This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• White Rabbit (disambiguation) → White rabbit Anthony Appleyard? Macr86 (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, Anthony Appleyard, it's me Macr86. Macr86 (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I can't move White Rabbit (disambiguation) to White rabbit. Now, I need your help to get move back to the article White rabbit. Macr86 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done. See move discussions in Talk:White Rabbit (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, you gotta help me. You're the only one who knows how to move the page works. Macr86 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  All right, I'll prove it to you. Macr86 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Anthony, it's me from the Animal Armageddon discussion page. If you're still looking for a good dvd of Animal Armageddon, you can find one from the Mighty Ape website from either Australia or New Zealand if they have not released it in England yet, but if you do order it from there, you might need a region free dvd player. If they did release Animal Armageddon on dvd in your region, it was more then likely distrubited by Parthenon Entertainment Limited, and should have all eight episodes, so it should be much better then the Animal Armageddon: Target Earth DVD. --74.76.134.225 (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• eBay search just now showed 4 Animal Armageddon DVD's but all are the Target Earth version, which I already have and half the series is missing in it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Try this: 1, This one has all eight episodes. This place is in New Zealand, but they deliver to the United States, so I'm sure they deliver to England too. You will need a Paypal account to buy from the site, but I'm sure you have one from Ebay.--74.76.134.225 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• This move request was in the uncontroversials section of Wikipedia:Requested moves: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC))
  • MOD-5B Wind Turbine → NASA wind turbines– preserve the long edit history of the MOD 5B article and merge in stubs at MOD 2 and NASA wind turbine to rationalize name of article. Better to have one strong article than three stubs. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Has the text-merge been done, or not? What do you want to be moved to where? Someone moved NASA wind turbines to NASA wind turbine. There is no article MOD 2 and no articles whose names start 'MOD 2'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• What I would like is for MOD-5B Wind Turbine to be moved to NASA wind turbines. The text that is now at NASA wind turbine will be merged to the post-move version of NASA wind turbines. The stub that is now at MOD-2 Wind Turbine will get merged to NASA wind turbines. NASA wind turbine will turn into a redirect to the plural version, or could be deleted. (This shuffle also incidentally fixes capitalization problems in article titles, too.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Done the text-merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey there. I appreciated you moving the Afrocentrism article to Afrocentricity, recognizing it as a simple matter and non-controversial. However, since then, another administrator has gone and moved it back, and a discussion as begun over on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you'd weigh in there. I'm about to comment again myself as to the validity of that particular administrator making the move, as he/she is clearly biased against Afrocentricity (the movement as a whole). Chaosthethird (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• See Talk:Afrocentrism#Requested Move: this move is controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, when I nominated the move, I didn't realise that there was actually a separate, different page already existing at Hocus Pocus (album) (an album by Enon). Is it possible to move the article in question over top of the re-direct Hocus Pocus (Kaela Kimura album) and restore the original article? Terribly sorry about that. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony... in this section of my talk page I have been asked about situations where a group of users have worked on a new version of an article in user space, and want to move it and its history to article space. I know cut-and-paste is not the right thing to do here, but the question being asked is now getting beyond what I am confident in answering. I know you do a lot at the cut-and-paste repair page, so I was wondering if you would read this section of my user talk and comment on the issues discussed and correct any errors I might have made. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can you fix the attribution spaghetti left at the failed histmerge for Khomasdal/version 2 ? As I understand it, shouldn't the old page remain at the original name, as it contains the original article history, and the merger be done on the old page, instead of the new page displacing the edit history of the old page? 184.144.163.241 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• The request was to history-merge User:Ryno Coetzee/sandbox to Khomasdal, but this could not be done due to these two pages having parallel histories between 12:10, 26 September 2010 and 12:05, 31 December 2010, so instead I did a plain move, and moved the old Khomasdal to Khomasdal/version 2 out of the way first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, but now all improvements by User:Ryno Coetzee are gone, and at least I cannot see them anymore. Is there a possibility for you to retrieve what he wrote and drop that somewhere into my user space? Sorry for causing a mess here, I have been trouted before for just copying student edits to article space and wasn't really aware what a histmerge requires. --Pgallert (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I only now saw your note on Talk:Khomasdal. Will copy it from the version you provided, then. --Pgallert (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I merged the new into the old, so the old history remains (as it should), and added the attribution templates to the talk page. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Company article that does not meet notability requirements per WP:ORG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 13² 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am so sorry I haven't logged into Wikipedia in many months. I only wrote was ABOVE that line, not the description you quoted. I'm sorry I can't help more.Boweneer (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. I would like to know why my move request was moved to be discussed. I had a discussion for seven days and I got almost unanimous support to move United States armed forces to United States Armed Forces. Doesn't this mean that the move should be accepted? Thanks, Nations United (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Someone has moved it now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that it's been almost two weeks since the discussion over whether to close the move request for La Stazione reached its one-week mark. Nobody has really discussed the article's title in about three weeks, and I don't think there's really a need to keep the request open. Could you please close it now?
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:ZooPro has suggested that I request your feedback and/or modifications to this proposal. If you think that it has worth, I would like to post an RfC, notify relevant groups, then announce it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. If this is unlikely to be helpful or achieve anything, please be frank. I won't be offended.

Quick links:

• Original discussion
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species
• Wikipedia:PROPOSAL#proposal
• Discussion between ZooPro and Anna Frodesiak at Anna's talk
• Discussion between ZooPro and Anna Frodesiak at ZooPro's talk

This message has been sent to:

1. User:Anthony Appleyard
2. User:Donlammers
3. User:Innotata
4. User:Intelligentsium
5. User:Materialscientist
6. User:Mokele
7. User:Rlendog
8. User:Ucucha
9. User:UtherSRG
10. User:Visionholder
11. User:ZooPro

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not that it was a satisfactory article--I was about to prod it as an essay--but just what did you understand it to be promoting? DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Darkest is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkest 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 good 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.

• Could you please move Eyetap to EyeTap. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, you probably hadn't noticed this wp:COPYVIO so for you information, I have removed this and warned here. Apparently an eye should be kept on this IP 173.15.171.121 (talk · contribs). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved this page as uncontroversial. Where you aware that there was a requested move going on at the time? As it happens the user that moved it to Raul Labrador supported the move back and as no one else opposed it probably was uncontroversial. However I would have thought that as parts of your checks to make sure it actually was uncontroversial you would have noticed the requested move discussion and closed it (which I have now done). This is the second time I've commented on your "uncontroversial" moves recently and there have also been other examples in the past where I have questioned whether they actually were uncontroversial but decided it wasn't worth raising with you. I'm starting to become worried that you're assuming good faith too much and not actually checking that these moves are uncontroversial by checking the talk page and article history. Dpmuk (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why did you move a page based solely on the claim of an avowed relative of the subject who has made spurious and vandalous edits to the von Trapp articles, especially when it's a single-purpose user whose account was created the same day, and when her source for the spelling of the name within the article was an email from herself? MSJapan (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Additionally, there are no hits for "Rosmarie von Trapp" on Google - everything is "Rosemarie". I'd say the user is perpetrating a hoax. Could you please move the page back? MSJapan (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Done I have reversed the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! MSJapan (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I used to be "Bill McGarry (Internet Activist)" but now I am "Bill McGarry (Deleted)" or "Bill McGarry (NOT the football coach!)" or just plain old "Bill McGarry" <grin>.

I received emails (well, 2 emails) from Down-Syn (Down Syndrome) Listserv readers that my page in Wikipedia was no longer there. I followed up on this and saw that the page was removed due to no sources listed and due to no Google search references found.

I would like to get this page put back into Wikipedia if possible. I give the Wikipedia URL to readers who want to know my background and history. Also, there are researchers, students (including post-grads), etc who use the Down-Syn mailing list and the 17 years of archives for their thesis, project, research article, etc and use the Wikipedia URL as a reference.

I have had some magazine articles and newspaper articles written about my work which I can dig up and there are references on the Internet as well. Now, as far as the "no Google search references found" -- The problem here is the "Internet Activist" title which is not a good way to describe my work. If you search for "Bill McGarry" with disability or handicap, then I should pop up in various places. When I first started, the term "handicap" was the word used but over the years, the word "disability" or "disabled" are now considered the politically correct terms to use. Try Googling:

"bill mcgarry" handicap OR disability OR disabled -wikipedia -advocate

Note that this rejects any findings with the word "advocate". Many sites use Wikipedia material but do NOT give credit to Wikipedia so the "-advocate" should eliminate every wikiscraper (and maybe some non-wiki finds but that's okay.) You should find material dating as far back as 20 years ago. Google reported about 700 hits with these search terms; of course, some of those are duplicates and some are of other people but a lot of these are me. Search engines do not have access to the Down-Syn current articles or the 17+ years of Down-Syn archives so those will not show up.

I have sent this to the Talk pages of the other people who looked into deleting this page. I hope that this is ok!

So is it possible to get this page restored or should someone re-create it?

Thanks for your help!

Bill

Bill Chat 10:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The page in question is Bill McGarry (Internet advocate). It was deleted after AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill McGarry (Internet advocate). See WP:NN and WP:COI. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#A_small_collaborative_project_to_improve_bird_articles on the topic of a collaborative project where a group of people have opted to copy some articles to subpages for modifications, and then I presume the two versions are going to be merged. Could this lead to some unnecessarily complex page history merges? Are there any wiki guidelines about editing a forked article on a subpage. Please advance the discussion on WP talk page. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Re: this move. Did you mean to put in this order? Can you move it to Paschasius Radbertus if you didn't? Ta, cygnis insignis 16:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• You haven't replied, should I ask somewhere else? cygnis insignis 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I apologise to bother you, but I need to ask for your help on the Talk:Yugoslav_Front. After you posted the move rquest, the author of the request (disliking my oposition to it, I supose) has intentionally removed two comments of mine from the section. The first one was in the part of the text that you posted in, and the other further bellow. As I understand removing another users comments is against the WP policies and important transgretion. The first comment removed was found in the section you brought to the page from the moves request page (see the difference between what you left in the page and now. The second comment remove occured in the "Survey/Discussion" part, as it can be seen here: [1]. This user has alreay had problems of this kind and is again having problems in understanding WP:OWN. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks that the first part has been restored now. The second still it isn´t. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it also possible to ask the user not to be uncivil and stop making personal remarks, specially in discussion or administrators pages as he did with "Oh for goodness sake... People are not generally interested in your thoughts and opinions, Fkp." . This kind of attitute is very provocative and almost insulting. FkpCascais (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The second comment has (finally) also been restored. Anyway, a warning against this kind of behavior would be benefitial. I am sorry to bother you with this, but it sems that the mentioning of this incident by itslef has already made a difference. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues with this article are now being discussed at AN/I. Dpmuk (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,

I've noticed when you closed some recent AfDs that you put the top templates below the name of the article to be deleted. It's actually supposed to encompass the entire AfD. I've fixed the ones from today: [2][3][4][5]. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, During editing the page Sala Kongresowa I noticed that you deleted the page Zepter International with comment: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I would like to ask you to do two things :

• Rename Sala Kongresowa to Congress Hall, Warsaw or something, since this is what it is.
• I am pretty much sure that the Zepter page was a piece of promotion copied from its webpage. However this is a multibillion company and certainly notable. I started collecting bits about the company (from independents sources (google search "zepter was" -site:zepter.co.uk -site:zepter.com)) in my talk page for an article draft, but it occurs to me that the deleted page may contain some reasonable framework/chronology, which might be helpful for article creation. Is there a way for me to see the content of the deleted article?

Thank you, Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, the deleted text was rather trivial. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Could you offer a third opinion here? It is surely against best practice to have the Orange Scunthorpe example completely uncited per WP:V and WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• This refers to Talk:Scunthorpe problem. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• You moved this page within three hours, without discussion, hours after the macrons had been placed back, why?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• That move was asked for in the uncontroversials section of this edit of Wikipedia:Requested moves: " Midori Gotō → Midori Goto (move) – Per WP:MOS-JA, "Goto" is the prevalent English spelling of the individual's surname.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just checking that the 6 January request for a move of Henry Wood to Henry Wood (disambiguation) will go through within the next 24 hours. IMO, this should have been submitted in the Uncontroversial Requests section, but that's all blood under the bridge now, and some of us would like to move on to renaming Henry J. Wood to Henry Wood sooner rather than later. Best. --GuillaumeTell 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• The KATHIRGAMAm ARTICLE is distorting the true historical facts of this temple and area. I would like who ever reading this article to be awaare of this. 10:31, 15 January 2011 User:Nillninetyone
• Kathirgamam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the month that the move request for La Stazione was open, the only two editors who participated were one who questioned the notability of the article, and one who questioned my motives for writing it. At no point was there any refutation of my point regarding WP:COMMONNAME; yet, a third editor has now, without comment and without rewriting the lead to accommodate a name change, moved the article to New Paltz railroad station. I have since opened a second move request. In my opinion, you bear some responsibility here because you allowed the unproductive, original request to remain open. I strongly request your input here.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm getting increasingly concerned about your actions related to WP:RM. It is my opinion that you appear to be doing things too quickly without looking at them properly. My latest concern is this edit. If you'd look at the conversation (or even just the end of it), you'd have noticed that the move was made by an involved user interpreting the discussion the way they wanted to. By simply closing the requested move you were effectively allowing this out-of-process and possibly against consensus move to stand. A simple look at the edit log would also have made it obvious why it should remain open as I'd already reverted one closure along similar lines to yours with a quite detailed edit comment explaining why. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I was about to revert this closure, but someone already did. The move log here is:
  • 08:22, 16 January 2011 Malik Shabazz moved Standard Chinese to Standard Mandarin ‎ (To revert to stable name while we await the closure of the requested move. Move was made by involved editor bored with waiting for rm to be closed but should be reverted until such time as it is closed. Would have done so myself but move and redirects h) (revert)
  • 14:27, 15 January 2011 Kwamikagami moved Standard Mandarin to Standard Chinese over redirect [without redirect] ‎ (no real arguments to oppose on Talk, no response after another two days at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves)
  • 13:48, 13 January 2011 HXL49 moved Standard Chinese to Standard Mandarin over redirect ‎ (move it only AFTER there has been a formal closure)
  • 13:42, 13 January 2011 Taivo moved Standard Mandarin to Standard Chinese over redirect ‎ (Per evidence on Talk page)
  • 13:04, 13 January 2011 HXL49 moved Standard Chinese to Standard Mandarin over redirect ‎ (an involved admin cannot claim to close any case)
  • 09:11, 13 January 2011 Kwamikagami moved Standard Mandarin to Standard Chinese ‎ (favourable argument on Talk page) (revert)
  • 04:46, 29 November 2008 Int21h moved Standard Mandarin to Standard Chinese (language) ‎ (Mandarin a archaic term for Chinese, also know as Putonghua and Guoyu.) (revert)
  • 15:23, 19 April 2007 Wachowich moved Standard Mandarin to Standard Mandarin language over redirect ‎ (added language to title as per protocal)

  That is, I seem to be caught up in someone else's move war. This move discussion has been rhubarbing on since 22 November 2010 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this one seems to have got complicated - largely because it's been open so long. I took a look at it and decided it wasn't suitable for a non-admin closure - reading the discussion it makes frequent references to other discussions on the talk page and on completely separate pages so it's even more complicated than it first seems. I'd have been happy to do a non-admin closure if I thought consensus was clear (given the backlog at RM) but I don't consensus is immediately obvious hence why I think this needs closing properly and not end up as a fait accompli. Dpmuk (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I know very little about this topic, but from what I have learned it is something of a philosophical term and should be capitalized as "Innate Intelligence", much like Universal Intelligence. It is cased that way in the article and its sources. If nothing else it should be capitalized for consistency. –CWenger (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• See Talk:Innate intelligence#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can we get on with this move? I doubt that anyone who works with the subject of chiropractic would object. It's a term unique to chiropractic and used by a subset within the profession. At least two chiropractic associations are dedicated to it, International Chiropractor's Association (20 and onwards) and World Chiropractic Alliance. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I still think that this move better wait the usual period of discussion until it gets into the backlog. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for moving that item into the template space before. Do you think you could also make a redirect to the same page at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Power Rangers Samurai episodes? Same vandalism different page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Done, but it would have helped if you had included a link to Template:Editnotices/Page/Power Rangers Samurai instead of me having to ferret through my contributions list for it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello - you closed the RM at Gerhard Schröder recently, saying, "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 6 weeks, but big majority." I don't necessarily disagree with the result, but I was wondering where you saw the big majority; my count was 5 in support to 7 in opposition. Dohn joe (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You once were involved into an article naming discussion of Chihuahua (state). You suggested Chihuahua should be the dab page. I even fail to derive from the article history how the latest move could be justified. Anyway, now I made a new proposal, and you might be interested to read it: Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) TopoChecker (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! Although I would have done exactly the same, (in fact, I did, didn't I!), the topic tickles my fancy. Is there anything salvagable? Or is it all just flippant fluff? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If that entry was not a hoax, some small local student group's ragging custom does not look very notable to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I agree. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

• hello, Anthony! I've been asked to nominate you for MedCom. Before I fill out the nom, I'd just like your confirmation beforehand. Thanks! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• If you mean Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, I would be willing to help. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright. I don't know of any of your previous dispute resolution stuff, so if you could briefly give me examples or something like this. You'll be making a candidacy statement, so I could maybe glean off of that. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• For further discussion see User talk:Anthony Appleyard/Med. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• See User talk:Nedim Ardoğa#List of scientists whose names are used as SI units and non-SI units Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• E-learning/version 3 (AfD discussion)
• E-learning/version 2

  These look like the results of a history merger, which I know that you do. They look like some spare parts that were left over. Were they? Uncle G (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Timetable:-

1. 15:54, 25 January 2005 Jni deleted E-Learning
2. 17:00, 20 January 2007 Ruud Koot moved E-learning to Electronic learning
3. 16:29, 3 August 2009 Prodego deleted E-Learning‎ (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
4. 16:29, 3 August 2009 Prodego moved Electronic learning to E-Learning ‎ (requested move)
5. 11:53, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard moved E-learning to E-learning/version 2 (get away from under incoming)
6. 11:54, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard moved E-Learning to E-learning‎ (asked)
7. 11:55, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard restored E-Learning‎ (24 revisions restored) :: this would the edits deleted by Jni and/or Prodego
8. 11:59, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard reverted this newly undeleted page to its last text version; all later edits were redirects
9. 11:59, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard moved these newly undeleted edits of E-Learning to E-learning/version 3 ‎
10. That left page E-learning as the definitive version.

• Between these actions, various people edited these various pages.

  E-learning/version 3 and E-learning/version 2 are leftover scrap and can be deleted. The 11:59, 3 November 2009 move is because I do not trust the situation where a visible edit history is sitting over a parallel history of deleted edits :: too liable to accidents if the visible edits must for some reason be temporarily deleted.

  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's here. Hope to see you on the mailing list! Xavexgoem (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• You recently moved WZPT to WBZZ (FM) as uncontroversial. While I agree that it is pretty uncontroversial my concern is that once again you did not spot the requested move in progress at the time. This concerns me as I think you don't check whether a move is actually uncontroversial before you do it. This is the 3rd time (1st time here, 2nd time:here) I've raised this specific concern with you and I've also raised another issue #Standard Mandarin requested move that suggest you did something too quickly and to date I've not had a single reply from you about my actual concerns rather than the specific of the events. It would appear that I'm not the only one to have questioned some of your "uncontroversial" moves in circumstances where a little checking would have made it obvious they were controversial, e.g. #Midori Goto and #Hocus Pocus (album) move from this page. I'd appreciate a reply as this is the third time I've queried it, otherwise I'm going to have to take this to WP:AN/I. Dpmuk (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  I did check WZPT's talk page first. With uncontroversial-type move requests I always check the talk page first nowadays. (Note also that plenty AfD's are closed early by various people if the outcome shows early to be not in doubt.)

  The discussion move request was:

  • WZPT → WBZZ (FM) — The station has changed calls as of 1/19/2011. --Schala ★ 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  To that was added:

  • Please take this to WP:RM as this is a move that they can do now, instead of waiting. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  The uncontroversial-type request was made at 03:37, 21 January 2011 by User:Eternalschala, in this edit.

  Google search shows plentifully that that radio station with that frequency in that area had changed call sign to WBZZ. I thought that WP:SNOWBALL covered that sort of obvious case. I (User:Anthony Appleyard) made the move at 17:00, 21 January 2011

  • • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Plenty of times I have seen an uncontroversial-type move request, and decided that there were 2 opinions on that move, and changed it into a controversial-type move :: that shows when I edit Wikipedia:Requested moves with an edit comment such as "done 4, discuss 1". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said I agreed the moves were uncontroversial and have no problem with the move itself, it was the fact that leaving the RM open suggested you didn't actually look at the talk page that was my concern. However you do briefly comment on that aspect in your reply and that has largely alleviated my concerns. I do think it would be helpful if you closed the RM in situations like these. Dpmuk (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I too agree the move was uncontroversial and the decision fine, but wonder why the discussion was not closed before the article was moved. Just an oversight? My habit is to close first, then move. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't move article "Hits (Phil Collins album)" to "...Hits".

It is like ...But Seriously.

James Michael 1 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• See Talk:Hits (Phil Collins album)#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anthony, you should, and I very strongly suggest, that you move this back to "Everytime You Go Away" as this was the way of spelling this title as listed on the UK and US music charts in 1985, as shown in title form by MTV, VH1 and all other music video outlets in this era, and also with copyright publication having it shown this way. Even though Europe22's image shows it as "Every Time You Go Away", this was an error on the record label's part as to which has been acknowledged. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• This suggested move is now being discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• MedCom candidates are by convention allowed to mediate one case whilst their nomination is pending, usually so the Committee can evaluate their abilities as a mediator. In your case your record speaks for itself, but we have an unassigned case (about Japanese video games) that was deferred from arbitration and thus is a matter of priority. Would you like to mediate that case? AGK [•] 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks. Please where is a link to the case? It does not seem to be in Category:Articles in mediation or Category:Articles in informal mediation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• I have found the case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan, which however says that the case was closed at 12:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan's link "Discussion" links to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL#Non-English games, which section is merely links to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/VGGL and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/VGGL2, where the discussion is. That section title "Non-English games" is a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games. I will read through the discussion and answer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can you merge The Dark Knight Rises history with it's incubator. If you can, thanks. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Not done: Sorry not possible: see WP:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what you did is fine. I am just curious though because I was chewed out by User:J Greb (and I didn't want to ask him because he was giving me a hard time about it and he is not the nicest administrator I've hanged out with so hopefully you're nicer) on that I didn't move the incubator in the article. How is that done that you move incubators to the article. I didn't know that was legal at the time. Is that only a administrator task. It doesn't seem to be because the incubator was move protected so only administrators could do it for that certain incubator. I am asking so I won't mess up next time. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The "WT:MOS-JA#WP:VG/GL#Non-English games" section is to link to the archived discussions which I had to archive because the page was getting too long and some guy who was trying to set up the archiving was being a little silly about. I don't know why you've been reformatting it and adding new content to it. So if you could undo all the crap you just did and make a new thread on the page, that'd be a hell of a lot better.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Did it myself. I moved your comments to WT:MOS-JA#WP:VG/GL mediation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at/fix Independent Payment Advisory Board and its associated talk page, the Talk:Independent Medicare Advisory Board. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Could you please explain two of your requested move closures to me:
  1. Chihuahua - which you closed as "page not moved (closed (by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)) after its originater was banned)". Consensus at this AN/I discussion seemed to be to keep the discussions open as it was process for process sake to close them on the basis of being started by a banned editor and would inconvenience many editors in good standing who would have to !vote again. Please explain your decision to go against this rough consensus at ANI without even commenting in that thread. The threads existence was mentioned both in the edit log of this page and at WT:RM.
  2. Victoria_(Australia) - which you closed as "page not moved (majority for "oppose" if banned contributor's messages are ignored)" but these sort of discussions are determined on consensus and not a vote. At a minimum your close is badly worded as it implies you considered it a vote.

  Thank you, 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC) User:Dpmuk

• OK, sorry.
  1. Chihuahua: I have reverted the closure and chained the new discussion onto the reopened discussion.
  2. Victoria (Australia): I have reverted the closure.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With Victoria I can see how consensus could we read the way you did (it's well within admin discretion) but I was just trying to clarify things - I honestly thought it was a good close with a badly worded reason (we've all wrote things that don't really come across as we mean them to) so I would have been quite happy with you changing the wording - I'd hoped I'd kept my question above neutral enough to give that impression but I obviously failed. Of course your method is another solution. As for Chinuahua I was more interested in why you did it - it's too late to do anything about it. There was a bit of a consensus against closing for that reason at ANI and all you've done is inconvenience all those editors that voted for, as far as I can see, no gain whatsoever - making the close certainly isn't going to stop this sock socking. Dpmuk (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I do think the two of us sometimes have a communications problems. Please don't assume that everytime I post here I think you did something wrong. Most times I have concerns that I'd like to discuss but don't think you've done something wrong, merely that I think something needs a bit more explanation. Sorry if I do come across as accusing you of doing something wrong - that's not my intent. Dpmuk (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I won't be able to, or accused of, trying to unduly influence the closer I've explained more fully on Talk:Victoria (Australia) why I wasn't too happy with your original close - essentially because I could see how it could be closed as move (equally well I could see how it could be closed as no consensus). Thought you might be interested. Dpmuk (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3. Since you had some involvement with the H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why are the discussion taking place on the talk page of MOSJA? It's true that this will allow more people from MOSJA to support their current policy, but I think it may be a bit unfair to the members of WP:VG who might also have something to say on the matter. Perhaps the discussion would get more input at the talk page of WP:VG/GL, but I think that would then be unfair to the proponent of MOSJA's policies.

  Isn't the normal procedure to hold discussions on the talk page of the mediation request? That seems to be the way they are doing it with both of the other ongoing mediations. -Thibbs (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks: Sorry: this is my first mediation and I did not know all the details of the procedure. As your information mentions 2 possible places to move the discussion to (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan), I have put in both pages a section with a boxed link pointing to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL mediation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK that's no problem. You're doing fine for your first time! And honestly everyone involved is grateful to you for taking our case since it's been so long since the disagreement arose. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Illegal eagle is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal eagle 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 good 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. Purplebackpack89 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

G'day Anthony,

I've removed semi-protection from the SOCKS page. The page has been sedate for quite some time, so I think it's safe to remove it now. Just thought I'd let you know as a courtesy. Cheers :-) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, im sorry if i've done this wrong. This is my first article and i'm struggling a bit. You've obviously seen my article creation request User:Littlemisswhite/EduGeek.net. Is there anything i need to do now? It says a bot will list the discussion in requested moves but i dont see it there. Soo confused :( sorry! Littlemisswhite
• I started a move discussion in User talk:Littlemisswhite/EduGeek.net, as User:Littlemisswhite/EduGeek.net is written in a rather advertisement-like style. See WP:NPOV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your patients Anthony. I shall read the suggested page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemisswhite (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. You appear to have deleted a couple of pages, speedily, per MfD discussions that were not closed at the time, and which you didn't subsequently close. In particular, would you please clarify the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanabballin/Voting for those who are unaware. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• At 05:07, 30 January 2011 User:Porchcrop tagged User:Shanabballin/Voting_for_those_who_are_unaware as ((db-spam)), and I thus examined it and deleted it routinely while working through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing my move tag at Off Broadway. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony,

  I recently tried adding an article about a company I've learned about and received this message: (Deletion log); 06:31 . . Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted "The Eastridge Group of Staffing Companies" (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

  I was hoping you might be able to provide me with a suggestion or two on how I can improve the article. I've read as much as I can on Wikipedia (about how to post, about similar companies, guidelines, etc.) and want to learn how to post in the right way. Any help you could give me regarding this article's notability issue, etc. would be much appreciated so that I'll know how to move forward with Wikipedia in the future. Thank you! Sandiego3336 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• If this page is The Eastridge Group of Staffing Companies, it would be useful to read WP:NN and WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I had created a page about a venue which is something of a landmark, D'Jais. I had responded to feedback that was given a couple hours into creating the page by adding legitimate references, many from the New York Times. After I spent hours doing the research via university databases, within 20 minutes, the entire article was deleted. Can you help me understand why this is the case? I thought I had done what was required. Thank you, Smm201`0 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PS - My understanding is that if the article has verifiable sources that would indicate its notabilty, that there would be some discussion over a period of days regarding whether the article is salvagable. In this case, I started the page this morning, I asked for a couple days to develop the article (I had to go to work), I added about 10 articles during the afternoon, and when I got home tonight it was deleted. That seems awfully fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm201`0 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read about the criteria for speedy deletion and they really don't fit. I wasn't even done developing the article and what I had posted had only been up several hours. Could someone be vandalizing pages using your name? Smm201`0 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would at least like a copy of the article back so that I can use it in print elsewhere, and my time won't have been completely wasted. I would also like the username of the other reviewer. Thank you. Smm201`0 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'Jais. It was speedy-delete-tagged as "not notable" at 14:36, 2 February 2011 by User:Andyjsmith. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the second chance. I'll watch for the feedback. I use whether something appears in the New York Times, which has a reach far beyond the New York Area, as an indicator of whether it is notable. I'll see how others feel about it. I'm still new at this. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to have deleted the page Insanity (Home Exercise program) with barely an hour of discussion. Did you see the discussion was unclosed on the talk page? In fact the reason it had been nominated for deletion was essentially solved. Please be more careful in the future. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• The page is Insanity (Home exercise program). User:ThePaintedOne speedy-delete-tagged it at 08:04, 3 February 2011. I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insanity (Home exercise program). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony, I wrote a page for Ayurvedic physician Dr "Sarita Shrestha" and it was speedy deleted. I had only started putting in the references and sources for notability and it was deleted a bot too quickly. I don't believe this falls into a case of promotion. I have started pages and edited for several world renowned Ayurvedic individuals, schools and organizations. I have added some sources and notability and request your reconsideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshgreene/Sarita_Shrestha Thanks 05:05, 4 February 2011 User:Joshgreene
• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarita Shrestha.

Thanks for moving the Vampire Academy article. -- James26 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. While checking my articles, I noticed you recently deleted the article about the Dark Ambient artist False Mirror with a hint of 'notability'. I've read the criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) and I cannot see why this artist shouldn't meet the notability criteria.

  • "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."

  The artist has been reviewed in several print-magazines. Maybe the reason for your deletion was that I was not referring to any of these articles...?

  I was about to create a number of articles for Dark Ambient groups in order to improve the quality of the general articles like [[Dark Ambient] or List of dark ambient artists (this article lists almost NO Dark Ambient artist at all, as there are no articles for actual groups of that genre!).

  Please reconsider the speedy deletion, thanks! Birchhunter (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Mirror. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion and for periodical updates; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you!

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony Appleyard. The move of User:Aborig/Ghil'ad Zuckermann to Ghil'ad Zuckermann was not an uncontroversial move (move request). There was an ongoing deletion review initiated by the closing admin at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 5 to allow the community to determine whether the page meets the notability standards. A full discussion would have prevented the article from being deleted per G4. I have reviewed the sources in the article and all are either primary or unreliable. It would have been best to allow the deletion review to continue. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• I replied to you at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 5. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. Thank you for your assistance with the Eric_Lee and Labour_Start pages. I really appreciate your assistance. All of the Eric Lees are so much easier to find now. Mahalo! Meaono (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)meaonoMeaono (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I was checking my articles this morning and I saw that you deleted my article about the company Dive Xtras because of lack notability of the company. I've read the criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

  • "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

  The company produces one of the most popular DPV’s in the technical diving market, I personally have several units. Its products have been reviewed in several print-magazines and evaluated by the Tahoe Benchmark (which is a third party that scientifically measured 11 DPV's. Dive Xtras was also the first DPV company to use blushless motors, electronic speed control and make a technical scooter under 50lbs. Since then many DPV companies have adopted that technology in their new scooters. I am new to Wikipedia so I was trying to verify that data before posting it.

  I was about to create a Wikipedia page for the Tahoe Benchmark and the significance of the data, and was considering adding some more historical data to the DPV page. Please reconsider the speedy deletion, thanks!

  Please reconsider the speedy deletion, thanks! Wreckdiver08 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  Also if you have any constructive comments on what you would like to see on the page, or what specific information you thought missing that prompted the speedy deletion, they would be gratefully received.

• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive Xtras. But also see WP:SPAM and WP:NN and WP:NPOV. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Anthony, re this fixup, three points:
  • this step was incorrect, because it took the page content from the latest version back to the 11:05 version, ie before the improper copy&paste. I have reverted it.
  • two versions from around 11:05 have disappeared from the page history
  • why does the page history prior to your fixup no longer show in my watchlist? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• I moved all the edits from Template:City line navbox to Template:Merseyrail City Line. I did not move any edits to elsewhere. Neither has any deleted edits. I can only assume a system glitch. Sorry.
  • Wikipedia today has had several "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." hangups.
  • Watchlists are a list of page names and their format does not specify or point to individual edits. I have no control over other users's watchlists.
  • Anthony Appleyard 13:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • But surely if some of the edits to Template:Merseyrail City Line show in my watchlist (this one does, as does this one), then all should? For example, this one is in the page history, but isn't in my watchlist. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Is the page Template:Merseyrail City Line on your watchlist? The edit that you mention would not show on your Special:Watchlist because page Template:Merseyrail City Line has been edited again afterwards. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes; before raising any request at WP:SPLICE I make sure that I watch both pages involved, and checking in "View and edit watchlist", I see that both Template:City line navbox and Template:Merseyrail City Line are still in there. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Many thanks for your help after i made a cock up doing the City Line template Babydoll9799 14:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Anthony, could you please tell me why my uncontroversial move request for Bye bye mon cowboy was removed by you with the edit summary "delete junk". Clearly, I failed to follow the instructions properly, but I've read them several times and I'm embarrassed to say I still can't figure out what I did wrong, and I'd appreciate any pointers. It's my first time using this move request page and I must say I'm confused. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Nevermind, today I see that I was able to move the page myself: not sure why I was unable to last time, perhaps it's because a PROD tag had recently been removed? Thanks anyway, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• I found "((subst:RMassist|Bye bye mon cowboy|Bye Bye Mon Cowboy|Change to commonly used English capitalization, per the article's text.))" in an HTML comment instead of as visible text. I obeyed it; then I realized that the song was mostly French and so I should use French capitalization, i.e. capitalize the first word only, so I reverted the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside the HTML thing -- which I'm still unsure about -- I was following Wikipedia:CANSTYLE#French_names for this French Canadian song, as a Book Search revealed at least a couple of examples of common usage with English capitalization. I was not aware that you had gone through all this before making my change, so if you wish to revert my edit back to the French form again, please do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• This move request on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16 article is not yet finished when the discussion isn't over yet. Please wait until moves when the move discussion is complete.

  Could you please to support move on its talk page. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why was the page I created for SentUAMessage deleted? I was in the process of gathering more information on the subject, and believe that the information there was enough of an explanation until it was complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashUK1983 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

FlashUK1983 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SentUAMessage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Can this page be taken off the AFD list now? FlashUK1983 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• It would be irregular for me as an admin to take it off AfD. The AfD has a few days to run; that will give you time to improve the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read at least the intro section of Ground-attack aircraft article, maybe this would change your mind. There's a misunderstanding in terminology here. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you canceled the move request for Eat a Bowl of Tea (novel) as still being under discussion. I haven't done this much before, so I may have mixed up the process: I posted the move request because my original listing was 13 days old and had no opposition. Someone else just relisted the request 2 or 3 days ago, but no one new has responded. I went ahead and cleared the destination namespace myself, moving the film article to the (film) namespace, but wasn't allowed to complete the second half of the move, which was uncontested after almost 2 weeks. I wasn't sure if the admins would grant the move, so I posted a comment about either changing the redirect or making a DAB page as a back-up plan. So that's why the move showed up as still under discussion: a recent relist and my recent question about what to do if the admins don't move the (novel) page into the main namespace. Sorry for the confusion. Do I still need to wait until the second relist is closed before I re-request the move? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That'll teach me to read the Talk page properly first! The current title is unsatisfactory though. I'll think of another title for the page on the post-war UK secondary education and post on the Talk page -- but not right now (don't ask...) — maybe in 12-18 hours' time, if no one-else beats me to it. Qwfp (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I created this page today to link with other pages but you deleted it without even giving me the oportunity to complete it or the links. how long did you give it? An hour? No explaination either. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• It was speedy-deleted "none of the sources are reliable". I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cacabred. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not move Volksdeutsche into ethnic Germans-the two are not the same. Volksdeutsche is a specific term used in scholarly publications. It covers a very wide group of people-including non-Germans that were forced to sign Volksliste. In fact you have explanation in the text that the two terms are not identical. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, we've received OTRS permission for the use of the copyrighted material for this article. I haven't closed the AfD because I wasn't sure if you had any other concerns about the article which would call for its deletion. For future reference, the best way to tag something as being a possible copyright violation when permission is asserted but not verified is ((subst:copyvio)) (unless of course there are other concerns). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you speedy deleted Fokas_department_stores a short while ago. The page has reappeared with a "hang on" subsequent to the CSD. Is this intentional or is the original editor trying to get round the block? I can see no evidence in the history that the CSD was reverted by an admin etc, so I suspect a bit of confusion here. I've commented on the talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, Just wondering if you could provide some feedback on your deletion of my article on Winter Harbor Yacht Club. I realize it was a little thin for an article, but I was unsure which part of the notability guide it was lacking in. Are you able to userfy the article so I can put some more work into it?

Thanks Saunders.richard (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I got it for him, Anthony. To answer your question, Richard, it was badly lacking in independent sourcing. You should have significant coverage in at least two independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I find it insulting to delete a recently created article without first contacting the person that created it. You could have at least made it a redirect. Please userfy. Time in Russia (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• And even more insulting that you don't even have the courtesy to provide me a copy of the deleted revisions. If you do not apologize I would like to see you de-admined. Time in Russia (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• This page's incident log is:
  • 11:55, 18 February 2011: User:Cindamuse speedy-delete-tagged it "CSD A10" = "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic".
  • 12:06, 18 February 2011: User:Anthony Appleyard deleted "UTC+01:24" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Warsaw meridian)
  • 10:55, 19 February 2011: User:CT Cooper restored "UTC+01:24" ‎ (3 revisions restored: Restore history as requested at User talk:CT Cooper.
  • 10:57, 19 February 2011: User:CT Cooper moved UTC+01:24 to User:Time in Russia/UTC+01:24 [without redirect] ‎ (Userfy article as requested.)
    • Sorry: Wikipedia's administrators get dozens of speedy-delete requests each day. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Hey Anthony! Thanks a lot for the clarification. So it is due to too much workload? And then the userfy is extra workload for one more. TW makes it easy to throw a speedy-delete-requests with one click, without writing anything more of why something should be deleted. I think the processes are bad. Humans get extra work by these processes instead. A10 does not need any speedy at all. This is no copyright violation or anything similar, no harm if this stuff would be online a little longer, e.g. at least give the creator 4 days to respond. Time in Russia (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I improved the article in user space: User:Time in Russia/UTC+01:24. It now resembles more the other UTC offset articles at Category:UTC offsets. These are different from articles in Category:Lines of longitude which talk about meridians. Do you think it is fine enough to be a stub? If so could you move? I would adjust Warsaw mean time to redirect to UTC+01:24. And Warsaw meridian would be it's own article, where I would reduce the time information. Thanks if you could help me and these articles are in order soon and we both can turn to new stuff. Time in Russia (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Some would say that page UTC+01:24 should be text-merged into page Warsaw meridian: see WP:Content forking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It is appropriate splitting. The one is about a meridian the other about a UTC offset. For no single other offset is offset content merged with the meridian article. Only because this one user hit a TW button there is now this mess. Why can't you simply revert your decision? If people say it is improper forking than this can go through a full discussion. Time in Russia (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• The article is now back in UTC+01:24. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why did you delete Template:PD-Estonia70? Maybe it wasn't in use, but it doesn't mean that you have to delete it. Restore please, thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Someone speedy-delete-tagged it. I have restored it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that you do a fair amount of RM closes. Would you take a look at this one and see what you think? It's been open for 14 days. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think you meant to type "not moved". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Corrected. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• All arguments should be based on Wikipedia policy, which yours was not. Policy states thus: "titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article" and "One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject." The number of people that use the term "corn" is VASTLY greater than those who use "maize". There is also a general consensus on Wikipedia that American articles, such as an article on the White House, should be written in American English, whereas an article on the British Parliament should be written in British English. Corn is an American food. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Shicoco (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Plenty of maize is grown (I have seen it in fields) and eaten in England also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:TakeThat riotgear MEN 16022011.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could you explain why you histmerged someones stolen work? :S --Bsadowski1 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• At 19:27, 23 February 2011 User:Acather96 put in User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft a ((db-histmerge)) request to history-merge User:TheArticleWizardsApprentice/Sandbox to User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft. The two pages' edit histories seemed to match across the join, so I routinely obeyed this history-merge request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this concerns a recent histmerge/move you did with a draft taken from another user's subpage: User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft

Please be aware that the user this was taken from (User:Aakheperure) has had his articles 'stolen' before without his consent. The previous user (User:Mr ArticleEditor) who did that has been blocked for being a sockpuppet. Users like User:TheArticleWizardsApprentice and User:Mr ArticleEditor seem to be trawling for drafts in userspaces and co-opting them so they can pose as established editors wrongly. The intent is malicious, so I ask you to be wary of similar copy-paste moves in the future.

You were already aware that User:TheArticleWizardsApprentice was giving himself false barnstars, shouldn't that have raised warning flags?

Anyway, User:Aakheperure has been through three such unauthorized moves of his drafts and it's understandably upsetting. Please at least check with the user who owns the drafts before moving the articles they have on their userpages.Thanks --Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there are far too many users on Wikipedia for me to check every one's barnstars for authenticity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that comment was meant for User talk:Acather96 who assisted the histmerge. This message is also on his talk page verbatim, heh. Anyway I'm just concerned with the draft stealing, given previous instances of this happening. I am not an admin, nor do I have any plans to be one, but I am an IRC helper and have spoken with the owner of the draft before. And he's this close to quitting Wikipedia altogether because of this.

I know users with no special rights butting in into these matters is often frowned upon, but bureaucratic red tape of having to wait until the offending user was investigated before moving back the draft taken from him won't help anyone whatsoever in this case. I also think these editors who attempt to make themselves look like trusted editors are connected somehow to off-site services offering paid editing of wikipedia articles. Anyway what's done is done and yeah you were only doing routine histmerges so not really blaming anyone here. I'm just hoping User:Aakheperure won't give up after all this--Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Was this revert in error? 86.162.163.173 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I have re-reverted it, sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 86.162.163.173 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. Sorry about that but Talk:Brade Crawford must be moved to Talk:Brad Crawford. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Sorry for the trouble. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• When moving pages, as you did to Model–view–controller, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thank you. -- Smjg (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry. I thought that "move a page" automatically called a bot that clears up any resulting double redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I do not appreciate my religion being labeled as a "blatant hoax"! Eggmanism is not a hoax, we are a small, but growing community of believers and we would like to be represented as such. We at the Forum of Eggmen are deeply offended that you would label our religion as a hoax. Please, can we come to some sort of understanding? Ehickox2012 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Ehickox2012
• If I undeleted and AfD'ed article Eggmanism, the verdict would almost certainly be "delete as not notable". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Well please, could you undelete it so that I may have the material about our church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehickox2012 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• This has been deleted it seems. I didn't realise that is (obviously) does look like advertising, so sorry. I'm just trying to write some wikis on the history of drug addiction in the uk. This group came up. Fortunately, I don't think it's of much consequence anyway, although AFAICT it is still in existence.2829 VC 18:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• See User talk:2829VC#Speedy deletion nomination of Drug Policy Revue Group. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Do I need to take some action to correct the move request, or will it come out in the wash? This is my first move request, and I don't know all the ins-and-outs. [above copied from Discussion:Incumbent] Do I now make a new move request, or will the spelling be corrected automatically? Again, sorry for extra trouble. Ragityman (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, why Martakyert in Aghdara (town)? Thanks, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 13:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• It is a literal transcription of the Armenian speling Մարտակերտ which is there in the article. Have I transcribed according to the wrong dialect of Armenian? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Well, I tried Windows Text to Speech and Martakyert sounds better... It looks weird to me, but probably pronunciation is what matters. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 06:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As the deleting admin, are you ok with me restoring the article on Frank A. McClintock? It was deleted as CSD A7, but I think there is credible claim of importance to be made for a Professor Emeritus with significant coverage (Google books along has 754 entries). I will spiff it up a bit, and it can still be tagged for AfD if there are any residual notability concerns. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update it in order to nail down notability. It's not very clear as currently written. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for promptly cleaning up the mess I made - next time I will know to request a move<g>. jmcw (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your promptness moving the Bathysphere article. The talk page for that article doesn't get much activity, so I was concerned this was going to be one of those move requests which ends up sitting there for a week or longer, and it's nice that you got to it after only around a day. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just wondering why you deleted the Kamco entry. It is not only a registered company in Australia but is quiet often in the headlines in Victoria, Australia. There was some referenced material not copyrighted that was deleted. Why do people spend time updating this only to have Admins delete it. Disappointed and still confused why. Signed 'Insider' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.27.69 (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Page Kamco looks a lot like advertisement to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Having a heading of "Controversy in Victoria" would not appear to be an advertisement to me (which was all referenced). I would like to request re-instatement please. Still disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.27.69 (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have undeleted and AfD'ed Kamco. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamco. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Requested Move for Podlachia from 7 Feb 2011 Backlog disappeared from the Backlog list. We've had it posted on the article Talk page. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not guilty. The request to move Podlachia is present and correct in Talk:Podlachia and Wikipedia:Requested moves as at 16:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

That's two separate RMs, Podlachia was Requested 2 March 2011, but Podlachian Voivodeship (1513–1795) was requested 7 February 2011. Somebody was messing with RM bot at 05:00 today and stuffed a bunch of backlog into today's requests. That's cheating! :) Ajh1492 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus this one disappeared also . . .

• Podlachian Voivodeship (1513–1795) → Podlaskie Voivodeship (1513–1795) — (Discuss) — Need to return this article back to it's original name of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1513–1795). This is an argument that had beed resolved in 2008 concerning the mis-use of a Latin derivation instead of using the Polish derivation. See discussion surrounding Talk:Podlaskie_Voivodeship. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• It was there at 04:16 today Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions_(alt)&oldid=417903003 but is gone at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions_(alt)&oldid=417910625. It looks like RM Bot was down for the 05:00 run.

Ajh1492 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have done no work on User:RM bot. See User talk:harej. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted the question there. Any chance we can get the RM moved back to the front of the Queue (where it was until a few hours ago)? Ajh1492 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please revert this move, which was done ignoring the ongoing discussion at the talk page, and is entirely wrong. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

hello,

I see you created a version 2 of List of channels on Zattoo, which is a redirect to this article. In the edit summary you explained why you created a second version. The problem: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of channels on Zattoo/version 2/archive1. Please delete this second version immediately; it causes a lot of problems like the above one. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• At 19:36, 12 March 2011 User:Athaenara deleted List of channels on Zattoo/version 2.

  At 20:03, 12 March 2011 User:RHaworth deleted Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of channels on Zattoo/version 2/archive1

  The 3 late edits that I moved to .../Version 2 were WP:Parallel history to the page which I histmerged in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

for both revisions restored (Eternal Lover and I'm Not Over You) Uzerakount (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• The contents of EA Sports Active 2.0 [6] were moved to EA Sports Active 2 by cut & paste [7]. SNS (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a way to nominate multiple articles for a move at the same time? Looking over the arguments that resulted in pro-life staying where it was and pro-choice being moved, I think there's a very good chance that things might have turned out differently if they'd been nominated together, and the result - ie. one movement is at a neutral title and the other is at a propaganda title that is disallowed by, for example, the AP Stylebook and the BBC - is rather problematic. While the discussion is still obviously very fresh, not all users involved commented on both, and I think nominating them together, if possible, would oblige people to state unified positions based on Wikipedia policies instead of just citing whatever policy supports their pre-determined vote (eg. someone citing "common name" at pro-life and "neutrality" at pro-choice, because they like "pro-life" and not "pro-choice," would not really be able to do that in a unified discussion). Anyway, let me know what you think and if this is possible, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Aha! Thank you, that was silly of me - I must have overlooked it. Do you advise against it, or should I go ahead? (and if one article is to stay in the same place, does that break the template?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have started a move discussion at Talk:Pro-life#Move? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I restored the candy article; please let me know or undo if this isn't what you had in mind. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks. The disambig page is now at Hard Candy (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a move request that wants to move MICA to Mica (disambiguation). I want to do that move, per WP:DABNAME. But I don't know how to deal with the histories.

  MICA started as an abbreviation disambig in 2005. Mica (disambiguation) was a disambig for the word Mica (and one abbrev exception) from 2005 until 2007, when it was merged into MICA. Since then, Mica (disambiguation) has simply been a redirect to MICA.

  My question is, what is the best way to deal with the concurrent histories? In its present form, from 2005-2007, the Mica part of MICA developed in one article, and the acronym part developed in another.

  Thanks, --JaGa^talk 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have moved Mica (disambiguation) to Mica (disambiguation)/version 2, and then MICA to Mica (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, so archiving was the best solution then. Thanks! --JaGa^talk 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for changing the name of the Bath School massacre but Bkonrad appears to have unilaterally undone your change, on the grounds that existing text (like "Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history.", I guess) makes it a disaster. It is true that the term disaster has been used by some to describe this incident, but where they are not direct quotes they could be changed; in any event, is that really dispositive? Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have started a move discussion at Talk:Bath School disaster#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Omar Ortíz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Anthony, can you tell me how to make phonetic transcriptions of different scripts into Latin? I saw your work on Chief Minister of Delhi, is there any tool available? Bill william compton^Talk 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• It is one function of a program called TYPECASE that I wrote. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I was a little surprised to see that there were edits to Hervé Jaubert, because I was certain that I had protected it fully because of a content dispute, and put an OTRS number on it. Can you explain why you edited through protection to revert to a previous version, without the courtesy of even contacting me? I'm trying very hard to AGF, and I'm certain that you thought that the version I protected was wrong, but that's clearly spelled out in protection policy. - Philippe 22:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I reverted it to as it was before the edit-war. (*See Talk:Hervé Jaubert for a new discussion.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Hmm, OK, I'm not gonna make a thing of it, but that's a radical departure from the protection policy, in that you didn't discuss it on talk first and gain consensus, nor did you notify the protecting administrator (in this case, me). I'm really not sure that's an action you should get in the habit of making. However, the end result was good, and the article is back on track. It really would be helpful if you'd notify people when taking actions on protected pages. It's a courtesy, but an important one. - Philippe 03:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. I hope this is the appropriate way of contacting you, apologies for my wikipedia ignorance. I followed a link to your page when I went to the GoPets page today and found it deleted. I know it was a fairly lengthy page at one time (mostly maintained by fans). The service had clear notability -- $14m in venture funding from Liberty and other investors, a Red Herring Best of the Web award, a partnership with MSN Messenger, over 2 million registered players -- and there is quite a bit of external source material to confirm this. I was sad to see the page gone -- I worked as a designer on it in the very beginning and off and on through its lifetime. Is there a way I can help provide the external resources (if I understand the note about its deletion correctly, which I may well not) needed to achieve its notability and undeletion? Thanks very much for any help or advice. Gryphoness (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Wow, I saw this because I was dealing with the topic above. Since this article passed an AFD in almost the same content in 2006, and has been around since 2005, I think the better solution would be to improve, not to simply delete. I've moved the article into the Article Incubator, where it can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/GoPets. - Philippe 04:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoPets, GoPets: Vacation Island, File:GoPets - Vacation Island Coverart.png. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have undeleted its talk page and moved it to Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/GoPets. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• I know that articles that survive AFD can still be speedied per copyvio, but I don't see that having happened here. If you disagree with the last AFD surely the appropriate thing would be to file a new AFD, not to speedy delete or incubate it? ϢereSpielChequers 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• At 03:09, 25 August 2010 User:Becritical speedy-delete-tagged it "unreferenced since 2006 (except to the site itself), no indication of notability, meets a7 speedy criteria". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes but not every tag is correct (and unreferenced is not the same as unreferenceable). If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. So if you thought it should be deleted, a second AFD would have been a more reasonable option. ϢereSpielChequers 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoPets (2nd nomination). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I urge you to re-examine this move discussion. Almost every single oppose vote was a call of "Its notable" or "its more historical", which have no bearing in policy. The support side has presented statistics, arguments, and policy to make their case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Even allowing for that, it is far from a concensus for "move". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Really? When I discount those WP:ITSNOTABLE or "it's historically significant" calls, I get 3 opposes that actually have sustenance to them, compared to 7 (myself included) supporting it, one of those which doesn't add any new arguments. Considering this was more of a "Is Warwick important enough to be the primary topic?" discussion than a straight "Move Warwick (disambiguation): Yes or no?", I think that shows pretty clearly that there is very little support for it hogging the primary topic. This is not a vote! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I have reverted the closure in Talk:Warwick (disambiguation). Likely if I had closed with move, I would have had the same sort of complaints, but from people who do not want the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)