User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2014/July-December
| To my talk archives |
Vandalism warning master copy
== Vandalism warning ==
At xxxx you, or someone using your [[Wikipedia:Username|username]] or [[IP address|Internet Protocol address]], [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalized]] the English Wikipedia page [[yyyy]]. Please stop this practice, or you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing in Wikipedia]]. ~~~~
Links
{{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} {{subst:RM bottom}} {{pp-semi|small=yes}} {{talkquote|1=
Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. The Mediation Committee has been disbanded as a result of this discussion. Other dispute resolution processes should be used for content issues. |
The Mediation Committee was a panel of editors who resolved content disputes on Wikipedia articles by providing formal mediation. The Mediation Committee was established with the Arbitration Committee in 2003 by Jimmy Wales and was the last stage of content dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. Mediation was entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and did not result in binding resolutions. The Mediation Committee policy documented how the Mediation Committee, its mediators, and the formal mediation process operated. This policy was maintained by the Committee and was considered an authoritative codification of how Committee matters should be conducted.
After a substantial period of inactivity, the Mediation Committee was shut down by community consensus on 12 November 2018.
Archives
- For a list of declined requests, go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases.
- Previous requests for mediation are indexed below. Please note that mediation often took place on the talk page; the latter box allows those pages to be searched.
 | |
| |
File:OS Heathrow 5th Edition.jpg
- User talk:Bongwarrior
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages
- Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Artpop
- Special:Log/articlefeedbackv5
- User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks <!--redirect from badly-formed incoming external link -->
- Template:MRV top
- Special:Log/block
How to AfD
- On page for deletion:-
{{subst:afd1}}
nominated for deletion: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
- ({{afdx}} if repeat AfD for same file)
- On AfD vote page:-
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] because ...
- At THIS PAGE (or find it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion):-
{{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}}
(or) {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}
Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
On closing, {{subst:afd top}} & {{subst:afd bottom}}, and after the top template, put Delete or Keep and ~~~~
Temp links
- List of mammals of Madagascar
- List of medieval Slavic tribes
- User talk:Anthony Appleyard/WP SCUBA
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Manchester/14
- Regarding Water-Fuelled: According to this usage (http://grammarist.com/spelling/fuel/) and if most of the 'water-fueled' engines are American or of American origin, I would suggest using one 'l' in fueled instead of two. Fuelled looks strange and not how most Americans would spell it; I believe most Web usage is with one 'l'. Peace. Bwisok (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have started a move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
BRD with unilateral moves?
- He Anthony, In this edit you removed my BRD-request to move Bali Accord back to its original at Bali Package. I am new to these procedures, so wondered what should be the proper procedure to get this move reverted per BRD? First gaining consensus on the talk page, or stating the discussion on the talk page? L.tak (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I guessed that some people might oppose the move back, so I changed it into a discussed move, at Talk:Bali Accord#Requested move 03 July 2014, also listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#July 03, 2014. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oops, I must have missed that on my watchlist... good to let the discussion run... I will adapt the statement a bit to make sure that the evaluation criterion is that there should be consensus for keeping this version... L.tak (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48
Waiting
Pages are waiting for action at [1]. 23.236.125.203 (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drunk drivers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. 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) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
China University of Petroleum
- Hi, Anthony Appleyard. There was a recent cut and paste merge of two China University of Petroleum articles into a single China University of Petroleum article. The result of the recent RfC was to keep it as a single article. While merger is not usually a reason for the history merge, this case is special. Originally this article was created as a single article under the current name. There was a cut and paste split and after that history of that article was merged with China University of Petroleum (Beijing). As the history of that article includes now also history of China University of Petroleum, it seems appropriate if their histories would be merged. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Foreign-language articles
Hi Anthony: You deleted राजेसुल्तानपुर as G1 (as it had originally been tagged) - could I ask you please not to do that with articles in foreign languages? Foreign-language material (and even bad translations) is in fact specifically exempted at the list of speedy deletion criteria, and you had correctly tagged it as foreign and posted it at Pages needing translation into English - when someone then pointed out that it duplicated an existing article, Rajesultanpur, that was A10. (And it also qualified for the other foreign-language-related speedy deletion criterion, A2, since hi:राजेसुल्तानपुर exists - created by the same editor a bit earlier, as it happens). But it can't be both a translation candidate and gobbledygook, and I'm afraid that hastily equating the two is both losing us articles on under-represented topics and potentially putting off editors who think we auto-translate (which I've come to realize is a surprisingly common misapprehension). Thanks for understanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
House
- I'm just curious why you wouldn't move the page back to the title it had been at since 2005. The onus should be on the user trying to seek a new consensus here. Calidum Talk To Me 05:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, OK, Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- That was fast. Thank you! Calidum Talk To Me 05:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Ali Pasha
- The specific move from Ali Pasha to A.P. of Tepelena (or similar) was the subject of 2 unsuccessful move request in the past[[2]]. It appears certain that this move is a controversial one. Thus, if an editor believes that the move is justified it will be better to initiate another move request. Alexikoua (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've restored the article to the initial title, but it appears that something should be fixed with the history log [[3]]. Most probably I've did something wrong during the process.Alexikoua (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- That move was a cut-and-paste move, so I reverted it. I then moved Ali Pasha of Tepelena to Ali Pasha properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
History merge of text which was pasted over a redirect
- Hello again, Anthony. I'd like to ask your opinion about these two pages: Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song). It appears that one editor created a redirect in mainspace, then a second editor made a draft article, and then the first editor copied the contents of the draft, made some improvements, and pasted the result over the redirect. I am presuming that if I perform a history merge, (first deleting the AfC stuff), the edits from the draft will slide in between the original redirect and the later mainspace edits. It appears to me that this will properly attribute the edits and all will be well. However, I haven't come across this situation before; is there any reason that is a bad idea? Alternatively, should the edit creating the redirect be deleted? Thanks for any advice you care to direct my way... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP:Parallel histories. Best leave them as they are and put a history note in Talk:Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that that means that any title that has ever previouly been a redirect can't be history merged, which I find surprising. I couldn't leave the draft where it was, because it would have been deleted, so I followed the instructions in the section you linked. Here is the result: Talk:Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song). Thanks for the help. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Looks like it could be histmerged to me... The non-trivial history of the mainspace articles starts on December 9th and the non-trivial history of the AFC page ends on November 24th (I would consider Hasteur's December 28th edit to be trivial and could be deleted). Thoughts, Anthony? Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The 2 pages are now Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song) (posttext, from 05:28, 9 December 2013 Lightsout) and Talk:Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song)/Old version (pretext, from start to 08:03, 24 November 2013 Citation bot); but Talk:Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song)/Old version seems to have significant editing history in the part which is parallel history with Beautiful (Jessica Mauboy song). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said I wouldn't consider those edits significant and I would delete them and histmerge the rest. Anne's edits are clearly trivial and Hasteur is simply declining the AfC, another edit I would consider trivial. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
1979–1983
- Hi - two questions. 1) How did you find consensus for "Bauhaus 1979-1983" instead of "1979-1983 (album)"? 2) would you please delete 1979–1983? I tried blanking it because there was no consensus for a dab page - most !supporters wanted it redlinked, but that's not how it works, apparently. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- (1) Discussion had run 23 days and there was no discussion in the last 6 days. The article which is now at Bauhaus 1979–1983 started with a very long overloaded hatlink which I felt needed to be replaced by a disambig list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but why "Bauhaus 1979-1983" instead of "1979-1983 (album)", which was the original proposal. It looked to me like only 3 people favored "Bauhaus 1979-1983". What is your reason for choosing one over the other? Dohn joe (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- (2) I found that 1979–1983 had over 50 incoming links. (This list may shorten, after I disambiguated a link in Template:Bauhaus.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but again, the discussion participants indicated that they would rather see 1979-1983 as a redlink than as a dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Page 1979–1983 still has many incoming links. What is the status of the apparent two albums 1979–1983 Volume 1 and 1979–1983 Volume 2? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Those should point to the Bauhaus album article, wherever it winds up. Dohn joe (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony - would you please answer the two questions - 1) why "Bauhaus 1979-1983" instead of "1979-1983 (album)" and 2) why not delete 1979-1983 instead of dabbing it? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- As some pointed out in the discussion, "1979–1983" by itself primarily means a range of years, not a song or album. As regards the disambig list that I made, that is an adaptation of a long hatlink that User:In ictu oculi put at 23:01, 24 June 2014 in the page that was at 1979–1983 but is now at [4]. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but there were two choices: 1) "Bauhaus 1979-1983" and 2) "1979-1983 (album)". You chose 1) instead of 2). 2) was the proposed title. Why did you choose 1) instead? Dohn joe (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Opinion seemed to be tending towards Bauhaus 1979–1983 at the end. If you want me to move it to 1979–1983 (album), I will do so, after it is discussed, as it would likely prove controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony, thank you for closing sorry about this.
- Dohn joe - this looks again like badgering an admin after a close. During the discussion three other 1979-1983 albums came up so discussion changed to including the band name per WP:SONGDAB. If you want to conceal the name of the artist please start another RM, maybe after 6 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Anthony - I appreciate the answer, and hope it didn't seem like "badgering". I hope you understand I was just looking for a clear explanation. As I've told you before, you do a thankless job, and I appreciate the effort you put into managing the RM backlog. Dohn joe (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This decision was so bad it's hard to know where to start. First, every other supposed use of "1979-1983" is at best a partial title match and should not even be listed as entries on a dab page per WP:PTM ("A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference"). There is no evidence whatsoever that any of those other uses are ever referenced as "1979-1983". Thus, "no significant risk of confusion or reference" (with those other uses).
Second, "Opinion seemed to be tending towards Bauhaus 1979–1983 at the end..." Seriously? So now we just go by the opinions of the last three people who happen to comment? Decisions like this do not help reduce the RM backlog - they ultimately increase it, by emboldening those who favor "more descriptive" titles to make more and more of such proposals. --В²C ☎ 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, all those bogus supposed alternate uses were added to the hatnote while the RM discussion was ongoing. That they were assumed to be valid by you and others arguably invalidates the decision. I request you reverse your decision, or at least re-open the discussion (and undo your misguided changes). --В²C ☎ 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 14
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.
- Rizal Shrine, Calamba
- added a link pointing to Nipa
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of 1979–1983 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1979–1983 is suitable for inclusion. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979–1983 . SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! An undiscussed move from the usual English title - see the refs. No doubt this is the literal meaning in Persian. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocking users reported by the bot
I didn't think there was anything else necessary, except to remove the report from the queue if the bot hasn't done so, or does not appear likely to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
for moving Marine Isotopic Stage 11 to Marine Isotope Stage 11. prokaryotes (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Telangana page move
History of the Telangana movement and History of Telangana are two different pages.
Please have a look at these pages, place some of the Telangana history content back in this page and also, the History of the Telangana movement can be shifted to Telangana movement page. You can see that History of the Telangana movement and Telangana movement both have similar sections such as Telangana movement#Grievances of Telangana proponents etc.--Vin09 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Page History of Telangana was a recent 1-edit copy-and-paste of part of Telangana, so I have redirected it back. The history of Telengana is satisfactorily handled as part of page Telengana. Apart from that, all these pages including Telangana movement are WP:Parallel histories and thus history-merging between them is impossible. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have text-merged History of the Telangana movement to Telangana movement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is the outcomeThe same user did it earlier too, I want you to please have a look at these pages, so that you may have examples History_of_Andhra_Pradesh (Telangana is the successor state of it). So it does have some history.--Vin09 (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I added some other content which is not a copyedit in the History of Telangana page, let it expand. The reason is this is a state, all the 29 states of India do have their own history, as different dynasties ruled them, Ex: History_of_Karnataka, History of Odisha, History of Tamil Nadu, History of Kerala. So, kindly consider for this page also. He stated discussion at this page--Vin09 (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Like you stated, a copy pasted content was removed, if anything was wrong please notify. Revision--Vin09 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be an editing diifference between User:Vin09 and User:Ramcrk. Please continue this discussion at Talk:Telangana movement#Copying/merging entire content of History of the Telangana movement into Telangana movement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not only me he opposed yours too at this page.--Vin09 (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anthony, thanks, yes I know, but I didn't realize when creating the dab page that there was a previous RM on the back of that album. If you wouldn't mind putting it back to zero, I will put in a proper RM when you have done so. Following the letter of rules... In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, no need, been done by another editor; it's back at starting position now and I have put a RM starting from the correct end. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Anthony. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#A Wikipedia feature I just discovered today - good for history merges. Since you often do history merges, maybe you want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi
Just a heads up: User Hadji87 again, as admin Sphilbrick implemented Hadji87's first template request counter RM result, I've left a message on his page re the RM results, hence should be no action required from you. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
"Weird Al" Yankovicn listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirects "Weird Al" Yankovicn and Iran Air Flight 655m. Since you created those redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. Gorobay (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Political career of Julius Caesar listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Political career of Julius Caesar. Since you had some involvement with the Political career of Julius Caesar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 02:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Moving St. Paul's Hospital, Hong Kong
- I requested a move from St. Paul's Hospital, Hong Kong to St. Paul's Hospital (Hong Kong). After that, I realised that I can move the page myself, so I did so. By the time I withdraw my request, I guess you have helped move the page. And now it looks like the original article is not accessible. Could you please help resolve this? Thanks! Chchan0 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- You may have forgotten as it's been open so long, but you'd already participated in the RM you closed at Talk:All the Best! (here.) This needs to be resolved by someone uninvolved in the discussion. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 15:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony, will you please reverse that close? You were involved in the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I realise what you are saying, but that discussion had run for 38 days, and I am tempted to see if anybody else also objects to my closure. I have seen discussions run on and run on and create the best part of a megabyte of repetitive arguing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to harp on about this, but you got involved in the RM and then closed it according to the opinion you expressed. It would be one thing if there was a clear consensus supporting your decision, but there wasn't. The simplest thing is just to reverse yourself and let an uninvolved admin take care of it.--Cúchullain t/c 12:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perfect. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/c 13:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Invalid page moves
Hi Anthony,
Sorry to bother you, but I saw that you carried out a number of page moves today which were declared as "uncontroversial technical" by Codename Lisa:
- AUTOEXEC.BAT -> Autoexec.bat
- CONFIG.SYS -> Config.sys
- COMMAND.COM -> Command.com
- LOGO.SYS -> Logo.sys
- CMD.EXE -> Cmd.exe
In reality, these moves were not uncontroversial at all, for several reasons: These are DOS file names and per MOS:COMPUTING#DOS (and MOS:COMPUTING#Microsoft Windows) DOS filenames must be written in all-uppercase. This reflects the established conventions used in these environments, in the documentation of these operating systems and in the majority of books on the subject over the past 35 years. DOS does not support lowercase file names in the FAT file system, and these files are stored in all-uppercase in the file system, and the system refers to them only in their all-uppercase form. In the case of CMD.EXE, we even had a move discussion just a couple of days ago which resulted in a clear consensus for CMD.EXE: Talk:CMD.EXE#Requested move 14 July 2014. Lisa was fully aware of MOS:COMPUTING as well as of this move discussion, but has announced to ignore the consensus. She even reverted the closing admin User:Jenks24 and issued several verbal attacks in the discussion and in edit summaries: Talk:CMD.EXE#In case anyone cares and User talk:Codename Lisa#Link to CMD.EXE vs. Command Prompt in COMMAND.COM. Therefore, these move requests should never have been filed as uncontroversial, that's why I ask you to please restore the previous status quo:
- Autoexec.bat -> AUTOEXEC.BAT
- Config.sys -> CONFIG.SYS
- Command.com -> COMMAND.COM
- Logo.sys -> LOGO.SYS
- Cmd.exe -> CMD.EXE
If Lisa really wants the article names changed for some odd reasons, she should issue proper move discussions, instead of trying to game the system by bypassing the procedure. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Anthony. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Anthony.
The CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe discussion is closed successfully. Now, is it okay to move the remaining articles as well, or do I need to start a separate discussion for each?
Fleet Command (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Anthony, please restore the other articles (except for cmd.exe). I get the feeling that Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting to force the lowercase forms into articles where they do not belong into, and this is really getting annoying with all their (groundless) personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting. The move discussion was specifically about cmd.exe only, and it was only a rough consensus, and could not have succeeded at all for the other files.
- cmd.exe is the only Windows NT file in the row above and it does not exist in DOS. It was a borderline case, as it is written in all-uppercase under OS/2, because Microsoft's built-in help system refers to it only in the uppercase form even today (like all commands supported by COMMAND and CMD), and because it resembles the DOS command-line interpreter COMMAND.COM in most respects. I originally chosed the uppercase form for CMD.EXE in order to achieve consistency within the DOS related articles. It just looks odd, if all DOS related articles use the uppercase forms, and just cmd.exe is written in lowercase. DOS commands and filenames are written in uppercase per MOS:COMPUTING.
- AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, COMMAND.COM and LOGO.SYS are all genuine DOS files (LOGO.SYS is an MS-DOS 7.0 file), they are irrelevant for Windows NT. The DOS FAT filesystem does not support lowercase filenames, filenames are always stored in uppercase.
- While a lowercase representation of the Windows NT file cmd.exe exist at least in the NTFS filesystem, it doesn't for the DOS files. DOS does not support NTFS.
- Therefore, please change them back to their all-uppercase form.
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- You know, Anthony, I just asked you a question; a yes or no would have sufficed, ...but whatever. Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you again, Anthony. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Shree and the 2013 film
|
Super job |
| Nice work on restoring sanity to some bad edits VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
Deletion of U5cms
- Dear Anthony Appleyard, you have deleted the article u5cms. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G11 this was not promotional: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." The u5cms article (about a Content Management System) is the same style and category as many others in Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TangoCMS. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems gives an overview concerning these systems with Links to the respective Wikipedia-Articles.
The subject "CMS" is present in Wikipedia and for a encyclopaedia it is important to be complete. If you think the u5cms article does not meet the standards, please let me know how to make it better (please do not delete it). 11:14, 2 August 2014 User:Stemind
Speedy deletion of saMMsCRIthi Comment
Hi, you recently acted on the speedy deletion of saMMsCRIthi by A7 criterion.
What exactly does this criterion mean when it comes to events like Pulse (festival) or Spandan (JIPMER). Are only the superlatives - biggest, largest, etc - considered as significant?
I did speak in the talk page that saMMsCRIthi is the second largest such festival for medical schools in the state of Karnataka, India.
Could you please clarify the difference.
Unrelated, the db-a7 template did not let me know about the hangon template. Is that an intended omission on the template?
Hiberno Irish AfD
I nominated the article for AfD. Would it have been all right for me to go back and remove the AfD and put up the speedy delete template instead? I wasn't sure, so didn't. Thanks for the speedy delete, it was a hoax. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved this discussion to Talk:Swedish Blue duck#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Emil Lang
Hello.
You performed this page move yesterday, but I think you forgot to close the discussion, so now it looks like a RM to move the page to itself.
Regards.
HandsomeFella (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Radio stations
I think you've done everything right. Thanks for all your help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- My hatnote was lost but that was an easy fix.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Through the Looking Glass
- Why did you move Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass to Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass (film) when there is no article with the same title? You should have done a requested move when your opinion on the move is completely subjective. I would expect better from an admin. :( Koala15 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Someone has to do something with those backlog move discussions which have run too long. Whichever choice I choose, I get stick from someone or another. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- What? I have no idea what this response means, please clarify. Koala15 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alice_in_Wonderland:_Through_the_Looking_Glass_%28film%29&action=history (edit history link). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well then move it back,and tell Bovineboy to start a requested move. That was not valid reason to move it. Koala15 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I have reversed the move. See Talk:Alice in Wonderland 2 for how it started. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks I appreciate it. Koala15 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI
You may be interested in knowing that SMC and I are actually collaborating to some degree on the landrace article. If we can agree on that article, there might be hope for Middle East Peace. There is still snark on both sides, but I'm actually optimistic that SMC is working in good faith. He's found some decent material. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please don't create any more xxxm or xxxn redirects
Two more redirects you created were just deleted at RFD. Overwhelming consensus means these will not survive RFD, and take valuable editor time to deal with. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk)
- I requested a relisting of the move request now at Talk:Atmospheric particulate matter. I see that this request was ignored, despite my right to have an article relisted for any reason, and my explanation that I was unable to participate at that time due to my commitment to Wikimania. I now request that you reverse your closure of that request and reopen it for discussion, in accordance with my right to be heard in that discussion. I really don't understand why there was such a rush to close a discussion where a relisting had been requested, and no evidence at all had been presented in favor of the proposed move. I have filed a move review, but will withdraw this if you will reopen the discussion. bd2412 T 00:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done discussion re-opened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. bd2412 T 11:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth...
Despite the fact that you're not one of the parties to the issue, you definitely should look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_User:Matthiaspaul as part of the issues raised there took place here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Mesteñeros
- Anthony, did you do a history merge of Mustaneros to Mesteñeros? If so I have to ask why. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I obeyed "{{db-histmerge|Mustaneros}}" which User:65.94.169.222 put into page Mesteñeros at 06:34, 16 August 2014. Both pages seemed to be about the same people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Charlotte Checkers (2010–)
- Would you please take a look at the requested move discussion concerning moving “Charlotte Checkers (2010–)” to “Charlotte Checkers”. It has been open for quite a while now, with no opposition to the suggested move. Perhaps you could close the discussion and perform the move. Cheers. 02:28, 18 August 2014 User:Dolovis
- This discussion started on 8 Aug 2014, that is only 10 days ago, and in it someone made another suggestion about what to rename the files as. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Their is stated support for the requested move, and no stated opposition. The suggestion to otherwise rename the articles that you mention above has receive no further support. How long should the discussion be allowed to remain dormant, and what is the process to move this matter forward? Dolovis (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Army Family Advocacy System of Records for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Army Family Advocacy System of Records 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/Army Family Advocacy System of Records 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. Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
HISTMERGE
Hello Anthony Appleyard, Please take a look at discussion HERE about a HISTMERGE of Alice in Wonderland 2 into Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass. I talked with Favre1fan93 and he agreed on merge but Mark Arsten thinks it is "a case of parallel histories". And now Mark Arsten sent me to you for the help in situation as you redirected the Alice in Wonderland 2 last time. But it was created in June 2013 and has a editing history which should be merged into the new one. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
A couple of concerns
There is a request at The Teahouse for a HISTMERGE.
And I had a concern that an article I did most of the work on should be split since one company is defunct and another was formed to buy its assets. I don't feel the need to but I thought others might. There was no response to the requested move, even after I asked on the Village Pump. It might have been an appopriate policy question. Since you seem to get involved in such activities I thought you might be able to help. Thanks. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Twenty20 to Twenty20 (type of cricket):
- Hi AA, can you please explain why you did this move? Was there a request, or any form of discussion? I think you've chosen an awful qualifier for the disambiguation. Twenty20 cricket (which is now a double redirect) is so much better, if it needs a disambiguating at all, which I don't think it actually does, as nothing else uses the word number contraction without a space. Please reconsider. Regards The-Pope (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I have reverted this move.
Upload Lorant de Bastyai
dear Mr Appleyard, I have today uploaded the revised article. I hope it meets with your approval.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard de Bastion (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Recent move at Electoral district of Logan
- Hi there. Would you mind reversing your recent move here? This isn't your fault, but it was never appropriate for RM as uncontroversial, as the move has moved it away from the naming standard for hundreds of Australian electorates. Given that the format is different for the Canadian and Australian terms I would think a hatnote would suffice, but if the proposer (and I haven't been able to find it in the history but that's probably because I don't know my way around RM) wants to suggest it they can go ahead through a proper move discussion. Frickeg (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Now being discussed at Talk:Logan (Queensland electoral district)#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony, could you please try to format the moves as in [5][6]. The bot doesn't recognise the reason text if you miss off the "Current name → Proposed target –" text. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What needs to be histmerged
Anthony, referring back to this discussion, what I want is the following:
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone should remain the way it is.
- The page above in #1 was replaced by doing a move from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007. After the move, I did a partial restore of the history of the Sibtain page at the Mama page.
- I want the Sibtain page to be back the way it was before the move with all of its original history intact. Thus, if possible, I'd want to take the history from the Mama page, including the history I didn't restore, and merge it into the Sibtain page. Berean's intervening recreation of the short Sibtain page is unimportant. So, if the Sibtain page needs to be deleted before the merge, that's not a problem.
I hope that's clear. I won't be able to answer any questions until later today. I intentionally got up early so I could address any questions before I go to my regular job, and I don't edit Wikipedia when I'm at work.
After this is straightened out, I'd like to talk to you about how I should have accomplished what I wanted.
Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm off to work now. Not sure what time zone you're in (I'm in PDT). Take a look at the proposal here. Od Mishehu's recital of what happened isn't exactly right, and it's not clear to me that his solution isn't more complicated than needed. Question: after I selectively restored the revisions to the Mama page (what he calls page 2), are the revisions I didn't restore still avalable for histmerge? If so, I could just histmerge all of the revisions from the Mama page except the ones that relate only to Mama's original history back to the Sibtain page. Whether I have to delete the current Sibtain page before the histmerge, I don't know. If the answer to my question is no, i.e., the revisions I want are not available for histmerge but are available to the Mama page, then I would have to something a bit more complicated.
- Again, without knowing, I'm not taking any action myself, but even though you know more than I do about how this works, I'd rather you go through what you want to do with me before doing anything so we make sure that what you see as the end result is the one I want. Hope that makes sense, and I'll check in later. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Chiming in unasked): I see this pretty similarly to Od Mishehu and his solution also is the one I'd go with, providing we've read it correctly. My questions to you, Bbb23, just to be 100% clear before anyone proceeds would be: 1) is the visible history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone exactly as you want it, i.e. when all is said and done are those 33 edits the only ones you want to be in the history of the Mamadoutadioukone SPI? 2) Do you then want all 75 of the deleted edits currently at Mamadoutadioukone to be relocated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007? If the answer to both is yes, then Od Mishehu's suggestion is the way to go and here's how I would perform it:
- Move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone/temp (or wherever, it's only a temporary name) without leaving a redirect.
- Restore everything at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone.
- Move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007 without leaving a redirect. Delete Berean Hunter's temporary creation there and leave it deleted.
- Move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone/temp back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone without leaving a redirect.
- It's kind of similar to a WP:HISTSPLIT if anything. Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Chiming in unasked): I see this pretty similarly to Od Mishehu and his solution also is the one I'd go with, providing we've read it correctly. My questions to you, Bbb23, just to be 100% clear before anyone proceeds would be: 1) is the visible history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone exactly as you want it, i.e. when all is said and done are those 33 edits the only ones you want to be in the history of the Mamadoutadioukone SPI? 2) Do you then want all 75 of the deleted edits currently at Mamadoutadioukone to be relocated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007? If the answer to both is yes, then Od Mishehu's suggestion is the way to go and here's how I would perform it:
- First, many thanks to everyone. Second, Jenks24, I'm a bit confused about the 75 deleted edits number as I don't think I have any way of seeing what was left. All I can say is when I restored Mamadoutadiokone, I didn't restore the earlier edits that were specific to Sibtain. In any event, regardless of the number, when I look now at the histories of both pages, they look right, so I think what was done was successful. Last, let's assume I never did any of this, but I believe you all now know what my objective was. What would be the exact steps I should have taken to achieve that objective? Although what I did rarely comes up, so do many scenarios that are not listed at the SPI clerk procedures, and I keep notes on those scenarios in my own user space so I know what to do. The correct steps for this process would be really helpful.
- Also, in trying to look at the positive side of all this, I now have all your names (heh), which gives me resources in the future if I need assistance in this area. That's invaluable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I spoke too soon, Jenks24. The Sibtain page is not correct. It has neither the "current" report, nor the history of the current report. To reiterate, I wanted Sibtain back in precisely the same state it was before I did anything. If you look at the Mamadoutadiokone page, you'll see there is an open report that began with the edits by Smartse on August 27. That report and the history starting at that point should also be at the Sibtain page. The open report at the Sibtain page is the last report that is also in the archive. That should only be in the archive (it still is as the archives weren't damaged). Can this be resolved?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Ah, I think I fully understand what you want know. Basically you want to duplicate the page history (or a portion thereof) so that it's in both pages. I don't think that's technically possible (if it is I've never seen it done and would have no idea how to achieve it). As far as I'm aware revision histories cannot be duplicated. So you have to choose one page or the other, you can't have it in the history of both pages. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- You will have to put a history note in the talk page of one of the articles involved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm going to finish the process, and it simply won't be perfect because of the apparent limitations of the software or of the design of the software. I am leaving Mamadoutadioukone alone because it's the way I want it. I may make a note in the open report just so others know what happened and in case I'm not the one who finishes clerking it. I will replace the open report in Sibtain (which, as I said, is a duplicate of the archive) with the open report at Mamadoutadioukone using copy/paste. I will then make a note in that report. I think it's better to have the note in the report than in the talk page because I don't think most of us look at the talk page. I'm going to do that now because I have to take off this morning and I don't want it sitting the say it is.
- Thanks again for your help, and I apologize for causing such a commotion. I now know that what I wanted is not possible, and I'll adjust my future actions accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Bbb23. SPI reports are essentially talk pages and most of the entries are signed in the text by the person who made them. This makes histmerge somewhat less vital -- a careful textmerge will preserve most of the things of interest. Histmerge is more necessary for articles where we want to know who is the original author of which passage. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Assistance
- Whilst restoring the previous title of an article per WP:BRD after a series of undiscussed moves, I accidentally added an extraneous "s". Now, for some reason, I cannot remove the "s". A minor discussion on the talk page has made clear to me that the "s" should be removed. Please do remove the "s". The article is 2014 American rescue missions in Syria. It should read 2014 American rescue mission in Syria. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Your edits to Exhumation of Richard III of England
- You've been making some major undiscussed changes to Exhumation of Richard III of England today, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to revert them. I will be nominating the article for GA and subsequently FA status soon. Unfortunately the list item format you've adopted for three sections of the article isn't compliant with the relevant section of the Wikipedia manual of style, the first point of which states, "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs". GA and FA reviewers will certainly pick up on that and the format will have to be reverted back to plain paragraphs. Prioryman (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion continued at Talk:Exhumation of Richard III of England#Format of timeline sections
Aquapod
- I request for a history undeletion of Aquapod (bottle) and it's talk page. Then it to be moved into Aquapod. The disambiguation edit history can be moved into Aquapod (disambiguation) which only has one edit (a redirect). I plan to recreate the Aquapod article with links to reviews. SNS (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- @SNS: First, see the AfD deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquapod (bottle). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Anthony, Please revert this undiscussed moveto Merovingian_art]. The "art and architecture" pairing is a very usual pairing, & in fact this one is nearly all about architecture. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Some image issues
- Greetings! I recently transferred some PD images uploaded by you here over to Commons, and was hit with a barrage of messages requiring source and author info. The images are here, here, and here. Do you have the requisite source information? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @User:BD2412. The English Wikipedia originals are File:Aa_AN_WQX2_02.jpg, File:Aa_AN_WQX2_track_02.jpg, File:Aa INSS 01.jpg, where the images are shown to be of USA naval origin, and when I uploaded them (around 2006-12-03 11:30), the "upload wizard" gave them the licence {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, which says "This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.". I am sorry if I misunderstood that statement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Where did they come from originally? bd2412 T 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @User:BD2412: Likeliest off a USA armed forces web site, but I uploaded them on 3 December 2006, which was nearly 8 years ago, and I do not remember every incident in detail that long ago. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Category:Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Hi Anthony Appleyard,
A while ago, I submitted a successful move request to change the article title of the State University of Campinas from its Portuguese name to its English name, but I noticed that the title of the category page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Universidade_Estadual_de_Campinas - is still in Portuguese. Should the article move automatically transfer to the category page as well, or should I submit a new move request?
Thanks,
Michipedian (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Michipedian :: you will have to submit a category move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Consider using Template:MRV top instead. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI I've requested Groundzero that this be reopened relisted as the only oppose was by sock of a c-banned user. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duck family (Disney), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gander. 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) 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Kuroko's Basketball move
- I have reverted your move of Kuroko's Basketball to The Basketball Which Kuroko Plays. This is hardly an uncontroversial move, as seen on the article's talk page discussion about how the article should be named, and Kuroko's Basketball is also the name used by reliable English-language sources (WP:COMMONNAME). —Farix (t | c) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- I obeyed a request Kuroko's Basketball → The Basketball Which Kuroko Plays "The manga originally translated the title as this." made by User:Article editor at 06:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
List of PC exclusive titles
- Thank you for your assistance with the article. I do not entirely agree with the URL it was sent to, but (List of PC games) was not available, so I don't blame you for picking that one. Is there any way we can redirect it to List of PC games if the article already existed and redirected to the page? Essentially, I want to reverse it and make the titles page point to the games one. Also, I had no idea splitting was possible. I'd love to help with the split but I've never seen an example as far as I know. The article (and a couple of related ones) have been getting very difficult to save to. Thanks, please write back to me! Wikinium (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- To User:Wikinium: What do you want me to do with page List of PC exclusive video games? Do you want me to move it to another name and then cut-and-paste it back to name List of PC exclusive video games?, to avoid its history getting so long that ordinary admins can't delete it or undelete it? Or what? Which are the "couple of related ones"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to see it move to List of PC games, but that's taken and would require a manual copy-paste (which may be OK). Once it's moved there, we can begin working on a split. The similar pages I mentioned are the ones listed in the "See also" section. One example would be List of PC exclusive video games, which I think should also lose "video" from the title. I'll actually try to move List of PC exclusive video games tonight. Wikinium (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- To User:Wikinium: The word "exclusive" in the article's name seems to be significant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You just removed my TR for this article, but it seems as if you didn't carry it out. It isn't controversial, and has been discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- User:RGloucester: Oops. Sorry. It is now at 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. But see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American-led intervention in Iraq. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you weren't aware of the ongoing RM, were you? --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:RM Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine
I saw you closed some WP:RM, maybe you can have a look at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine? Derianus (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I requested deletion on the draft that I created. I wonder if I made a mistake. One editor said that it is not notable. Is the topic notable under WP:NFILMS and/or WP:N? --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:George Ho: Unfortunately, I am not a habitual cinema goer, and not a habitual viewer of the sort of genre that this film is in. Do you want me to undelete this article and then let it take its chances in AfD? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I will have the draft re-submitted for approval once you undelete it. Nevertheless, I don't know if the second time fails. By the way, it should be moved to Draft:Getting It (film) instead. --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:George Ho: Done :: it is at Draft:Getting It (film). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Creating redirects
- Hi. I'm sorry to bother you but I was told to contact an administrator on Wikipedia:Help desk. I'd like to request two redirects that are protected pages - 1990s wrestling boom to Monday Night Wars and RD Reynolds to R. D. Reynolds. Thanks. 72.74.209.38 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the assistance. 72.74.209.38 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ovary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overy. 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) 16:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Ebola dab
Greetings Anthony, the suit, while interesting, doesn't seem to fit on the dab, as it's a WP:PTM, and the resulting dab [7] was getting quite far from WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 12:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Kerf rollback
Hi, did you use rollback to revert my edit to Kerf? I think my edit deserved at least an edit summary, now I don't know what part of my argument you disagree with. 137.43.188.71 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that with rigour, a crude way would be to look at google search results:
- Google search:
- "kerf" AND "Saw": 360,000 results.
- "kerf" AND "Sanger": 63,700
- "kerf" AND "College of the Redwoods": 3,030
- "kerf" AND "kollam": 4,870
- Google scholar:
- "kerf" AND "Saw": 12,700 results.
- "kerf" AND "Sanger": 66
- "kerf" AND "College of the Redwoods": 6
- "kerf" AND "kollam": 1
- Google books:
- "kerf" AND "Saw": 60,000 results.
- "kerf" AND "Sanger": 170
- "kerf" AND "College of the Redwoods": 138
- "kerf" AND "kollam": 2
- Google search:
- If this is accurate, it establishes a clear primary topic. Are there other uses I'm missing? Would moving the page to Kerf (disambiguation) and redirecting Kerf to the saw article be a decent compromise? 137.43.188.71 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Article move question
- On Talk:Meaghan Jette Martin, what was the reason for initiating a second page move discussion? Was something wrong with the way I did it?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Loriendrew: It looks like you submitted this move as a move to be discussed, and User:Dwpaul submitted it as an uncontroversial move, which I changed into another a move to be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Page has been moved
Hi Anthony, the discussion to move the page is here and not settled. Personally, I like the move because maybe it will just end the problem. Would you please comment on the talk page about the move you just made? I opened a section at the bottom of the talk page. We might get lucky and everybody will be happy. So don't move it back yet. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony, you'll have to move the page back as the issue apparently is not settled, and it does seem that this move was not appropriate given that it is not uncontroversial. Even the discussion on the WP:Med project page is leaning towards use of 'outbreak,' and two editors have taken exception to the move you've made. It simply can't stand, I'm afraid. I thought your page move might sort things the easy way, but no such luck. Please move it back, asap. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Please review the discussions at the bottom of the relevant article Talk page before doing anything. Zad68 04:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
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.
- Four corners offense
- added a link pointing to ACC
- Saint Bathans
- added a link pointing to Manuherikia
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thanks for handling all of my Histmerge requests that came out of copyright investigations! CrowCaw 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC) |
Achievement Hunter
- I undid your deletion of the DRV (?!?), on which you are encouraged to leave a comment summing up the actions you just did. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Salvidrim!: Page DRV says that in Wikipedia DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion review; but page Wikipedia:Deletion review's history and log show no sign of me having done anything to it. If you are referring to this diff, I was called on to history-merge Draft:Achievement Hunter to Achievement Hunter, and page Achievement Hunter was redirected before as a result of an old delete discussion, so after history-merging I put page Achievement Hunter back to the redirect. Sorry if I misunderstood anyone's intentions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the logs for the October 21st DRV list, you'll see you deleted it mistakenly as part of a histmerge. Maybe a bug in whatever script youre using? Sorry if I can't provide a link right now, in on mobile. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here ya go. I fixed it so I'm not insisting just to rub it in your face, I'm genuinely trying to help in case there's a bug with whatever semi-automates your histmerges. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Salvidrim!: Page DRV says that in Wikipedia DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion review; but page Wikipedia:Deletion review's history and log show no sign of me having done anything to it. If you are referring to this diff, I was called on to history-merge Draft:Achievement Hunter to Achievement Hunter, and page Achievement Hunter was redirected before as a result of an old delete discussion, so after history-merging I put page Achievement Hunter back to the redirect. I did not delete it, I merely overwrote the text with the previous redirect because of the old delete discussion, so that anyone could easily revert it to text if he wanted to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? Did you even look at the link I provided?? You deleted the October 21st DRV log. That was an obvious mistake. I'm trying to help you avoid repeating that mistake. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Salvidrim!: Oh, that's what you meant. Likeliest a typo or a mousing error. Sorry. Sorry. I thought I was temporarily deleting a page as part of a history-merge. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Np buddy, mistakes happen (tell me about it!), I was just wondering if you were using some sort of semi-automated tool for histmerges and it was bugging out. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Jiwa / SPA / COI
Looks like an unnecessary dab to me, with several non-notable articles. Why split the merged dab when it results in two dabs without enough articles? In itself that's already odd, but also there's something odd going with the IP editor, who's using a COI edit request and may or may not have some sort of connection with the SPA (/ COI) editors of the company article listed in the dab. Widefox; talk 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The odd thing was that I hadn't seen the move request. There's still two COI editors but the IP was connected via that request. Widefox; talk 10:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Ebola dab
- Ebola dab [8]. Can I point you towards WP:MOSDAB. Cheers Widefox; talk 01:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Widefox: In one of the Ebola pages' talk page someone complained about that currently very important topic, the current West Africa Ebola epidemic, being a long way down the disambig list in page Ebola (disambiguation), so I moved it to near the start. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where's that? Did you see the talk page Talk:Ebola (disambiguation) - pls can you participate there - where there's extensive disruption from one editor against the consensus, was it that editor complaining? I already removed the "Distinguish from" part [9] . Making that edit a second time, where User:Bkonrad undid it "...that's completely irregular" per WP:MOSDAB . May I encourage you to familiarise yourself with MOSDAB and participate in the talk, regards. Widefox; talk 09:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Shellshock disambiguation
- Completely randomly, I fixed a dab with an EXT link and no INT link. It turned out to be your edit [10]. I don't understand, as that's in the basics. Widefox; talk 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The wildlife protection organization called Shellshock is well known enough for Wikipedia to have a link to it, and there was as yet no page about it. I have now started a stub page Shellshock (wildlife protection organization). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Great. You may want to reuse the source from the merged stub in the main article. As long as there's a redirect or a WP:DABMENTION or something more, we can list on the dab. That needs to be done first (with a source) and then put in the dab. Widefox; talk 09:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Proper names at RMTR
- See this list of proposed technical moves involving proper names, opened by User:Hmains. When a full discussion is held, my guess is that consensus will favor removing the capitals. That's why I would hesitate before reverting all the moves as requested by Hmains. I was thinking of deleting the requests but asking the proponent to open a discussion in some appropriate place. The person making the original moves (that take out the capital letters) is User:DagosNavy. He seems to taking some liberties and I wish he would stop. User:Philg88 has commented at RMTR. The most thorough discussion of the actual issue so far is at User talk:DagosNavy#Name changes of various articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- All of these should be reverted per WP:BRD, and should be discussed on a case by case basis. There is no justification for such a mass move of articles, each with different circumstances, especially without consensus in doing so. Please do revert these changes, if only because of WP:BRD. RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are 36 move-back requests in that list, and all or many of them are queryable, judging by the amount of arguing at@ Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to restore capitalization which was removed before :: best discuss this lot here and at User talk:DagosNavy#Name changes of various articles, and after wading through all those move requests, I would likely have to move many of them back again, and again I am caught between disputing parties. Best wait until the arguing at those 2 addresses comes to a consensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I propose to decline all of these technical requests without prejudice to new discussion in any appropriate forum. The probability is that most of these files would wind up getting moved twice (once to restore the capitals, and once to remove them again per eventual consensus). Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I don't see enough reason for the double moves. If another admin (such as yourself) thinks it is more correct to go ahead with the technical move I won't object. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I sharply disagree with EdJohnston. Most of these moves were highly incorrect, and rendered proper nouns without capital letters. This entirely inappropriate. Perhaps there were some cases that might've needed to be rendered in lowercase, but these were very few. Purely by virtue of WP:BRD, if people are disputing these mass moves, then they should be reverted. It has nothing to do with bureaucracy, and everything to do with making sure that consensus approves these changes. As it stands, I oppose the vast majority of the moves carried out by DagosNavy, and I'm not the only one. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you identify a specific title where this argument applies? We could put through one or two move discussions for the most obvious cases and then consider a technical move of the rest if it appears that consensus prefers upper case in all these cases. As you know WP:BRD is an essay not a policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I shouldn't need to be the one to start a requested move. The longstanding titles should remain per WP:TITLECHANGES, unless consensus dictates otherwise. It isn't my job to start the RM, it is the job of the person who wants to move these articles away from their longstanding titles. It would be one thing if this was not controversial, but it clearly is. In that case, there is no justification for a mass de-capitalisation campaign. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you identify a specific title where this argument applies? We could put through one or two move discussions for the most obvious cases and then consider a technical move of the rest if it appears that consensus prefers upper case in all these cases. As you know WP:BRD is an essay not a policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I sharply disagree with EdJohnston. Most of these moves were highly incorrect, and rendered proper nouns without capital letters. This entirely inappropriate. Perhaps there were some cases that might've needed to be rendered in lowercase, but these were very few. Purely by virtue of WP:BRD, if people are disputing these mass moves, then they should be reverted. It has nothing to do with bureaucracy, and everything to do with making sure that consensus approves these changes. As it stands, I oppose the vast majority of the moves carried out by DagosNavy, and I'm not the only one. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- That seems to depend on whether any particular noun-equivalent is a proper-name or a description or both or neither. Whether the only known big riot at Xtown is the Xtown riot or the Xtown Riot seems to be a matter of personal preference and how much people go in for importance capitalizing. Long ago before I became an admin I saw a routine difference of opinion producing over a megabyte of arguing. Whichever side I obey, the other side complains at me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I'll move the 36 articles back, and open a regular move discussion for the first one in the list. I'll wait a few minutes for any more comments. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, EdJohnston. It is better to be safe than sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- See User talk:DagosNavy#Name changes of various articles.
RM notification
- Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have now read it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Importance capitalizing
- Hello. Where can I read more about importance capitalizing? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- @User:HughD: I use the expression "importance capitalizing" to mean cases where someone capitalizes a noun because he considers that it refers to something important. For example, the same meal can be a "Roast Beef Dinner" when advertized as part of an airline flight package, and a "roast beef dinner" when described neutrally by ordinary people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- ok, thanks Hugh (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Request to remove the semi-protection on "Oxymoron"
- Hello, I was wondering if you could remove the semi-protection on "Oxymoron". I would like to contribute to the page, thank you for your time. Marcrower (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Marcrower
- Done, but the semi-protection goes back on if the vandalism comes back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Proclamatin of 1763 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Proclamatin of 1763. Since you had some involvement with the Proclamatin of 1763 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sammy1339 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge request
I had proposed FOXP2 and human evolution to be merged into FOXP2 as a general consensus outcome of the discussion (Talk:FOXP2#Merge), and posted on Wikipedia:Requested_moves, but it was deleted with a comment that it is not necessary to post such case. I am not an admin, so kindly see the matter. Chhandama (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Request to restore the e-Zest Solutions page
Hi Anthony, I write to you regarding the deletion of e-Zest Solutions Wikipedia page. The page has been deleted as per a deletion discussion which happened in 2006. However, I would like to present some facts pertinent to the current time: 1. The article is totally different from the earlier version. 2. The article has suitable references to back up every fact presented. 3. The reasons presented in the deletion discussion do not hold true in the current context - the company as well as the facts in the article.
The company is suitable to be a part of the Wikipedia community. Request you to kindly restore the deleted page. Fasab (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)