Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2016/January-March

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

Bars Fight

I am sure it was done in good faith, but please do not undo my history merge request. I copy pasted the lead myself from Lucy Terry, section poetry. All I want is to attribute those lines to their creator. If you have any comments, please use my talk page.--WannaBeEditor (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political system of France

Thanks, and sorry for my rash behaviour last week. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

ACS UTA Bătrâna Doamnă Arad

Anthony, I see you have some move history experience with ACS UTA Bătrâna Doamnă Arad there was a request brought up over at requested moves regarding the article naming, however the requested user is now blocked for disruptive editing. Since you have some history with this article, perhaps you can address this request, and identify if it has any merit. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reformation and art

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

(Discuss) – Portobuffolè → Portobuffolé – we're 3 agreeing and 1 opposing after 2 weeks, an admin is needed to move pages entitled "Portobuffolè" to "Portobuffolé" both in English and in all other languages Wikis, please could you do it Anthony Appleyard? 151.20.91.148 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I'm a user from ptwiki. I can't see we had a consensus here to move the page (only two supports and one probably by a sock). There are many evidences that the correct name is Portobuffolè, including their official page on Facebook and the italian article. I think this movement may be reviewed. - Editeur ? 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I well know you, Editeur.
And your attempt to stultify the agreement obtained here is paltry.
The evidence that the only correct form is "Portobuffolé" with acute accent is proven not only here, here and here (if you had read the talk, you wouldn't have spoken about (your) "evidences"), but also in the state archive, in an official resolution and in the famous Treccani, while in the municipal statute, which you consider the most reliable since it's the official site, you find "Portobuffole'" with apostrophe (!!!) an the beginning, "Portobuffolè" in Article 1 and "Portobuffolé" in Article 2.
You're not Italian, you don't know the confusion about accents we Italians make, the correct pronunce of "Genova" is "Gènova" even if all local inhabitants say "Génova", so the correct spelling of "Portobuffolé" has acute accent even if Venetians say "Portobufołè", again you should have read the whole talk where such problems are explained, for example that in your very Facebook page you can find "perchè", wrong spelling and Northern pronunciation of "perché", and even "Portobuffole'" with apostrophe (and it's not the only word where an apostrophe substitutes an accent, you're free to check); last but not least, it.wikipedia is NOT a source for en.wikipedia, since Wiki encyclopedia is NOT a source for itself, and thanks for pointing out that also the page in it.wikipedia must be moved since it's got the wrong spelling.
All this can be reassumed in 1 single word: sit. 151.20.91.148 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Anthony, I won't answer this IP, because it is your talk page, not its. In English and even in Portuguese we have several dialects for which country or region that speak those languages, and it makes lots of discussion for what title is correct or not. I don't know well what politics you have here on enwiki, but on ptwiki all variants are considered correct, and we respect the first entry title. Italian may not be different, and when I say that the italian article is still with Portobuffelè title, that means they didn't make anything to change it, once they are native speakers and they know better then us. This IP is making changes cross wiki and was reverted many times. That's why we have to make a consistent consensus to change the title or not. I really would like you give me an answer, because this subject is very important not only for the english wiki, but for all them. Thanks. - Editeur ? 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @L'editeur and 151.20.91.148: And for more variety of name in foreign Wikipedias, there are Portus Buvoledi (Latin), Portobufołè (Veneto = Venetian). I suspect that the spelling Portobuffole' with apostrophe is a typist's makeshift used instead of an accent and would not have developed if the document was handwritten. As an admin, I better stay neutral. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard: a Dutch admin (the one I told you about at the beginning), without asking anything to anyone and against the consensus we had in the talk page, has moved back the page to the uncorrect name. I've already reported him in the noticeboard because he's moved a lot of pages all around the Wikis, including the English one. Do you think you can move it back at least this to its correct name (Portobuffolé), since he acted arbitrarily on his own decision, please? 151.20.91.148 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I think now this will be just about nl.wikipedia (and maybe pt.wikipedia), not English Wiki where there's a consensus, and actually I'm not caring any more about those Dutch hinnies if they want to keep a wrong spelling. 151.20.91.148 (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue is solved: also the Portuguese admin has admitted he was wrong and the Dutch won't change the name on the other Wikis! There's only a last page, except the Dutch, witch has to be renamed: the German one. Can you do me a last favour? Rename the German page to "Portobuffolé" as you did some days ago, please, then I won't have to disturb you any more. 151.20.91.148 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Just for your information: The German WP has de:Portobuffolè. --Tusculum (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We agreed to move also the German article at the end :-) 151.20.10.173 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Polish constitutional crisis

  • Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • High, you just removed the "technical move" request for the article above. Did you understand the problem? Volunteer Marek moved the page without a prior discussion per WP:RM, no adequate discussion, no adequate timeframe, closing the "discussion" on the talk page as an involved editor after 32 hours, though WP:RMCI requires at least 7 days and clearly states that an involved editor is not supposed to close the discussion at all(WP:RMNAC). The result of the current WP:RM is for sure "no consensus" (currently 3:3), thus the "new", un-discussed title, which was just pushed trough in violation of the basic rules of WP:RM will stay. This is a blatant case of WP:GAMING. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Will you please stop it with the forum shopping and canvassing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry too, but what am I supposed to do about it? Such a clear violation of WP:RM and nobody cares. I already brought the issue to WP:ANI, where I was told that I should take it to WP:DRN, which is absurd, because it's obviously not a content dispute. Is WP:IGNOREALLRULES really what it's all about here? A move is "strongly discouraged", but that's just hot air. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cloverfield 2

Next meetups in North-West England

Hello. This is just to let you know that the next wikimeets in North-West England will take place in:

Please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page if you can make them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletions of redirects to Crelan–Euphony

Hi, I think that when the move of Crelan–Euphony to Landbouwkrediet–Colnago happened, becuase no redirect was left, all the original redirects has no target, but it was a move rather than a deletion, so please could you restore:

It appears we have also lost more redirects courtesy of User:AnomieBOT III, would you be able to help to restore these?

Many thanks, Severo (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bacha Khan University attack

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Please note that I reverted your move of the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. It is standard practice to include the election year in a campaign article because it helps to identify which election a particular campaign refers. To leave it blank causes confusion. What election is this campaign for? 2000? 2004? 2008? 2012? There are many different possibilities. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved back

Hi Anthony,

As the admin who moved it, I just wanted to let you know that I moved Tony DeFries back to Tony Defries. I've seen both spellings in reputable newspapers, but more importantly, his LinkedIn account uses the latter spelling. True, I can't verify that the LinkedIn is actually his, but it seems like a reasonable enough source until such a time as a better one can be found. The edit history appears to be intact and the former name now redirects to the latter.

Cheers, GentlemanGhost (converse) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I will notify them as well. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Suho

Hey Anthony, I thought you might know how to respond to this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Filming revolution

A tag has been placed on Filming revolution requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Card flourish#Requested move 15 January 2016

Ten days and no comments or objections. Could you be so kind to perform a history merge? Regards, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 18:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, see someone has already done that. My mad! ;) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 18:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Kristian Kostov

Hi, you deleted the article for Kristian Kostov, but as i write in the discussion he meet the creteria Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants). I was going to add more sources and information. Chris Calvin (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

CSD question

Hi Anthony! Yesterday this user page was nominated for CSD under the G11 criteria. I declined it as I didn't see anything "unambiguously promotional" there. Within hours the same user nominated it under CSD U5 (for "blatant misuse") upon which you deleted it. I still don't see how the page met that criteria, or any criteria, for speedy deletion. The English wasn't fantastic, but two speedy deletion notifications on their talk page for a single note that essentially says "I'm Bob from Detroit, born from a family of lawyers, and part of the local clergy" seems awfully bitey. What do you think?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I know which page it was, the link was just malformed in my message above. What I don't see is how the page was a "blatant misuse" of his userpage. It appears to be new user adding their name, provenance and work to their user page, which falls under WP:UPYES. The CSD template itself states "Note that plausible drafts, pages adhering to WP:UPYES, and résumé-style pages are not eligible under this criterion". How is this much different from the Bob example I provided above? It's not a huge deal, but I do believe the deletion was out of process. The single sentence on their userpage, which contained nothing offensive or contrary to policy, was nominated for deletion within two minutes of them creating it, then renominated and deleted shortly after I declined the deletion. That's bitey indeed. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
PS I hope I'm not coming off as hostile, it's not my intention. I was just surprised when I saw it was deleted as a CSD U5 when there was nothing objectionable about the page. I'm always open to differing view points, it's how we learn! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ponyo: Its (currently deleted) edit history is:-
    • 01:11, 27 January 2016 . . BoxOfChickens (126 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD U5). (Twinkle))
    • 22:07, 26 January 2016 . . Ponyo (99 bytes) (decline CSD - I don't see anything "unambiguously promotional" about this user page)
    • 22:00, 26 January 2016 . . BoxOfChickens (124 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (Twinkle))
    • 21:58, 26 January 2016 . . Azeez oladimeji muyiwa (99 bytes) (←Created page with 'AZEEZ OLADIMEJI MUYIWA WAS BORN IN VIEW YEARS BACK IN IKIRE TO IBADAN PARENT WORK AS CLERIC OF GOD')
I don't understand why you're showing me this, I know the edit history and it shows exactly what I described above (i.e. a new user creating an unobjectionable user page which is inexplicably tagged for CSD G11 within 2 minutes of creation, declined by me, retagged for CSD U5 and deleted by you). What I am asking is how does this page meet CSD U5 criteria as being "blatant misuse" of the user page contrary to WP:UPYES. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Imagine how my husband feels; he has to deal with me every single day :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo: lol. What a conversation. You know, Anthony Appleyard probably didn't realise you too were an admin, and was thus providing the deleted information. He works like a machine, sanctioning all sorts of moves and deletions on user request without giving them much thought, and reversing them as easily, again on user request. Many people come up with lengthy explanations here as to why a move he performed was inappropriate, probably expecting him to explain himself. But AA's reply would consist of nothing apart from a ping and a {{done}} tag (indicating that he has undid whatever was being opposed). He is my favourite admin (see #Move request above - I very much doubt if any AfC reviewer would have allowed those two drafts to be mainspaced.) 103.6.159.80 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanify

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion‎

Do you know why I'm seeing all sorts of entries on my watchlist that look like

(diff | hist) . . Category:Candidates for speedy deletion‎; 23:32 . . (0)‎ . . ‎Legacypac (talk | contribs | block)‎ (White-supremacies added to category)

and yours

(diff | hist) . . Category:Candidates for speedy deletion‎; 23:31 . . (0)‎ . . ‎Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block)‎ (User:Azeez oladimeji muyiwa removed from category)

I've never seen this before. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the belated reply. For some reason I didn't get the ping, and my watchlist makes me dizzy sometimes. The answer to your question: yes. I don't know why I put it on my watchlist, but it wasn't recent, so why would I get these messages now?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist add/remove from category. Is this problem still occurring for you because the VPT thread says it should be fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not Done, Bing Webmaster Center to Bing Webmaster Tools

I had submitted this request few minuts ago on Wikipedia:Requested moves. But the request has been deleted without any change or discussion.

Request is change name Bing Webmaster Center to Bing Webmaster Tools Reason: Name change by organization. Also the url is http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster

06:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.230.203.254 (talk)

User:Voss101

Template:Koimoi

Hello, I think you by mistake deleted one of my created template Template:Koimoi. User:Theroadislong had added a G2 (test page) on that template. That wasn't a test page. That template is like Template:Indiatimes, Template:IMDb are. I want the restoration of that template at any cost. That template will be used on actors' articles to describe their biography. ЖunalForYou ☎️📝 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Emma Farman Gifford

You have reverted a move, without consensus!

Can you explain please why have you reverted the move The X-Files (TV Season 10) back to Miniseries despite consensus reached in the talk page for the opposite?

First of all, you have done the following: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_X-Files_%28miniseries%29&type=revision&diff=703725150&oldid=703671657 At the request of a user User:Wikipedical who said in his faulty comment "Still being discussed on talk page, edit summary for move cited false consensus. Should be reverted until consensus is determined from discussion."

The user Wikipedical claims that the "move was undiscusssed" which is not true. The move has already been discussed, and you can check the talk page here: Talk:The_X-Files_(miniseries) (under the section "Requested move 27 January 2016") and you can see that not only it was discussed in a period of half a month, but also a wide consensus has already been reached (not false consensus as Wikipedical falsely claims, but 8 users in favor of move, with only 3 users against, with one of the participants changing his vote from Oppose to Support as result of our discussion here, and thus, reaching consensus), and the result of the consensus was to move the page from Miniseries to The X-Files (TV Season 10). Please revert your revert, and suggest to the user Wikipedical that he checks his facts better before claiming that the move request was undiscussed or unsupported, and that he can open up a discussion in the Talk Page if he disagrees with the particular move (who, from what it seems, he hasn't done so far). Thank you. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Anthony Appleyard, we are urging you to correct your mistake and to comply with Wikipedia's rules and with the community agreed in the Talk page's where a consensus has been reached. Please revert the name The X-Files (miniseries) back to The X-Files (TV Season 10), as the page move goes against consensus and I hope you correct your edits asap. If you do not, I may consider reporting this case to another Administrator or to the Administrator's noticeboard. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Anthony Appleyard, my apologies, you can ignore my above comments as they are no longer holding - there is a discussion in the following page: [1] and I discovered that the discussion of the Move Request should have been decided and done by someone else and not by the person who started it (me). I hope you have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kebumen Regency and Talk:Kebumen

Move request

Hi,
Can you move Draft:Concepts of Physics and Draft:ALLEN Career Institute to the mainspace? I have completed the two drafts. The former has 2 reliable sources (3, if counting the blog); while the latter has at least 4 reliable non-primary sources. There exists a consensus for existence of articles like ALLEN, as similar articles about similar subjects FIITJEE and Aakash have survived one and two AfDs respectively. Thanks in advance. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, silent one! 103.6.159.73 (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again,
Could you also move the following pages to mainspace? Thanks in advance.

103.6.159.77 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And Draft:Arman Suren Karamyan also, please. Subject notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. 103.6.159.66 (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And then we have Draft:Narine Karakashian and Draft:Anna Hairapetian. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, please move User:103.6.159.93/Richard Arthur Norton movelist to Wikipedia:Richard Arthur Norton move list, as the page is clearly difficult to find at its present location. And Draft:MoveRAN to Template:RAN (template:RAN is presently just an orphaned redirect to another template, and can this be safely overwritten). And then we have Draft:Arusiak Grigorian to be moved to mainspace. The draft is still in a poor condition but the subject is notable and further article development can take place in mainspace. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent move – Korean People's Navy

Anthony, I'm not sure what's going on, but for some reason your move attempt didn't resolve the issue. Basically, the article should be titled Korean People's Navy and the other pages, Korean People's Army Naval Force and Korean People's Naval Force, should both redirect to Korean People's Navy. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused in the move request I submitted at WP:RMT. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harry Gentle Frank

A tag has been placed on Harry Gentle Frank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Sounds Like Teen Spirit, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Situla (vessel)

Dear Anthony, please move this to Situla; it is clearly primary. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league)

Hi Anthony, can you reconsider your speedy deletion of this page under G4. From what I could tell (although I could be wrong) the page wasn't just a identical unimproved copy, although granted every article about a rugby league club will look similar. The original deletion discussion also mainly concerned itself with the issue of what was the primary topic and not the notability of the topic, and the project page wasn't notified which meant that there were no subject matter experts involved in the discussion. Thanks, Mattlore (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks Mattlore (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dadaglobe entry status

Can you please explain why the Dadaglobe entry remains "under review" after weeks of waiting? Isn't it time for someone to remove that tag at the top of the entry? I would appreciate your assistance in this matter.Gaw54 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

ThanksGaw54 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Can you please also remove the tag from the bottom of the article? Some very zealous editor apparently felt the need to double tag this post. I appreciate your help.Gaw54 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Move not done

[2] You say "done" but NCERT textbook controversy was not moved to NCERT textbook controversies, as had been requested. Could you sort it out? 103.6.159.80 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of User:Beaupedia/Project XX as a hoax

While I agree that this draft needed to be deleted, it was not a valid candidate for speedy deletion as a hoax. as I clearly showed in my comment in the deletion discussion [3] Meters (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Becky Taylor

Paw Patrol

Hi Anthony

You removed my entry for Paw Patrol from the "revert undiscussed moves" section on WP:RM, but the article appears to be still at Paw Patrol. I boldly moved it yesterday, but as it's been questioned, it should be moved back to PAW Patrol for now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

James C. Alvord

Thanks for sorting that out. PamD 22:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

History merge

Can you merge the histories of Portland Steel and Portland Thunder. Someone made a completely new article for the team's name change instead of just moving the page to Steel. There is also Portland AFL Team, which someone made after they thought the team was a completely new franchise and not just changing names. But you can't really history merge that with anything because it overlaps with the Thunder article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fresh Kid Ice (rapper)

Hi Anthony. I do not really understand what you were doing with the article, but the result is clearly unwanted - it now contains an AfD template with a link to an AfD closed two years ago and a broken link to a file. Could you pls have a look. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cafrenbach history merge

Hi Anthony. I see that you declined my history merge request at Cafrenbach, saying that the two cut-and-paste moves were both quickly reverted. The second one wasn't reverted, though - or am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, hang on. That second one was only yesterday. Should I just revert it now? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Anthony AppleyardCordless LarryGuys what is going on here? I don't understand.... I don't know if its vandalism or total breakdown of communication between you two.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Anthony deleted the article with the original material, Kfar Nabrakh, and then moved the article with the copied content, Cafrenbach, to Kfar Nabrakh. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cordless Larry and Asilah1981: I have reverted my last editing, which was undeleting 2 deleted text (not redirect) edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cordless Larry and Asilah1981: This is the currently deleted edits:-
    • 18:21, 5 March 2016 . . Asilah1981 (4,249 bytes)
    • 16:30, 5 March 2016 . . Asilah1981 (4,247 bytes)
    • 05:31, 4 March 2016 . . 166.175.191.7 (24 bytes) (Undid revision 706214528 by Al Ameer son (talk))
    • 03:34, 22 February 2016 . . Al Ameer son (4,324 bytes) (Undid revision 706185986 by Genealogizer (talk) Not a common name)
    • 23:55, 21 February 2016 . . Genealogizer (4,270 bytes) (Tag: Possible vandalism)
    • 04:15, 28 January 2016 . . Al Ameer son (4,324 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Infobox settlement | name = Kfar Nabrakh | other_name = Kfarnabrakh, Kafr Nabrakh | native_name = كفر نبرخ |...')
  • What seems to have happened is this:-
    1. 00:53, 22 October 2015‎ Bobby Martnen started Cafrenbach
    2. 04:15, 28 January 2016 Al Ameer son started Kfar Nabrakh
    3. 04:15, 9 February 2016‎ Al Ameer son redirected Cafrenbach to Kfar Nabrakh as "2 pages on same subject"
    4. 23:55, 21 February 2016‎ Genealogizer redirected Cafrenbach to itself
    5. 03:35, 22 February 2016‎ Al Ameer son redirected Cafrenbach to Kfar Nabrakh
    6. 05:33, 4 March 2016‎ 166.175.191.7 cut-and-pasted Kfar Nabrakh to Cafrenbach
    7. 16:30, 5 March 2016 Asilah1981 reverted the cut-and-paste, or tried to.
  • All this caused confusion well peppered with surplus redirect edits.
  • @Cordless Larry and Asilah1981:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I as an admin can see a special log of when each of these 2 pages was moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for moving the Bugatti Chiron. :) You deserve this barnstar. Winterysteppe (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please revert controversial move of Munir Ertegun article

You moved an article as "uncontroversial", here [4].

This change is controversial. Previous editing within the article itself to rewrite the historical spelling in English (see, e.g, [5]) was previously reverted, and no attempt to discuss or justify with reference to WP policies or guidelines was made, let alone agreed. Please revert this move. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I've added a section to article's talk page to clarify the issue. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Shapur Mehrān ----> Shapur Mihran

History merge of Draft:KPOGCL to KPOGCL

Metope

Thanks, but it still won't let me move Metope (architecture) to Metope for some reason. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Metope has now been tagged with {{db-move}}. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to figure out what that gobbledegook on the move request meant... not that i disagree, but i'm just so confused. XD  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Insertcleverphrasehere: I decided to ask for a controversial discussed move by using the copy-and-paste text "{{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}", and to put the reason as a brief random text, and then, after I was out of the subst-template, to replace that random text by the proper reason; but I decided not to call for the move discussion after all, and I tried to cancel it, but I did not realize that my first stage had already become permanent as a recorded edit. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I figured it was something like that. Cheers.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Kooga Redirect

The reason why I am contacting yourself is because we have been alerted by our clients Kooga Rugby, who are concerned that when you search for 'Kooga Rugby' on the internet, the wikipedia page that appears is actually for BLK as they have put a redirect on their page.

We would like to question this as BLK only hold the rights to Kooga in Australia. Therefore the generic 'Kooga' redirect is directing ALL traffic to BLK's wikipedia and this is as major concern.

We are currently working on an Encyclopaedic page for Kooga which will go live in the next month. However we are concerned that even when this page is published all Kooga traffic will still go to the BLK. Can you look into this matter and see how this can be resolved.

Thank you

Garethbaillie (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories that are members of themselves

Hi, when you take a cat out of itself, as you did here, please don't leave them orphan. When going through Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories, what I normally do is to look for another existing category of related purpose, and copy from that. In this case, I copied the source of Category:Ordovician animals of North America to Category:Ordovician animals of South America, changing "North" to "South" throughout. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Deep web (search) to Deep web move

Hi there

You just moved Deep web (search) to Deep web however the topic is controversial and there no consensus. Could you revert please? Deku-shrub (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated :) Deku-shrub (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining the order of things. There was a discussion at Talk:Deep web (search) about the move that looks to have been closed as moved (one oppose based on an unsubstantiated claim that it's not the primary topic, and the other a procedural objection that the disambiguation move wasn't included in the proposal). Then it was moved, then it was unmoved but the disambiguation page is still at the awkward Deep Web (disambiguation) (why capitalized W?) and the most important page is just deleted (Deep web). If the move was done based on a claim that it's uncontroversial, a glance at the talk page should've revealed that there was in fact a discussion under way (or, depending on the timeline, a discussion that had just been closed), but the move was ultimately correct based on that discussion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing? There was already a move request. It was closed. The person who closed it, Tbhotch, listed it under "uncontroversial technical requests". I think that in general the person closing a move discussion should be the one to move it, but as the discussion was already closed, I get why Tbhotch listed it under uncontroversial. Regardless, even if it's inappropriate to list in that section, the link to the discussion is linked in the move request that appears in that permalink. So there should've been no confusion. Anybody moving the page based on a rationale of "per RM" linking to a discussion should've looked at that first -- or at least before undoing the move. Now notified of that discussion, instead of adhering to it, you're starting a new one (??). This is not a problem of conflicting move requests; it's a problem of weird choice of closing technique and mover that totally ignored that discussion. The only reason you got someone contesting the move -- someone who participated in that discussion -- is because it was done as "uncontroversial".
This seems very straightforward. There was a discussion. It closed with a particular result. It needs to be implemented, not started over. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The deep web is not a searching device, as the name "Deep web (search)" seems to imply to me, but a way to avoid public searching. I have received 2 contradictory related move requests recently. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I know what the deep web is. It's not a way to avoid public searching, it's just what is not available to search. But why does it matter, unless you're supervoting? Why does it matter what move requests you've received? There was a proposed move. The discussion lasted for a month. At the end, it was closed with consensus to move. You moved it, but both you and the closer made a mistake by calling it uncontroversial. Deku-shrub exploited that mistake by saying it is controversial, and you undid the move that was the outcome of a discussion -- not actually a technical move request.
  • To fix it, please (1) close the new move request (2) move Deep web (search) to Deep web per the discussion that is now closed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Please come handle some reports on wp:aiv because it is so overflowed. 2602:306:3357:BA0:389E:7C57:55CA:A44C (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Anthony, I know you contribute a lot to Wikipedia and I hate to sound critical, but I really wish you would give some attention to WP:FIXDABLINKS before carrying out move requests like Naat. If a user asks to move a page to a different title, and to create a disambiguation page in its place, you could create a temporary redirect from the new title to the old one, and politely ask them to fix the incoming links before proceeding to carry out the move. Otherwise, you end up adding a lot of new work for other editors to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I have retargeted the title as a redirect to the poetry form, which is internationally important, and is the clear primary topic of the term. Disambiguating this is the equivalent of making hymn or psalm into a disambiguation page. The village is minor and obscure, and the scientific term is distinguished by being all caps. This was an ill-considered disambiguation. bd2412 T 15:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Canon sinuum

Dear Anthony, I think you are not into the history of trigonometry, and perhaps it would be a good idea not to reverse changes made by people who know the topic. Canon sinuum is ambigous, it refers to a number of tables, including by Vlacq:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=omUVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA49

Therefore, I plan to cancel your changes, because they are not constructive. However, as I don't have the time to do it now, please feel free to change it yourself first.Schwilgue (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Globalize_section irregularity

I believe Template talk:Globalize section#Requested move 21 March 2016 should be procedurally closed as out-of-process. Philg88 simply recused himself from performing the technical move – he says so on his talk page [6]. The move was not a personal request to move a page to name the requested desired, but SOP completing of valid, uncontested close. After discussion [same permalink as above], Philg88 made the move himself. So, a back-to-back second RM was created for something that was a recusal not a challenge, mooted further by action in support of the move, and the proper procedure for challenging a valid close would have been WP:MR anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I procedurally closed it, since Philg88 ended up making the move after all, which renders the second RM thread open on that page moot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:2010s Canadian animated television series

Canon Sinuum listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Canon Sinuum. Since you had some involvement with the Canon Sinuum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Move page

Undeletion

@Anthony Appleyard Thanks for the reinstatement. I will have my writers to make necessary edits. Cmills20 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

Possible sockpuppetry

Hi.

You deleted User:SurvivorSims/sandbox. My memory is tickling me as I tagged User:Dead-Set/sandbox for speedy deletion. The format, and content of Dead-set's sandbox looks familiar. Would you be able to compare that to the content from SurvivorSim's sandbox? According to User talk:Dead-Set#December 2015, this wouldn't be the first occurrence of sockpuppetry. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

why my page got deleted ? before it has no notability but this time it has imdb page and interview too my page name is dj kamal mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldt20game (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Esther Barno

Can you explain this deletion?

  • Can you explain your deletion of my draftUser:Ryan Vesey/Dual-seated throne of Peter the Great and Ivan V under WP:G3? While I admit that it was a stale userspace draft, a quick google search reveals that the article is not addressing a hoax. The Wikipedia articles for Peter the Great and Ivan V both mention the throne as well. Ryan Vesey 02:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ryan Vesey: At 10:31, 24 March 2016‎ User:Legacypac tagged this article for speedy deletion as a hoax and also as there was not much text in the article and it had not been edited for a long time. Due to the shortness and incompleteness of this article it is clear why Legacypac thought that it was a hoax. I have undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, wow. I started that article a couple years back while creating a number of placeholder drafts while doing some reading for a Russian History class. Normally, I included at least the source that I found the information from (see User:Ryan Vesey/Petr Golitsyn and [[7]]. I understand the deletion of the throne article completely; although, I am slightly curious as to how Legacypac came across it and why he felt the need to slap a tag on it. Hopefully I can find the time to get back to Wikipedia and get these articles published. Ryan Vesey 14:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Evergreen Extension move

Yes, no, black, white

Hello! I noticed that you have speedily deleted the Yes, no, black, white game article using the CSD A11 criteria, which is "Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I'd like to know why would it be a "subject obviously invented by article creator or associate"? Do I appear to have invented a game that has Google hits in multiple languages and on multiple unrelated sites or do I appear to have affiliations with the radio station Class FM? If you took the time to Google the names provided in the article, you could see that this game exists. Notability of the game is another question, but notability never warranted speedy deletion, and as there are multiple poorly sourced, OR-ridden articles or stubs about pen-and-paper, spoken and other "party games" (for ex.: hangman, dots and race game), not all particularly popular in Anglophone countries or in the US (thus not having articles about them contributing to systemic bias), I feel the speedy deletion was unwarranted. I would have contested it, but I was sleeping and it was deleted overnight... I'll provide links to prove the game is not "my invention" (not necessarily RS), as I have literally no connection whatsoever to the following materials:

Links showing names, rules and international spread:

  • on English GamesWiki: [8]
  • on German GamesWiki (Spielewiki): [9] (showing German name)
  • on German T-Online's page: [10] (as a "travel game")
  • on YouTube: [11] (German high school students playing the game)
  • on YouTube: [12] (Hungarian call-in TV show on RTL Klub, the most-watched station in Hungary, a notable source)
  • Origins Online: [13] (showing arguably US variant)
  • Games-Stream: [14] (calling it a "social game")
  • Homo Ludens: [15] (identifying a variant of the game as "folk game", collected by Katalin Lázár in Népi Játékgyűjtemény i.e. "Folk Game Collection", published by the Musicology Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
  • Homo Ludens: [16] (identifying a "scout" variant of the game, collected by Lázár in Népi Játékgyűjtemény, collection date here given as 1957)
  • KefKefKef: [17] (introducing fixed rules about a "Not for Novices" variant)
  • Zsúrjátékok.hu: [18] (includes a set of rules, categorizing the game as a "dexterity game" and a "funny game")
  • Yahoo! Answers question: [19]
  • Udvardicserkész.sk: [20] (calling it a "camp game", "cserkész" itself means scout)
  • Gyakorikérdések.hu: [21] (Hungarian site similar to Y!A), and aforementioned "scout" variant: [22]
  • on Frihost Forums: [23] (with one poster identifying a variant as an "Interview game. Silly it was, it used to be on the Dutch radio here.. people called in (...)")

Other links showing cultural significance:

  • Sarit Shani Hay: [24] (an Israeli art exhibition referencing the "Yes-No, Black-White" name)
  • Hungarian Wikipedia: [25] (the American movie Grassroots has the name of the game in the Hungarian dub)
  • IMDb: [26] (Hungarian short film made in 2001 using the game's name)
  • same film on Port.hu (notable source): [27]
  • Hungaroton (notable source): [28] comedian Géza Hofi's album Első menet has a track titled with the game's name)
  • bpxv.blog.hu: [29] (Hungarian state broadcaster Magyar Televízió (MTV), a notable source, had a Budapest locality quiz show running from 1969 to 1970 named after the game)
  • Port.hu: [30] (a Hungarian jewelry exhibition titled "Yes! No Black White - Fekete Fehér Igen! Nem", using both the English and Hungarian name)
  • Budapest Design Week page for the exhibition: [31]
  • Facebook page for the exhibition: [32]
  • Index.hu (notable source): [33] (the article title about unrelated UK political topic references the game name)
  • Ma.hu (possibly notable source): [34] (the article using the game's name in title about the recent Oscars controversy of not awarding black actors/actresses)
  • Academia.edu: [35] (e-book titled with both the English and Hungarian name)

Class FM-related links:

  • Class FM's Morning Show website: [36] (announcing the game back in 2010), [37] (Class FM has wide coverage over Hungary and is notable)
  • Class FM's FB post announcing the game in 2010: [38]
  • official game rules on Class FM's website: [39] ("1 perc" for example means 1 minute, "tiltott szó" means forbidden word)
  • a record of a game session on YT: [40] (static image with the game's name shown)

Since I believe that the aforemented batch of sources establish or at very least indicate the international presence and importance of the game in at least the Anglosphere, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and Israel, and as I believe that presenting these sources qualifies as a "credible claim of significance" as per established speedy deletion norms (as detailed at WP:CCS), I'd ask for the restoration of the Yes, no, black, white article so it could have a chance of being reliably sourced as much as it is possible, improving Wikipedia's coverage of widely played games. Thank you for your understanding! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2016/January-March&oldid=1141637993"