Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/July-September

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

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Aa 09a nasasuit flagfound.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Aa 09a nasasuit flagfound.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Aa 26a claiming the moon.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Aa 26a claiming the moon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is merging article B into another article A & changing title of A to that of B feasible?

Hello, again, Mr. A. I last contacted you of about a title change involving the recovery of an earlier title Public economics.

I have another proposal now, but I'd like to confirm first that it is technically feasible. The proposal is to merge article B into artlcle A at the same time as changing the title of A to B (or shortly thereafter). Assuming that there was such a merger+title change, could the longer history of A then be preserved in the history of the article? (I understand that the history B would be destroyed in the merger.)

A is Theory of religious economy (started 18 October 2007). B is Economics of religion (started 30 December 2009).

Content of 'Economics of religion' article to be merged into 'Theory of religious economy'
Abbreviated history of 'Economics of religion' article
Content of 'Talk:Economics of religion'
So, all that remains is the change of title from Theory of religious economy to Economics of religion in the 2-step method indicated above and similarly moving Talk:Theory of religious economy. I'll keep an eye out here for anything else that might come up. Thank you for your help. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil Twilight

  • Civil Twilight was moved to Civil Twilight (band), I clearly oppose it why didn't you move it back. Wikipedia supports the last revision which is the band at Civil Twilight. You are clearly bias on this part. So please move it back. Even the person who moved it said we should move it back. Come on, wikipedia policy clearly makes it that we should move it back. Then discuss the move from Civil Twilight to Civil Twilight -> Civil Twilight (band) not the other way around since the first move was controversial.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Civil Twilight#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Mti Consulting

Hydroelectricity

Trying to understand deletion

  • Hello Anthony,
    It was brought to my attention that the page Dany Saadia was deleted. Let me just begin by stating that I am Dany Saadia and I am speaking on my own behalf and I do use the Wikipedia a lot as research for my work (filmmaking), and I do respect the enormous contribution it gives to the community. However, in this particular case, I would like to question the (my) deletion:
    I noticed that you deleted the page because of "notability". My work and myself have been awarded many times from very reputable film festivals (on The Academy Awards short list accepted festivals). Also my page referred to many third party very reputable references, people I have worked with. Also, all links for proof were still valid.
    Also, it is my understanding that the page was set to deletion in the past, but another Wikipedia administrator did not deleted because the awards my work and myself have won showed notability.
    Can you help me understand please the reason of the deletion? Thank you so much. Danysaadia (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Someone tagged it for speedy delete as "not notable". I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dany Saadia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much Anthony! As I am new to Wikipedia's policies (I just opened my own account), what do you suggest I do or what can I do now? Danysaadia (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Best keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dany Saadia. And read WP:NN and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

History merge of Zelda talk pages

Moving Articles

Recent edits

Saw 3D requests

Cathy Gonzaga and Alex Gonzaga

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Paul "Jah Screw" Love

Why my created page diverted from another.

Donkey Kong Wii

Page move revert request

Katyn

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination)

Misuse of power?

Deletion review for Al Fand training camp

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Fand training camp. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nsk92 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is your fifth "go" at it: I really hope you're not going to fault any particular editor that closes this one way or the other? If it fails, there's always #6. Don't hate the player - hate the game... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Whose fifth go at what? I have only participated in Afd no 3 and Afd no 4 but I did not nominate the article for deletion in either one of those. If you are insinuating something untoward about my actions here, why don't you first check your facts. Nsk92 (talk)

Talk:Apocalypse Rising

Melbourne Heart FC

Move request

Paper Mario

Monarch of the Glen

Hi Anthony. You probably didn't notice my comment. I am waiting for evidence that the painting is primary, otherwise the main target should be the TV series as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so there shouldn't be a move. If you do the searches suggested by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC you'll note that the TV series is by a factor of over 10 the most requested search. As the majority of people were asserting that the painting was primary I thought it worthwhile to wait for some evidence to back up the assertions in case my own research had missed something. I will undo your close, otherwise people will not come forward with any evidence, and wait another few days before closing. If I have missed something, please get back to me. SilkTork *YES! 08:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Crocodile

  • Hi Anthony. I see you protected Crocodile back in April after a horrendous tag-team vandalism spree. I wondered if you should consider unprotecting it now, given the time that has passed? Of course it may still be a potential victim for this lunacy (why, I wonder?) in which case, sure, it will need re-protecting ... but if there's no evidence either way, I wondered if it might not be worth a shot. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the vandalism would likely soon come back. That happened endlessly wearisomely with page Duck. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, and thanks for the reply. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Cell Foam

  • To Anthony Appleyard,
    I was wondering if you could please explain why the page I created, Green Cell Foam, was deleted? As requested by Wikipedia, each of the three statements were referenced to published articles proving the information's validity. If Styrofoam is permitted to have a Wikipedia page, which is a trademark of Dow corporation's polystyrene foam, then how is Green Cell Foam considered any different?
    Thank you for your explanation.
    Nusika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusika (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    Nusika (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is advertisement. It was deleted twice before I deleted it. Styrofoam is well known; Green Cell Foam is not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Anthony,
    First of all, this is not an advertisement. Per Wiki's own guidelines, everything written in the most recent Green Cell Foam is verifiable, published elsewhere, and cites objectively stated information about the product. Furthermore, your rationale about Green Cell Foam not being well-known makes absolutely zero sense and has no relevance with respect to your posting guidelines. Besides, isn't the whole point of your site to inform people about items with which they are unfamiliar?
    It is also worth noting that Green Cell Foam, did, in fact, possess a Wiki page for many months until it was recently edited and then subsequently deleted. Please undelete this page.
    Nusika (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Cell Foam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Complicated-ish page move question

Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma

Japanese Cartoon (band)

I have been bold and moved this page. I considered this appropriate in light of the fact that a discussion was started in my name on the talkpage, but I did not start a move proposal there, and nor was it my intention to do so with my post at WP:RM. Rather, I was simply asking for administrator assistance to fix the copy-and-paste move by Xfactor0693 (talk · contribs). Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool 01:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mover Needed

A user moved White Night (film) to White Night (Korean) which made no sense, so I moved it to White Night (2009 film) which only seemed more appropriate. But apparently there was a move discussion on the talk page, I knew nothing off. So you can close the move discussion or look into it not sure. It doesn't look like something that needs a detailed discussion. It's obvious that White Night (Korean) isn't a good title. Jenaveev18 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab for horse sense

  • I'm assuming you came to this page because of my page move request and I apologize if that's an incorrect assumption. I saw that you made the dab for horse sense, but I don't understand why it is necessary. The term "horse sense" is a term and should be in wiktionary as it is. WP:DAB doesn't seem to suggest using dabs for wiktionary pages and common sense doesn't mention the term. The other definition is obvious from the meaning of the two terms, but it's WP:OR or at least not notable. I know dab pages don't need references, but should meanings be created for terms? I thought moving the page and using {{See Wiktionary}} would be sufficient rather than create a new placeholder. Regardless, the page move should still be made because "Horse Sense" is a proper name and doesn't need a parenthetical to narrow its focus or steer it away from the lowercase version. —Ost (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • People often type in a name for search in all lowercase. It seems to be established in Wikipedia that case of letters is not enough to distinguish 2 articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's why we have hatnotes and I know I've seen pages different only by case. WP:PRECISION gives the example of red meat vs. Red Meat, which is as good as any that I can think of off-hand. I agree that the dab page is also an acceptable solution, but it was created two years ago and never used, so I don't know how notable the terms are. —Ost (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Animal Armageddon

  • Hello, Anthony;
    All I know is that when I last edited the article, in January (following a serial hoaxer who was going the rounds of paleo docu-tainment series), the article was reasonably concise, whereas now it looks like it's been more or less taken over by an IP hopper from New York who is making it into their version of how they wanted it to be. I'm not concerned so much about cruft as about the false information. Just looking at the edits from today, they've thrown in yet another handful of animals that existed vaguely about the same time as the episodes were set. This article should have been put under semi-protection a long time ago. J. Spencer (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • At 00:23, 29 July 2010 User:68.106.255.1 did part of the job for you by trimming down the lists of animals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! J. Spencer (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou...

...for sorting out the Teufel move. Exxolon (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

APDU and Application protocol data unit articles - thanks

Thanks for your help sorting out these articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiona Apple (album) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fiona Apple (album). Since you had some involvement with the Fiona Apple (album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Longest river

Thanks for the edit giving consistency to the longest rivers. I've reverted an edit that removed it. I have a feeling this page should be locked or at least only be allowed to be edited by non-IP users. The reverting of "Nile is the generally regarded as the longest river" seems to be a constant battle. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Nile&action=historysubmit&diff=375141159&oldid=374746175 That occurs on the longest river page and the Nile page. Macgroover (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Mustang stuff

Anthony, the word "Mustang" when used in reference to horse breeds IS a proper noun, and thus capitalized. Same as Thoroughbred. WQEQ debated this extensively (more than once). So we are going to try and undo those moves. Just FYI. Not trying to be harsh (sometimes my edits are a bit sharp in tone, sorry), just letting you know what I'm up to. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mine (song)

Thanks for merging the histories. Nowyouseemetalk2me 07:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerns of copy-paste moves

Category:Wine cocktails to Category:Cocktails with wine

Typo from rejected copy/paste move

Hi, regarding User_talk:Jodi.a.schneider#Doric_query, I made a mistake -- instead of Doric, I should have mentioned Doric_dialect_(Scotland). Its Talk page redirects to Talk for Mid Northern Scots so something still looks wrong there. I made a comment at Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen#Rejected_requests_August_2010 which probably nobody watches, didn't want to re-add the problem there. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

refactoring posts

Why have you refactored posts on the original research debate over at the pump? you have made it very difficult to follow the thread of the conversation. don't refactor my posts again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Was my previous post unclear in some way? do not refactor my posts. Your changes are making the threads hard to read and go against normal convention on threads. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

APS Amphibious Rifle

  • Seriously, I remove a section because it is original research without reliable sources, and you readd it citing part of it (not the OR part) with a section of this site. Did you really consider this a reliable source? Please, find sdome truly reliable source discussing the fictional character of the Frogman Stinger, and if it doesn't still violate WP:UNDUE, then you can perhaps readd it. As it stood, it had no place at all in that article (or basically anywhere on Wikipedia). Fram (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, it can stay deleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jessica (entertainer) and Kahi (entertainer)

  • I noticed that you started discussions on these dispute my concerns. At the very least I'd have appreciated a message as to why you thought it appropriate to do so in the circumstances. Although I may have been wrong not to start them nobody learns from their mistakes if people don't explain why to them. Anyway given this are you happy for both of these to be speedy closed as they were nominations by a banned user, no one else has commented and the last discussion was only a month ago. Dpmuk (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have closed those 2 move discussions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OR

I don't mean a literal formatted section. I'm thinking of elements of the policy such as:

"Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist.

10:33, 7 August 2010 User:Peter cohen

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for handling a page-move request I submitted (CéU -> Céu). I really appreciate the help! 67.127.53.126 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pulse detonation engine revision

I removed a section on the Pulse detonation engine article titled 'Pulse detonation wave engine', but saw that you undid my revision shortly thereafter. I thought I would leave you a message regarding my reasoning since the article discussion page is not very active. Although there is a long way to go, I have tried to make most of the article credible while adding some reliable resources. Since this engine contains advanced technology with a history of government research, there has been a tendency for rumors and speculation to get worked in with the article. I believe that this section and its abovetopsecret.com reference contain nothing other than speculation. Considering the notability guidelines, I don't think there is any verifiable evidence to support information in the section and it should be removed.EMBaero (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly_typed_programming_language

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Talk:Strongly_typed_programming_language#Requested_move.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jeopardy disambig

Hi, there. If you checked the edit record, you may have noticed that Jeopardy for quite some time was the disambig page. After some years consensus was reached that most likely anyone searching for "Jeopardy" on Wikipedia was probably looking for information on the game show, and not the definition of the dictionary word "jeopardy". In any case, your move of the page seems to have unilaterally neglected this long-standing consensus. You might opt to move it back and then seek new consensus on the move--or at least, IMHO, that would be the appropriate action for an administrator to take. All the best, Robert K S (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for clening up the mess I inadvertantly caused when moving AeroTrain (Washington Dulles International Airport). You rock!oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Quadrants

Please review my comment/request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic quadrant. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neiva

History merge

I guess the link was broken, I added a new one that should work (to The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Budhism (book)). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an appropriate section title so I have not created a new one! For your information please see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Warning: Do not make cut and past moves. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Library Illustrative of Social Progress

Thanks for doing that move and undoing the mess I made! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Histmerge?

Okay, I can accept that reasoning. I was thinking that the talk page itself was the only one being edited, so that all the history could be where it was originally placed. After all, the history merge probably wouldn't be necessary. Thanks. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Saltwater Crocodile --> Saltwater crocodile

Thank you kindly. You are a gooooooooooood Wikipedian! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move assist

Thanks I felt like a real jerk there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Name changed and then back again

Ria van Dyke

Speedy delete on Mercedes Lackey biblio

Hi, you recently performed a speedy delete on Bibliography of Mercedes Lackey (I think). I understand why the article seemed unnecessary, but I feel the existing article Mercedes_Lackey_Collections doesn't appropriately convey the information, and that a bibliography would be a better form rather than having a list in an arbitrary order as this article has (also, if it's simply a list of books in a series, "other works" doesn't truly belong). Regardless, I was wondering if: I could get the contents of the article back, perhaps on my talk page somewhere; and also what you might recommend as a better way to get the article into the form of a proper bibliography. Would suggesting the current article be moved be a more appropriate solution? Thanks! Darquis (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the article back :) Darquis (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
I was just randomly checking my watchlist and, as usual, your name was next to an edit at WP:SPLICE which I have had watchlisted forever. A few weeks ago while perusing a discussion at WT:RFA about whether we really had a problem with lack of admins, someone was making the point that no one admin really matters for any particular process and automated tools have picked up the slack and so on. I was thinking then of making the point that I could think of five admins who specialize in areas that not many people know how to do (or do well or efficiently), whose retirement would devastate whole processes here and that it would be very hard to replace or pick up the slack left in their wake. I only thought of a few people and you were on that list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Province of Pomerania

Including the requester, there are four supports against two oppose. The title attracts wrong incoming links, the earlier it is a dab and the articles under preciser titles the earlier wrong incoming links get fixed. See Talk:Province of Pomerania#Requested move 79.193.152.81 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Misclick?

Was this a misclick? –xenotalk 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

History merges

I haven't for ages, but I would be happy to pitch in if we have a backlog. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Punisher move...

Halting massive ongoing violations

Please review Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles. It appears that while this case is awaiting review the contributor, having been repeatedly notified and yet declining to assist in identifying or cleaning up his problematic contributions as requested, has actually accelerated generation of additional material without regard to its potential violative nature: He has, in the last several days, made hundreds of edits similar to those of which the complaint speaks. They appear to be potentially violative either because they 1. are article moves made in violation of WP procedures, thereby recklessly damaging or destroying article and discussion page histories, 2. populate articles with substantial portions of text that appear to be copyvios, and/or 3. uploaded photos that appear non-compliant with standards for use in WP. Please consider taking immediate steps to assess, prevent and reverse these ongoing abuses. FactStraight (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Complicated proposal?

Awesome. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine/Archive <#>

Hi. Apparently you deleted three pages called "Palestine/Archive 1", "/Archive 2", "/Archive 3". In so doing, the deletion mechanism automatically deleted Talk:Palestine/Archive 1, etc. Since these were legitimate archive pages of Talk:Palestine, I've restored those.
—WWoods (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on capitalization of common names of species (redux)

I would love your input on this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me that you "converted" my PROD into an AfD – ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for your apology. NB, you have a reply. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 11:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, again. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory

Thanks for the move, Anthony. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma (2)

  • I appreciate that’s it’s an frustrating situation the endless discussion and it had to end, but is it possible to move the article back to the original title before the whole move request started, “Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma”, which it sat happily and without any problems at for a number of years. I think the one thing to come out of the discussion was that the majority did not want the article at “Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma”. - dwc lr (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Many would query this, and I would have to start another controversial-type discussion, which would likely rhubarb on as long as the previous discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Kahi (entertainer) move

Please continue this discussion in Talk:Kahi (entertainer)#Move? (3). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Hall (disambiguation), Masonic Hall switch.

Albuquerque Plaza merge

request disposition and close of Albuquerque Plaza merge discussion here that's languished for several weeks. thanks...cheers! --emerson7 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Short run to Long run with title change to Long run and short run

Hello, again Mr. Appleyard. The above is the proposal from a month ago at Talk:Long run#Propose merge of Short run into Long run renamed as "Long run and short run" in 1 month on which there has been no dissent. I did a by-the-numbers copy of Short run to the Long run.

I have moved the title of "Long run" to Long run and short run & similarly for the Talk:Long run. I have also emptied & redirected Short run to Long run and short run (and similarly Talk:Short run). Do I need to do anything else? My thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Rappers

Unprotection

Comment

See [4] – ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See [5] – ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
See [6] – ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 19:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Music merges

Bing

SBB-CFF-FFS

Danke bien merci, for doing the page moves.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Park Kahi

Jessica Jung page move

  • Hey, Anthony. It's me again.
    The Jessica Jung move was actually contested previously, because she's professionally listed as "Jessica" on all the official pages. If you look in Korean media, you'll see that she's only named as "Jessica", as that is her stage name.
    Plus, I'm pretty sure the IP is another sock; I listed it at this discussion because it follows previous IP socks. Would you mind undoing the move? Thanks in advance. SKS (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus in the first move Anthony? That calls for an automatic revert back to Jessica Jung. Also a lot of people go by Jessica I would strongly suggest using her full stage name "Jessica Jung". 201.0.208.56 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy/paste move mess

Quickie on Toxteth riots

  • Hi i thought someone would object. Just to let you in on what i was doing, i put a note on the discussion page on "districts of Liverpool". Why i removed the Toxteth Riots was i thought that this has created a sub category on the districts of Liverpool page (which if you view it it has a few and also Edge Hill). As my note says i think this is not necessary. Course the riots were in Toxteth that's not the issue.
    Both the Toxteth page and the Toxteth riots page carry links to either i just felt this addional "subcategories" wasnt needed. Let me know what you think or if you know what i meant. Babydoll9799 (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no page Districts of Liverpool, either deleted or undeleted. The 1981 Toxteth riots happened in Toxteth, so I felt that the article belonged in Category:Toxteth. I regret that I cannot understand what "has created a sub category" means. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Cornwall

Quintessence of Ibsenism

Thanks for your help in fixing the name changes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Complicated case

Is inserting article B into another article A & retaining history of B OK?

HI, A. Say that:

  • B is still a Stub after 5 years into its history with little added text
  • A is a more comprehensive subject
  • the Redirect of B is of the form #Redirect[[A#B}}.

Retaining the history of A through A as a Redirect would have the advantage that if A was resurrected as a separate article (say b/c it was getting too large for B), there would be its earlier history intact.

The A article I'm thinking of Hold-up problem, which I've proposed as a "merge" into B, Theory of the firm. "Insert and develop" may be closer to what I would have in mind than "merge" if that latter means destroying the history of A.

So, getting back to the question in the above title (rephrased), could the history of A be retained in the "merger"? Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. OK. I did not give enough background, but IMO there is a good reason for remedying the lack of a "hold-up problem" section in "Theory of the firm" -- as good a reason as sections that are already there. (Whether that should be by insertion + Editing or starting afresh in "Theory of the firm" is another matter, on which your comments would of course be welcome.)
  2. Not only "no cause to history-merge them" but no practical way if I have correctly understood earlier discussion for an earlier case.
  3. I think I was unclear on my last question above. Let me try to rephrase. Suppose that all of the text and references in B were inserted into A and the title of B was made a redirect to a section of A. Would there be any danger that the history of B would removed by administrative action? Thank you for your patience. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

Dutch terms

Dear Anthony, I've read your question, so here's an overview of the Dutch words you mentioned.

1. Strandwallen en duinen

A strandwal (plural strandwallen) is a long, narrow sand ridge or sandbank just off the coast, formed and sometimes broken down again by the sea. It is uncovered at low tide. Take a look at Shoal to see what might be the best translation. Duinen are dunes.

2. Getijdengebied (zandwadden, slikken en kwelders)

Getijdengebied means: tidal area/region (where getijde(n) means 'tide(s)', and gebied means 'area').
The term zandwadden cannot be found in the best Dutch dictionary available (the Van Dale dictionary). But the word is composed of two parts: zand, meaning 'sand', and wadden, meaning: (mud) flat(s), shallow(s).
I think slikken (singular slik) are mud flats. My Dutch-English dictionary says: 1. mud flat; 2. silt, warp, sediment, deposit.
Kwelders (singular kwelder) are overgrown sediments — outside the dikes — no longer (or seldom) covered by water during high tide. The Dutch word is primarily used to refer to such areas/plains found in the north of the Netherlands (Friesland and Groningen). I think 'salt marshes' might be a good translation. The Dutch-English dictionary says: salt-marsh, salt-meadow; tidal marsh(es), mud flats. The term corresponds to Tidal marsh on Wikipedia.

3. Veenmoerassen en komgronden grote rivieren (inclusief verlande stroomgordels/crevassen)

The word veenmoerassen (singular veenmoeras) is made up of veen (peat) and moerassen (marshes), so literally it means 'peat marshes', though I haven't been able to find a definition of the Dutch term, not even in the WNT (which can be found here). But I suppose it means what it says.
Komgronden (singular komgrond) are deposits of fine river silt in low areas (kommen) near a river formed when the river overflows. The phrase Komgronden grote rivieren means such deposits (pieces of land) near large or major rivers, because grote means large (great).
I think that 'old river courses' may be a fairly good brief translation of verlande stroomgordels, as verlande means 'turned into land' and a stroomgordel (plural stroomgordels) is the former sedimentary area in and around a river, including the filled-up channel itself and the riverbanks.
A crevasse (plural crevassen) is a breach in a riverbank and appears to be the same word in English.

4. Dal van de grote rivieren (niet overveend)

Your translation, "Valley of the major rivers (not covered with peat)", is fine.

5. Rivierduinen (donken)

Rivierduinen (singular rivierduin) are low hills of sand along a river formed by drifted sand (or other material). 'River dunes' is OK.
A donk (plural donken) is a hill, often a river dune or a buried river dune dating from the last glacial period (Weichsel). It's not a common Dutch word. The translation I found in a bilingual dictionary is: Pleistocene dune. But the Van Dale dictionary tells me a donk may also just be a swamp, a marsh. I'm sure, though, that the translation you're looking for is Pleistocene dune.

6. Open water (zee, lagunes, rivieren)

Open water (sea, lagoons, rivers). Just that.

7. Pleistoceen landschap (> -6 m t.o.v. NAP)

NAP is an abbreviation of Normaal Amsterdams Peil, literally, Normal Amsterdam Level. It used to be the average water level in Amsterdam during high tide when the harbour was still connected to the open sea. It is now a technical standard for measuring topographic heights. So, -6 m t.o.v. NAP (or more commonly, 6 m beneden NAP) means: 6 meters below Amsterdam ordnance datum (or, below zero).

Definitions (in Dutch) of some of these terms can also be found on this website and on this page in the Internet Archive.

If I were to translate a book about geology, I would probably first do some thorough research to familiarise myself with the terminology in both languages. But obviously there was no time for that now. Still, I hope you find the information useful. All the best, --ErikvanB (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would only question two of those. I agree "old river course" is a decent literal translation of verlande stroomgordels, but it doesn't ring true to my ear, especially since I tend to think of oxbow lakes when I hear "old river course." I'll bet that alluvial plain is actually what is meant, but that would need further discussion with native Dutch speakers. "Crevasse" also seems doubtful to me, although I haven't got a better word. A "crevasse" in English includes just a large dry crack in the land with no relationship to rivers at all.—Kww(talk) 05:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a geologist and Dutch is my mother tongue. I agree with the translations ErikvanB came up with. "Kwelder" is a tidal flat with vegetation on it, directly adjacent to the shore (dike); as opposed to a "wad", which is a tidal flat farther offshore, without vegetation. Verlande stroomrug/gordel would be "old river channel". EN oxbow lake = NL hoefijzermeer. EN alluvial plain = NL spoelvlakte. EN crevasse (a crack in a glacier) = NL gletsjerspleet. EN crevasse (a small channel over a point bar along a river) = NL crevasse. Regards, Woodwalkertalk 15:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Presidential elections in Singapore/Presidential elections in Singapore/version 1

Ain't and amn't

Would you look in on the naming dispute here? -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2010/July-September&oldid=1091491812"