User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2013/January-June

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

Nomination of SOTI for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SOTI 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/SOTI until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Biker Biker (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves/Technical requests

Thank you. LDS contact me 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Shane Ryan (association footballer)

Articles for creation page mess

Hi Anthony, I know you're pretty active in page moves and history merges, so I thought I'd run this past you.

Is it possible to do anything with the split page histories of these five pages? The 'original' is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz but, over a period of a few months, the author has created new drafts in their userspace sandbox. These have then been moved into AfC space (following the normal project convention of adding a number to end of the page title). In this instance we now have 4 additional pages, each with not-insignificant page history, that have been redirected to the original title (along with a copy and paste merge) by a well-meaning editor who didn't realise that could be problematic. The titles in question are:

Pol430 talk to me 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. No sooner had I messaged you KTC (talk · contribs) came by and did some of them. Interesting read at WP:PV. I suppose, for the future, we should avoid creating parallel pages and distinguishing them by a number. The above situation is an exceptional one though. Pol430 talk to me 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Animal Crossing character list

Close of Alan K. Simpson RM

  • Hi Anthony, per WP:RMCI, "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly..." While the vote count was 2-3 against the move at Talk:Alan K. Simpson#Requested move (3-3 counting the request), I don't believe you properly evaluated arguments and assigned due weight. Both supporting voters, as well as the request, made arguments with appeals to policies and guidelines; the oppose voters talked about how the figure isn't known outside of the US, or by bringing up another article with relatively very few page views. Could you elaborate on your rationale? Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It had run nearly a month and no decision. I have seen this sort of discussion, if left, run on repetitively for many weeks creating the best part of a megabyte of arguing and still no decision or agreement. Some opinions say that Alan K. Simpson is dominant; others say that "that is a USA-based opinion, there are other notable men named Alan Simpson." That sort of pair of conflicting opinions tends to be incompatible. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • But it's not like the discussion consisted only of opinions. Did you think the dissenting opinions outweighed supporting policy? Did you think the supporters erroneously cited policy? Of course a move wouldn't've been appropriate if it were just a vote, but the content of arguments is supposed to matter. --BDD (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I have reverted the close. It will reappear in the list when the bot runs next. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I see there's already another editor voting against because he's "Never heard of him." Sigh. If it happens again, I won't bother you. Thanks for your willingness to change your mind. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness

  • Hi, can I also ask if you did the same for the This Requested Move? when a clear majority was in favour of the move? MisterShiney ✉ 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No need for this. There was no clear consensus, the change would've gone against MOS:CT and the title had been stable since September last year. The move discussion was closed per policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that Scjessy was against the move in the discussion and one could reasonably assume that seeing as the move was not made, in line with his views, that he isn't interested in as to why. But I for one would like some additional clarification as to how you came to a "No consensus" view and any advice how the said group of editors can move forward for the benefit of the article! MisterShiney ✉ 14:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion had already produced 136 kilobytes of arguing over 29 days over one small point without reaching a decision: "In the title "Star Trek into Darkness", can punctuation or a break be assumed to exist after the word 'Trek'?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Myself and other editors are just after a little more clarification on how you reached the decision to close and explain a procedure that could help us reach consensus in answer to a discussion that will more than likely come again in the future with people repeating the same information. MisterShiney ✉ 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm with him on this one, even though I favored a rename. Ruling against a headcount is fine when there's a clear policy or guideline in support of the minority, in this case MOS:CT. The current name is ugly, and I'd like to see it changed. But we may need to change the guideline first. See this discussion. I think it may be time for an RFC. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If the name "Star Trek into Darkness" looks badly chosen, blame the script writer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With all respect due to an admin of your standing, but making comments like that might imply that you didn't actually bother to read the entire discussion as it appears to show a complete lack of understanding of what the discussion was about... MisterShiney ✉ 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have read through the argument. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok. :) MisterShiney ✉ 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be that the name was first thought of as "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and somewhere in the studio before release of information the colon went missing. Typos happen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't put it past them lol. MisterShiney ✉ 23:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is a fair ask actually. I'm not disputing the decision but policy states "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". It would simply have been helpful if there was some outlining of the thinking behind the decision to illustrate that this was done. The simple sentence "no consensus reached after 29 days" on the heels of such a lengthy debate seems, for want of a better word, abrupt. Nsign (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The rule as it stands says "into", as there is no punctuation after "Trek" and no evidence (except analogy) that "Star Trek" is its title and "into Darkness" is a disambiguator. It is my experience that if this sort of discussion is allowed to continue indefinitely, it goes on repetitively for megabytes or until the participants at last get tired, and in either case it still ends as no consensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • But consensus is generally defined as the "general/majority opinion" is it not? The majority opinion was for it to be moved and policy was equally quoted on both sides. It is unreasonable on such a yay or nay topic for a compromise that everyone was going to be happy with. MisterShiney ✉ 09:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I would like to show my support for Anthony's decision here. Consensus is a "process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members", not a majority vote. We clearly had no consensus, as there was strong opposition to the move. In the event of no consensus, standard practice is not to move. Also, Anthony followed instructions WP:RMCI, "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." As far as a compromise goes, this was clearly not going to happen, so Anthony was clearly in a very difficult position - of course there would be dissent which ever way the sword fell. What choice did he have but to go along with the guidelines? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It is to be wondered what "a compromise" would be: the offending 'i' in "into" can be uppercase or lowercase, not something between. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think "Into" is the compromise. Some were proposing we add a colon as per what's already been done on Wikipedia to Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: Nemesis when official sources for those don't have a colon either. Some would have us believe that the guidelines are inflexible and the MOS trumps all but Wikipedia already sidesteps them where appropriate. Simply capitalising it allows for both interpretations and follows official sources and "real-world" usage. Nsign (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We're all already aware of what the guideline says and of what constitutes consensus - we've talked about nothing else for the past month - but I think the feeling here is that the discussion was closed prematurely without addressing the fact that the MOS allows for common-sense exceptions. Every mainstream source including newspapers, magazines, websites and the filmakers themselves spell it with an uppercase "Into" and this encyclopedia stands alone with a spelling that no other reputable source does. No one's saying you necessarily had to agree that this was an exception, only that you don't seem to addressed that element of the discussion. Nsign (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It isn't spelled with an uppercase "i", it is styled with an uppercase "i". And how is a discussion that has been going around in circles for a month without any possibility of resolution closed prematurely? It needed to be brought to an end by an admin so that we can all get on with our lives! Perhaps if Anthony can embellish his points in the relevant part of the close, then this will satisfy the editors in question. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
OK then Rob - every mainstream source including newspapers, magazines, websites and the filmakers themselves style it with an uppercase "Into" and this encyclopedia stands alone with a styling that no other reputable source does.
And "prematurely" may be the wrong word given how long this has gone on but the rest of my point stands. Nsign (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please don't use this talk page to debate this matter. The closing was perfectly legitimate and in line with policy. Any further discussion needs to be made on the article talk page or not at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You know, it's not every day that a sysop blows it badly enough to be mocked (if indirectly) on xkcd. There's no barnstar in the offing but it's definitely an accomplishment of some sort. Please try to do better next time. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Which issue of xkcd? Here I seem to have been caught up in a long acrimonious dispute, and whichever side I decide for, the other side will accuse me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been duped into making lots of GAA moves

  • You have moved a slew of GAA related articles London GAA Intermediate Football Championship using the “Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial”. In my opinion, you've been duped into doing this by an unscrupulous editor. Firstly, it was grossly misleading of the requestor to have entered those requests as uncontroversial as he knew quite well that they were very uncontroversial. Secondly, the requestor did not put up a flag on the articles notifying others of the intended move. Thirdly, we and others were engaged in an active debate on numerous forums including here, here and here.
    There are two main editors that have been undertaking this sneaky way round discussin – the current requestor and User:Brocach. On Jan 1st, the latter induced the Admin User:Malik Shabazz to undertake the same “uncontroversial” moves. When their underhand methods were explained to Malik, he reverted them. See here. They are now up to their same tricks. Please undo all that you have done in good faith until the discussions have reached a consensus. By the way the emerging consensus at “Tipperary hurlers” is in favour of using the GAA suffix. Lastly, are the actions of these two editors sufficiently in breech of wiki etiquette as to warrent censure? Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done I have moved all 14 back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The "current requestor" was User:86.40.107.199 (User talk:86.40.107.199); his contributions list is Special:Contributions/86.40.107.199. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • He did it again: see Talk:Leinster GAA Senior Football Championship#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And again: see this diff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect not done properly

  • Hi there. A few hours ago you redirected/moved the PSY article to Psy. Apparently the redirect wasn't done properly as all other links to PSY now land in the disambiguation page. Also, the PSY_(entertainer) link leads to the dis page. I don't know much about redirects and how to correct them. Could you please take a look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The move / redirect of the PSY article has started to attract editors, who are now re-redirecting and reverting. It's getting a bit confusing now. Could you pls check if the article is correct the way it is now? Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for someone who deserves it...

The Admin's Barnstar
Do you get a lot of these? I hope so! Your prompt, efficient, and tireless contributions at Requested moves are greatly appreciated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Idiom

  • Hi - a few days ago this was foolishly moved to English idiom & then moved back, but not properly, leaving the history stranded. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bhujapidasana

Hey Anthony.

You've helped me move a number of asana pages. I made a mistake with that one. Is there anyway to rectify it or is WP:OFFICEACTION the only way?Curb Chain (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thurleigh

WP:RM

Historic sites in Orissa

  • Hi Anthony. I'm puzzled by your comment at Talk:Historic sites in Orissa on the request to move the article to Talk:Historic sites in Odisha. There has been a long discussion at Talk:Orissa on a requested move, which resulted in the article being moved to Odisha. It should follow that all the sub-pages move to match the main article. If we have a debate on each sub-page, we are likely to finish up with a real hotchpotch, with readers and editors left totally confused. That surely can't be what you are advocating. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done 8 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for that. It's always a pleasure doing business with you! You may not always get it right first time (though usually you do), but you're always open to reason. Wish there were a lot more like you around! Thanks again. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mario Kart Wii U

Speedy deletion nomination of Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp

A tag has been placed on Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...)

A tag has been placed on Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Alphons/Alphonse Mucha

  • Despite a clear consensus against at Talk:Alfons_Mucha#Alphonse_vs._Alfons a while back, McCandlish has moved it without any further discussion to "Alphons". Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I started this as a discussed move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, the discussed move you started has now (rightly) been closed as no consensus, which I presume means the undiscussed move preceding should be reverted, and "Alphonse Mucha" restored, as various people in the discussion have said. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion as "Alfons Mucha to Alphonse Mucha?" and it ended as "no consensus". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the article had been stable at Alphonse before the undiscussed move I complained to you about here. As the move request you began instead ended NC the article should be returned to the status quo ante. Not doing so just encourages other out of process moves. The previous discussion at the page a couple of years ago had also supported Alphonse, as I say above. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • See much discussion in Talk:Alfons Mucha. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've seen it. That's why I ask. Note in particular that (last comment before the RM discussion), McCandlish himself said that he would have moved it back to Alphonse & started an RM if you had not already started one without moving it back! If you don't move it back you are in effect endorsing the move from the title it hhad had for some years, when the RM to change it failed to get consensus. That can't be right. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, OK,  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your VERY difficult decision in closing the Star Trek Into Darkness move discussion. Was a hard one to make and you were right in that you couldn't make a decision either way without annoying people. MisterShiney ✉ 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Delinanios Folklore Museum

  • Hello Anthony. Someone has tagged this for G6 deletion. They want to move Folklore Museum of Kastoria to this name. The Delinanios article is new since 2012. It is the one that has substantial content. The Folklore Museum of Kastoria article is older (2008) but had practically nothing in it for a long time. Technically one could insist on a history merge. Someone cut and pasted 1,400 bytes of good content from Delinanios to Folklore Museum. I would be tempted to take the good material from Folklore and restore it to Delinanios. Then we could keep the real article at Delinanios and leave Folklore as a redirect to it. We would still keep the history of Folklore under the redirect. That would preserve the record of authorship of the material, and eliminate the need to delete either article. Is this allowable? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It was not a 100% cut-and-paste but a text-merge. I have moved Delinanios Folklore Museum to Delinanios Folklore Museum/version 2 and then Folklore Museum of Kastoria to Delinanios Folklore Museum. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Duino Castle move

Just wanted to thank you for your assistance in the requested move regarding Duino Castle. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wet, wet and wetter

You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Maproom#Wet, wet and wetter. Senra (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for sorting out the Electoral district moves!

Kerry (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Departments of Colombia

You closed Talk:Caquetá Department#Requested move in 2009. The agreement was to leave all Colombian entities consistent within this country-specific set and also within the wider set of department articles worldwide. The situation was stable until end of 2012, when one user lower cased and now another user at Valle del Cauca even removed the term department completely. Maybe you can give feedback at Talk:Valle del Cauca#Requested move. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For tidying up the mess I made :) Lukeno94 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
A request was brought up for a history merge at ANI and after doing it, I wondered where the chasm of death for these annoyingly tedious requests are supposed to go. After finding Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen I noticed that you handle most requests. Good on you, someone has to do it and you've been at it alone. I've watchlisted it. v/r - TP 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hardest working admin

Hi Anthony. Just wanted to say thanks for the move. Also, thanks for the histmerge last year. I always see you working. You are just a working machine. Anyhoo, I just wanted to tell you how much of a benefit you are to the project. A lot of people owe you a great deal of thanks, myself included. I appreciate all the help you've given to the project. Best regards. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncontroversial move request???

Thanks!

Thanks for the histmerge of Airports in the New York Metropolitan Area. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Halifax Explosion

Thank-you for moving Halifax Explosion, (by the way, could you close the move request?) I am getting frustrated with the different interpretations of an uncontroversial move. I tried to speedy delete Halifax Explosion with the explanation that it was the obvious name, but it was denied by another admin, then you accept a request citing BRD, with the B being two months ago. Thank-you. I had more frustration at Magrath, not being able to revert that move, 7 hours later. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Aqueduct move

Re the move of Aqueduct at [1] where did the original talk and history for the (old) Aqueduct end up? —Sladen (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question, Talk:Aqueduct/version 2. —Sladen (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Kingston High School, Hull

Thank you for responding to the RM, but something got messed up during the move. Now both pages (Kingston High School, Hull and Kingston High School (Hull) are redirects to each other, and the content has disappeared. Could you please fix it and restore the article to Kingston High School (Hull). Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Based on your contribs, it looks like you're not around now. (It's probably night wherever you are). No problem. I'll post to ANI and see if I can get someone to fix it up. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, appear to have been some problems with this one but I have restored it to the original comma version as that is correct for UK schools which use the comma separator rather than the bracket separator for dab purposes. Keith D (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 4

  • I request history undeletions of PlayStation 4 & Playstation 4 (as well as their talk pages). SNS (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Judgement reserved. Pages PlayStation 4 & Playstation 4 have been deleted many times before, and their deleted versions contain little information, except to say that PlayStation 4 will come. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done A recent television news report showed that PlayStation 4 IS coming soon. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Weights

Anthony Weights (talk · contribs) keeps contributing things without consulting with others, like me. Look at his contributions; he didn't respond to my messages. Rather he just... argh! --George Ho (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Phrasal verb

  • Hi, I noticed you fixed the page history for Idiom. The same problem occurred at the same time for Phrasal verb - it was moved to English phrasal verb and back again incorrectly, and now the page history is in the wrong place. Would you be interested in fixing this as well? Count Truthstein (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Technical requests

Thanks for your help. ----Jack | talk page 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920)

Khans

  • Negar
    Nigaar

Hello! Negar Khan and Nigaar Khan are actually two different actresses. I am seeing that some user has mixed and merged and copy pasted and moved and what not. Finally the article is at "Negar" and "Nigaar" also redirects to it. Instead of directly changing the redirect you created into an article, i thought its best to ask you if that is okay. There seems to have been "history merger" or something. Will it be okay if i simply write about Nigaar on the article "Nigaar Khan"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Looking through page Negar Khan's old history, I get the impression that various editors over time thought that Negar Khan and Nigar Khan were the same woman, and some edits say "Negar Khan, also known as Nigar Khan". Best turn page Nigaar Khan into a new article about her, and at the starts of Negar Khan and Nigaar Khan put hatlinks each directing to the other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure! Will do it that way. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Charles M. Schulz

  • You just moved the page Charles M. Schulz to Charles Schulz, with the claim that such a move is non-controversial. No one brought this up on the talk page to see if there is any controversy. Schulz is credited as "Charles M. Schulz" on all his major works, the museum in his honor is the Charles M. Schulz Museum, and "Charles M. Schulz" pulls over a million ghits. I'm not saying that there isn't a claim to be made that he's more often referred to without the middle initial, but it is a question which should have at least been raised on the talk page. I appreciate that you went through considerable effort in this move and were trying to improve things, but that may not have been the end result. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done I have moved it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks from me also. I was going to ask you to undo the move when I saw you already had. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech 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/Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Page move of West Indian cricket team in England in 2011–12

Hi. I think you should have checked the page history to see it's been moved back-and-forth several times, so it wasn't uncontroversial. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your constant efforts in all the thankless tasks of page protection, moving etc: it is much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edouard de Pomiane

  • Hi Anthony. You have moved the article Edouard de Pomiane. Could you please clean up after the move and add the interwikilinks. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and moves

Replied here to your comment about Wikidata since the issue appeared to be worrisome. Apparently the fix will be done automatically. The initial implementation consists of a bot which updates Wikidata. Though I wonder if anyone will monitor the process to be sure it keeps up. I checked one entry, and noticed that Wikidata was updated about half an hour after the article was moved, which sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" : uncontroversial?

Hello,

You proceeded to the moving of "Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" to "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" and justified it by the fact that it was "uncontroversial". Unfortunately, it is a highly controversial topic and the previous situation (to have two distinct articles, one for each) was a result of a RfC.

Since your move, which is actually controversial, goes against the decision obtained through this RfC, I ask you to undo it and to seek for a new consensus.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Schmaltz herring

Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marilyn Yalom

The article Marilyn Yalom has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

RM

  • Hi Anthony, is it proper to ask an admin to look at an RM to see if it can be closed? It's 5:1 but dragged out and clogged with verbiage. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Which RM is this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was playing safe and asking if proper to ask first. Talk:Han tu, dragged on enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done; a history-merge was needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. There's Talk:Cơm tấm as well, dragging on less long, only since 22 Feb. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Talk:Cơm tấm is not remarkably long, and I prefer to wait a full month before closing a move discussion which has not reached a consensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Prudential Capital Controls

I saw you hadn't worked on it in around 16 hours so I removed the AFC submission template from the top. —rybec 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 9ice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9ice 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/9ice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Queried history-merge request

See Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Queried requests. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Gracias --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Warshaw

  • Hi
    just saw your message re. Jack Warshaw. It's intended as information not promotion. The format attempts to follow guidelines as seen in similar writings concerning other artists. If you would be so kind as to help correct any wrong impression I would be much obliged. I have not saved the material elsewhere and would be grateful if you can let me have it back in the meantime for further work.
    best
    Seanojackson (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the moves!

I watchlisted WP:RM/TR a while back when I requested all the "at large district" moves... and every day since, your name has shown up next to it in my watchlist. As one of the maintainers of one of Wiktionary's big request pages, I know how tedious such a nevertheless very necessary job can be. So: thank you for keeping that page running so smoothly! It's a Herculean thing you do! -sche (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Move

Hi! I guess you copied too much here: [2]. --DixonD (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Trans-atlantic Tunnel → The Tunnel (1935 film)

  • Hi AA, Can I just ask how long you normally keep these discussions open? Don't worry, Im not asking for a faster-than-normal close or anything, it's just that I'm going to be away for a couple of days later this week and don't want to miss out on any discussions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This move discussion was started at 06:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC), so there is plenty of time yet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sanfu

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 Sanfu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Give Me a Ring Sometime (disambiguation)

  • There are not any challenging topics. Just an episode and a song. I wonder if you can delete it. --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jilla

  • Ok, thanks for all the help. T4B (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Coat of arms of Western Sahara for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coat of arms of Western Sahara 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/Coat of arms of Western Sahara until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

French chess piece names

I'm not sure your revert was correct. See http://www.catherinetranslates.com/french-english-chess-glossary-glossaire-echecs/. See also fr:Échecs. Quale (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (businesswoman)

  • ie wife of Gordon Brown. Moved out of process by Andy Mabbet, when the talk page has 2 RMs confirmiung the old name. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories

  • Hi, I see you have moved the Horrible Histories (franchise) page. I think the change of page name will lead to confusion. The page was named as Horrible Histories franchise because that's what the page is about - it lists the theme parks, magazines, books and so forth. Horrible Histories are primarily known for the books, found under Horrible Histories (book series). The TV series are found on three pages. Just having one page name Horrible Histories doesn't point to its content. I recommend changing it back. Span (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have put a move discussion in Talk:Horrible Histories#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nordic aliens - what was this about?

  • Has your account been compromised or have I misunderstood this edit?[3]. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I have deleted it. I have seen speculations that some UFO's seen in USA were real secret human-made aircraft. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but you're an Admin and you've been around longer than I have and have a lot more edits - the edit summary by the deleting editor was right, anything like that needs sources, especially when you are adding to stories that some UFOs are real secret aircraft (and these stories can be sourced) that these might be flown by Nordic aliens (never heard that one). Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not flown by aliens but Earth-made aircraft (not spacecraft) flown by ordinary white American Earth humans. OK, OK, sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Technical moves -- done?

Response?

  • Contested your denial of history merge, as it robs me of attribution, conceals actual steps taken in achieving the present result. What remedy for this? LCS check (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If page A was cut-and-pasted to page B with a single clean cut-and-paste action, then they can be history-merged. See WP:Parallel histories. Otherwise, put in the affected article's talk page a section headed ==History== explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge history from Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism into Pandeism. Following discussion on Talk:Pandeism I created a bottom-up draft to remove OR/SYNTH from article. Done at talk subpage sought to be merged, where I performed a great deal of work with many edits on this draft. Another editor reversed support for draft process, duplicated some of my steps in the article, so I thought my work would be copied without recognition, went ahead and copied the draft into the article. Would like histories combined to credit my many steps taken to achieve improved result. LCS check (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    •  Not done WP:Parallel histories Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wish to contest this - not really "parallel" histories because the other fellow only duplicated two of my edits. Disruption in time from one to the next is negligible. Current article state reflects hard work and numerous contributions on my part not shown in edit history, and details each specific instance of error repaired in the page, important to understanding the resolution of OR/SYNTH issues, which I dealt with, one at a time. Only other recourse is for me to restore the earlier version, then redo every single one of my string of 50 edits. I'll do it, but I won't like it. LCS check (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Page Pandeism at 12:45, 1 April 2013‎ seems to be a cut-and-paste of Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism as at 12:42, 1 April 2013‎. But Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism's first edit (at 23:50, 25 March 2013‎, 21,074 bytes) looks very different from Pandeism as at a similar time (23:16, 25 March 2013‎, 46,093 bytes). This is a case where I would have to break one editing history to re-link another editing history, as I would have to split off Pantheism's 8 edits from 04:31, 26 March 2013‎ to 20:58, 30 March 2013‎ inclusive to another page name. This sort of thing happens when the same article is edited in parallel under two names. The only way to avoid any broken editing histories would be for me to split off all of Pantheism's edits from its beginning to 20:58, 30 March 2013‎ inclusive to another page name, and then to history-merge from Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism to Pandeism. And/or to put a history section in Pandeism#Talk explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks very different because it is- that's the reduction which needed to be made to Pandeism and would've been done there had they not been made in draft, which was always intended to be merged back, and override Pandeism, because of SYNTH/OR issues. Not sure what Pantheism has to do with it; wholly separate article. Surely it's more important for edit history to reflect steps actually taken to get Pandeism where it now stands (and authorship of those steps)? LCS check (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, while you were editing Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism, other people were editing Pandeism. That causes a parallel-editing problem: see WP:Parallel histories about history-merging two pages which have parallel editing histories. I could split off all of Pandeism's edits from its beginning to 20:58, 30 March 2013‎ inclusive to page Pandeism/version 1, and then history-merge from Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism to Pandeism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Would make the most sense, wouldn't it, since those edits no longer relate to what's in the article? LCS check (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • After that, someone moved Pandeism/version 1 to Talk:Pandeism/version 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Naftalan, Croatia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naftalan, Croatia 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/Naftalan, Croatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

John Wilmot

Hi Anthony, I see you moved my technical move request for John Wilmot to an RM at Talk:John Wilmot. I suspect that means you wanted to go to full discussion but didn't actually oppose yourself. Is that right? I can live with that, but I'd appreciate a heads up, as it can cause some confusion (cf. User talk:BDD#John Wilmot move). Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 9ice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9ice 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/9ice (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Check my histmerge?

  • Hello Anthony. There was a technical move request for Kilmacrenan -> Kilmacrennan, arguing that the 'nn' spelling was used by reference links in the article. The 'nn' was serving as a redirect to the 'n' spelling, but there was a lot of history under the 'nn', running up to mid-May 2007. My guess is there was a cut-and-paste move in early May, 2007. I tried to follow the instructions at WP:HM and everything seemed to work, except there was a small amount of overlap in May 2007. I wound up leaving two versions deleted. Would you mind looking at the history to see if this is correctly done? You can make any changes you think appropriate. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There was a history-merge, which I have now logged at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests April 2013. When page P was cut-and-pasted to page Q, often before the history-merge I have to delete from page P edits made after the cut-and-paste point. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowball Earth

  • I didn't understand your uncommented rv at Snowball Earth, so I reverted it. Can you say why you did that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Snowball Earth is the proper-name of this past event, so it gets capital letters. Google search shows mostly uppercase 'S' here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you actually thought that, or had just misinterpreted the RM discussion. I've reverted you again. See the talk there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User sandbox Penwatchdog

  • You recently helped delete some unrelated edit-histories when I moved my Sophie Matisse article for public consumption. You moved those histories back to my sandbox, but I'd like to have those edit histories blanked completely, as I have material for my next new article I'd like to move into my sandbox for final prep. I'd like to avoid the same thing happening again (the unrelated edit-histories following my articles around)! This ought be the last time this'd happen; I won't use my sandbox for storage anymore unless its related to an article created there. Thanks in advance. Penwatchdog (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done I have deleted User:Penwatchdog/sandbox. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Very helpful, thanks so much! Penwatchdog (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Chess960 polyhedrals

Hi Anthony. At first I thought you came up with an efficiency (re-using roll of the octahedron). But on closer scrutiny, tie-ing the roll together (subracting 4 for the other bishop placement) doesn't seem to work (unless I've made a mistake) ...

Using the same d8 die roll, there seems to be only 8 possible placements for the two Bs: a1/b1, b1/c1, c1/f1, d1/g1, b1/e1, c1/f1, f1/g1, and g1/h1. But there are (should be) really 16 possible placements of the two Bs: a1/b1, a1/d1, a1/f1, a1/h1, b1/c1, b1/e1, b1/g1, c1/d1, c1/f1, c1/h1, d1/e1, d1/g1, e1/f1, e1/h1, f1/g1, and g1/h1.

(Agree? Or did I screw up?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thx. (Looks good!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, Anthony Appleyard! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

NHS England

  • Is it possible to recover the data from the deleted NHS England article as when you moved "NHS Commissioning Board" to "NHS England", you undid a lot of work that I had done on the article including infobox and content.

Dn9ahx (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  •  Done. Sorry. I was struggling with a new operating system (Windows 8). I forgot to undelete after the history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, no need to apologise, Windows 8 is a pain !!! Dn9ahx (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm EagerToddler39. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Trieste Commodity Exchange, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename

  • In this edit you just renamed Howard Davis (athlete) to Howard Davis (runner) and called it non-controversial. Yet you continue the redirect from (athlete). There obviously is no pressing need and this does go against the conventional means of naming people involved in the sport known worldwide as athletics. I have no skin in the game with Mr. Davis. I will remark that the unnecessary mis-naming for another athletics article for James Robinson (distance runner) had me making corrections to links all over wikipedia until another editor created the redirect. I thought there was a reason for the improper naming. A reason might be (for athletics articles): Steve Smith (pole vaulter), Steve Smith (US high jumper), Steve Smith (British high jumper). If the redirect to the proper name (athlete) is unoccupied, then I don't think we (actually since it was your decision to do it, YOU) should be renaming articles outside of convention. I haven't seen either you or User:Green Giant from your regular work editing athletics articles. I suspect there is little. My guideline suggests you should not be opining the fate of articles in subjects you do not understand. Trackinfo (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Although Anthony ultimately made the edit, someone else initially made the request at WP:RM/TR and gave a good reason for it at the time. -- 212.139.106.106 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done 82.132.214.244 (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It is my concern that all of these residual edits were made necessary because of the renaming. By being a nonconforming name, it leaves the potential of confusion in the future. Had there been another athlete, I could see this as necessary. To avoid confusion with a boxer opens the door for a bad precedent that could have us renaming articles all over the place because of someone with a similar name in another sport. Trackinfo (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this was a decent rationale for the move from (athlete) to (runner) and a reasonable choice for a non-controversial move. Although the athlete disambiguator is the default one in use, it may not be ideal at times (this case included) especially where other sportspeople with the same name exist. Runner is a short, simplistic handle too. Also, to be fair, the recent athletics page moves are the kinds of ones you would expect people to do without discussion anyway – the admins only get involved for technical reasons. (Sorry to bother your talk page Anthony!) SFB 22:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting history merges

Ahmet Hacıosman

Puma Energy

Thank you. Beagel (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

I have some problem for article's history. See User talk:Deb#Gene Yoon. Could you help me? Sawol (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unipad

Sorry, it was Unipad.Deb (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rebreather and Rebreather diving

Hi Anthony, I have split the articles and trimmed Rebreather a bit. Rebreather diving has been expanded considerably, though not yet finished. You might like to take a look and comment/suggest improvements and sources. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy

Xbox 720

  • Since Microsoft recently confirmed the next Xbox, I request a history undeletion of Xbox 720 & it's talk page. SNS (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Xbox 720 article violates WP:CRYSTALBALL; even its name is unknown, and probably won't be confirmed until May 21. This shouldn't have been restored. Additionally, the likelihood of it being called Xbox 720 is extremely slim. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 05:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I have redirected it like before. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So Xbox 720 is redirected for now but on May 21 it can be moved to the official name (if it's not 720)? Shouldn't Upcoming Xbox console be history merged with Xbox 720 considering the edit history was originally there? SNS (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Histmerge  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Request Moved Page

Hi Anthony! Greek user User:Athenean moved page of Sümela Monastery to Soumela Monastery in 12 April 2013 [4] His statement is:"more common spelling". As there is no consensus on this issue on the talk page,no demand to move the page on Wikipedia:Requested moves. And today,page return old version by Athenean again [5].Many official and concrete evidence is available. For examples:

Hi Anthony, just so you know, this user is banned from all Greek-Turkish topics, broadly construed, and was just now banned for evading said ban by editing as an IP (the one that made a mess of things by re-directing the article). Thanks, Athenean (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebra) and Talk:Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras)

Thanks for fixing those. Deltahedron (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mario Party for Nintendo 3DS

Obama threats/attempts

Xbox series

Eva Moskowitz history lost in merger

  • Please revert the history merger of User:Nick Levinson/Eva Moskowitz draft into Eva Moskowitz, done yesterday at 9:59–10:02p UTC (to the minute per logs but give or take an hour for the time zone conversion). Both pages were being edited during the same time frame by different editors, almost inevitably since the latter was live while the draft was months in preparation. The merger has resulted in the loss of the attribution history for the live article, and such a merger should not be done. Undoing requires undoing for both pages, as the current draft page now no longer has most of its history, all of which for both pages should be restored. If reverting both is not feasible, please userfy into my userspace the last pre-merger Eva Moskowitz article with its (now invisible) history of diffs and edit summaries. (I had not tagged requesting the merger, so the timing is not something I could address.) If I should make this request of someone else, please let me know whom or where, so I can before servers are possibly scrubbed and backups are overwritten. Whether reverted or userfied, perhaps then we can figure out how to merge and preserve all of the information. Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected hyphen to dash: 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
  • The histmerge request was made at 19:16, 5 May 2013‎ by User:Technical 13. Hist-split  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very kindly. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Eudicots

  • I have looked around and I can't see a justification for your recent move of eudicots to "Eudicotyledon". The name "eudicots" is the one used by APG (in parallel with rosids, asterids, etc.), and is therefore the de facto standard. Am I missing something? --Stemonitis (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I had to history-merge. I have now moved it back to Eudicots. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Fair enough. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gunnerales may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Knot (unit)

  • You appear to be a serious contributor -- not a vandal -- so I have to ask about your addition of inches per second in this article today. While I use the fact that a knot is about 100 feet per minute and six knots is about 10 feet per second regularly while racing sailboats, I can't think offhand of a use for inches per second. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was working on a computer simulation close-up of something moving at a rate of knots, and for it I needed speed in inches per second, and I guessed that some other CGI movie makers may need it also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

West Kingdom

Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Melvin Bliss

  • sung "Synthetic Substitution", which has been sampled at least 370 times. His article was deleted a couple of years back and I asked the deleting administrator, Explicit, to restore to User:Launchballer/Melvin Bliss over a week ago; clearly he is very busy. Would you mind?--Launchballer 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical moves

  • Thanks, Anthony Appleyard, for your recent technical moves of various Michigan municipalities. I was wondering if you could also move "Redford Charter Township, Michigan" to "Redford, Michigan." Thank you! Wikipedian77 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rebreather diving

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Pbsouthwood's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Does this need to be fixed?

Next Generation Xbox

National Audubon Society

Nice work! The magazine deserved its own article. Will give me a new project on which to work. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 10:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Wikipedian77 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Car and Driver 10Best

Thanks again! Wikipedian77 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you also italicize Car and Driver in the title for Car and Driver Supercar Challenge? Thanks. Wikipedian77 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Zhivago (TV miniseries)

  • I know it was a year ago, but there was no consensus on moving it from Doctor Zhivago (TV serial). I wonder if you can revert the closure (done by non-administrator) and then relist it. Also, maybe you can revert the title back to "(TV serial)"? --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I started a discussion for this return move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

I tried to edit ultrasound to at least mention the pain that environmental ultrasound inflicts on many of us. For me it's a major disability. Unfortunately, I was unable to dig up third-party sources before people reverted my edits and characterized them with a certain slur. While I have nothing against the semi-protection, I very much resent the mischaracterization. I think wikipedia needs to give people more time to document disability issues before reverting edits and insulting the editors involved. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

4✬s award.
For moving 118 pages in one day. -- Apteva (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your just-completed technical move of The Twilight Zone (disambiguation)

  • You probably shouldn't have done that one. The user that submitted the technical move request had just retargeted the redirect a few minutes before submitting a technical move request to move the disambiguation page as an uncontroversial move, citing the current target as justification. The user failed to mention that when submitting the move request. That retargeting should probably have been discussed before it was done. I was in the process of trying to contest the request when you moved it. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the more important move was done two months ago, leaving The Twilight Zone and Twilight Zone both as redirects to The Twilight Zone (franchise), but with the article still only saying that Twilight Zone was a redirect to TZ (f). That move was done without discussion. If the move of the dis page were to be reverted, and I would recommend opening an RM to do that instead of just reverting, but that is up to AA, the sentence at the top would change to: "Twilight Zone" and "The Twilight Zone" redirect here. For other uses, see The Twilight Zone (disambiguation)." It is, though, more than a bit disingenuous to change The Twilight Zone redirect two minutes before saying that (The Twilight Zone redirects to The Twilight Zone (disambiguation)). Apteva (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Links: The Twilight Zone (disambiguation), The Twilight Zone (franchise), The Twilight Zone, Twilight Zone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have just moved the disambig page from The Twilight Zone to Twilight Zone. The Twilight Zone now redirects to The Twilight Zone (franchise), whose hatlink I have changed accordingly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

For some reason Couldn't Get It Right

Love Me Or Leave Me (song)

The Crazy Ones

While it is true that the eventual goal has been accomplished, I did make a contribution to the deleted article that was not in the final article. I was surprised the sitcom did not have an article and didn't know I could have just waited, but there was a redirect which someone should have noticed, one which I turned into a hatnote. Fortunately, Wikipedia's search function is so slow to update I was able to find it again easily.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Talk:Racha (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nagarjuna198 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

History merge of ArmRosGazprom

Hi, Anthony Appleyard. Could you please do the history merge of ArmRosGazprom which was cut-and-paste moved from Armrosgazprom? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Beagel (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Xbox 3

  • I request a history undeletion of Xbox 3 as a redirect to the third Xbox system, Xbox One similar to how Xbox 2 is a redirect to the second Xbox system, Xbox 360 (also a history undeletion of the talk page). SNS (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Is 'Xbox 3' is an old name for the Xbox One? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah it was decided on the talk page to have that redirect to Xbox One, so now I just ask for the history undeletion of it & it's talk page. SNS (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Jolla (mobile phone) unfair action - please help, and reverse it

  • Hello Anthony, you have deleted the page I have create Jolla (mobile phone) and by merging it with Jolla (phone) site have assigned the creation of this site and content to RaviC. This is not fair action IMHO, even if in good faith. Please note that Jolla (mobile phone) has been created by me, and over 95% of content has been created by me, OCEXYZ. This content is located here Jolla#First unveiled device you can see in Jolla article it has been created on 20th of May. This content was only copy-cut by RaviC, who has never contributed to this subject at all. I have also contributed in good faith following content from here Jolla#See also and here Jolla#external links.
  • As I care for Jolla article since beginning (I've created it) and care of this subject this created situation lead to assigning RaviC as author of created by me site Jolla (mobile phone), as author of created by me content, and using my personal contribution to farming the site which as author is assigned RaviC. I claim this is not fair situation.
  • RaviC has created wrong of meritum site Jolla (phone) because Jolla manufacture mobile phones, but not regular phones, and he just have copy-cut the content created by me and literally has added nothing from him. And by your action, as I can find in the following log:
    08:01, 21 May 2013 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored page Jolla (mobile phone) (12 revisions restored: histmerge)
   08:01, 21 May 2013 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Jolla (mobile phone) (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

, you has assigned to him creation of Jolla (mobile phone) site which is not true. I have created this article. Considering that most of 100% of content created by me (see Jolla#First unveiled device and in page history is proof of my contributions on 20th of the May) and I have created Jolla (mobile phone), hence please reverse it as it was, so I have created Jolla (mobile phone) article.

  • As I regularly care and contribute for sites related with Jolla this will lead to situation when somebody has done exactly nothing, has contributed nothing of his own, used content created by me, sources I have found, content I have devoted time to create and contributed, and this person is to be assigned as author of site I have created? Why? Because I will be contributing to this subject still as I do from over 2 years I will be used for "farming" site which will be assigned to RaviC - I assume good faith always, but in this case I feel this is unfair situation. See rest of content is from Jolla#See also and Jolla#External links and some little of my own contributions. Especially considering that RaviC is not contributing to this subject or article anything, but have used my work for copy-cat perhaps to have one more site assigned to be created by him. It is of course nothing wrong when RaviC contribute to wikipedia his contributions, and to Jolla and related also of course, and this one also, or anyone else at all.
  • Can I ask you for help and get the shape and article creation to be assigned to my person as it is true as I have created Jolla (mobile phone) article, and also fair as it contains about 98% of content, sources, edition, contribution created by me (2% are later additions, by others) and it is my work/contribution assigned to someone else?
  • I know this is stupid situation, but I feel very bed with this, but I don't blame anybody for bed will, has happened just.

Ocexyz (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • All the edits made to page Jolla (mobile phone) are visible, none are deleted. (I, being an admin, can see deleted edits.) This diff between the first Ocexyz edit and the RaviC edit before, shows much resemblance of text, and clearly there was copying. A look at page Jolla (mobile phone)'s history will show that Ocexyz did much work on it, and also will show that there was a history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Augusta Township, Michigan

Walking with Dinosaurs

  • Regarding my requested {{histmerge}} of Walking with Dinosaurs 3D (film) to Walking with Dinosaurs (film), it is not a cut-and-paste issue, but I thought that it is preferable to consolidate page histories for a given topic. I did not know that the former article had extensive page history, otherwise I would have started my new version there and moved it to the latter. Is this not a feasible approach to take? I thought I've seen it done on a few occasions to retain a topic's full page history. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, Anthony. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veliger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Velum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Automatic Position Reporting System

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Automatic Position Reporting System requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sachin_Dev_Burman#Requested_move

  • As per recently concluded requested move in April, the article was moved to S. D. Burman, which was reverted by you without any new discussion consensus. Why was this so? --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I had to history-merge. I have now moved it back to S. D. Burman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Just realized you just fixed a copy paste move then. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthony, This is a violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle practice. Requesting move revert and move protection. Have requested Bheemsinh to use WP:RM.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Move-closing script?

  • Hello Anthony. I happened to see this comment by DGG that he is willing to close requested moves but finds the procedure too complicated. Do you know of any scripts? I see the point of scripts for AfD but I myself don't see RM as being too tricky. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry :: I have no experience of writing Wikipedia scripts. In AfD'ing and suchlike I merely follow the instruction list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiply: Disciples Making Disciples

Plasma Universe

You reverted the redirect without comment. Could you please engage on the talk page (where I left a comment 6 days ago about the redirect), or at the very least provide some reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed this comment, a fraction too late. I made mention of this at the AN/I discussion that was taking place. The discussion had initially closed, but I thought it important to mention it there and alert you to it, Anthony. — Richard BB 10:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Overton

I do not think that this move was appropriate as a technical request. When a page has so may links to it I think it better that a full RM is requested as the page may well be seen as the primary topic. In this posting I am not suggesting that you rewind the move (I have already moved the page again to what I and the ODNB think is a more appropriate dab extension), but as note on similar moves in the future. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nara Lokesh

Saw your merge, thanks. I tried depeacocking that before, I was obviously working on the duplicate. :) ...I made a start of pulling the tail feathers, but - as you'd expect with one of the NTR dynasty - that's a lot of feathers... so I haven't removed your CSD11, can't promise to finish defeathering. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment(ary)

  • Hi! Another editor and I are having a discussion over at solo (trilobite) over whether to move "Han solo (trilobite)" to "Han (trilobite)". We mostly agree (i.e., per Wikipedia policy concerning monotypic genus articles), though, I think we might be better served if we had another point of view in the discussion. Thank you for your time.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added the tag to get this move into the usual format for a discussed move as listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cops (TV series)

  • Could you possibly ask whoever made this move request to fix all the links that point to this now-redirect, since they all need to point to Cops (1989 TV series)? -- Fyrael (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That move was requested by User:George Ho at 18:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Golden Cage (2013 film)

Libertad Green

Hi Anthony! Could you please help me understand what you're doing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3)? It looks like you've replaced a newer version of the article with an older version. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Impressive

impressive :) if you have time to contribute to romanization of Telugu please weigh in. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Page move

Thanks for moving the When Fire Rains Down... article for me! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tatler

  • I explained on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests what had happened to this article. I was in the process of sorting out the problem (in cooperation with the editor who had made the split without realising the impact it would have on incoming links), and the request I made there would have completed the process of fixing things, but instead you have turned the Tatler page into a disambig and simply deleted my explanation and request without comment. Therre are now hundreds of links going - unnecessarily - to a disambig page. We had already agreed a method of fixing the problem, and admin intervention has now made it much worse. Please talk to me if you don't understand or disagree with what was being requested. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • User:65.94.79.6 (not me) changed page Tatler from a redirect to a disambig. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • But I had requested Tatler (1901) to be renamed Tatler (over the unhelpful redirect to Tatler (1709)); the current magazine is what most links used to refer to but it appears that this same IP has gone through a couple of hundred articles replacing links to Tatler by Tatler (1901). I was explicitly trying to avoid this, as the modern Tatler is almost always what's intended when people other than literary scholars refer to it - ordinary editors should not need to add a qualifier - it will just result in an increasing number of links going to the disambig page. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • My point here is that the move/split of Tatler to Tatler (1901) was undiscussed and unwise, and I was trying to undo it, with agreement from the editor responsible; I want to revert to, essentially, the status quo ante but that would require me to rename Tatler (1901) to Tatler, for which I need admin intervention because the IP has converted it to a disambig page without discussion. [I'd be happy to have the current Tatler page renamed Tatler (disambiguation) and linked from Tatler.] Colonies Chris (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done I moved Tatler to Tatler (disambiguation), then Tatler (1901) to Tatler. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Anthony, did you for a moment think it might not be a good idea to move this page again while a move discussion is taking place (especially after making such a hash out of the original request)?older ≠ wiser 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
        • No, have the Martians landed? It's rather surreal and unearthly that anyone would even dream of contesting this move. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
          • @User:Ohconfucius So you weren't paying attention to the technical request in which an IP, apparently in good faith, contested the technical request and also created the disambiguation page. At this point, I've no objection if consensus determines the modern magazine is the primary topic; however, at the time I had never heard of it. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I have reverted those 2 moves pending the discussion in Talk:Tatler (1901)#Requested move. Again I seem to be caught in a dispute between 2 users. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • More than a week has passsd for comments and the clear weight of opinion is that the disambig page now named Tatler should become Tatler (disambiguation) and Tatler (1901) should be renamed Tatler. Colonies Chris (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Publii Licinii Crassi

  • Thank you for fixing the mess I made when I did these cut-and-paste moves. There's a long story behind this, having to do with an argument several years ago about dab pages in relation to these lists of Romans who all have the same names, some of whom are genealogically notable but not notable enough for an independent article. At that time, the dab police, as I unkindly called them, insisted that such things could not be articles, no matter how much we classics geeks tried to explain that ancient Roman nomenclature required special kinds of disentangling. Matters have progressed since then (with the creation of human dabs and such), but it's still a lot of material not sorted through and edited properly.
    Anyway, Talk:Publius Licinius Crassus (consul 171 BC) seems now to redirect to Talk:Publius Licinius Crassus, and Publius Licinius Crassus (consul 171 BC) therefore doesn't have its own talk page. Is it OK to fix this just by opening the page and replacing the redirect with the talk header and relevant project banners? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done I have started a new Talk:Publius Licinius Crassus (consul 171 BC). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

advice please re Mandated reporter

  • Hi Anthony. You seem to be to 'go to' person for moving articles, I'd like some advice please.
    [Mandated reporter] is so long and US centric I'd like to cut and paste most of it to make a new article, Mandatory reporting in the US. I know large scale cut and paste messes up the page history, I'm just not sure how I should prevent this. Could you advise or send me a link to the relevant policy page so I can get it right please? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If you are splitting the article into two articles, go ahead, and note in the edit comments (at the cutting and at the pasting) what you did. Or preferably, as you say "cut and paste most of it to make a new article", move Mandated reporter (by the proper way) to Mandatory reporting in the US, and then cut-and-paste the unwanted parts back to Mandated reporter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • While you're at it, it might be a good idea to clarify the title, as in "Mandatory abuse reporting". I also suggest to use "U.S." rather than "US", since the former is the more common form used in the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Killer Instinct

Sailor Chibi-Moon

  • Hi. I requested the histmerge for Sailor Chibi-Moon. I know that a histmerge process is delete–move–restore. But you didn't restore for this case. Sawol (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

undelete

  • Request un-deletion of 05:22, 10 June 2010 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Magritek (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  • Magritek is a significant company well known and recognised in New Zealand for commercialising high tech minature magnetic resonance technology and also features on other pages in wikipedia, eg earths field nmr. Can you advise the process for undeletion. If that is ok we can add references about the importance or significance of the company. Let me know if you need anything else.

Acoydr (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done! For the recent edit! Leela Bratee 14:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Casa Pueblo

Hello. I noticed you started a discussion on Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico's talk page.

My intended request (perhaps I did not phrase it right) was for an Admin to revert the "Casa Pueblo -> Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico" move, back to Casa Pueblo (that is, to retitle the currently titled Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico back to its original plain Casa Pueblo name). I was unable to do the revert myself because the same editor turned the original "Casa Pueblo" article into a disambiguation page.

Can you move that page (currently named "Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico") into its original Casa Pueblo location, and start the "controversial move" discussion on its talk page instead (that is, on the reverted Casa Pueblo's talk page). Whether ultimately discussed into a right title or a wrong title, that was the intention of my Technical Move Request. (If neceesary, the current disambiguation page could be deleted so that such "disambiguation page option" can be made a part of the controversial move discussion.) Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. will discuss there. Mercy11 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
101 tedious, but needed admin tasks... Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Atlatl

Many thanks as always! Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Susan Mayer article

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. When posting this, the reason that I didn't move it to discussion is because, as shown, it had recently been discussed. I contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to weigh in on the matter, and only one editor from one of those projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas) weighed in on it. I gave editors ample time to further or finally weigh in on the proposed move. But you feel that the matter needs to be re-discussed?

Also, if you reply to this, replying on your talk page is fine; I prefer to keep discussions in one spot. Flyer22 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anglo/French Spellings

  • Information icon In a recent edit to the page Spear thrower, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
  • For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
  • In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
  • I think you are misreading the edit history & Anthony did not do anything like this. Our policy, which I'm sure Anthony does not need to be reminded of, is at WP:ENGVAR. What is this nonsense about "Anglo-French"? Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Metre" and other words in which the ending "er" is replaced with "re" is from French. In French the "re" on the ends of words is pronounced like it's spelled - the 'r' is pronounced before the soft 'e' so "metre" is Anglo/French spelling. Your countrymen have adopted the French spelling so this is Anglo/French spelling. 15:35, 15 June 2013‎ User:Senor Cuete

My recent edits

It would be really great to have someone review my recent edits - I feel that I am watching some surreal inversion of reality or something. If youre still on. Thanks if you do, no offence if I you want nothing to do with it. We all have our problems, I know... sats 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

  • Greetings, I had requested that someone move Template:WikiProject Rational Skepticism to Template:WikiProject Skepticism. You removed it from the request page without moving it, or explaining why. Perhaps it wasn't technical enough. I don't know. However, the person who placed the template under protection is unavailable to unprotect it.
    This move has been discussed at the talk page of the project, and almost everything else has been moved consistent with this. There are about seven different bots that depend on the template name. I'd like to get to work making those consistent too. If you could unprotect it, I can move it myself, or you can move it, and I'll take it from there. Any help appreciated. Greg Bard (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Popular redlinks with \x

With three people participating so far and discussion of a new redirect template, I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Popular redlinks with \x. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"New Center Detroit" technical move

Thanks! Wikipedian77 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Move

Hello Anthony! I wanted to inform you to moving a page. User:Chauahuasachca moved page of Treaty of Istanbul (1590) to Treaty of Constantinople (1590) in 13 June 2013 [6] and Treaty of Istanbul (1736) to Treaty of Constantinople (1736) in 13 June 2013 [7] without any consensus. Only explanation is "consistence". FYI... -- Maurice (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Talk:Lalu Prasad.
Message added 05:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Transit Hotel

Thanks for doing a proper move. I really bungled it when I tried it. At the end of the day it should be transit hotel and not capital. Many thanks for fixing what I messed up.Americasroof (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Jiaoliao Mandarin/redirects

TemplateData

Hey Anthony Appleyard

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy

Thanks for trying to serve the readership, but I think the page views are non-human in origin. So I put it up for a speedy delete. Non-human page views are assumed to be significant for several articles, and you can see the bottom of that page for some exclusion information about WP:5000. Thanks again. I think WP:Topred is a useful page to have. Thanks for trying to help others. Biosthmors (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Botched RM closure by requester

  • I noticed this one while looking over some of the older RMs on the list. While I don't have any particular problem with the resulting move, the way it was done was messy and technically improper (although lack of discussion may suggest a lack of opposition anyway). It seems the RM at Talk:New South Wales XPT#Rename should have been properly closed before carrying out the move, and the requester may have jumped the gun making the move six days after requesting it. I would post a notice on the requester's talk page with a suggestion, but at this point I'm not sure how to clean this up myself. Any suggestions? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I tidied the request closure. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew you'd know what to do. And thank you for your tireless work on RMs. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Botched move

Thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2013/January-June&oldid=1144428587"