User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/January-March

File:Aa oldcontrails01.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aa oldcontrails01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 10:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agta (Mythical Creature)

• When looking for information on this subject I discovered you deleted an article called "Agta (Mythical Creature)" in April 2009.

  I lived in the Philippines for three years and did not become aware of this cultural belief in this super natural being until it was almost the time I moved back to the United States. Looking for information on this subject I stumbled onto Wikipedia and discovered that YOU had erased the article I was looking for.

  Please restore the article immediately because I do not know how to do this. If you don't believe this is a mythological creature in the Philippines among Cebuano speaking people I have a reference from Dictionary of Cebuano Visaya by John U. Wolff.

  Because you erased the article I was seeking I am unable to find more information on this subject. Dr CareBear (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is now at Agta (mythical creature). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Question for Anthony Appleyard - Archiving User Talk

• How do you archive or move your user talk page under a date based history the way you do? Please teach me how to do this. Thanks. Dr CareBear (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• 1. Move the talk page to the archive name.
  2. Cut-and-paste the permanent matter and any current discussions back to the talk page.
  3. If necessary, put a link to the new archive page in the table of links to archive pages.
  4. Put the {{archive}} tag at the stop of the new archive page.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Move

• I asked that an undiscussed page move be reverted in the Uncontroversial requests section. Instead, you chose to treat the new page as the original and launch a discussion on whether or not the move should be reverted. I won't try to tell you how to do your job, but as an admin, you should be aware that when contesting undiscussed page moves, standard practice is to revert the move and then start a discussion on moving because a lack of consensus means that there will be no page move.

  By the way, I'm talking about List of G.I. Joe characters.--Ridge Runner (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, just wondering if you have a response?--Ridge Runner (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry about any breach of procedure. This move is being discussed in Talk:List of G.I. Joe characters#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help from Anthony Appleyard

• Can you please fix this page of Negrito so the text runs along side of the picture and caption at the top and is not so far down the page? I do not know how to fix it. Thanks. 99.32.61.98 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• The text is alongside the leading image and the history box already, as displayed on my Firefox 3.0.4. Which internet browser are you using? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I am using internet exploiter 8. :-) 99.32.61.98 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Interesting Anthony. The text runs alongside the leading pictures in Fire Fox but NOT in Internet Explorer 8. Disturbing. Dr CareBear (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help getting Two Pages Merged

• I have moved this discussion to Talk:Hemidactylus#Merge?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a simple format tweak for Wak Wak

• Need help putting the numbers at the end of wakwak in the definition down below the text wakwak so it appears as it did in the original text. I do not know how to get at this special charector in Windows. wakwak1 and wakwak2 need small numbers that hang down at the ends of wakwak on the Article called Wak Wak. Thanks Dr CareBear (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Did you mean subscripting? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. I didn't know what you call it. Thanks for the help Anthony. I just added Wak Wak and Agta to the lists at Philippine mythical creatures. Dr CareBear (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Topics on Philippine mythology and folklore

At the bottom of the article called Agta (mythical creature) there is a section called "Topics on Philippine mythology and folklore" wherein there is a subsection of Philippine Mythical Creatures wherein Agta is the very first. Could you please fix the link that this Agta link directs to so that it directs to Agta (mythical creature) and not Kapre? Because I do not know how to do it. Thanks. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Anthony Appleyard

Thanks for the good job cleaning up and formating the Agta (mythical creature) article to further remove possible copy right infringement. Good job. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another AFD for "List of creatures in Primeval"

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval (2nd nomination) since you commented on the 1st nomination.Barsoomian (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

dc Talk

Your closure here is frankly a bit surprising. Why create a pointless disambig page? The band is obviously the main subject, not their album; a hatnote would have been suffice. Secondly, I don't see the consensus to move the band name to capital "DC"; it's an MoS guideline, but a couple of people disagreed and wished that IAR could be implemented in this case. JamieS93 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved DC Talk (band) to DC Talk, with a hatnote to the album, since disambiguation does not seem necessary and would only cause more broken links (Special:WhatLinksHere/DC_Talk). Regards, JamieS93 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question Regarding Linglewood Lodge

• My apologies if this is in the wrong spot. You deleted the page for Linglewood Lodge on the grounds that you could not contact the original contributor (?) and were unable to find it on google. This is because it was (recently lost to fire and made front page headlines) historically important to our area in central Pennsylvania. I request the page be replaced as it was so it can be completed. Lingle89 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• I closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linglewood Lodge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

db4o

Thanks for cleaning up this article. -- samj _in^out 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Barker (police officer)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bill Barker (police officer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Barker (police officer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kyokushin-Kan Karate Pakistan issues

• Howdy! I noticed you removed the speedy deletion request on this article in favor of the AfD. In the AfD discussion you stated that it's not a copyvio if the same person wrote the Wikipedia article and the article at the external site. WP:COPYVIO says that unless the source of the material is in the public domain or has a compatible copyright license that it "is likely to be a copyright violation." The site where the material matches has no mention of being in the public domain or of having any specific copyright license. WP:COPYVIO goes on to say that in the case where "all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement" and if no "older non-infringing version of the page exists" "the page will normally need to be deleted." This is how I have seen this type of problem handled in my limited experience.

  So, I'm trying to clarify the reason for declining the speedy deletion and how I should have best handled the situation. Was the decline simply because the page had already been nominated for deletion? Rather than stacking a speedy deletion on top should I have simply marked the content with a {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} tag? Or is there something else that would have been better done? Thanks for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought that having two sorts of delete procedure current on the same article at the same time would confuse matters. The AfD will decide whether or not the article is suitable to be kept.

  I wrote "... it may not be copyvio ...", with "may" = "perhaps", as I was unwilling to come to a definite decision yet.

  If John wrote a web page, and Peter copied it into a Wikipedia article, then Peter would have committed a copyvio. But what if Peter wrote the web page and the Wikipedia page? Has he committed a "copyvio against himself?" The Wikipedia version is public use; the version in his web page is his copyright. The two contradict. I suspect that we need a ruling here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Katz

Hi. I saw you worked on the Martin_Katz_(American_jewelry_designer) article. But I believe the redirect belongs on the article about Martin_Katz the musician, not the other way around. Thoughts? Assistance please? Thanks. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for all the assistance! 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

new section

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

Fixing attribution for cut-and-paste move from Avram (name) - advice needed on how to fix my mistake.

Resolved

Further to the recent discussion on Avram (name), I decided to go ahead myself and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution by adding dummy edits giving attribution at the various pages, in addition to your helpful notes on the talk pages. Unfortunately I accidentally added incorrect attribution to Abram (disambiguation), inadvertently adding to the mess. Fortunately the message makes absolutely no sense, however I would like your advice on how best to fix things. I can think of the following ways:

1. Ask an admin to selectively delete the dummy edit. While I realise such an action is unusual, it seems to me to be the cleanest way to fix things; no real edit history is lost as the edit was deliberately a dummy one. I appreciate that admins may feel such drastic action is unwarranted however.
2. Leave things alone; since the edit summary makes no sense, it does no real harm.
3. Add yet another dummy edit, noting that the summary of the incorrect dummy edit is nonsense. This might be done with a formal "undo" edit history or similar.

I can see drawbacks and advantages to each choice and given your experience combined with your familiarity with this case would value your input. I also realise that the creative content we are talking about on the affected material is at best strictly limited and that this case is therefore relatively trivial and any remedies should reflect this. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Flatscan has kindly reassured me everything is OK on this issue, resolving my concerns. Thanks again for your assistance. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Aa 5000BC spring midnight.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aa 5000BC spring midnight.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

H2O Audio Page Deletion

• Hello Anthony, Excuse me if I've got the wrong person, but I'm a bit confused. You see, it seems that the page H2O Audio keeps getting deleted, I question the deletion, prove my points of why it isn't advertising, that it is notable and back it up with tons of third party reputable references, and the page gets put back up, not by me, but by a member of the Wiki-community. Then another member of the Wikipedia community will come along, delete the page and the cycle starts all over again. This time, it seems that someone even marked me down as vandalizing the very page that I wrote. So I'm really confused as to what is going on and why my notable contribution keeps getting deleted. Would you happen to have any insights for me? Thank you so much for your time. DanaS (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS
• I have undeleted it and AFD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H2O Audio. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you! I do welcome any help on how to make it more objective or notable.

DanaS (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS

Hala'ib Triangle

Hello. A couple of days ago, at my request, you moved the article Halayeb Triangle back to Hala'ib Triangle. It had been moved by an editor without discussion, and I pointed out that "Hala'ib Triangle" had 145,000+ Ghits and "Halayeb Triangle" had a little over 1,200 hits. Now the same editor has once again moved it, again without any discussion, despite my informing him that he needs consensus to make the move.[1][2]

Would it be possible to move it back again, and warn the editor that he shouldn't make undiscussed moves, and needs to get consensus? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, User: Malik Shabazz took care of the move back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Can you help me? User:Mackay 86 moved Korean Empire to Greater Korean Empire without any discussion. The common name of the empire is Korean Empire. So I tried to move it back. But I made some mistake, so I can't. I read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and {{db-g6}} can be used in this case. Can you delete Korean Empire for techinical reason? Thanks --Historiographer (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've undone some of your talk page moves

Hi Anthony, see my message at Talk:Circumcision controversies#The archives of this talk page for my explanation. The situation with the archives was quite bizarre,, so I thought it would be helpful to write about it in case something similar happens in the future. Graham87 15:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Diving-stub

Template:Diving-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey discography

Looks good. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving The Sun

Hi Anthony. Could you possibly review your close on this move proposal. Contributions to the original proposal were evenly split. And all the contributions to the amended proposal were posted on the same day and then closed two days later. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Shivkumar Sharma

• Sorry for the confusion but I looked at amazon and record labels and he is usually sold under "Shivkumar Sharma". This user just came along and changed all the spellings in the article. Could you fix the name again? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisting a page - advice needed

• Hi Anthony. I attempted to add a page on AlertSite before and apparently incorrectly deleted the entry. Sorry for any breach in deletion procedure. More relevant information is now available and I would like to revisit posting an entry. What is the best way to do this? The comment states that I need to speak with you prior to posting.WebWonderGal (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• At AlertSite are 4 stub-length deleted edits dated 13:04 to 13:07 10 March 2009. They say "AlertSite is a Web site performance monitoring and management company [and link] headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida." and it was speedy-deleted {{db-corp}}, i.e. a typical "non-notable corporation" deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Okay. Thank you. If I have more relevant, "notable" information, is it okay to post it? Or should I place it in the sandbox to review first?WebWonderGal (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.20.4 (talk)
• Post it again at AlertSite; but it may be deleted again if people decide that it is not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move Molas, France -> Molas, Haute-Garonne

• You have removed this move I requested even though the actual move has not been dome yet. Can you please fix this? Many thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oops, please ignore this, maybe something was wrong with my cache. Kiwipete (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Very odd move

• I do not understand why you moved the Princess Adélaïde of Orléans article to Prince Adélaïde of Orléans. Such a move makes no sense. The object of the article is female. Her appropriate rank in English is "princess", not "prince". BoBo (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I do not understand either. Moreover, I do not understand why all these articles are being moved without the courtesy of prior notification on talk page(s) so that regular editors can have their say. --Frania W. (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• As asked in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=341634992 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have put Prince Adélaïde of Orléans back to the name Princess Adélaïde of Orléans. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging Images and Media-Taskforce

• Hi, thanks for taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Taskforce. I'm not sure what to do with that and some related pages. I was looking at the histmerge largely because of there being a talk page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration with useful information, which is the main issue I had with doing a simple redirect. Also the "Taskforce" name isn't descriptive. Would
  1. Moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Taskforce to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce
  2. Moving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illustration to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce/Archive 1
  3. Redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration (and its talk) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce
  4. Starting the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration task force with a {{copied}} template for the WP:Illustration copy.
  5. Merging/redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject SVG (after a discussion on related pages or via MFD) to the Illustration task force.

  sound like an ok solution to you? I know there's several discussions need to take place, but I recently updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia#Files and its a mish mash of overlapping projects there. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I could not perform the history-merge requested because the first 33 edits of Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration are WP:Parallel versions; the move from Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Taskforce to Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration was not a plain cut-and-paste move but a textmerge; see WP:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the AI :) Avé[[]] 06:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marie-Thérèse de France etc...

Anthony Appleyard,

Why all these sudden moves on the "de France" & "d'Orléans" articles with no prior notice?

We went through long discussions months ago & now all is being changed with no notice.

The surname of members (children of the king) of the senior Bourbon branch of the French royal family was "de France", up to & ending with Charles X, and eventually his children who were born "d'Artois". The next & last king to reign was Louis-Philippe d'Orléans who took the title King of the French. From the generation of the children of Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, brother of Louis XIV, the Orléans branch took the surname d'Orléans, all the way to today (legally, as it is the only surname they are allowed to use in France, (a surname like that of Charles de Gaulle: are we going to change it to Charles of Gaulle?). In other words, "'Orléans" is a surname, and so is "de France", not only something to put after a title. As an example:

• Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, duc d'Orléans, in French, becomes
• Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans, in English.

The daughters of Louis XV were all surnamed "de France" and were addressed to as Madame + used baptismal name (which may not have been the first). They were not given the title of "princesse" as is given them in en:wiki. Children of the king & members of the king's family were "prince/princesse du sang" but, the only members of the king's family to be princes of anything were the eldest males of the "Condé" & "Conti" families who were "prince de Condé" & "prince de Conti", their respective wives being "princesse de Condé" & "princesse de Conti".

The daughter of Louis XVI was Marie-Thérèse de France, and was addresssed to as Madame Royale. May I point out to you that while you have changed her to Marie-Thérèse of France, you forgot to change "Madame Royale" to "Royal Madam" or "Royal Mistress" or "Royal Mrs." or whatever proper English should be.

Bathilde d'Orléans, the sister of Philippe d'Orléans (Philippe Égalité) was not a "princess d'Orléans". She did become a princess when she married the prince de Conti. Accordingly, she should be Bathilde d'Orléans, princesse de Conti, in English: Bathilde d'Orléans, Princess of Conti.

I simply do not have the time right now to go through all the past discussions on the subject & bring them to your attention, but it is becoming tiresome & depressing to do so much work and then, months later, have someone come & erase it all as if previous editors were ignorami & their work worthless.

When --Frania W. (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)such moves are planned, a notice should be posted at the talk page of each article because all cases may not be the same. Some of the Orléans women of the 17th century are being given the title of "princesses" in en:wiki, which is totally wrong. Only the children of Louis-Philippe I, king of the French, (1830-1848) were princes & princesses d'Orléans (not de France)

Please feel free to bring this to whichever talk page the discussion is taking place.

Best regards, --Frania W. (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

• Some of those previous moves were asked for in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=341634992 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find it extremely strange that an anonymous IP who signed up at Wikipedia just over one month ago, yet who seems quite savvy about Wikipedia & its "rules & regulations", should be able to dictate his/her demands with no discussion whatsoever, and be "obeyed". That IP's two dozen requests were granted within a few hours with no notice given & no discussion permitted at articles talk pages. That is dictatorship. Following this logic, should I go and make contrary requests expecting the moves to be done with no further discussion??? Why not???

  Since I joined Wikipedia, some time in 2007, I have participated in quite a few discussions, never as an anonymous IP, and the few times that I edited not realising that I had logged out, I always have returned to the edit & identified myself. It seems to me that radical changes should not be permitted under an anonymous IP's signature. --Frania W. (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I understand :: soon after, someone put in another multiple move request in the uncontroversials, and I listed it for discussion. Point taken. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Hamilton history split

• Hi, Not sure whether this could be listed elsewhere, but I could do with your expertise. Lindsay Hamilton is currently a biography on an actress; however, there is another notable Lindsay Hamilton who played as a professional footballer. An editor overwrote the old article with a new one on this other person. Could you split that part of the page history out to Lindsay Hamilton (footballer)? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  Excellent. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For all the work you do with fixing cut-and-paste moves (Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen). You definitely deserve this. Keep up the good job! :) Theleftorium 17:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Anthony, per WP:V, please do not add or restore challenged material without providing inline reliable sources. Our policy is very clear on this: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Having some material in other Wikipedia articles is no substitute for reliable sources, as WP itself may not be used as a source. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

GLNG

Hi, Anthony Appleyard. There is a discussion about the article's name. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved policy page needs the archives moved as well

• Hi Anthony... the policy page WP:Naming conventions was recently moved to WP:Article titles... we need the archives and history moved as well, but none of the current participants know how to do it. Can you take care of this? Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• The move of page WP:Naming conventions seems to have been a proper move, taking its history with it, in the article and in its talk page; there is no histmerge to be done.

  As regards the archives, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Wikipedia%3ANaming+conventions&namespace=0 :: please which of that lot is to be moved? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think just the first one ... "Naming conventions" without any parenthesis (the ones in parens are topic specific guidelines... they may end up being moved/renamed, but that has yet to be discussed). Thanks again. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

William H. McNeill move

Discussion moved to Talk:William Hardy McNeill.

Justified & Ancient

• What the heck man? I thought this was a cut-and-dried case...did you not read my reasoning? 1 Oppose does not equal denial of move (especially such a weak, unfounded Oppose) - it's in the rules! It's about what's correct. Justified ampersand Ancient is clearly the proper title here (look at the picture - and even look at the back cover on Google Images). I understand the Manual of Style might oppose ampersands and other such symbols if there were good reason for it - like if the record were actually titled "Justified and Ancient" - but encyclopedias are about accuracy of information, not proper grammar at all costs. This is a huge misinterpretation. The current title is, in fact, incorrect. Just as Corn for Korn, Deaf Leopard for Def Leppard - or, for punctuation, - Do You Want More? for Do You Want More?!!!??!, How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul? for How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? Seriously. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• User:Skinsmoke objected at 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC). See also move discussion at Talk:Do You Want More?!!!??!#Requested move. In name styling, misspellings are one thing, and ornamental typography is another thing: see WP:MOSTM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sorry. I see nothing about "ornamental typography" on WP:MOSTM. Please point it out to me. Actually, while we're on the subject, how is "&" an ornament? It's a very common symbol... Wikkitywack (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and I saw that "User:Skinsmoke objected at 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)" - that's why I said 1 Oppose does not equal denial of move. So, there better be something good in WP:MOSTM that I'm not seeing... As it is now, I think you are misinterpreting it. Wikkitywack (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Eureka! Disregard my former comments. I didn't do my homework. Here it is, from the Wikipedia Manual of Style itself (under "Article Titles"): "use and instead of an ampersand (&), unless the ampersand is an accepted part of a name (Emerson, Lake & Palmer)" (emphasis mine). Straight from the horse's mouth. Now to the issue at hand: an ampersand is clearly part of the title as the image shows (check Google Images to see it on the back cover as well) - therefore the current page title is, in fact, incorrect and must be changed (as per WP:MOS). (Also, as I mentioned in the move request, every mention of the record in the article already conforms to this - so it's just the final piece of the puzzle.) Cheers! Wikkitywack (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Scuba diving - Rebreather section

Hi Anthony, following on from the discussions at Talk:Scuba diving#Rebreather without nitrogen, I've made a draft of proposed new text at User:RexxS/Rebreather#Proposed draft with as much sourcing as I could find. I'd be happy for any comments, suggestions, etc. either at User talk:RexxS/Rebreather or at the article talk page. Dive safe! --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Forcefins reference

Hi Anthony, I'm a bit concerned about the inline reference regarding the benefits of Forcefins. They way it was originally written in (with a link to the forcefin website), it is presented as an independent review of the fins by a recognised university. I'm concerned that this reference may not be entirely legitimate. The named referenced does not come up on any of the journal search engines, and googling the author and university also brings no results. Looking at the paper on the forcefin website, I get the impression that the paper is a sham. The reasons why are as follows:

It's written in a heavily promotional way with conclusions about the benefits of forcefins in the introduction.

It includes no citations whatsoever

It has a sample size of 1, so no statistical inferences can be made

There is only one comparison made

The conclusion comes before the discussion (That would not even pass highschool science).

For these reasons and the strong benefits being claimed, I think it may be worth having the reference hidden until the actual reference (if it exists) turns up. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Swimfin

With this revert, you have restored text which is unsupported by any third party reliable source. The study referred to is published at http://www.forcefin.com/FF_wisewords/lindsey-study.htm - that does not meet our standards for independence, nor for having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I request that you self-revert, or explain your reasons on the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Force fins

• Hi Anthony, I appreciate your work and help in Scuba and other articles. But as a veteran editor, I am sure you know that, per WP:V, we may not add material which has been challenged unless we supply an inline citation to a reliable verifiable source. As the policy clearly says, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Material published on a manufacturer's website does not qualify as a reliable source for promotional claims about the product, as I am also sure you know. Please do not restore this material unless you also add the appropriate independent sourcing for it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• I found the refs, with less than a minute of googling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anthony, AFAICT this is the exact same source we had before, on the manufacturer's website, which does not qualify as a reliable source for promotional claims about a product. If you have an independent source, published on an independent non-promotional website, please provide it. Otherwise, please don't restore material which has been challenged. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Chipmunks Sing The Beatles Hits#Move?

Hello! I overlooked this discussion until noticing on my watchlist that the resultant move had occurred. (Having previously reverted the same move after it was unilaterally performed by the editor who just requested it, I would have appreciated notification of the proposal.)
A key fact not raised in the debate is that the word is clearly rendered as "the" (with a lowercase "t") on the album's cover. Any grammatical error (if one exists) is that of the publisher, and it isn't our place to correct it.
Does Your Chewing Gum Lose It's Flavor (On The Bedpost Over Night) is a notable example of a far more clear-cut grammatical error (the use of "It's" to indicate possession) that rightly remains intact in our article's title because it exists within the official title of the actual work. —David Levy 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous polar bears

• Hi! I've contested your speedy nomination of Category:Famous polar bears at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. I don't think it can be speedily renamed, but feel free to nominate it for a full CfD instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Syrian Hamster

• Why did you move this page to Golden hamster. Only 2 people agreed to it being moved and one was against. Do articles not need a 60% majority to be moved? --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• In Talk:Golden hamster#Requested move Feb 2010 I counted the original move suggestion, two supporting the move, a definition query, and no explicit objections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Phantom Ruler Zoroark

• Could you please remove the move protection on the page and move it to "Phantom Ruler: Zoroark"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Or, could you move it back considering it was a controversial move?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Brought this up on ANI to see if what was done was proper (I had Zscout370 reverse the move based on the talk page).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Gah, you didn't have to permanently move protect. The official title is out, but we need to determine the proper way to translate it. Something would have come about by Thursday when the protection would have expired anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have un-move-protected Phantom Ruler Zoroark. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask for protection, how?

• Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards. Pournick (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Best report it as vandalism :: see Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Brussels Metro Lines

• Re your comments at cut and paste move repair holding pen. I agree with your comment and accept I probably posted it to the wrong place - you're right it was a copy and paste. My concern is that regardless of exactly how it was done this article is not properly attributed as the copy and paste is not acknowledged. I don't really edit wikipedia any more but when I see something like this I think I should raise it for someone to fix. In this case I raised it in the wrong place but I didn't (and still don't) know where else to raise it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have put a note in Talk:List of Brussels Metro Lines to say what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Cheers. I would have done something similar myself except a) I wasn't really sure what form it should take and b) more importantly I couldn't could my head around what affect (if any) the likely merge of the two articles would have on the situation. I've been a bit ill the last few days so that may have affected my ability to think it through properly! Dpmuk (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Anne Marie of Orléans / Anne Marie d'Orléans

• Caponer moved Anne Marie d'Orléans to Anne Marie of Orléans even though the page is still under an RM. Could you move it back and, if necessary merge the histories. In the vein, LouisPhilippeCharles has been doing a lot of cut and paste moved for in relation to the whole of Orleans/d'Orleans debate. I left him a brief message requesting that he not engage in cut and paste moves but rather use the RM process. If you could keep an eye on it that'd be appreciated. All the best.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anthony, many of these articles were at "of Orléans" initially anyway before they were moved without discussion or consensus. Isn't there a convention for restoring the article titles and then discussing? Seven Letters 21:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Which of these articles need to be moved to where to get them back to their original names? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

St David's Centre

Your input is requested at Talk:St. David's Centre, Cardiff regarding your inappropriate move of the page. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ray Turnbull (Curling)

• Ray Turnbull is the John Madden of Curling. The article should be undeleted.WaxonWaxov (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• It was Ray Turnbull (curler). I have undeleted it, moved it to Ray Turnbull (curling), and AfD'ed it.

Thanks.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

At Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move? you wrote:

• "And Concordia University to Concordia University (disambiguation)."

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean: "I am proposing that Concordia University be moved to Concordia University (disambiguation)."?
Do you mean: "Concordia University was moved to Concordia University (disambiguation) without discussion."?
Or do you mean something else?
I'd appreciate a clarification please. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Proposed. I have made it clearer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, but I'm afraid I still don't understand. Are you supporting, opposing, or commenting on the move? Apologies for being such a pain. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Someone requested the moves Concordia University (Montreal) to Concordia University and Concordia University to Concordia University (disambiguation) in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests. I realized that there many be two opinions on this move, so I put it to be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Right! Thanks. Good idea. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

• Why this revert? 92.4.59.122 (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I have re-reverted it back again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks. 92.4.59.122 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving images

It actually is possible, as long as you're an administrator. (This is a fairly recent development). I performed the move. harej 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Zia International Airport

• Could you help me with this article? Basically, there has been a decision to rename this airport, though the exact new name is a matter of much debate. One user has just gone and made a couple of moves that I am unable to undo myself, so I'm asking for help! There's an ongoing discussion here where all but one editor has said the original name should be retained until the exact new name is known. The editor who moved it is also not totally sure! Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have linked this discussion to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Jasepl (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Moves

• MOS Two style guides (one general, and one specific to music articles) are very clear on how these articles should be titled. I don't see how this is in any substantial way controversial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have re-proposed these moves back as discussed moves, which will duly appear in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Concordia primary topic?

Hi, Anthony! You previously commented at Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move?, regarding a requested (un)move, and I'm wondering if you've had a chance to review the discussion since? Thanks! jæs (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. FYI, I've had some more thoughts. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

David Wilson (English footballer, played for Hamilton Academical and Stranraer)

• Hello. I suggested David Wilson (footballer born 1908) in the RM discussion, in the light of new sourced information on birth and death. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else got round to actually adding said info to the article. I've now done so, so would it be reasonable to move the poor man again, to David Wilson (footballer born 1908), or, if we're being precise, David Wilson (footballer born c. 1908), for consistency with how the other ones are named? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have started a move discussion about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: Mary, Queen to Scots

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Mary, Queen to Scots. Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Requested move: Mary, Queen of Scots. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film)

I do not believe that your closing of the discussion at Up in the Air (film)#Requested move adequately considered the validity of the arguments. The opposing arguments consisted of:

• "The phrase "Up in the air" has been around longer than the book or the film" - Yes, that's true, but entirely irrelevant since there is apparently no article with information about the phrase itself. Also, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is pretty clear that the criteria for determining a primary topic is about which topic users are seeking, and not about which topic came into existence first.
• "leave a dab page at the primary location" - No argument whatsoever, despite much earlier discussion about why that's not a good solution.
• "I don't see any problem with a two entry dab page. It's very clear that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - neither page should be [[Up in the Air]" - Again, no actual argument addressing the earlier discussion, which had virtually all been in consensus that the film should be the primary topic. And isn't it a coincidence that both of these last two statements, promoting a view that nobody else agreed with,came from anonymous users, within a few minutes of each other?

There were several hundred words of thoughtful discussion of the kind Wikipedia should be promoting, and everyone who participated in that conversation (by which I mean replying to people who disagreed with them) had arrived at the conclusion that the film was the primary topic. It's discouraging that several people who take the time to hash out an issue, can be overruled by a few sentence fragments with no sense of sincerity behind them. I request that you reconsider, and if you still feel there was no consensus to move the page, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the right way to seek a second opinion. Propaniac (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

• I have reverted my closure. But, looking through the discussion I have found 3 each of support and oppose, and much inconclusive discussion giving plenty of opinion for both sides. That looks quite like "no concensus" to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Much of the discussion opposing the move came from a single user (User:DanDassow) who initially opposed and then was convinced by the arguments of others to become neutral and then to support the move, so I do not think his initial opinions should be given much weight. User:Ronhjones, who improperly closed discussion earlier after unilaterally deciding the page shouldn't be moved, was clearly acting in violation of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. And I really, really do not think that two IPs that don't address any of the discussion should be given much weight. But thank you for reopening the discussion. Propaniac (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol

• Hi Anthony, I noticed that you moved Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol to Trentino – Alto Adige/Südtirol as an uncontroversial request. You shouldn't know it, but the article title has always been very controversial. The current title was chosen as a compromise and reflects the official title of the region per Italian Constitution: "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" without spaces (see Costituzione Italiana – Titolo V). Moreover, as the move was proposed only at Wikipedia:Requested moves and was not linked in the article's discussion, had the chance to oppose it. I would have definitely opposed the move if I had been aware that it was proposed. I thus ask you to rollback the move. Kind regards, --Checco (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have reverted the move and tagged it for discussion: see Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Failed History Merge of Tilikum to Tilikum (orca)

• I noticed that you canceled the History Merge claiming that the page was always a History. You were looking at the wrong page where Tilikum redirected to which was Tillicum. This edit in the edit history of Tilikum shows it was there and it was merged into that one page and then split back out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilikum&oldid=270214351. Please take a 2nd look at it. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 04:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Help desk query - cut-n-paste move?

The first of the two articles mentioned at Wikipedia:Help desk#Two articles I didn't write are attributed to me looks to my untrained eye to be a case of a page move improperly reverted by a cut and paste job, an area in which you have some expertise. Am I right? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mastic (resin) it is not Gum arabic !!!

• " Gum arabic " system made of acacia tree ! , And " Mastic " is made out of Pistacia lentiscus tree ! . Unfortunately many people in the world do not know this spice is known to only a few in the Middle East, And a secret except for people as a great healer. I ask not to be confused with Gum arabic is something else entirely! . " Mastic is made of wood and Pistacia lentiscus ". And Gum arabic is produced from a Acacia tree resin. This spice also does not appear in any dictionary in the world and the first time he appears in the encyclopedia That he always appears in the encyclopedia as a "resin of Pistacia lentiscus" . Recently I went to the Hebrew Language Academy to recognize this word of this spice to appear in the dictionary. Greek island " Chios " know the spice is already 2000 years. Today Mastic known oriental foods, especially " Mastic ice creams " like Dondurma (turkish ice cream gum) and " Booza (arabic ice cream gum) . I would like to know about " Mastic " as an independent value for all. this spice is called only " MASTIC " and nothing else. in hebrew it is have many names and latin the word mastic is mean chewing gum. burekas (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

• Mr Appleyard

  You have deleting some of my material in different operation I have corrected. I have studying these battles for over 30 years and a history major in school. I also fought in some of these operation when I was a Marine grunt in the Nam! I was wounded several times. I was with 2nd Battalion 4th Marines in 1967 and 3rd Battalion 4th Marines in 1968! I know most of these people personally. I do have my connection. What I give you is true!

  Thank You! 18:08, 5 March 2010 User:Traveler52

• Which of your materal have I deleted? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mission Community Church

• Mr. Appleyard...

  You deleted a page that was absolutely noteworthy. It contained verifiable information as well as worthy content. I compared Mission Community Church's content to several other churches within Wikipedia and mine was far more content rich. Please explain the purpose for your deletion.

  Kerri Lawrey-Jones 22:21, 5 March 2010 User:Mission68

• At 23:11, 4 March 2010 User:Phantomsteve tagged it for speedy deletion "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).". Its deletion log reads:
  1. 17:52, 5 March 2010 User:Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mission Community Church" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  2. 19:19, 27 January 2010 User:NawlinWiki (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mission Community Church" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  3. 21:24, 26 January 2010 User:Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mission Community Church" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Market Theatres

Thanks for sorting out the headings for the various 'market theatres' by renaming the Johannesburg article, as I requested earlier.

I recently made some corrections to the Wiki article "The Market Theatre (Ledbury)", with which I'm connected (as well as running its website). I don't know who the original author is (Wobblydog).

This page is still preceded by the following, presumably placed there by Wiki moderators:

I have put in one reference today - but I note the Johannesburg article, which has no references at all, does not have the above notices. I would have thought there was no difference in 'notability' between the two articles. Could you remove the notices now?

Superstevegs (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

---

• Re Market Theatre (Johannesburg), is there any ref-type matter at the external links? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about article

• Yeah, sorry about the article, it's my first, but I think I found out the problem and I'm going to try again.Futuramarama (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnus move

• I am sorry that I seem to have made some mistakes with a disabmbiguation page regarding Magnus I of Sweden. Thank you for restoring things! I'm not very good at such technicalities I'm afraid. The actual move needs to be done as per the discussion here. Looks like that disambiguation page may constitute a hindrance in getting that article appropriately named. Can you help accomplish that? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Appleyard! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Kjær

• Hi AA. Thanks for carrying out the renaming of Peter Kjær (architect)! I noticed that at the same time you moved "the other" Peter Kjær to Peter Kjær (footballer) and created a disambiguation page. Looking at Google News hits, and for that matter Wikipedia article links, it seems that there is a case to be made for keeping the footballer as the primary topic. You probably have considerable experience with this, so I'll yield to your opinion. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• That depends on how much Peter Kjær (footballer) is a dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• The criteria suggested in WP:PT include news search and article link, and these are both strongly in favor of keeping the footballer as the primary topic. If truth be told, it took bit of an effort to assemble the reliable sources for the architect. Favonian (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano

• Hi Anthony!

  I noticed your moving Giovanni di Stefano to Giovanni di Stefano (sculptor), and Giovanni Di Stefano to Giovanni di Stefano (personality). While the former is unproblematic, the latter has been discussed with quite some controversies. While the discussion didn't produce a clear result, it is obvious that Privatemusings' request wasn't supported by a single discussant. Please reconsider your decision in that light. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• and also please note that the lawyer's name is spelt Giovanni Di Stefano, with a capital "D". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• I moved my comment to Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(lawyer)#Requested_move. Were you sent any private email asking you to do that move? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• I should probably head to the talk page too - but I'll echo enric's comments there and point out that the (lawyer) bit is probably inaccurate, and doesn't have a consensus - my reading of the talk page is that the (personality) title is best, and has the strongest support - how would you feel about fixing that up, or would more eyes be handy? Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

St Pauls

Thanks for your reversion, I shall probably raise further discussion at WT:WikiProject Bristol. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Say what?

• You closed Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Requested move as no consensus, and yet you'd already expressed a clear view of the matter when closing the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth_II of the United Kingdom/Archive 20#Requested move. Was this your (in)famous "casting vote" in action again? Let me know when you're taking a break and I'll see if I can open a request when it might end up being closed by someone who hasn't expressed a view in previous discussions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• My message was a question, not a statement of opinion. OK, OK, I have reverted the closure. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks for that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback Requested

• I recently updated a profile for AlertSite, basing the overall format on another company who has a Wiki entry (and after re-reviewing information on posting your first article multiple, multiple times). The version I posted had an additional paragraph that provided additional source information to demonstrate its notabilty. The profile was deleted for unambigous advertsing. In your opinion, is it better to only have the first two paragraphs with one source listed (like the other company has done)? Any assistance and/or guidance that you can provide on getting this entry posted would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time. 76.109.251.11 WebWonderGal (Talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you. If I resubmit my article with just the first two paragraphs and the external link for the company website, would the article be accepted? If not, what would other things would need to be done to keep the article on the site? WebWonderGal (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• AlertSite. Try it, but there is a risk that it will be deleted {{db-corp}} (= "may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you for feedback, I really appreciate it. One thing I am confused about - other company articles (ie Coradiant) are accepted. Would you be able to explain why Coradiant is considered noteworthy and AlertSite is not? Any additional insight that you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Also, I assume that with each speedy deletion entry, the liklihood of getting your article posted is reduced. Is this the case? I don't want to limit the liklihood of it being posted. Thank you in advance for your time. WebWonderGal (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

• Hi, as there was consensus on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires for the move to Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires and the request at WP:RM has languished for five days I've performed the move myself. Never mind the old history merge request, the article needs to be back in the mainspace where people will actually read it. The one lose end is Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. The page is fully protected, so could you turn it into a redirect or unprotect it so that someone else can? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done I histmerged Comparison between Roman and Han Empires to Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires and make Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and its archives into archives of Talk: Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires. I checked the edit version compare astride the merged cut-&-paste point and this histmerge seems valid. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• That's great stuff, thanks very much for sorting that out. Sorry to force the issue, but I was under the impression that a merge wouldn't be possible, and as the article had been languishing in project space for over a month without any attention I thought it was time to move it. Thanks again, Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have left some information at the end of Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires/Archive 4. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of this. I apologize for losing track of this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fossil Plant Articles

• I've started several palaeobotany stubs on Alethopteris, Neuropteris, and Annularia, mainly because I have great pictures of them from the State Museum of Pennsylvania. You seem like the type that could contribute effectively to them, or know someon that would want to. I hope you can contribute. Jim Stuby (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• The information in page Coal forest, I got from the book Plant Fossils of the British Coal Measures, by Christopher J. Cleal and Barry A.Thomas, publ. The Palaeontological Association, 1994, ISBN 0-901702-53-6, which I borrowed from a library and is now back in that library. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

• Please move this page back to its proper name. This title has been discussed ad nauseum, and it is the consensus that" War on Terrorism" is more descriptive than "War on Terror." Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• There was no consensus for moving that back, only William's objection. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have started a new move discussion at Talk:War on Terrorism#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A quick perusal of the recent discussion indicates three editors in favor of moving the article to "War on Terror", with one dissenting. Arguments for keeping it as "War on Terrorism" are inconclusive, not following the terminology throughout the article, and (in my opinion) not warranted. To say that "War on Terror" is "less descriptive" simply flies in the face of history, I feel quite strongly. We are an encyclopedia, not a place to revise or quantify what was termed the "War on Terror", when it clearly was termed as such. Thank you for your time! :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Noted at the RfD of at least three redirects that currently point to War on Terror. B.Wind (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Love Brewster

Hi Anthony, Thank you so much for your help in moving the Love/Truelove Brewster page. Dranster (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing move request

• Okay' Here's what makes sense to me:
  • The Best Christmas Album In The World...Ever! should be moved to The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever! per WP:CAPS, WP:MUSTARD.
  • The Best Christmas Album In The World...Ever! should be an unprintworthy redirect to The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever! from alternative capitalization.
  • The Best... Album in the World...Ever! is fine where it is, as it's an album series. This article is about a whole bunch of albums named "The Best [X] Album in the World...Ever!" including The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever!.

  Does that make sense? If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for history merge for Advocacy group

• Many thanks for helping out with the Advocacy group history merge. 15:12, 16 March 2010 User:PeterEastern

WP:RM dab page proposal

• It appears that your proposal for dabifying WP:RM is not succeeding (it has gained zero support in the time since you proposed it on WT:RM). In the discussion I made a suggestion for an alternative that I think would declutter the top of WP:Requested moves in the way that you seem to desire: why not start a WP:RM (disambiguation), to which you can link a single hatnote from the WP:Requested moves page (if you create it, don't forget WP:WikiProject Romania!). B.Wind (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I Get Paper

• You shouldn't have deleted this page, it's charting on the Canadian Hot 100 now, there's a reason to have it now. Please bring it back. TheBigOnesEater (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Get Paper. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, sorry but THAT DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!!! Things have changed now, it is charting in Canada on the Canadian Hot 100, now please undelete now. TheBigOnesEater (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Interesting it entered that chart at #59 [3] and I cannot find the Canadian top 100 on WP:BADCHARTS. This likely passes WP:MUSIC criteria 2 now... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have undeleted I Get Paper and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Might want to watch this. Author is still trying to get rid of the redirect even though there was a consensus to do so (I boldly redirected already). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have put page I Get Paper on my watch list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

• You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

moved SOCKS to SOCKS (protocol)

• Why did you move SOCKS to SOCKS (protocol) only to move it back again? --Hm2k (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Second thoughts. I decided to wait for more discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Then, perhaps you could share your views in the discussion instead? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Victory Station

• Hey, next time you move/rename an article that has existing links could you also move the 'what links here' article links? You moved Victory Station that had a well established usage on WP but failed to edit any of the templates or articles that linked there Special:WhatLinksHere/Victory_Station. Maybe next time you could just suggest the rename on the talk page and let those who care about keeping everything neat prepare for the move? I check this article a lot and was rather surprised when it moved, but only thought of the link impact when visiting another article and saw the problem. Thanks! Spectre9 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What consensus for moving Ortega?

• What was you basis for establishing consensus for the move of Ortega. There was no support stated for the proposed move and even the nominator couldn't decide on one destination title. — AjaxSmack 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• The discussion had run inconclusively for 15 days and someone had to make a decision. The information in the original page Ortega, which I moved to Ortega (surname), is about the etymology and heraldry of the name Ortega, and I decided that most people looking up "Ortega" would be look for some man named Ortega. Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog has got massively long and someone needs to start getting it shorter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the need to clear the backlog and I appreciate your work but a move is not required of every RM. If you had a strong opinion as to the location, you probably should have left it to another party to close the move. As far as your reasoning, I understand it but a disambiguation page is not supposed to list every page that includes part of that name in its title. WP:DABNOT says: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title..." Therefore, none of the people named Ortega should be on the dab page anyway which would render the need you proffer for Ortega to be a dab page moot. Since your reasoning is not supported by existing Wikipedia policy, no consensus resulted from the discussion, and closure of RMs by interested parties is frowned upon, I ask you to reconsider the move. — AjaxSmack 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I have redirected Ortega to Ortega (surname). That will produce the effect of the original layout. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Division I

• Anthony, your move of Division I has left a number of problems in its wake. Please return to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Division 1/I/One and respond to the concerns brought up there. Thanks. Powers ^T 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

source

• Do you have source for this? [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• I saw it spelt that way in a modern-age map in the back of a Bible that was printed before the state of Israel was founded. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Zerg

• Please don't restore an old atrociously in-universe fan version of an article like you did for the article on the Zerg. The article was merged two years ago along with the others to create the Species of StarCraft article, where the topic is approached in a manner acceptable under WP:NOTPLOT, WP:N and WP:V. The old article merely regurgiates what happened in the games from the view of the fans, whereas the collective article—a GA at that—attempts to describe what the fictional species actually are from an encyclopedic approach. There simply isn't the sourcing available at present to build a proper Zerg article with comprehensive and verifiable reception and development information, as surprising and annoying as that might be. Perhaps after the new media is released, we'll have enough to work with to create a fully-fledged separate article (at least that's my hope), but as it stands at the moment, restoring something that just reiterates plot at a stupidly specific level (especially when we can provide links to places that provide that approach and do it far better than the old version) isn't the way forward. -- Sabre (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Noddy

Hi

Re Rv. I have heard and read "Noddy" used this way plenty times by computer users in former decades - because the term "Noddy" isn't mentioned in either of the target articles, this listing does does not belong on this dab page. It may be true (I don't doubt your word) but if it's to be included on the dab page, the information needs to be added (with <ref>s, obviously, as <ref>s are not permitted on dab pages) to the target article first.

See MOS:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included (my emphasis). Also MOS:DABRL: The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term. 92.2.208.239 (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Talk:Flashback.
Message added 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at User talk:Marcus Aurelius Antoninus/Main Battle Tank.
Message added 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

does this convince you? Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

• Please see here Do you watch those move requests that you make? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (public relations)

• User:Wikidea has taken it upon himself to unilaterally overturn the clear result of a recent move discussion - see Talk:Sarah Brown (public relations). Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have moved it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Was it your intention to add that extra period at the end of the title? Propaniac (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oops typo sorry. Now corrected including incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar Radio and Television

• I need help sorting this all out. I don't think this page move will work. Dlohcierekim 14:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• AA, and I also need 1 day, so don't do it right now.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I already replied.

  And don't put it as AFD right now, I want to take few days until I can finish all of them. I can't finish this in one day.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't finish all of them - just finish the one, with proper references, and let it get through a new page review - if it passes that, then you can think about linking it up to others, to disambigs, etc. And it doesn't matter if it gets tagged for WP:AFD, as you can then make your case on that discussion, and will have 7 days to convince people to keep it -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Anthony, I now see what you did w/ this. I think a lot of sifting needs to be done. Off hand, I don't think usurpation of existing articles, even redirects is workable. Would value your view. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• But today I can't finish the main article!--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Help my American friend

• Move Channel 3 (Thailand) to National Broadcasting Network (Thailand) and I will add some references that I found 3 in past week.

  I also have hard work on other websites, maybe I should go FAST FAST FAST!!

  See u tomorrow--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see any justification for that - Channel 3 (Thailand) is a major notable Thai TV station and should surely keep its own article with that title? -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also find some template(s) to put that I am still finding refs.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Hey I will move that you said in Talk:Myanmar Radio and Television#Move done because it's unrelated.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've reverted 118.172.189.233's refactor of Anthony Appleyard's comments and have warned him about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar TV

Hi. I've done a bit of research into those Myanmar TV channels that our friend keeps claiming are Thai - I've added my comments at Talk:Myanmar_Radio_and_Television#Some_research -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Histmerge request query

Sorry, there was a typo (which I didn't notice because it didn't show up as red link in the tag). It should have said Andrew Carnegie Free Library and Music Hall. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

If you read the Cantonese archives again. User:Angr's final decision was not a summary of what the voters were suggesting. Benjwong (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)