Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2011/January-March

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

White Rabbit (disambiguation) requested move

Animal Armageddon

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

Move?

Afrocentricity move

Hocus Pocus (album) move

Request for your input

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

Khomasdal/version 2

Proposed deletion of Dive Rite

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

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

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

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

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

Al Aziziyah record temperature

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

United States armed forces move request

La Stazione move request

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines

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

Quick links:

This message has been sent to:

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

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

Digital Transformation

Nomination of Darkest for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

EyeTap

FYI

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

Raúl Labrador

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

Rosmarie von Trapp

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

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

Deletion of Bill McGarry page

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your help!

Bill

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

About editing sub-pages of a forked article

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

name order

Problems in a move request

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

It looks that the first part has been restored now. The second still it isn´t. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it also possible to ask the user not to be uncivil and stop making personal remarks, specially in discussion or administrators pages as he did with "Oh for goodness sake... People are not generally interested in your thoughts and opinions, Fkp." . This kind of attitute is very provocative and almost insulting. FkpCascais (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The second comment has (finally) also been restored. Anyway, a warning against this kind of behavior would be benefitial. I am sorry to bother you with this, but it sems that the mentioning of this incident by itslef has already made a difference. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Issues with this article are now being discussed at AN/I. Dpmuk (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD formatting

Hi Anthony,

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

Please help

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

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

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

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

Scunthorpe problem

Midori Goto

WP:Requested moves

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

Kathirgamam temple article

Input strongly requested

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

Standard Mandarin requested move

  • I'm getting increasingly concerned about your actions related to WP:RM. It is my opinion that you appear to be doing things too quickly without looking at them properly. My latest concern is this edit. If you'd look at the conversation (or even just the end of it), you'd have noticed that the move was made by an involved user interpreting the discussion the way they wanted to. By simply closing the requested move you were effectively allowing this out-of-process and possibly against consensus move to stand. A simple look at the edit log would also have made it obvious why it should remain open as I'd already reverted one closure along similar lines to yours with a quite detailed edit comment explaining why. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I was about to revert this closure, but someone already did. The move log here is:
    That is, I seem to be caught up in someone else's move war. This move discussion has been rhubarbing on since 22 November 2010 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, this one seems to have got complicated - largely because it's been open so long. I took a look at it and decided it wasn't suitable for a non-admin closure - reading the discussion it makes frequent references to other discussions on the talk page and on completely separate pages so it's even more complicated than it first seems. I'd have been happy to do a non-admin closure if I thought consensus was clear (given the backlog at RM) but I don't consensus is immediately obvious hence why I think this needs closing properly and not end up as a fait accompli. Dpmuk (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Innate intelligence move request

Page move

Gerhard Schröder

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

Requested move - Chihuahua (state)

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

Exeter College Field Marshal

MedCom nomination

List of scientists whose names are used as SI units and non-SI units

What was this?

  1. 15:54, 25 January 2005 Jni deleted E-Learning
  2. 17:00, 20 January 2007 Ruud Koot moved E-learning to Electronic learning
  3. 16:29, 3 August 2009 Prodego deleted E-Learning‎ (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
  4. 16:29, 3 August 2009 Prodego moved Electronic learning to E-Learning ‎ (requested move)
  5. 11:53, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard moved E-learning to E-learning/version 2 (get away from under incoming)
  6. 11:54, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard moved E-Learning to E-learning‎ (asked)
  7. 11:55, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard restored E-Learning‎ (24 revisions restored) :: this would the edits deleted by Jni and/or Prodego
  8. 11:59, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard reverted this newly undeleted page to its last text version; all later edits were redirects
  9. 11:59, 3 November 2009 Anthony Appleyard moved these newly undeleted edits of E-Learning to E-learning/version 3 ‎
  10. That left page E-learning as the definitive version.
  • Between these actions, various people edited these various pages.
    E-learning/version 3 and E-learning/version 2 are leftover scrap and can be deleted. The 11:59, 3 November 2009 move is because I do not trust the situation where a visible edit history is sitting over a parallel history of deleted edits :: too liable to accidents if the visible edits must for some reason be temporarily deleted.

Mediation Committee nomination

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

Yet another problem with one of your moves

  • You recently moved WZPT to WBZZ (FM) as uncontroversial. While I agree that it is pretty uncontroversial my concern is that once again you did not spot the requested move in progress at the time. This concerns me as I think you don't check whether a move is actually uncontroversial before you do it. This is the 3rd time (1st time here, 2nd time:here) I've raised this specific concern with you and I've also raised another issue #Standard Mandarin requested move that suggest you did something too quickly and to date I've not had a single reply from you about my actual concerns rather than the specific of the events. It would appear that I'm not the only one to have questioned some of your "uncontroversial" moves in circumstances where a little checking would have made it obvious they were controversial, e.g. #Midori Goto and #Hocus Pocus (album) move from this page. I'd appreciate a reply as this is the third time I've queried it, otherwise I'm going to have to take this to WP:AN/I. Dpmuk (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    I did check WZPT's talk page first. With uncontroversial-type move requests I always check the talk page first nowadays. (Note also that plenty AfD's are closed early by various people if the outcome shows early to be not in doubt.)
    The discussion move request was:
    • WZPT → WBZZ (FM) — The station has changed calls as of 1/19/2011. --Schala ★ 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    To that was added:
    • Please take this to WP:RM as this is a move that they can do now, instead of waiting. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    The uncontroversial-type request was made at 03:37, 21 January 2011 by User:Eternalschala, in this edit.
    Google search shows plentifully that that radio station with that frequency in that area had changed call sign to WBZZ. I thought that WP:SNOWBALL covered that sort of obvious case. I (User:Anthony Appleyard) made the move at 17:00, 21 January 2011
  • Plenty of times I have seen an uncontroversial-type move request, and decided that there were 2 opinions on that move, and changed it into a controversial-type move :: that shows when I edit Wikipedia:Requested moves with an edit comment such as "done 4, discuss 1". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said I agreed the moves were uncontroversial and have no problem with the move itself, it was the fact that leaving the RM open suggested you didn't actually look at the talk page that was my concern. However you do briefly comment on that aspect in your reply and that has largely alleviated my concerns. I do think it would be helpful if you closed the RM in situations like these. Dpmuk (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I too agree the move was uncontroversial and the decision fine, but wonder why the discussion was not closed before the article was moved. Just an oversight? My habit is to close first, then move. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

...Hits

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

It is like ...But Seriously.

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

Every Time You Go Away

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

MedCom nomination: care to take a case?

The Dark Knight Rises

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

WT:MOS-JA

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

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

request

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

Requested move closures

  • Could you please explain two of your requested move closures to me:
    1. Chihuahua - which you closed as "page not moved (closed (by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)) after its originater was banned)". Consensus at this AN/I discussion seemed to be to keep the discussions open as it was process for process sake to close them on the basis of being started by a banned editor and would inconvenience many editors in good standing who would have to !vote again. Please explain your decision to go against this rough consensus at ANI without even commenting in that thread. The threads existence was mentioned both in the edit log of this page and at WT:RM.
    2. Victoria_(Australia) - which you closed as "page not moved (majority for "oppose" if banned contributor's messages are ignored)" but these sort of discussions are determined on consensus and not a vote. At a minimum your close is badly worded as it implies you considered it a vote.
    Thank you, 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC) User:Dpmuk
  • OK, sorry.
    1. Chihuahua: I have reverted the closure and chained the new discussion onto the reopened discussion.
    2. Victoria (Australia): I have reverted the closure.
    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

P.S. I do think the two of us sometimes have a communications problems. Please don't assume that everytime I post here I think you did something wrong. Most times I have concerns that I'd like to discuss but don't think you've done something wrong, merely that I think something needs a bit more explanation. Sorry if I do come across as accusing you of doing something wrong - that's not my intent. Dpmuk (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Now I won't be able to, or accused of, trying to unduly influence the closer I've explained more fully on Talk:Victoria (Australia) why I wasn't too happy with your original close - essentially because I could see how it could be closed as move (equally well I could see how it could be closed as no consensus). Thought you might be interested. Dpmuk (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3 listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Question about the romaji mediation case

Nomination of Illegal eagle for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Purplebackpack89 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotecting SOCKS

G'day Anthony,

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

EduGeek.net

Deletions per unclosed MfD

Thanks

Question About Recently Deleted Article

  • Hi Anthony,
    I recently tried adding an article about a company I've learned about and received this message: (Deletion log); 06:31 . . Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted "The Eastridge Group of Staffing Companies" (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).
    I was hoping you might be able to provide me with a suggestion or two on how I can improve the article. I've read as much as I can on Wikipedia (about how to post, about similar companies, guidelines, etc.) and want to learn how to post in the right way. Any help you could give me regarding this article's notability issue, etc. would be much appreciated so that I'll know how to move forward with Wikipedia in the future. Thank you! Sandiego3336 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If this page is The Eastridge Group of Staffing Companies, it would be useful to read WP:NN and WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of D'Jais article

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

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

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

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

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

Very speedy deletion of Insanity (Home Exercise program)

Very speedy deletion of Sarita Shrestha

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

Thanks for the move

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

Speedy deletion of my article

Welcome to the Mediation Committee

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

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

Ghil'ad Zuckermann

Eric Lee

Dive Xtras Speedy deletion

  • Hi. I was checking my articles this morning and I saw that you deleted my article about the company Dive Xtras because of lack notability of the company. I've read the criteria http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
    • "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."
    The company produces one of the most popular DPV’s in the technical diving market, I personally have several units. Its products have been reviewed in several print-magazines and evaluated by the Tahoe Benchmark (which is a third party that scientifically measured 11 DPV's. Dive Xtras was also the first DPV company to use blushless motors, electronic speed control and make a technical scooter under 50lbs. Since then many DPV companies have adopted that technology in their new scooters. I am new to Wikipedia so I was trying to verify that data before posting it.
    I was about to create a Wikipedia page for the Tahoe Benchmark and the significance of the data, and was considering adding some more historical data to the DPV page. Please reconsider the speedy deletion, thanks!
    Please reconsider the speedy deletion, thanks! Wreckdiver08 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Also if you have any constructive comments on what you would like to see on the page, or what specific information you thought missing that prompted the speedy deletion, they would be gratefully received.

WP:REPAIR of Template:Merseyrail City Line

Deleted move request for Bye bye mon cowboy

  • Anthony, could you please tell me why my uncontroversial move request for Bye bye mon cowboy was removed by you with the edit summary "delete junk". Clearly, I failed to follow the instructions properly, but I've read them several times and I'm embarrassed to say I still can't figure out what I did wrong, and I'd appreciate any pointers. It's my first time using this move request page and I must say I'm confused. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, today I see that I was able to move the page myself: not sure why I was unable to last time, perhaps it's because a PROD tag had recently been removed? Thanks anyway, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I found "{{subst:RMassist|Bye bye mon cowboy|Bye Bye Mon Cowboy|Change to commonly used English capitalization, per the article's text.}}" in an HTML comment instead of as visible text. I obeyed it; then I realized that the song was mostly French and so I should use French capitalization, i.e. capitalize the first word only, so I reverted the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM on America's Next Top Model Cycle 16

Deletion of SentUAMessage

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

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

Attack aircraft

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

Move request for Eat a Bowl of Tea

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

Tripartite System(s)

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

Cacabred

Volksdeutsche

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

Winter Harbor 21

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

Fokas_department_stores

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

Winter Harbor Yacht Club

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

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

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

Deletion of UTC+01:24

Deletion

RM at Beekman Tower (New York)

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

Closed requested move on Ground attack aircraft

Maize to corn move

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

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

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

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

Question

Draft stealing by User:TheArticleWizardsApprentice from User:Aakheperure

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

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

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

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

Sorry that comment was meant for User talk:Acather96 who assisted the histmerge. This message is also on his talk page verbatim, heh. Anyway I'm just concerned with the draft stealing, given previous instances of this happening. I am not an admin, nor do I have any plans to be one, but I am an IRC helper and have spoken with the owner of the draft before. And he's this close to quitting Wikipedia altogether because of this.
I know users with no special rights butting in into these matters is often frowned upon, but bureaucratic red tape of having to wait until the offending user was investigated before moving back the draft taken from him won't help anyone whatsoever in this case. I also think these editors who attempt to make themselves look like trusted editors are connected somehow to off-site services offering paid editing of wikipedia articles. Anyway what's done is done and yeah you were only doing routine histmerges so not really blaming anyone here. I'm just hoping User:Aakheperure won't give up after all this--Obsidi♠nSoul 11:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

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

Talkpage move request

Your move earlier

Eggmanism

Drug Policy Revue Group

Incumbancy

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

Martakert

Frank A. McClintock

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

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

Nunchaku move

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

Thanks.

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

Kamco

RM disappeared from Backlog with no action, did RMbot remove it by mistake?

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

Plus this one disappeared also . . .

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

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

Arabesque to Arabic motif

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

Speedy delete please

hello,

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

Thanks heaps

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

Cut & Paste Move

Jaws 3-D

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

Re: Move of Pro-choice

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

Hard candy

question about MICA

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

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

Thanks

Speedy deletion nomination of Omar Ortíz

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

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

Transcription

Herve Jaubert

Hi,

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

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

GoPets

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

Warwick

  • I urge you to re-examine this move discussion. Almost every single oppose vote was a call of "Its notable" or "its more historical", which have no bearing in policy. The support side has presented statistics, arguments, and policy to make their case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Even allowing for that, it is far from a concensus for "move". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Really? When I discount those WP:ITSNOTABLE or "it's historically significant" calls, I get 3 opposes that actually have sustenance to them, compared to 7 (myself included) supporting it, one of those which doesn't add any new arguments. Considering this was more of a "Is Warwick important enough to be the primary topic?" discussion than a straight "Move Warwick (disambiguation): Yes or no?", I think that shows pretty clearly that there is very little support for it hogging the primary topic. This is not a vote! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I have reverted the closure in Talk:Warwick (disambiguation). Likely if I had closed with move, I would have had the same sort of complaints, but from people who do not want the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2011/January-March&oldid=1088830387"