Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2015/July-December

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

A. J. Pollock (baseball)

Ok. But is there anyway to undo the move? Merging in this instance provided no benefits and was unnecessary.--Yankees10 01:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected redirect

Bureau van Dijk

Ideally the article would be named Bureau van Dijk with redirects from BvD and Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing, as other companies with the Bureau van Dijk name have been incorporated into one company. Thanks.--الدبوني (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks alot.--الدبوني (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article move might be problematic. The editor requesting it almost certainly has a conflict of interest, and the article regularly has coi problems. I'm hoping the editor will declare the coi and help us figure out what's going on. See User talk:Ksylvester. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get help, but it should not have been moved as what is now called inome is the notable company, while Intelius is a new spin-off. As Intelius is continuing to operate with a business model and products that were themselves notable within inome, I think we can justify a second article. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What a norwhale looks like listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What a norwhale looks like. Since you had some involvement with the What a norwhale looks like redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Allahüekber Dağları mountains

reverting undiscussed moves

Hi Anthony - I had put some requests to revert undiscussed moves in the "Revert undiscussed moves" section. Would you please revert the moves to God and Satan (song) and Imprudence (Maupassant short story)? If the editor who boldly moved them wishes to start an RM, they can do so. But for now, they should be reverted to their previous state. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dohn joe, I think Talk:Bookends (album) and so on showed that most en.wp editors do not share your understanding of "topic" as equalling "article title", since you have a minority view and since you are quite capable of arguing this view, the RMs give you an opportunity to do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Procedurally though, they should be reverted before beginning the RM. Otherwise it encourages gaming of the system. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interceptor aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interceptor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Heathrow (hamlet)

Hi. I've started a discussion at Talk:Heathrow_(hamlet) concerning my recent edits which you undid. Please contribute and we'll try and find a consensus! Thanks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Colored days of the week
added links pointing to Blue Monday, Black Friday, Black Saturday and Black Sunday

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gold Bug BLAR

Hi Anthony. This entire business with the Gold Bug redirects is extremely controversial. I have registered strenuous objections to the original BLAR on my talk page and reverted it twice. I also requested that he self revert and consider seeking consensus or alternatively proposing a MERGE or sending the article to AfD per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R. This looks like an attempt to make an end run around my objections. I also have registered a request with DGG on his talk page to revert back to the original article on my behalf out of deference to 3RR. This editor appears to be very determined to bury that article and is showing a shocking disregard for the many editors who worked on the original article as well as zero interest in seeking consensus. I would appreciate it if you reverted all of this, per the cited guidelines above and my strong objections to the BLAR. If he wants to kill the article he should send it to AfD. Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
DGG and Anthony Appleyard‎ thank you both for your help and input. GliderMaven is still arguing to delete the article, but at least he's not trying to do it unilaterally. I would not be surprised if he sends it to AfD. But the subject is so clearly notable and the article well sourced that I think it will survive. This article has been the object of a lot of attempted POV editing from people in the gold bug community. Anyway the debate on the talk page continues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

List of reddit jokes that are posted every thread listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of reddit jokes that are posted every thread. Since you had some involvement with the List of reddit jokes that are posted every thread redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Time for a Coffee Whakaoriori (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Again with the history merge...

I've got a mess for you this morning...

American Promise (documentary film) is a copy/paste move from American Promise. After the history of those two are merged, the merged article should be at American Promise (film) (there's a redirect with little history there - and there is an American Promise (yacht) article, so it needs the (film) disambiguator). Once that mess is cleaned up, the disambiguation page at American Promise (disambiguation) can go back to American Promise.

Once the pages are all in their proper places, I'll clean up the 9 incoming links to the disambiguation page. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 12:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done This has been handled. Don't worry about it. :) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Atul Kulkarni

Hi! I had placed the request under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". I assumed that by placing it there, I was requesting to revert the move that has happened without discussion; i.e. AK to AK(ab1965). User:BlueMario1016 had moved the actor's page from "Name Surname" to "Name Surname (profession born YYYY)" format. This move was not discussed anywhere and by posting the request I wanted this to be reverted. Per MOS:DABRL we don't really create disambig pages for red links. Can you revert the undiscussed move or should I start a formal discussion to get it right as it was? Was I in the wrong forum? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is another actor with the exact same name born in 1989 and the reason why it was moved, so it would not cause any confusions between the two actors. BlueMario1016 {Talk 09:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMario1016: Read MOS:DABRL and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And thanks for replying. You should have done this on your own page where i have already raised this problem. And thanks Anthony. I hadn't noticed that discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Aqua Lung America

Hi, I ignore why you decided to revert without comments my attempts to clean up pages related to Aqua Lung (though revert-happy snipers seem increasingly common on Wikipedia nowadays), but anyway, you have eventually decided to resurrect an entry that was turned into a redirect by someone else a long time ago, and finally decided to reach the talk page, you will find my reply there: Talk:Aqua Lung America 82.231.41.7 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Forks Over Knives

Hi Anthony, you moved Forks Over Knives to Forks over Knives in 2012 as uncontroversial. [1] The film title is Forks Over Knives, and Wikipedia seems to be the only publication using the lower case; for example, film website and NYT review.

Would you mind moving it back? I tried to do it but would have had to use the tools. Many thanks, Sarah (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that again. If I'd wanted to start an RM, I'd have done so. Sarah (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that you converted a discussion that wasn't intended to be an RM, and which contained a post about something else.
But that apart, this isn't controversial. You moved it without discussion in 2012 from the title of the film to one that uses lower-case instead. If you look at this Google search, you'll see that WP appears to be the only publication that writes Forks over Knives. It is normally written Forks Over Knives, so it needs to be moved back. Sarah (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Old VfD talk subpage

Reykjavík Museum of Photography

On 14 March 2014, both you and Moonriddengirl deleted Reykjavík Museum of Photography. I don't fully understand what happened, but at least one of the deletions was on the grounds that it was a copyvio. I had been a very minor, and critical, participant in the creation of the article. I was sorry to see it go.

I've tentatively resuscitated the article, as Draft:Reykjavík Museum of Photography. I have (I hope and believe) stripped it of copyright material, and made miscellaneous minor improvements. Unfortunately I can't read Icelandic; Snaevar, who can, improved the references.

There could be a problem of [Wikipedia style] notability, which I have trouble demonstrating. Notability (as the word is normally understood) exudes from both the Youtube video (among the external links) and from personal correspondence from a disinterested friend who recently went there: neither is of any consequence for Wikipedia, of course. Still, what do you think of the draft?

(I'm about to invite Moonriddengirl here; hope you don't mind.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. Anthony's deletion was temporary. He did a history merge to put together a page that was a cut & paste move. The article was deleted because it was listed at the copyright problems board for over a week, copyright problems were pervasive, there was no clean version in history, and no rewrite was proposed. There is nothing to prevent your creating a new article on the subject - in fact, if anybody had proposed a clean rewrite during the listing period, the article wouldn't have been deleted at all. Sadly, people seldom do.
That said, while your new draft incorporated some close paraphrase which has now been removed (and this is why we don't recommend resolving copyright problems by copying the base text - you can create a derivative work), it was itself a copyright problem because it did not attribute contributors. :) Content on Wikipedia is not public domain; if you incorporate any material from one page into another, you have to attribute. (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains how and why.) This is true of any space on Wikipedia, including sandboxes and draft spaces. I believe that all substantial content that you incorporated from the draft was authored by Sym1 and have attributed him in edit summary to fix that issue.
I don't have any issue with the draft going live, if you think notability is sufficiently demonstrated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl. And thank you for fixing the remaining copyright (copyvio/attribution) problems neatly.
I suppose that the reason why nobody proposed a clean rewrite of the article was that nobody both (i) noticed the article's predicament and (ii) cared. Few contributors are much interested in photography (other than by celeb photographers, of celebs, or by themselves or their chums). I am, but I have limited time and stamina.
The notability question: Personally, I'm convinced of its notability. (Compared with, say, that of Category:Individual dresses.) But of course this means squat. Has it been discussed in the media (in the way that, say, celebs' individual dresses are discussed)? In English, no (it seems). In Icelandic, perhaps yes. I have better things to do with my time than defend a prematurely launched article in an AfD discussion, so I don't propose to move it to mainspace any time soon. But if it gets an ethical go-ahead, this may help me nudge some readers of Icelandic a second time. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Works for me, Hoary. :) I know that conflict - I've worked on many a jazz article where mainstream press was sadly lacking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How a Transistor Works listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How a Transistor Works. Since you had some involvement with the How a Transistor Works redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How a transistor work listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How a transistor work. Since you had some involvement with the How a transistor work redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing RM

Nomination of Healthways (scuba gear company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Healthways (scuba gear company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tony South (Paralympian) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tony South (Paralympian). Since you had some involvement with the Tony South (Paralympian) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Broken redirect

Hello Anthony, you created this Broken redirect.. I assume it was just a typo? I'll leave it with you to fix... JMHamo (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputing Outlook.com move to Outlook Mail

Hello

I see that you have moved Outlook.com move to Outlook Mail after a WP:RM § TR request. The problem is, I was unaware of such an RM request because I find the move super-highly controversial. (I actually want to know where this strange name has come from!)

What can I do about it? Is there a chance that you revert the move and convert the request to a WP:RM § CM?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, silent one!
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your work on WP:RM RichT|C|E-Mail 10:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Page moves

Your unexplained revert at Fuck

Please discuss the issue at Talk:Fuck#Unsourced.2FOR.2Fetc.. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Play ball

Thomas Higginson

The Miles Davis Quintet

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

History Split

Your Nazi edit

@Anthony Appleyard: Hi. Could you add Murder of Kylie Maybury to your watchlist?

There's some uninformed speculation online that Mr. Cruel kidnapped, raped and killed Kylie and i don't want that to infect Kylie's article. I don't think that Mr Cruel did it - Mr Cruel was careful not to leave forensic evidence, and whoever raped and killed her left their sperm, pubic hair and DNA all over Kylie. Paul Austin (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Xiaodong Wang

Sorry about getting in your way. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 05:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

VeVeMe (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

VPN Unlimited Talk page

  • On some weird reason I could not try to submit the VPN Unlimited page. It just let me create it on Talk page and I wanted to ask for some help. Could you please advise why I cannot create a page?
  • @VeVeMe: At 12:27, 1 September 2015 Jimfbleak deleted page VPN Unlimited (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11) = "not notable and looks like advertizing".

Leonese

You don't move something as "uncontroversial" and then require a discussion to move it back when it turns out to be controversial. You should just put it back, and start a RfM to make the initial move. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Per WP:BOLD, it's up to you to justify the move, not up to those opposed to it to pass a RfM to revert it. You're an admin, you should know better.
I couldn't simply revert your move because you gummed it up so that was not possible. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Leonese language and User:Kwamikagami

@Anthony Appleyard: That User:Obi2canibe has been tagging things on my pages including the one at Ministry of Urban Development, He claimed that article “ This article's factual accuracy is disputed” But i have provided the references to support the contents. So the original one at S. M. Marikkar didn't have any references that's a serious violation of WP:V, and the creator of S. M. Marikkar becomes me? in fact i have not created that page, that's obiviously not same subject. I would kindly request you to restore back to old history as that S. M. Marikkar page is only used as stub and now into redirect. I don't want to give the credits to Danusker as “creator” of the page. Either you can remove the history of Danusker since that user's contribution to the article is inefficient. Kindly reconsider reverting these history back to original otherwise i will lose the track of this record and people would claim that i'm not the original creater since the article is on my userpage. That would put me in a ridiculous position if i go to the RfA to show the contributions i have done. Please reconsider.  MONARCH Talk to me 08:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks  MONARCH Talk to me 10:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

When you try to ping people when you're moving a discussion from RM/TR to a full RM at the article talk page, the ping never works. No idea exactly why, the notifications system can be a bit finicky. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For me it's the same, I didn't get any notification when Anthony Appleyard pinged me.. Looks strange  MONARCH Talk to me 08:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection level

Awesome! Thank you very much, and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius  05:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding bullets to posts

Why do you add a bullet to the original post in a section? It's uncommon, it causes poor diffs like [2], and it can prevent pings from working in the reply as reported at Template talk:Reply to#No ping. mw:Help:Echo#Technical details says: "The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines.". PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter! I was just going to ask the same question, because I had saved the above section link to come back and check for a response. That was how I found out that my protection level request had been done, not by responding to the "ping", which didn't notify me. So AA, you might find the above-referenced discussion informative. Joys! Painius  19:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony, wiuld you mind adjusting from Vince Vance & The Valiants > "the", please? Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wIkimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The undiscussed move must be reverted

You have got it wrong. The relevant policies and guidelines say that the undiscussed move must be reverted to allow for an RM to be held, and as such, I filed a request to revert that move. The burden is on those who want to change the article title to lobby for a change, not the other way around. Revert the undiscussed move at once, to allow for an RM. RGloucester 17:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Further information can be found at WT:UKT#FGW to GWR and also user talk:Mjroots#Who do you think you are?, where RGloucester has been demanding that I revert a move that was previously discussed and had consensus, and that I remove the move protection which I specifically put in place to prevent a move war. RGloucester has threatened me with "action" but nothing has come of it yet. I pointed him to ANI. Contrary to his assertation, the move was fully discussed as far back as June, when it became known that the name was changing. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
There was never an RM held. A discussion in June has no relevance now. No outside input was solicited. The discussion at a Wikiproject is not sufficient to move an article. Believe me, AN/I is on my agenda. First, however, I need to get this article back to where it should be so that an RM can be held. Priorities. RGloucester 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd situation

Hello AA. One of my wikignome projects is working with the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Your removal of the protection has caused that article to show up in the category. You did remove the "semi" template but left the "move" one. I think that you may have removed both protections but only one template though that is just a guess. Since there might be good reasons for leaving/restoring the "move" protection I wanted to make you aware of this so you can fix things as you see fit. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this and updating me. I hope you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company)

So it seems that RGloucester is having severe issues with the existence of the contested technical move request, which he himself contested. Pleas stop bat and instruct him in the correct procedure. He seems to want to disallow any sort of RM tag on the page so he can falsely claim there was no RM and that there is no consensus for the move, even though he's clearly wrong; the entire prior section was a discussion about the title of the article, even if it didn't use the RM. template. (Frankly, I think RG should be booted altogether, as he's an arrogant, battleground-minded pain in the butt who has literally claimed to speak for God. He's either a total troll or really not someone who has all his marbles. Either way, he is not a productive editor, just here to push his ideas with absolutely no respect for consensus or any one else at all. We'd be better off if he'd just shove off for good.) oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving pages

When you did the following move, you forgot to update the archive bot instructions on the talk page. As a result the archive bot has been archiving to the redirect page of archive 3. I have fixed the problem.

  • 22:32, 12 April 2015‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,607 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Anthony Appleyard moved page Talk:Soviet war in Afghanistan to Talk:Soviet–Afghan War: discussed) (undo | thank)

This came to light after I was cleaning up after another user made a unilateral move of the talk page only.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 16:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Histmerge

Thank you. Ryoga (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

T113718

Mesoamerican sites

Speedy deletion nomination of Acid-base reaction theories

Hello Anthony Appleyard,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Acid-base reaction theories for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Arbustum (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Arbustum: Before putting anything up for deletion, please review the page history and check for vandalism. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

Mv request

Hello, Anthony A. Please would you move over two sandbox pages I created to my current user(talk)space?
I'd like User talk:84.92.129.87/sandbox3 and User talk:84.92.129.87/sandbox1 to be under my current IP, which changed yesterday. So that's moves, without leaving redirects, to User talk:87.115.217.225/sandbox3 and User talk:87.115.217.225/sandbox1 respectively. Thanks, 87.115.217.225 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,
Pete in Australia here. I was working on this draft before you deleted it - of course quite rightly, as it was a blank submission.
This will be a velodrome in the Brisbane suburb of Chandler, Queensland, built for the 2018 Commonwealth Games.

Proposed deletion of La Huacana, La Huacana

The article La Huacana, La Huacana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable independently from La Huacana Municipality; see WP:NOTINHERITED.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Pages needing undeletion

Deeply confused by your deletion of Banglastan

Deforestation in India

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deforestation_in_India. — Sanskari Hangout 08:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical/Uncontroversial moves

Hi, you had acted on some move requests from 91.9.120.145. That's a sock fo Tobias Conradi and anything he does is controversial. As you can see, some of the moves he'd requested were reverts of his earlier sock by The Blade of the Northern Lights. We had this really long discussion and AN and painful clean up after his last set of socks in August, that he has now switched to requesting moves as non-controversial instead of performing them himself. FYI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Calcio Padova, again

I think enough consensus to move the page in Talk:Football Padova . Matthew_hk tc 12:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool Water

Thanks for your stellar work on this article. In case you are interested in the song itself, there's a lot of good, specific information about it HERE. The parent website has a wealth of good material on American western songs. Lou Sander (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Irish local elections, 2014

2014 was an exception as local elections were held in both Irish jurisdictions that year. Please move it back. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please ignore this request. Any change to the current convention which I outlined above would have to be discussed at WT:IE. Snappy (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I've previously had no problem with the convention, except now I find it doesn't take into account the years (such as 2014) where local elections simultaneously take place in the other Irish jurisdiction. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Will you move it? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Malaysians

Based on 2010 census, Malaysians includes citizens, permanent residents, non-citizens, refugees. In another words, any person residing in Malaysia more than six months (excluding tourists for short vacation) may identify themselves as Malaysian. As a results, 30 millions population is counted without excluding non-citizens. If we excluding non-citizens and overseas Malaysian/diaspora (do not reside in Malaysia more than six months) from Malaysian population, I am sure that less than 20 millions is Malaysian citizens who really residing in Malaysia at the time of census. Malaysian people is not equally same to Malaysian citizens because to gain citizenship is another story. Foreign-born people may gain Malaysian citizenship by registration and naturalization. In short, the Burmese who residing (legally or illegally) in Malaysia still subject to Malaysian law, so it is undisputed words for Burmese to be considered Malaysian. It applies to any foreign-born people who live in Malaysia. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask you why 2010 census counts 271,899 non-Malaysian citizens as part of the Malaysian population. Why does the Malaysian population do not excluding people who reside in Malaysia more than six months but being a permanent residents, temporary residents, illegal workers, refugees, prisoners, aliens, and any kinds of non-citizens. If we just only count Malaysian citizens as Malaysian, how about Malaysian citizens who study abroad, work abroad or live abroad. Do the Malaysian diasporas who leave Malaysia for more than six months are prohibited to identify themselves as Malaysians and being excluded from the census?? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Missed one?

Goliath? ~ 223.205.244.55 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent move

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stepping stone (computer security)

The article Stepping stone (computer security) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Beak

Sexual slavery

Hello,

What's the story with Sexual slavery/version 2? I've never seen a chunk of page history moved away and completely orphaned like that before.

Thanks,  — Scott talk 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Two things

103.6.159.70 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-controversial move

Ping to close?

Marks Barfield / Marks Barfield Architects

  • I was surprised to see this processed as 'contested' - it was requested as a "Requests to revert undiscussed moves:" (with what I thought was a solid and uncontroversial rationale & per countless precedents, and it had no prior move history - I thought the drill was to revert (sensibly) contested undiscussed moves first, and then discuss as necessary? - that's certainly what happened when I made similar requests in the past) - so I'm wondering if it got processed as an "‎Uncontroversial technical requests:" in error? 223.205.244.220 (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @223.205.244.220:: I have now made the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. 223.205.244.220 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Subscription television

You were the one who created the redirect to Pay television. Subscription television is a more general term than "Pay television" as used in Wikipedia. That article concerns only the premium services. I was thinking about making "Subscription television" a general article about cable, satellite, and similar services. It would probably also have to include services such as Hulu and Amazon. But the idea is that MVPD is a U.S. term and concerns only these services (but not Hulu or Amazon, at least so far) in the United States. Any thoughts on this? — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you wouldn't be familiar enough to make the distinction. Also, I happened to read on Talk:Pay television that there is no distinction between regular and premium channels in the UK. Which makes the Pay television article problematic as people have argued against changing its name, even though content about pay TV in general from other countries missing from MVPD can be found there. Outside the U.S., that article functions as a version of MVPD that includes other countries. So maybe Subscription television should redirect there, but only if we can convince those who argue for Pay television to be about premium channels to change their minds.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Van der Aa

Ah yes I see now. Thanks, it all works fine now! Jane (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi (Gujrat)

  • Hi, moving Gujrat city to Gujrat was controversial move and should have been discussed. Gujrat city was better name to avoid confusion with Indian state Gujarat. "Gujrat" is very common variant spelling of Gujarat. On google search of "Gujrat" it gives all results of "Gujarat", even they say "did you mean Gujarat". Largest news dailies of India like Times of India uses variant spelling "Gujrat" for "Gujarat". Even if you search 'Gujrat city" on google, it will show cities in Gujarat state of India. Name Gujrat is always means state of India. I think earlier arrangement was better and there should have been discussion for this move. You can ask that editor who asked to move to go for WP:RM. Gujarat City is best name for that city. Can you restore it? Thank you. --Human3015TALK  22:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. Gujrat is the official name of the city. The Times of India isn't really a good example of its use and is effeminately not neutral. The official name for the state is Gujarat and the initial move was controversial. Gujrat is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Gujrat".Filpro (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony. And Filpro you should try WP:RM. It is confusing. Gujrat city is good name. --Human3015TALK  03:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
We got it moved back to Gujrat City, thanks. Filpro (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, so I finished another article. Are you sure it's a good idea to move this over the main article? This time, there might be some back clash since it's probably a more popular article than the previous ones I had moved. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll just cut and paste then. Thanks anyways. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have borked up a page move, yet again

Hey Anthony and @Xezbeth:

I have severely borked up page moves about Bourneville and Bourneville (disambiguation).
(And quite possibly many other stuff-ups that have yet to be identified.)

Could you possibly have a little look into this?

Thank you! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. One thing to look out for when moving pages in general is whether the talk page was also moved with the article – once you've made the move there will be a little message about it below the successful page move box. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverting move

Hello Anthony, could you revert this move please. This is not an uncontroversial move. And in general, please stop executing requests by user Filpro. The guy seems to be on a quest to make every page on India the primary topic and has racked up a talk page full of controversy. --Midas02 (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Midas02 Hi! Are you suggesting that Sirsa, Haryana is in no way the primary topic of Sirsa? Care to elaborate? I like to keep my talk page cluttered, thanks for noting that. Filpro (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2015 - history merge?

Hello! I am contacting you because you have a lot of experience in history merges. Here's the situation: For almost a year there has been an article about Miss Universe 2015. It was converted to a redirect to Miss Universe, because none of the details about the actual event had been confirmed. There were so many attempts to re-expand it to an article that I full-protected the article, per a request at WP:RFPP, on October 10. It is still a redirect. but the full-protection was removed today because the details were finally confirmed. In the interim, another article was created called The 64th Miss Universe Pageant. It has been heavily edited and has remained live as an article, even though the details were still not confirmed. As of today the details were confirmed and were added to the "64th Miss Universe" article. "Miss Universe 2015" remains a redirect for the moment.

So now the question is, what to do? The information should be in an article called "Miss Universe 2015". The easiest thing would be to delete "Miss Universe 2015" per G6, and move the article "The 64th Miss Universe Pageant" to "Miss Universe 2015". But there is a lot of history at "Miss Universe 2015"; does that require us to do a history merge of the two articles? I defer to your experience on this question. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anthony, and sorry to drag you into such a messy situation. The main thing is that we now have an article at Miss Universe 2015. I think saving one of the histories at a redirect would solve the problem. Then do we still need to combine or somehow deal with the talk pages? There is very little commentary at the "64th" page; IMO leaving it as a redirect to Talk:Miss Universe 2015 would be fine. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I had also wondered about making an "archive" out of the "64th" talk page - or we could keep it attached to the redirected "64th". I think I see what you meant about the "swop". What we have here, is that the text we want to keep is at "the 64th" but the title we want to use is "MU 2015", and we want to keep both histories somewhere (no merge necessary). So what you are suggesting is something like this: park the current content and history of MU2015 somewhere else, delete MU2015 per G6, move The 64th to MU2015, and then move the parked content to The 64th and redirect it - is that right? That should work and it's actually pretty elegant. But I will go with whatever you suggest, you are the expert here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
While we have been discussing it, somebody expanded the "MU 2015" redirect back to an article, and redirected "The 64th" to it. Since then the MU 2015 page has been heavily edited, people are bringing it up to date. Maybe we could just leave it as is and let people improve the MU 2015 article, rather than try to capture the improvements that were made at The 64th. That would certainly be the easiest way to handle it! {{ping|The Banner|Mr. Stradivarius|114.109.12.82}} Are you OK with that outcome? --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Never mind - I see that you did a lot of moving around, and we now have a full article at MU 2015 with a full history. Is it all OK now? --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Frogman

Hi Anthony, As creator of the article with its current subject, and probably the major contributor in number of edits, you might be interested in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Diego Vel\xC3\xA1zquez listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Diego Vel\xC3\xA1zquez. Since you had some involvement with the Diego Vel\xC3\xA1zquez redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Destructive copy-paste page move by user

  • Hi. A few days ago, I listed SBS 2 on the technical move requests list. and gave my solid reasoning as to why the page needed to be moved to its correct location. I was shocked to recently discover that Billy Liakopoulos has blatantly ignored the technical move and has moved the page to SBS2 via the destructive copy-paste move method, destroying the page history. He has also rushed through the former links to the original page and changed them to suit his page move, so that no redirects are required. Can you please help me revert his destructive page move and restore the article to its status before his edits, and warn him that this is not the correct way to go about page moves. I would do it myself, but I believe that if it comes from an editor of higher status and experience, he may listen to reason. He also appears to not monitor his talk page, and I believe that if I were to post a normal message, it would not be seen amidst the clutter of other notices and warnings. Thanks. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nick Mitchell 98: I have history-merged SBS2 to SBS 2. For how to request a page move, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge

Requested move

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Westfield Derby about moving articles to "Intu" X and I'm only notifying you as you participated in a previous move,
BTW sorry if you got a ping earlier - Something went wrong so figured I'd just post this to everyone instead, Fun times! ,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra

The article Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since creation, claims no notability, fails WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This ref is "Powered by Blogger"; not WP:RS. And as seen from image I am not disputing the existence of it; so Google Earth isn't much helpful. I now noticed that you had simply separated it out of Tividale Tirupathy Balaji Temple. So I suppose you weren't actually indenting to create an article on tis, but to simply clean the original one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello AA. I wanted to let you know that Nephiliskos jumped the gun on the requested move here Talk:King Scorpion#Requested move 31 October 2015 by copy/pasting King Scorpion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Scorpion II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and then placing a "speedy deletion tag" on the first article. I know that, if the move is approved, it will have to be done through a merge so that the edit history is not lost so I have reverted things to where they were before N's edits. Sam Sailor has already left N a message about this but I wanted to make you aware of the situation in case further explanation is needed. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 11:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

History merge

Template:Tq/doc should be history merged into Template:Talk quotation/doc, as Template:Tq was moved to Template:Talk quotation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Magomed Mustafaev

  • Hello. Please consider reinstating this page that was speedily deleted. Would have really liked to have had more time to fully flesh out the article before it was deleted. It is discouraging to put effort into a page like this -- my first in many years -- only to have it deleted within a few hours of creation. How are new editors supposed to learn the ropes if their contributions are deleted immediately? Zyarb (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zyarb:  Done, at Magomed Mustafaev. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, Zyarb: since you don't edit very often, you may not be aware that the purpose of the Wikipedia "sandbox" is to allow editors to put together articles at their own pace without risk of deletion (speedy or otherwise). It's the answer to all your problems! Consider giving it a try the next time you want to create an article, and then moving that article into the mainspace (via the "Move" function) when you feel it is ready for public consideration and scrutiny. Would save you a lot of headache. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Very helpful! Thank you for the tip! Zyarb (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy of Suns Dancers

Hey, Anthony! You removed the article Suns Dancers following my CSD nomination of it recently, and the original author (User:AntonioMartin) has asked if he can have access to it again so that he can improve it (?). Can the deleted article be userfied? Could you let him know if so? Thank you! KDS4444Talk 06:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving moved pages

Hi, are you the person I go to if I want to move a page to a title that it has had previously? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to move Protestants of Ulster back to Ulster Protestants (its original title), please. It was changed to a redirect in the meantime but that didn't stick. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Great stuff, ta. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Manny Weapons

Re. [5], the solution was either to delete the page, or to decline the request for deletion rather than <nowiki> it without dealing with the request itself. I guess <noinclude> also would had worked if you wanted to leave it to another admin. -- KTC (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You are appreciated. jdxzhu 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hongchi Xiao

Would you please recover the draft Hongchi Xiao? I have spent a lot of time working on it. The feedbacks were not very clear. I am not sure what part of the draft that was not accepted. I am willing to do whatever it takes to improve. Thank you! jdxzhu 15:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you very much for your help! You have saved me a lot of time!!! I appreciate you!

jdxzhu 01:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

3 revert requests

Hello Anthony - I requested three reverts of undiscussed title changes, at Slights, Counterpart, and Balladeering. You converted them to RMs. Would you please retract the RMs, or at least change the titles to the previous status quo? It should be the burden of the person wanting to make the change to bring the RM and make their case, not the other way around. I would have changed the titles myself, but was not able to do so technically. This should be an automatic revert - thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

But the point is that these pages were boldly moved without discussion. They should be moved back before any RM discussion. I've pointed this out to you before (search for my name, or for Jenks to see why the reverts should happen). Dohn joe (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Anthony Appleyard "flamethrower firing squad of objectors", I hope you know that wouldn't be me. Seriously, I hope you don't think that. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Dohn joe, we have WP:MOVE which allows editors to make commonsense moves for example The Lawsuit (Gogol) and The Lawsuit (opera) and yet you're objecting to these as well. Any word in the English language, shrub wandering potholes fizzy (totally random examples, I have no idea where those lead) could conceivably have a redirect to another article, but could also have a stub creation for an entertainment product squatting on the baseline - as was the case with Talk:Parachutes (album) Talk:Bookends (album), and those were notable, while these examples you're picking here are not remotely notable. If you have a good case, and a case that doesn't simply depend on inertia and status quo, then argue from reliable sources why these words slights, counterpart, balladeering should take readers to media products not topics related to the subject. And do so in the RM, which you have now. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPW page moves

Thank you for moving those Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia pages per my request at WP:RM/TR. I brought it to the attention of a few administrators at the time, but with all the cleanup work that needed to be done, those fell through the cracks.

Just a quick adjustment needed, this title has an accidental extra "e": Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/talents pagee.

Best Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony Appleyard,

Can you take a look at these two pages? It appears to me that United Paramount Network was a redirect to UPN for some time, but recently someone did a copy-and-paste "move" to United Paramount Network and made UPN into a dab page. Can you assess where the UPN channel page should be at, and do a histmerge if necessary?

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi, Anthony. I wonder if you'd mind moving the following:

Make It Happen (Smokey Robinson & The Miracles album) to Make It Happen (Smokey Robinson and the Miracles album)

Meet The Residents to Meet the Residents

Black-and-White to Black and White

Junior Walker to Jr. Walker

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Anthony. Rothorpe (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Most of these make sense, but I do wonder why we're moving Junior Walker to Jr. Walker. Most sources (including this one) seem to favour the former. This is Paul (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The record labels all say Jr. Walker. But I suppose this is a case of secondary source over primary. Rothorpe (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

List of British engineers and their patents

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British engineers and their patents seems to be deadlocked. Can you help please? Biscuittin (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge History request for two User Pages on same topic

Anthony, I saw that you were an active administrator with knowledge of History Mergers. I have such a problem. One student of mine wrote a bio and it had problems. Another student wrote a bio on the same person. I would like the two histories to be merged before I move the final into Wikipedia. The first and older article is User:Ctmusall/Satoru Someya. The most recent version that I want to move into Wikipedia after the history merger is User:Crtew/Satoru Someya. Can you do this for me? Or did I use the wrong process and perhaps go elsewhere? Thank you for your attention or advice on this matter, Crtew (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of British engineers

I have agreed, in principle, to move List of British engineers and their patents to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers. Is this OK with you? If so, could you please close the discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The article has suddenly been deleted. I have re-created it at User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers but the edit history has been lost. What do you want to do about List of British engineers? Biscuittin (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello Anthony, could you please let me know if I nominated Draft:Fauster Atta Mensah/Fauster atta mensah for deletion? I am trying to fugure something out, no big deal really. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.. you answered my question. Have a good one. JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help

I have no part in the dispute. The two editors and the articles are mentioned in this discussion. Corinne (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sword grass

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

The subject of this article is not mentioned outside Wikipedia, aside from being defined in some dictionaries.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AnnonJung (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Gheorghe Amihălăchioaie) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gheorghe Amihălăchioaie, Anthony Appleyard!

Wikipedia editor TheInformativePanda just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

You need to include references ornthis article will be deleted because it is about a living person and goes against Wikipedia's policy of not having any references about a living person.

To reply, leave a comment on TheInformativePanda's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Huh? There is no overlap at all. The redirect has no history. I just want you to delete the redirect so that I can use the title. Iranian art should then go to Arts of Iran probably - its scope is entirely different. No history merge needed. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! I've tidied up the leads, cats etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Uncontroversial move"

I'd be curious to hear from you how this can be considered uncontroversial when it runs directly opposite of the latest RM consensus....  · Salvidrim! ·  00:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I saw that, but when you perform the action, you're responsible. Do you look to see if "technical requests" are actually attempts at circumventing established RM consensus?  · Salvidrim! ·  05:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved to ungrammatical

Ok, thanks. Not sure I see the logic there .... Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Colored days of the week for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of La Huacana, La Huacana for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: Listening Post (TV programme)

Hello again, could you please move the following:

Listening Post (TV programme) > The Listening Post.

It recently added the The, which disambiguiates nicely.

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for Page Move Ilayaraja to Ilaiyaraaja

Hello, many thanks for the page move. but, the page was originally named as Ilaiyaraaja with redirection with name Ilayaraja. and the talk page link regarding the issue [[6]]. -- KingDiggi 10:02, 9 December 2015‎

Dad gummit

Dad gummit, Anthony. What's the point of having a "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" if you don't implement it? In ictu made three undiscussed moves, that were controversial. I would have undone them myself, but couldn't. So I put them in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section. If In ictu really believes in these moves, he should propose them himself in an RM. But moving them back to the previous stable title first is the proper way to do it - even if you disagree with the title. This has happened a half dozen times already, and you continue to insert your opinion in a process that should be nearly automatic, as Jenks explained to you further up this talk page. Do you understand my frustration here? Dohn joe (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: Assuming I'm active, just list these sorts of requests on my talk page from now on. It is ridiculous that some (very few) admins feel they can decline a request simply because they supported the original move. I'm sick of closing any RMs as "no consensus, default to status quo" when they have been declined at RM/TR. Talk:Case Closed is a great case of where this caused a complete mess. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenks24 - I appreciate it. Dohn joe (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that I agree with Jenks24 here. Wikipedia:Snowball clause is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it's just an essay. It's an essay that we don't really apply at RM. Per the closing instructions, "Please only apply these after the normal seven day listing period has elapsed." We don't call a holiday on discussion on day one, no matter how bad the weather forecast looks. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mahāyānasaṃgraha

Thanks!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Voices (band)

Hello, I am the creator of Voices (band), which you recently deleted. Based on my reading of WP: Notability and WP:Not, the page appears to meet the criteria. It involves a band with two releases on a well-established indie label, with connections to two established bands (Akercocke and My Dying Bride), and coverage in established media. The article that I was working on demonstrated this. I would appreciate if it could be restored. If I am in error, then so be it...but I would appreciate at least knowing why I am in error so that I don't waste time creating future articles that do not meet the criteria. thanks. Wolfinruins (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Wolfinruins (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

British Nationality Law and the Republic of Ireland

I'd like to move British Nationality Law and the Republic of Ireland to British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland, but am unable. Can you help? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ta. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Anthony, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The request for delete page MiTAC Holdings

Season's greetings!

Season's Greetings
Wishing all Wikipedians a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing history of The Morecambe & Wise Show

Hi there,

Thanks for sorting out the problem with the history of The Morecambe & Wise Show after it was cut-and-paste moved; much appreciated!

I hope you won't mind me asking another question, but is it possible to insert a note in the history of List of The Morecambe & Wise Show episodes to account for the fact that this content-merging edit didn't acknowledge the original source of the material (i.e. List of The Morecambe & Wise Show (1978–1983) episodes)? (Obviously(?) we can't merge the histories in this case, since the new article is derived from more than one source article).

If you're busy, or if it's more hassle than I'd expected to do that, please don't feel obliged to do that yourself. All the best!

Ubcule (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't been sure if it was possible for admins (unlike a regular user like myself) to include the info in the actual article history itself- which was what I'd had in mind. Apologies if that wasn't doable and I wasted your time getting you to do something I should have done myself (i.e. note on the talk page), but thanks for doing it anyway! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver). Since you had some involvement with the Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dispute with RGloucester re Politics of France

Hey Anthony,
I'm asking you to help User:RGloucester and me settle a dispute regarding the articles Political system of France, Politics of France and Political history of France, as you (IMHO correctly) reverted (2) his edits then on the basis of them being "disputable". Because of RGloucester's out-of-process cut-and-paste edits, the topic however has become a bit complicated now. I'm however mainly interested in finding a good encyclopedic solution, both resultwise and processwise.
From how it looks to me, RGloucester used the result of this move debate as a cover for his further WP:BOLD edits, though they were not really covered by the discussion. Now if for some reason he came to that conclusion, it can't be held against him. Still, his edits remain out-of-process, because undiscussed and needlessly disrupting the considerable page histories. They also remain contestable and I'm contesting them now as you did then.
What was done? Basically Political system of France (1) was blanked and redirected with the content being pasted as a replacement at Politics of France (2). The latter articles original content was cut and pasted to a new article Political history of France (3). Technically, the correct procedure would have been renaming (1) to (2), and (2) to (3), thereby conserving all the considerable page and talk page history. As no overly significant edits have been made since then, we can IMHO still roll back those edits instead of importing history versions back and forth.
Contentwise, "Political history of France" seems appropriate, but the other cut-and-paste-move doesn't. Today's content at Politics of France in fact just covers the Political system of France in a detailed way, so the original title was just right and there was no need to cut-and-paste it to another place. In order to fix the issue correctly, both technically and contentwise, I therefore propose:

  1. Revert Political system of France to its longstanding version ahead of the disputed edits.
  2. Revert Politics of France to its longstanding version ahead of the disputed edits.
  3. Move Politics of France to Political history of France, this time correctly.
  4. Create a new overview article (in the beginning a stub) at Politics of France which in the appropriate sections refers to Political system of France and Political history of France as the respective main articles.

Now I'm basically asking you if you could help me how to bring this forward procedurewise. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)



OK, good idea, but first let me say thank you for fixing it rightaway! Cheers and a happy New Year! --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)