swift song) and Me!. My revision predates any content MaranoFan created in mainspace at Me! MaranoFan wants her redirect to be first, but that's up to you whether to include as it's not content. Basically asking you to make a judgement call here. Ss112 19:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
My page: (Started as a redirect on 24 April and expanded on 17:28 on 25th April), the other one [started at 17:34 on the latter day https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ME!_(Taylor_Swift_song)&oldid=894103498]. Anthony, if you were to merge these pages (about the same song), I would come out as the page creator. There's also content that predates either revision at Draft:Me!--NØ 19:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Then what should be done? I started the content on the Taylor Swift topic first at what is now ME! (mural) and ME! (Taylor Swift song); MaranoFan clearly saw this and did her own thing in the draftspace. Please merge ME! (Taylor Swift song) and Me! as you see fit, but that redirect should not be restored because we can clearly see MaranoFan bases her ego off being the creator of pages on Wikipedia and wants her redirect to stay in place despite its target having nothing to do with the topic. @Sergecross73: Please help sort this out? We should not have two pages on the same topic existing in tandem. I don't believe MaranoFan's redirect to a disambiguation page should be kept, plain and simple; this is just nonsensical. I have no objections to my edits being merged into the same history as MaranoFan's otherwise. Ss112 19:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me? I created the article about the song first. The only reason you would want my redirect removed would be because you want to be the page creator and have ego attachments to it. There is virtually 0 reason you would be gifted the page, when both the redirect and mainspace content I added predate all your revisions at ME! (Taylor Swift song). If you think you're going to misrepresent my character and convince any logical administrator to delete my redirect then that is not gonna happen. You're exposing your obsession with being "credited" as the page creator by making the illogical request to have my redirect deleted.--NØ 19:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
My obsession? Who complained to an admin first about it? You. I made the topic as a general topic about Taylor Swift, including her song, at what is now ME! (mural). That was started hours before any content you made anywhere. Your redirect should have nothing to do with this because you made it as a redirect to a disambiguation page, not as a page with content about Taylor Swift. We don't "gift" editors edit histories; that you're even using this wording is gross and shows how you view editing pages. Stop using editing Wikipedia as therapy. You don't have a good reputation on Wikipedia, MaranoFan, given your history of blocks and all of what was said about you at ANI by a variety of editors and admins last year. You can't sweep that under the rug. I want an impartial admin to merge the two pages, and honestly, you should just retire like you said you were going to at this point, so this drama doesn't spiral out of control further. It's hard to "misrepresent" your character when it's not in good standing to begin with. Ss112 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Anthony has already decided these pages cannot be history merged. You two should stop bickering. If you think there should be only one article (you should), you will need to follow the procedures at Help:Merge. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ss112, MaranoFan, and Izno: ME! (Taylor Swift song) and Me! cannot be "merged" in either sense. They cannot be history-merged because they are WP:Parallel histories. They cannot be text-merged because they contain nearly the same text already. I have redirected Me! to ME! (Taylor Swift song). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm at a loss with regards to what would be a fair way to address this situation. But redirecting my article; which was created first, expanded first (according to current revision histories of both pages), made at the correct title according to naming conventions + without excess disambiguation, and as you said had almost the same amount of content as the other one; doesn't rub me the right way. It looks like a WP:GAME was played, and won. But I'll thank you for your time anyway.--NØ 22:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand. Anthony, can you please then close the merger I stared at ME! (Taylor Swift song) or make note of this there? Just want to say, despite my words against her, I understand MaranoFan's frustrations. I know she wanted to make the article, and I get that. She did work on a version of it as well. I get just as frustrated as her sometimes (see above). Ss112 22:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no need for another history-merge, for reasons staged above. It happens sometimes that 2 people start articles about the same subject at the same time. Thankyou. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • FTR I am going to defer to Anthony but for the record see this related discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: Referring to User:MaranoFan's email to me dated 26/04/2019 - 09:20, pages Draft:Me! and Me! (Taylor Swift song) are very different at the requested history-merge point, and in my opinion nobody made a cut-and-paste at that time from Draft:Me! to the page which is now in Me! (Taylor Swift song). See the discussion hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I would have preferred to be replied to by email but thanks. It’s ok then.—NØ 08:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • So now it appears that we have three other pages about the same song, one of which has been deleted. Please do the following:
  1. Move Draft:Me! to Me! (version 2) without redirect, and then redirect the version 2 page to Me!.
  2. Move the deleted edits for Me! and Talk:Me! from 2009 to Me! (created by Brpearson2) and Talk:Me! (created by 79.98.184.19) respectively, and then re-delete the latter two pages.
  3. Move the remaining deleted edits for Me! and Talk:Me! to Me! (version 3) and Talk:Me! (version 3) respectively, and then redirect the version 3 page to Me!.
  4. Finally, move ME! (song)(version 2) to Me! (version 4) without redirect, and then redirect the version 4 page to Me!.
  • @Ss112, MaranoFan, Izno, and GeoffreyT2000: It has been chosen which of the [[Me!...]] pages is the best and most suitable to be the accepted version. The others have been given version numbers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Would it be fine if I moved them into my userspace? They really serve no purpose in the space of main articles since no one is gonna search for other "versions" of an article.—NØ 22:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: For now they should stay where they are, for easy access by admins in case any more queries arise about this matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Caitlin Dulany

Just a heads up that I restored and draftified this. I don't disagree with your deletion, but I think she's notable enough to pass A7 and will see if I can source it. If not, I'll re-delete. Let me know any issues? Thanks StarM 18:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  • and courtesy ping to E.M.Hoey (talk · contribs) who tagged it. I did some work and restored. I think with better sourcing it even passes AfD but is definitely no longer a speedy. Don't disagree with either of your tag/deletions. It was probably also a copyvio at the time. StarM 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Mary White (Green Party politician

Not sure if you saw my comment at WP:SPLICE, so just querying your deletion of this page. If a history merge was not possible (though it looked feasible to me), does the page not need to be retained for attribution purposes? The content of that page was cut & pasted into Mary White (Green Party politician) so that effectively makes it a page merge. PC78 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Helstrom and Draft:Marvel's Helstrom

Can you please merge the histories together and move the page to Draft:Helstrom? I created it first and then some one created another with more information. I do wish for attribution to be me and not let my contributions go to waste.Faromics (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with bulbils

Thanks for fixing my mistake with moving bulbils to bulbil. Your work is appreciated. :) Clifflandis (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

N.B listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect N.B. Since you had some involvement with the N.B redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tobias Epos (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidance

Hi Anthony. Could you provide some guidance for a relatively new user, MacCready? They recently made an ill-advised, if well-intentioned, move of Unbreakable (film series) that went against the consensus on the talkpage. After I reverted the move, they opened up an incorrect move request on the talkpage, to which you responded, with bemusement, that the move had already been made (but not by you). They then improperly edited the previous, malformed move request (which I have since reverted) instead of placing a new one, so that the bot put the notice on the article but the talkpage still showed a "completed" notice.

The editor seems to make a lot of moves for a new user, which is fine (albeit a really odd editing pattern one doesn't usually see in someone with so few edits), but they don't ever seem to engage in any other interaction on talkpages; it looks like (from an admittedly quick skim of their contributions) that they may have had other move issues in the past (see the edit history for Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure). They're also marking almost every single edit they make as "minor", no matter what it is. I think this user is trying to contribute effectively, but they really need to hear from a friendly admin who is very familiar about moves about slowing down, maybe learning more about moving before getting so heavily involved in it, and understanding what the "minor" checkbox is for. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Line 2 (Guangzhou Metro) RDT and its talk page

The page Template:Line 2 (Guangzhou Metro) RDT had 2 edits that were mistakenly restored. Please delete the page and then restore all of its edits except the ones at 21:36, 12 January 2018 (49 bytes) and 22:02, 12 January 2018 (102 bytes). Similarly, you should also delete Template talk:Line 2 (Guangzhou Metro) RDT and then restore the edits from 2012 and 2013 as well as the latest move, but leave the redirect at 21:36, 12 January 2018 deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Move remaining version of "Me!"

With the version 2 page being moved to userspace and the version 3 page being deleted, you should now move Me! (version 4) to Me! (version 2) without redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

R. B. Y. Scott

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Talk:Robert Balgarnie Young Scott.
Message added 06:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advice re best way to deal with a so-called uncontroversial move

Recently you [5] implemented an uncontrovesial move request. However, the user involved first rewrote a number of articles to remove distinctions that existed between a small number of articles and then renamed the articles, including requesting this "uncontroversial" move. There was no prior proposal to undertake this redefinition and renaming and I have explained now on Talk:Squatting in Australia why I don't agree. I do not know if the editor involved is familiar with Australia and squatting in Australia (a historical term with a quite particular meaning) so it may have been done in good faith, but certainly no time was allowed to establish if it was controversial. What is the appropriate way to unwind this and have a more open process where people get to have input on this. Thanks Kerry (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond:hiya probably the best place to discuss this is where the discussion has already begun at Talk:Squatting in Australia. however i would like to respond that it's not the case at all that I "first rewrote a number of articles to remove distinctions that existed between a small number of articles and then renamed the articles." Please check my contributions and you'll see that afterwards i was busy changing links from squatting (pastoral) to squattocracy. Further, I first suggested a name change in 2008 so i'm surprised by the accusations of overhasty activity. Anyway, i hope we can reach a solution that satisfies everyone. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you please undo the rogue "uncontroversial technical request" you acted on that's been opposed by every single person who replied, and which, looking at the talk page, was made by a user not actually familiar with the subject of the article? These kinds of random administrative roadblocks on a whim leading to absurd conclusions (no consensus to do the absurd thing in the first place, consensus needed to fix it) are one of the most disheartening things about contributing to Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've ignored my comment, and your response was neither here nor there: we know how the article wound up at squattocracy, we're asking you to undo a contested technical request that has been opposed by every single person who replied and for which the request was made by somebody with no understanding of the topic. Why are you fighting us on this? This is Wikipedia at its worst: someone does an ill-informed thing which is meant to be able to be easily fixed by normal processes, and normal editors trying to fix it are just randomly stymied for no apparent reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the description of this as "Wikipedia at its worst" right now but i still hope the valiant keyboard warriors can sort this one out. First suggestion: read the previous discussions. Anyway sorry for the troubles Anthony Appleyard. Mujinga (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

About Ek Shakti Ek...Aghori

Hello Sir, I need your help. I request you to change the name of this article to Aghori (2019 TV Series) by BepanahDrama but when I created it, it was made with the correct name that is called Ek Shakti Ek ...Aghori please see the move request made by me see here. Thank you Goodd-002 (chatme) 07:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Simio Page?

The Simio page was deleted on the eve of its annual user conference, and this wasn't the first time that this suspicious coincidence occurred. I have reason to believe that someone is intentionally making bad edits in order for others (such as you) to take it down. Can you help me in my investigation? Can you point me to the events that led up to your decision? Much appreciated. 14:30, 21 May 2019‎ User:Batpox

Restore deleted versions of the Danny McKnight article

The article Danny McKnight was previously deleted in 2006 and 2010. Thanks for merging the history from Draft:Danny R. McKnight! You should now restore the deleted versions of the article, because they were in fact about the same person. Also, you should restore the deleted edits for the redirect at Danny R. McKnight, and move the deleted edits for Talk:Danny McKnight to Talk:Danny McKnight/Archive 1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Marooning (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Marooning (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Marooning (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

History merge request (Akira)

Could you merge the edit history of Draft:Akira (2021 film) into Akira (2021 film)? Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 21:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: This draft article had been worked for for a period of time prior to the mainspace introduction and at no point was the info taken from the mainspace article. It’s actually the opposite. I really don’t believe the drafts content and history should be lost because another user jumped the gun (filming on it has yet to begin). Would you please reconsider restoring the history merge? I have read the parallel histories page and it says that copy and paste moves are highly undesired. A vast majority of my draft work was copy and pasted by the mainspace articles editor. So it stands in my opinion that the origin of this info that was copy and pasted should get preserved via a history merge. Rusted AutoParts 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I've brought the matter to Articles for deletion. I believe I pinged you, if not here is a link. Regardless I do thank you for responding to the request. Rusted AutoParts 05:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Rhaetian language () listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rhaetian language (). Since you had some involvement with the Rhaetian language () redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Neapolitan language () listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neapolitan language (). Since you had some involvement with the Neapolitan language () redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2

The page Draft:Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 had some substantial article history that dates back to 2007. You should therefore do the following:

  1. Restore Draft:Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 and Draft talk:Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2.
  2. Move Draft:Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 to Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 over the existing redirect, making sure that the option to move subpages is selected.
  3. Finally, redirect the Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 page to Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova#Sequel, as it currently does now.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Shrimad Bhagwat

The page Shrimad Bhagwat had some deleted parallel history. You should therefore move the deleted edits to Shrimad Bhagwat: Mahapurana and then retarget Shrimad Bhagwat: Mahapurana to Shrimad Bhagwat. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Restore and move Draft talk:Bonin Bough

The page Draft talk:Bonin Bough had some deleted history. You should now restore it and move it to User talk:Janweh64/old/Bonin Bough. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Are you an administrator ? I saw this article which is a duplicate of this article. The former should be deleted. 86.57.174.152 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • (talk page watcher) Done: redirected the newer wrong title to the long-standing existing article. PamD 16:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Allenwood

Sorry about that—there's more wrong with how the various elements of the Allenwood prison complex are described on WP than I originally realized.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

...but the move is still very likely ultimately correct, so since it's done...--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Intellectual dark web

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Intellectual dark web requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. wumbolo ^^^ 09:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you help?

I need to see below when the revision have been deleted,

  1. User:Advogato4
  2. User talk:Purpleheena
  3. User talk:Quora007
  4. User talk:CometQ
  5. User talk:CometQ/BTS
  6. User talk:-忍者-
  7. User:0格格不入
  8. User talk:0格格不入
  9. User talk:0格格不入/綠騎士_(作家)
  10. User:NumCinq
  11. User talk:ET4Eva
  12. User talk:Advo2
  13. Talk:Better Than Starbucks

Thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. User:Advogato4, deleted at 10:20, 13 November 2018 by User:RHaworth, for vandalism, and "This user account has been globally locked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis"
  2. User talk:Purpleheena, deleted at 14:23, 26 October 2018 by User:Lectonar (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)
  3. User talk:Quora007, deleted at 15:09, 27 October 2018 by User:Acroterion (Abusing multiple accounts)
  4. User talk:CometQ, deleted at 03:03, 28 October 2018 by User:Guerillero (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)
  5. User talk:CometQ/BTS, deleted at 07:29, 28 October 2018 by User:RHaworth (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Allthingsgo) in violation of ban or block)
  6. User talk:-忍者-, deleted at 10:23, 13 November 2018 by User:RHaworth (G3: Vandalism) ("忍者" means "ninja")
  7. User:0格格不入, deleted at 03:08, 28 October 2018 by User:Guerillero ("格格不入" means "incompatible")
  8. User talk:0格格不入, deleted at 03:08, 28 October 2018 by User:Guerillero
  9. User talk:0格格不入/綠騎士_(作家), deleted at 28 October 2018 by User:Guerillero ("格格不入/綠騎士_(作家)" means "inequality / Green Knight (writer)")
  10. User:NumCinq, deleted at 03:12, 28 October 2018 by User:Guerillero as a sockpuppet of User:Allthingsgo
  11. User talk:ET4Eva, deleted at 09:59, 13 November 2018 by User:Shirt58 (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
  12. User talk:Advo2, deleted at 10:59, 2 January 2019 by User:RHaworth (G3: Vandalism)
  13. Talk:Better Than Starbucks, deleted at 03:11, 5 March 2017 by User:Bbb23 (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
  • I need the version when this page (13 pages) have been deleted and delete content when this page (13 pages) have been deleted (已刪除版本和已刪除的內容) to this 13 pages,also,you can send email to me?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And I need to see their archive only.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @MCC214: I have been advised to ask you what you need this information for? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Back in January, MCC214 filed some an WP:SPI against 0格格不入 (see the bottom section of User talk:0格格不入 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthingsgo/Archive), and most of the others appear to have some sort of sockpuppetry connection. Note that NumCinq, ET4Eva, Advogato4, and 格格不入 were included in the same filing, and CometQ and Advo2 appear on the same page in earlier investigations. I suspect that MCC214 is trying to prove sockpuppetry by someone. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
So I need to see their archive,reason is their archive have some evidence can support all in zh:Category:Allthingsgo的維基用戶分身 is a same user.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Diacritic requests at WP:RM/TR

Please can you not process any further WP:RM/TR requests from Simione001 to move bio articles from diacritic to non-diacritic forms? The changes are contentious, have been reverted in several cases and there are now multiple RM discussions on the issue. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Histmerge edit summaries

I noticed your two recent edit summaries when removing {{Histmerge}} from the top of the doc pages was rv histmerge junk (1, 2). Was adding {{Histmerge}} to the top of the pages the proper method to use? Retro (talk | contribs) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Retro: "rv histmerge junk" means, after history-merging, removing the message that was inserted to ask for the history-merge to be done. It may also mean, removing the copy of the (last edit before the cut-and-paste event happened), that got copied across in the history-merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Acoli people -> Acholi people‎

Hello. Thanks for moving Talk:Acoli people to Talk:Acholi people over redirect as requested, but could you please also move the article too? Thanks, 82.132.212.51 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

M. J. Coldwell and A. A. Heaps

Hi, Anthony. I'm looking for a second opinion. Do you think your bundling of the RMs at Major James Coldwell and Abraham Albert Heaps was inappropriate? Or that a relisting is appropriate when the discussion has already been open for about two weeks? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@142.160.89.97: The first time these requests were bundled was by User:Dicklyon at 14:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC) in this edit, when he answered together two similar consecutive move requests made by the same IPA user (User:142.160.89.97}. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right, though you started the joint RM for them rather than starting two RMs in response to the objection. But that aside, do you think they are inappropriate to be considered together? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm confused. I think you just started two new RMs running concurrently with the other two. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@142.160.89.97: I started one; someone else started the other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Susan Polgar

Why did you move Susan Polgar? This was not a technical move request and it should have been discussed at Talk:Susan Polgar. FYI, her official website, http://www.susanpolgar.com/, uses the orthography "Susan Polgar". Since her birth name was "Polgár Zsuzsanna" I have to say this is the kind of undiscussed move that annoys me. Quale (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Quale: That move was 155 days ago, at about 09:02, 27 December 2018, from name Susan Polgar, asked for by User:AuroraButterfly. At 09:02, 10 May 2019‎ User:1997kB renamed User:AuroraButterfly as User:Aranya. Do you want me to move page Susan Polgár back, or to start a move discussion? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I did not notice that it was so long ago. I think I should start a move discussion. I'm surprised to see an admin make a technical move under these circumstances, since I do not see that it is obviously correct to make that move without discussion. Her given name was Polgár Zsuzsanna, but in English this would normally be Zsuzsanna Polgár or Zsuzsanna Polgar and old sources in English use those names. She's lived about half her life so far in the US, and every year that percentage goes up and the percentage of her life spent in Hungary goes down. In the US she has gone by Susan Polgar with no diacritic. I think Susan Polgár is an odd choice since that is not her Hungarian name nor is it the name she uses now, but although it is a strange hybrid an argument can be made for it. "An argument can be made for it" does not meet the requirements for a technical move, in my opinion, since that should be reserved for moves where no discussion is necessary and the correct name (by Wikipedia standards) is clear. Since there are at least four plausible titles for the article (Zsuzsanna Polgár, Zsuzsanna Polgar, Susan Polgar and Susan Polgár) and it is certainly not apparent to me that the one you chose is obviously correct, I would rather that move not have been made without discussion. Quale (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pet Sematary (Upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pet Sematary (Upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Pet Sematary (Upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hellboy (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hellboy (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Hellboy (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Tank (for storing liquid) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tank (for storing liquid). Since you had some involvement with the Tank (for storing liquid) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Amit Agarwal

Thanks for handling my request at RM/TR; I made the request because I wasn't sure what to do with the deleted history at that page. Did you mean to undelete all of it, even though it's not relevant to the current subject? (I've since revdel'd the very first deleted version, which was a blatant copyvio.) Wikiacc () 20:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. I've gone ahead and deleted Amit Agarwal (blogger) and Amit Agarwal (film producer) under G4. Wikiacc () 18:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Rooh Afza (film)

I request you to restore Rooh Afza (film) which was deleted as the filming had not begun. The filming has now commenced. The person who deleted the page is inactive. I also request you to move the Rooh Afza (film) to Roohi Afza, the new title of the film. Mr. Smart LION 03:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Establishing a Page for Chicago TARDIS

When I went to create a page for "Chicago TARDIS" (the 2nd oldest "Doctor Who" convention in the US) I found a warning that you had deleted a page ten years ago. It advised that I should contact you before creating such a page to ensure that I'm not repeating prior issues (I have not seen the old page... and I cannot see it per Wikipedia permissions). I did not know there had been a page ten years ago until I tried to create one today.

I have my sandbox version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ParallelWolverine/Chicago_TARDIS that I propose copying to Wikipedia.

I am asking for your feedback - hoping that this article is worthy.

Do you agree, or have any feedback/advice?

Thank you.

ParallelWolverine (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response! ParallelWolverine (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move apparently not done?

Hello. I posted a move request the other day that you said you addressed—the 2009 Iraqi governorate elections article—but it doesn't appear that the change went through. Could you take another swing at it? Thanks. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 1982–2000 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1982–2000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982–2000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cryptic crossword, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hebe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Capt. Price for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Renames

Hi Anthony Appleyard, thank you for renaming. I would like to do these uncontroversial renames myself and have requested the userright to do this. Would you be willing to have a look at my request at WP:RFP/PM? Thank you. All the best, Taketa (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

“See conversation here”

Was there meant to be a link here? Qwirkle (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert recent move by Editchip

Recently, Editchip did an undiscussed move from Billy Elliot the Musical to Billy Elliot (musical). The former title has been stable for eleven and a half years. Please revert the move. Also, you should move Talk:Billy Elliot (musical) to Talk:Billy Elliot the Musical/Archive 1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2019/January-June&oldid=1217092846"