User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/July-September

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

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

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

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

Is merging article B into another article A & changing title of A to that of B feasible?
Hello, again, Mr. A. I last contacted you of about a title change involving the recovery of an earlier title Public economics.

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

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


 * Thank you for your assistance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After the text-merge, ask me to do the move, as only admins will be able to do that move because of existing pages in the way of the move (including moving their talk pages). I will first move the old Economics of religion to Economics of religion/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. That was queek. Thank you again. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil Twilight

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

Mti Consulting

 * Bro could you please advise me on why did it force you to delete the above article?? I would appreciate if you can revert your action.
 * thanks & regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwasif (talk • contribs) 10:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is at MTI Consulting. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity

 * Hello. Perhaps we should move on with the history merge? There seems to be no objections in doing that... Rehman(+) 07:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence, but I think the discussion was left open long enough; it's nearly two weeks. And no one has shown any sign of disagreement. I think it is time to move on. Rehman(+) 23:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Sorry for bugging you. But please note that I have placed histmerge in hydroelectricity again, in good faith. I don't see why you claim the move controversial? So far, no one has opposed this. There was disagreements with an article merge before, leading to the dropping of that merge some time back. The current change is just a mere article rearrangement and cleanup, which no one seem to disagree with. Rehman(+) 13:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So far most arguments and all alterations are by User:Rehman. User:NortyNort raises a few points; he put a new section in Hydroelectricity but has not edited User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity. I await an opinion from someone independent. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough. Thanks for your reply. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like another editor supports the new version. Move on now? Rehman(+) 04:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I dont mean any offence, but is it just me, or do you have something against the article or me? It is now very clear that the move is non-controversial. So why not just get over it? It is sort of disturbing the normal editing process on the article. Please see into this and reply there. Thank you. Rehman(+) 07:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ as plain move: see Talk:Hydroelectricity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now at Talk:Hydroelectricity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for this. And sorry if I was uncivil is the previous comment. But, I think it is not a fair move to replace the history of Hydroelectricity with User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity, when clearly numerous editors contributed to it. May I suggest reverting what you did? I will simply copy-paste the new version from my subpage in a single edit. Rehman(+) 09:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ the reverse moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rehman(+) 09:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to understand deletion

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

History merge of Zelda talk pages

 * I request the history of Talk:The Legend of Zelda (Wii) to be restored & merged with Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. SNS (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Already ✅ by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the older history . The Legend of Zelda (Wii) was eventually moved to The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword so the talk page contains discussion on it's earlier versions. SNS (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I undeleted Talk:The Legend of Zelda (Wii) and moved it to Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword/Archive 1. I inserted and  tags. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving Articles

 * How? --Boycool42 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where would the move option be? --Boycool42 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To the right of the "View History" link. The new skin "hides" some of the less-used options, there should be a downward-pointing arrow that you can click to see a list. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry, my Firefox still uses the old skin for Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted Just Brakes. Is there a legitimate reason? --Monterey Bay (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was advertisement: see WP:SPAM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, putting a rescue tag on the article would of been the necessary approach, instead of deleting it. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot like a plain standard advertisement to me. There are thousands of firms that offer services for cars. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently your incorrect there is notability in the article. thanks! --Monterey Bay (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw 3D requests

 * Hi. Thanks for this. I knew it was too early to start moving things around.  People don't wait around here.  Anyway, can you go ahead and delete this and this.  I'm pretty sure people will not be searching the film with that title. :P   Thanks.  Mike   Allen   22:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the 2 deletions, as those 2 pages have incoming links from articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean from the "What links here"? If so, that can be fixed. :)  Mike   Allen   06:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not got the time to go through all those files here right now, sorry. It is early morning here in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant I would. I just did go through this list, but most of the articles do not link to that title. So.. why are they still listed?   Mike   Allen   06:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of those linkings were through transclusions of Template:Saw, and Wikipedia takes time to update its records of what links to what in pages that transclude an edited template. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I've often wondered about that.  :)   Mike   Allen   09:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cathy Gonzaga and Alex Gonzaga

 * In your recent move, both of the pages ended up as redirects with neither one having the content. Can the content be restored to the page name that reflects the first name in the lead? thanks! Active Banana (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now corrected. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks clearing that out! - I dont really know anything about the topic/subject, I just kind of monitor a lot of the Filipino celebrity articles for BLP violation and fanboy postings but I could tell that something wasnt quite right there. Active Banana (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

 * Hi Anthony. At 08:12 on 12 July 2010 you dealt with three items under Current requests at Requested moves, marking the history that you had dealt with one, and that the other two were for discussion.  I may be missing something, but did you forget to list the requests for Gârleni, Bacău and Battery (electricity), as they appear to have simply vanished?  The one you appear to have dealt with was Daze (disambiguation).  Skinsmoke (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now ✅ Gârleni, Bacău, sorry; Battery (electricity) is in Requested moves for discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul "Jah Screw" Love

 * Hello - I noticed in my watchlist that you had deleted this today - is there any chance that you could restore it to my userspace so that I can work on it? I have two encyclopedias on reggae that have entries for him, so establishing notability shouldn't be a problem. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted Paul "Jah Screw" Love and AfD'ed it :: see Articles for deletion/Paul "Jah Screw" Love. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why my created page diverted from another.

 * Hi Anthony!
 * Hope you are doing good. Actually I saw you in my watch list and got confused.
 * Looks like you did something with my underwriting page named "Dusheri". Because unlike before now I need to first go to page name "Dusehri" (created by someone) first and then need to click on my page link "Dusehri".
 * Not sure, what happened. Could you please clarify the concern.
 * Thanks, Regards, Smkatiyar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smkatiyar (talk contribs) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If these articles are all about a variety of mangoes, we better decide on the correct spelling of the word.
 * There is an old article at Dasheri. Later, User:Smkatiyar started a new small article at Dusehri. Later, User:Vejvančický redirected Dusehri to Dasheri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anthony!, I first searched in Wiki about any old article at Dasheri and found no page. I found the word dasheri used at page Malihabad, List of mango cultivars. I edited the page List of mango cultivars and enabled the word Dasheri as a new page link. And from there onwards, I started writing this new page. Before that nothing exist as a page named Dasheri.
 * And not sure why you redirected my page "Dasheri" from misspelled word "Dusehri". I believe my page need to redirected from List of mango cultivars as it is explaining about a variety of mango. Request you to please verify the log history of my page and others and look into this concern. Hope you revoke the changes. Thanks. Smkatiyar. Smkatiyar (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Vejvančický redirected Dusehri to Dasheri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have started a move discussion at Talk:Dasheri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Wii

 * I request for Donkey Kong Wii to be made into a redirect to Donkey Kong Country Returns with it's history undeleted. SNS (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have histmerged Donkey Kong Wii to Donkey Kong Country Returns. 05:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed while reading an AFD that there was another past attempt at making the article. I request the history of Donkey Kong Wii (Tentativie Title) to be undeleted. SNS (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have histmerged Donkey Kong Wii (Tentativie Title) to Donkey Kong Country Returns. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Page move revert request

 * Hello. I noticed that you moved the page Urban contemporary gospel to Black gospel based upon a request by User:WhatamIdoing at Requested moves as uncontroversial. The decision to redirect the Black gospel article was made quite a while back as an effort by the Gospel Music Wikiproject to accurately reflect the subgenre. Because the term Black gospel is simply a legacy marketing label it was decided to move to the currently used term. Because this is not a "uncontroversial" move I'm asking that you undo the redirect until the issue can be fully discussed and resolved by the Christian Music Wikiproject. Thanks in advance. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat), 15:44, Thursday December 17, 2009 (UTC) ::: copied from Talk:Urban contemporary gospel by User:Absolon at 12:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed in Talk:Black gospel. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Katyn

 * Hi Anthony. Thanks for your note.  It happens!  However, I think we may have got this one wrong.  I haven't looked into it deeply, but it certainly appears from the Talk page now at Katyn that this is a controversial series of moves, sparked off by one editor unilaterally removing the redirect that existed from Katyn to Katyn massacre.  Perhaps the whole thing should go up for discussion under Current discussions at Requested moves.  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anthony! This page probably needs to be history-merged into the dab, or something else needs to be done with it.  I didn't touch it because I'm not sure whether you are done yet; if so, please do something with it so it doesn't hang there under an awkward title.  Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 14, 2010; 12:54 (UTC)
 * Page Katyn/redirects is merely junk: it is an accumulation of redirects that I had to shift out from Katyn before I moved Katyn (disambiguation) in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not delete it then?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 14, 2010; 14:16 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 14, 2010; 15:59 (UTC)
 * Did you pick up on my note on Katyn above? Gets confusing with two sectuions marked the same.  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have since text-merged those 'two sections marked the same'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

 * About a year ago you closed Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp. On May 23, 2010 Al Fand training camp was renominated for deletion by the wiki-id User:Iqinn, who has kept it continyously at afd for almost eight weeks.
 * For the record, in March 2010, I proposed merging articles on the less well documented camps, here.
 * I wrote to the administrator who closed, and asked for their advice on the wiki-id User:Iqinn's actions in keeping this article continuously at afd for almost eight weeks. I'd appreciate your advice as well.
 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say I am very surprised by your keep closure of this AfD. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus. I think that was a mistaken call (in that AfD even the article's creator agreed that the article could not be sustained as a stand-alone article). Yes, Iquinn made a bad mistake in immediately re-nominating the article for another AfD rather than taking the previous one to DRV. However, no consensus closures (unlike keep closures) do not prejudice against quick re-listing. More importantly, in the current AfD there was considerably wider participation, and, if you read the AfD carefully, a fairly clear policy-based consensus for deletion. At least it should have been relisted for another week, as the article's creator suggested. Doing a procedural keep for an article that so obviously does not satisfy our criteria for inclusion does not serve any particularly useful purpose. I urge you to reconsider. Nsk92 (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, any comments? Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is discussion about text-merging Al Fand training camp into Afghan training camp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I am talking about your closure of this AfD. Any comments on that? Nsk92 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO there was in fact a clear consensus to delete in the AfD. Under those circumstances, where deletion is the clear and correct outcome, it is inappropriate to close as "no consensus" and re-route the discussion to a merge discussion at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp is old history. The latest AfD is Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination), which contains a mixture of "delete"s and "keep"s (and links to all the previous AfD's). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I see that I put the wrong wikilink in the header. I did not realize that you closed the original AfD as well. My post related to the latest AfD, Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination). Nsk92 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of power?

 * You just closed Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination).
 * You have also closed the first discussion Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp. What was a clear merge/delete.
 * You closed the first one as Casting vote without providing policy based arguments. The last one what should have been delete per arguments and !votes was closed by you as Keep as no concensus without giving policy based arguments.
 * Looking at these discussions could you please give us a policy based argumentation why the article does not fail WP:N WP:GNG. Secondly why did you not just lean back and let another administrator close this debate? IQinn (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The result was Keep as no concensus; this article has been under AfD almost continuously since 23 May 2010 over this and 2 previous AfD's all started by the same user." That user is you.  Don't accuse this editor of "Misuse of power" for closing this request when you are already reaching to the highest authority in WP.  POV-pushing?  "Little bit, little bit..." ;P Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To get more opinion in is not POV-pushing. Jimbo could have voted for Keep or whatever he wants. Wikipedia has no editorial board and that an article that is so clearly against policy that somebody called it even a hoax can not be deleted shows that the current quality control does not work so just fair enough to hear the opinion of Jimbo. IQinn (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your appeal to Jimbo is not POV-pushing: that's not what I meant at all. There seems to be a "common thread" to a few of your edits... hmmm.  I await Jimbo's response to your query as eagerly as you do.  In the meantime - it's not Anthony Appleyard's fault, now is it?  Nominate the article for deletion for a fifth time if you must.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have any problem i work on Guantanamo related articles? Is somebody who works mostly on Pokemon articles an POV-pusher? It may be nobodies fault that the process did not work as expected and it does not matter. But this is no excuse just to accept an faulty outcome. I am just interested in improving the content and i am looking forward to hear Anthony Appleyard's answers to my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2010 July 14

Deletion review for Al Fand training camp
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Fand training camp. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nsk92 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your fifth "go" at it: I really hope you're not going to fault any particular editor that closes this one way or the other? If it fails, there's always #6.  Don't hate the player - hate the game... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose fifth go at what? I have only participated in Afd no 3 and Afd no 4 but I did not nominate the article for deletion in either one of those. If you are insinuating something untoward about my actions here, why don't you first check your facts. Nsk92 (talk)

Talk:Apocalypse Rising

 * Has something gone wrong with this move? Seems the content/history has gone from the old page but the new page is a redirect (to itself) with no history. 86.180.248.183 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now been fixed. 86.180.248.183 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone likely saw it partway through a histmerge or complicated move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Heart FC

 * I propose to move this article back to its original name. The club website consistently refers to Melbourne Heart FC, not Melbourne Heart F.C. Imposing a name on the club that it does not use itself amounts to WP:OR. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now being discussed in Talk:Melbourne Heart F.C.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Move request

 * Over here, it looks as though you forgot to move Crişeni, Sălaj to Crişeni, as I asked. Might I repeat that request? Thank you. - Biruitorul Talk 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Paper Mario

 * I request for Paper Mario DS to be histmerged to Paper Mario 3DS SNS (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Parallel versions Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Crocodile

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

Green Cell Foam

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

Complicated-ish page move question

 * During my patrol, I came across Homosexuality/Sandbox, a workpage where some editors are rewriting Homosexuality. Problem: the workpage is in the main namespace, which is not acceptable per WP:SUB as I have read it. I was going to move it to Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox, but it is currently being used as the talk page of the workpage. I won't even guess what the suggested move target should be for each (talk and workpage). Do I need to start a discussion at WP:REQMOVE? Or is this considered housekeeping so it can be handled unilaterally? TheTito Discuss  05:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved Homosexuality/Sandbox to User:MishMich/Homosexuality, and its talk page with it. I have put an explaining note in User talk:MishMich. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I considered a move to user talkspace but I felt that I might be overstepping my bounds. TheTito Discuss  19:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma

 * I respectfully object to your close of this move as having consensus (votes do not equal consensus and even then there is no overwhelming majority). Actually, Carlos Hugo is referred to with his ducal title. In fact, most, if not all, pretenders to Parma are called dukes of Parma. This is evident all over the internet, in books, etc. May I, again respectfully, request that you revisit the issue of the move? It also contradicts our naming conventions. Thank you. Seven Letters 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Page Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma was last moved, to Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, at 00:04, 12 July 2010, by User:Cusio "Closing requested move with large consensus", not by me. 15:12, 24 July 2010 User:Anthony Appleyard
 * Ah, thank you for the clarification and I do sincerely apologize for believing it was you who closed the move. May I ask though, is a margin of one considered overwhelming consensus? There was little discussion other than the opposing editor. Seven Letters 18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not like to reverse the actions of an administrator, so please revert your closing of this requested move as it seems to me that the move was premature to close it particularly as without the IP opinion there was no clear consensus, and the person who made the move was involved in the debate. The issue has been raised on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and at least one other editor has expressed a desire to take part in the requested move. -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct link to the discussion at WP:NCRN: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). Seven Letters 21:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At 00:04, 12 July 2010, User:Cusio moved page Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma to Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma with move comment "Closing requested move with large consensus" but did not close the discussion.
 * At 18:16, 12 July 2010 User:Anthony Appleyard found the move already made, and closed the discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been moved again! Seven Letters 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Dab for horse sense

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

Animal Armageddon

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

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

APDU and Application protocol data unit articles - thanks
Thanks for your help sorting out these articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mine (song)
Thanks for merging the histories.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  07:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerns of copy-paste moves

 * The articles Princess Hélène d'Orléans and Amélie d'Orléans have been moved to those titles by copy-paste moves by the same user (who is engaging in undiscussed reversions against other users recently). Can they be moved to Princess Hélène of Orléans and Amélie of Orléans, respectively, and have the histories merged? Thanks! Seven Letters 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. The cut-and-pastes happened on 9 Feb 2010. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wine cocktails to Category:Cocktails with wine

 * IMHO, that didn't need to be relisted at CfD. We already had a discussion, and we agreed that the category should be Cocktails with wine, not wine cocktails.  Cydebot just messed up the moving of it. All you need to do is move it to the correct title, and speedily close the second CfD, which is just pointless bureaucracy Pur ple back pack  89    06:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But category pages (e.g. Category:Wine cocktails) don't have 'Move' tabs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Was my previous post unclear in some way? do not refactor my posts. Your changes are making the threads hard to read and go against normal convention on threads. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

APS Amphibious Rifle

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

Jessica (entertainer) and Kahi (entertainer)

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

OR
I don't mean a literal formatted section. I'm thinking of elements of the policy such as: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist."
 * 10:33, 7 August 2010 User:Peter cohen

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

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

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

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

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

Neiva

 * Please move Neiva, Colombia to Neiva, Huila acording with the style established for municipalities in Colombia that require disambiguation. Luisfege (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Saltwater Crocodile --> Saltwater crocodile

 * Hi Anthony. Thanks for moving my ant article. I put in a request for Saltwater Crocodile --> Saltwater crocodile. You removed it from the list as done, but it is still the same. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now ✅. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. You are a gooooooooooood Wikipedian! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move assist

 * Please help My move request from this edit was not done and need to be fixed by an admin because of my stupid error. Please assist me in this. If you need more input from me, please post on my talk. Thanks as always--you're a life-saver. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ move You? me? us? to You? Me? Us?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I felt like a real jerk there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Name changed and then back again

 * Hi again. I requested Red Wolf --> Red wolf. It was done. But then, it was changed back.
 * I asked the editor why. He replied here. I am not sure what is right. Could you please help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, at User talk:Moriori, which see for continued discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ria van Dyke

 * Hi, I notice that you speedily deleted the article on Ria van Dyke. I did not create the article but I think it might have been better to go for a PROD.  The reason for speedy deletion that you gave requires that there is no indication of the any significance of the subject at all.  The criterion is not the same as notability.  As I recall the article, it did mention that she was Miss New Zealand or something.  Possibly not the most prestigious title ever but enough, I would have thought, to mean that you should go for a PROD rather than speedy deletion.  Yaris678 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted and AfD'ed page Ria van Dyke. See Articles for deletion/Ria van Dyke. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete on Mercedes Lackey biblio
Hi, you recently performed a speedy delete on Bibliography of Mercedes Lackey (I think). I understand why the article seemed unnecessary, but I feel the existing article Mercedes_Lackey_Collections doesn't appropriately convey the information, and that a bibliography would be a better form rather than having a list in an arbitrary order as this article has (also, if it's simply a list of books in a series, "other works" doesn't truly belong). Regardless, I was wondering if: I could get the contents of the article back, perhaps on my talk page somewhere; and also what you might recommend as a better way to get the article into the form of a proper bibliography. Would suggesting the current article be moved be a more appropriate solution? Thanks! Darquis (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article back :) Darquis (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Punisher move...

 * Just to nail every thing down... Why was the page moved?
 * General naming convention is to not include "The" an articles about characters in works of fiction. And the move discusion of the article's talk page was closed as "no consensus" in July.
 * Was it proposed as an "uncontriversal" move?
 * - J Greb (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an uncontroversial-type request in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=381376102#Uncontroversial_requests . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... the editor decided to do an end run. Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Complicated proposal?

 * Hello - I see you are the cut and paste/history repair guru. I've got a question for you. Here's the scenario. Once upon a time, there were two pages: Ain't and Amn't. At some point Amn't was merged into Ain't. Then this May, Ain't was moved to Contraction of am not, which is the current situation. I would like to move some of the "ain't"-specific content to a new Ain't, but don't know how to reconcile all the history/talk pages. I'd greatly appreciate any help/advice you can give. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the history of Contraction of am not (which was formerly at Ain't), it seems that the change from discussing "Ain't" only to discussing other verb contractions happened too gradually to make a sharp history-split point. I see no need for history-merging. Currently the histories of Ain't and Talk:Ain't (undeleted and deleted) are a few redirects and a blanking. As the two expressions are somewhat linked (i.e. both are used for "am not"), I am tempted to suggest leaving Contraction of am not as it is; see the discussion at Talk:Amn't.
 * Or split off Ain't and Amn't and leave Contraction of am not as a disambig page (which could also have a ==Distinguish from== line about "haint" = "ghost"); Talk:Contraction of am not seems to be all about "Ain't", so move it to Talk:Ain't.
 * "Ain't" is very common, but in my experience here in England "amn't" is rare, and awkward to pronounce, and I suspect that it is liable to simplify to "ant" and from there to become "ain't". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I wound up taking the "ain't" material out of Contraction of am not, with a link to a repopulated Ain't page. Hopefully it won't cause too many complications. Dohn joe (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it may still be complicated. Since Ain't already existed, I couldn't do my plan, which was move Contraction of am not to Ain't, and then cut and paste just the "am not"-related material back to Contraction of am not. This way, the most relevant edit history would've remained with Ain't, where it belongs. Now, though, that history is still on Contraction of am not, and I don't know how to fix it. I hope this is more of a "fun challenge" than a "big mess". If I can fix it, please let me know how; if not, I'd love your help/referral to someone who can. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the history of Contraction of am not, the "amn't" matter starts at the edit at 13:30, 22 February 2010 by User:LtPowers (merge content from Amn't). But history-splitting here would create the equivalent of another cut-and-paste move. Perhaps move to Ain't all edits of Contraction of am not except the edit at 23:12, 28 August 2010 by User:Dohn joe (and except any edits made after that)? (And lose the old redirect and blanking edits of Ain't.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ histmerge Contraction of am not (except a few latest edits) to Ain't. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments on capitalization of common names of species (redux)
I would love your input on this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for notifying me that you "converted" my PROD into an AfD – ╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your apology. NB, you have a reply. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 11:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, again. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► most serene ─╢ 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than deploying a fallacious argument, please visit the AfD page and substantiate your point. Thanks in advance. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► Lord Speaker ─╢ 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than deploying a fallacious argument, please visit the AfD page and substantiate your point. Thanks in advance. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 07:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately obstinate or if you genuinely do not understand Wikipedia's notability rules. If you want the subject to be considered notable, you are required to point to several reliable sources which "significantly cover" the topic. One self-published website and a NOTINHERITED violation just don't cut it. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately obstinate or if you genuinely do not understand Wikipedia's notability rules. If you want the subject to be considered notable, you are required to point to several reliable sources which "significantly cover" the topic. One self-published website and a NOTINHERITED violation just don't cut it. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► condominium ─╢ 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately obstinate or if you genuinely do not understand Wikipedia's notability rules. If you want the subject to be considered notable, you are required to point to several reliable sources which "significantly cover" the topic. One self-published website and a NOTINHERITED violation just don't cut it. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 08:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately obstinate or if you genuinely do not understand Wikipedia's notability rules. If you want the subject to be considered notable, you are required to point to several reliable sources which "significantly cover" the topic. One self-published website and a NOTINHERITED violation just don't cut it. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma (2)

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

RE: Kahi (entertainer) move

 * This page move was heavily contested, and ended up not going through, with a user and his/her many sockpuppets being banned. Looks like another sock has returned, but you still allowed the page to get moved, even though you declined it about a month earlier due to the sock issues.  Can I ask what happened? SKS (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That move was requested in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=382419419#Uncontroversial_requests . I have now moved the page back to Kahi (entertainer). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was this reverted? When the poster said there was proof of correct naming? Reading the first move there were 4 Comments, 2 Supports and 1 Oppose that is not heavily contested? It just seems like there wasn't enough time for proper consensus. 201.88.202.10 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please continue this discussion in Talk:Kahi (entertainer). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Hall (disambiguation), Masonic Hall switch.

 * This move had nothing to do with the previous now settled mess over at Masonic Temple (disambiguation). The pages need to be switched so I can redirect Masonic Hall to the article about Masonic Halls, Masonic Temple. Read Masonic Temple and you'll get the basic idea. PeRshGo (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This request was in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=382540652 and seemed to say that you wanted someone to move the page Requested moves to Masonic Hall (disambiguation) (The name should direct to the meaning of the term first.) and the previous page Masonic Hall (disambiguation) to Masonic Hall. Is that intended? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically I want Masonic Hall & Masonic Hall (disambiguation) switched. I can then take care of the rest. PeRshGo (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting method you have there :P PeRshGo (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Merger of Short run to Long run with title change to Long run and short run
Hello, again Mr. Appleyard. The above is the proposal from a month ago at Talk:Long run on which there has been no dissent. I did a by-the-numbers copy of Short run to the Long run.

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

Too Many Rappers

 * You said, "This move asks for the redirect-only page Too Many Rappers to be moved to itself." But it doesn't - I was asking for the single "Too Many Rappers" to be separated from it's parent album which it's currently tied to as a redirect. If you could just un-redirect it, I'll create the article. Is there a clearer way I can make this known for similar instances in the future? Thanks, Wikkitywack (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you try to go to Too Many Rappers, it will take you to Hot Sauce Committee, Pt. 1, which will start "Hot Sauce Committee, Pt. 1 / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia / (Redirected from Too Many Rappers)". Click on that name Too Many Rappers (which will be in small type). That will take you to page Too Many Rappers, displaying the redirect. Click on the "Edit" tab and edit as usual. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! You know what? I think I discovered that the other day but it didn't click... thanks for the reminder! I'll get on it... Wikkitywack (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection

 * Do you have any problem if the page Kevlar, a page you protected years ago is unprotected? The page were under WP:PC and the vandalism seemed to be reduced. I taked it to WP:RFUP, but I were requested to take it with the protecting admin. Thank you. Tb hotch Ta lk <sup style="color:#2C1608;">C.  22:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At 23:15 on 8 September 2010 User:Dabomb87 unprotected page Kevlar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment
See – <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► voice vote ─╢ 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See – <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See – <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Captain-Regent ─╢ 19:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Music merges

 * I found several uncontroversial soundtrack/album merges (some of which needed tedious tracklist overhaul!) Is there an equivalent to an "uncontroversial moves" section for merges? I want to "be bold"! They are as follows:
 * Soundtracks: Americathon (soundtrack) → Americathon; The Basketball Diaries (soundtrack) → The Basketball Diaries (film); Singles (soundtrack) → Singles (1992 film); Hype! (soundtrack) → Hype!; Mallrats (soundtrack) → Mallrats
 * Albums: Klassics with a "K" → Kostars; Little Village (album) → Little Village; and, last but not least, my own special mistake: Microfish (Spys4Darwin album) → Spys4Darwin
 * Also, is there a script/bot/something available to quickly add new navbox templates to artists with very large discographies? Thanks, Wikkitywack (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These 8 asked-for requests are controversial to me: some likely would say that the article about the record should stay separate from the article about the film or group.
 * For the script/etc, ask in Village pump? I know nothing about writing Wikipedia scripts or bots. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually would be willing to label the above albums as "potentially controversial" as they could conceivably produce sequels and some of them have a few singles. But the soundtracks, I believe, are rather uncontroversial and really should be a part of their parent films because there's a more direct connection/overlap. And for convenience's sake - if I'm surveying a film page I want to see all the facets laid out and not have to open a separate page. Regardless, I guess, I'll have to make my case in the regular merge forums. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bing

 * How come you made this edit way back in October of last year (2009). Wouldn't it make sense to keep the Bing disambiguation titled as such? since it is a disambiguation page.-- intraining  Jack In  11:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ADDING also... according to this page Disambiguation it says the Disambiguation tag should be placed in the title.-- intraining  Jack In  12:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That move was requested in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=321678751#Uncontroversial_requests.
 * If a disambiguatable page title does not have a dominant meaning, then the disambig page is at the plain name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the discussion on the Bing talk page about redirecting "Bing" to Bing (search engine) is so outdated and factually wrong that it should be totally invalid and the search term "Bing" should redirect to Bing (search engine). What is your opinion?-- intraining  Jack In  14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people are more aware of Bing Crosby than of the search engine. Best assume "no dominant meaning" and let page Bing be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * meh Bing Crosby is merely a dead american actor-- intraining  Jack In  15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ADDING do you think the discussion on the Bing talk page should be re-opened?-- intraining  Jack In  15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Bing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied... you are an obvious troll i'm done with you bye.-- intraining  Jack In  15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Bing (search engine). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Park Kahi

 * Can I move this page to her original name or do you have to do it? Doesn't make sense when Park Kahi is available? Okaiyo (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This move is being discussed at Talk:Kahi Park. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Jung page move

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


 * The above person is right see News articles for proof. Jessica Jung is just as popular as Jessica. Do official sites even count as proof on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.84.116.88 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both ips have been blocked as InkHeart proxies. Syrthiss (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anthony how could you? You know that my argument makes more sense. Help me out here, please? 201.16.244.186 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy/paste move mess

 * So while working copyrights I came across a pair of cut/paste moves that could use history merges, but I'm not sure the easiest way to set them up, so I figured I'd ask you directly instead of just templating the pages. Corporate group was copy/pasted into Corporate group (sociology) and then Business group was copy/pasted over the top of Corporate group. Any chance you could straighten this out? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quickie on Toxteth riots

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

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

Speedy Deletion

 * Thanks for Speedy Deleting James Trussart Custom Guitars, Anthony. I haven't been editing Wikipedia for very long and must say I had a good laugh when I came across this article and immediately dropped a speedy deletion box on the page. I feel like I have arrived, so alive... :) I suppose it is bad form to delete a page oneself has marked for deletion? SpencerCollins (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Only Wikipedia administrators (and higher grades) can delete pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Complicated case

 * Hi there Anthony, as you have an extensive amount of work with history merging, I though I'd shoot a problematic case. The two articles are Mastermind (Beast 3rd Mini Album) and Mastermind (EP). The former was created first and is better developed (~4,000 bytes), while the latter was created 22 minutes later, extremely underdeveloped (~300 bytes). I was originally attempting to move the former title the latter, only to get that dreadful pink notice, but because of the timing of the creations, a simple history merge couldn't do. I really have no idea how to handle it, so I though you could give it a look. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have redirected Mastermind (EP) to Mastermind (which is a disambig page). Wikipedia lists 7 songs and albums called `Mastermind'. This is no place for a history-merge: see WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is inserting article B into another article A & retaining history of B OK?
HI, A. Say that: Retaining the history of A through A as a Redirect would have the advantage that if A was resurrected as a separate article (say b/c it was getting too large for B), there would be its earlier history intact.
 * B is still a Stub after 5 years into its history with little added text
 * A is a more comprehensive subject
 * the Redirect of B is of the form #Redirect[[A#B}}.

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

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


 * The subjects of two pages Hold-up problem and Theory of the firm seem to be distinct. Best keep them as separate pages. I see no point text-merging them. Their histories are completely distinct, and I see no cause to history-merge them, and see WP:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


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

IMDB

 * Thought you'd like to know that your edit to Template:IMDb name has caused the IMDB link to be replaced with "REDIRECT Template:IMDb name" at the bottom of every article it's used in. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true for all the IMDb templates, there is a double redirect that needs to be fixed. It has literally broken links on hundreds of thousands of pages.
 * The templates are currently going: Imdb XXXX→IMDB XXXX→IMDb XXXX. It should be a simple fix but those pages are protected. BOVINEBOY 2008 09:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to be waiting for bots and buffers (e.g. User:Xqbot) to catch up with their work. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please be so kind to fix at least full-protected double redirects such as Template:Imdb title? While eventualism is certainly great, spending a couple of minutes to fix several thousand pages makes a lot of sense. 62.140.253.9 (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:IMDb_title, and it seems that with redirects (direct or indirect) to Template:IMDb title, users and the bot User:Xqbot have caught up with clearing up the double redirects (e.g. at 09:21 on 23 September 2010 User:Xqbot with the redirect Template:Imdb movie). See Special:Contributions/Xqbot. We may now be waiting for buffers to flush. I found out before that when a template has been moved, waiting for the link system's buffers to all flush and catch up with the move, is sometimes like waiting for the snail to come home. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. Strandwallen en duinen


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

2. Getijdengebied (zandwadden, slikken en kwelders)


 * Getijdengebied means: tidal area/region (where getijde(n) means 'tide(s)', and gebied means 'area').


 * The term zandwadden cannot be found in the best Dutch dictionary available (the Van Dale dictionary). But the word is composed of two parts: zand, meaning 'sand', and wadden, meaning: (mud) flat(s), shallow(s).


 * I think slikken (singular slik) are mud flats. My Dutch-English dictionary says: 1. mud flat; 2. silt, warp, sediment, deposit.


 * Kwelders (singular kwelder) are overgrown sediments — outside the dikes — no longer (or seldom) covered by water during high tide. The Dutch word is primarily used to refer to such areas/plains found in the north of the Netherlands (Friesland and Groningen). I think 'salt marshes' might be a good translation. The Dutch-English dictionary says: salt-marsh, salt-meadow; tidal marsh(es), mud flats. The term corresponds to Tidal marsh on Wikipedia.

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


 * The word veenmoerassen (singular veenmoeras) is made up of veen (peat) and moerassen (marshes), so literally it means 'peat marshes', though I haven't been able to find a definition of the Dutch term, not even in the WNT (which can be found here). But I suppose it means what it says.


 * Komgronden (singular komgrond) are deposits of fine river silt in low areas (kommen) near a river formed when the river overflows. The phrase Komgronden grote rivieren means such deposits (pieces of land) near large or major rivers, because grote means large (great).


 * I think that 'old river courses' may be a fairly good brief translation of verlande stroomgordels, as verlande means 'turned into land' and a stroomgordel (plural stroomgordels) is the former sedimentary area in and around a river, including the filled-up channel itself and the riverbanks.


 * A crevasse (plural crevassen) is a breach in a riverbank and appears to be the same word in English.

4. Dal van de grote rivieren (niet overveend)


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

5. Rivierduinen (donken)


 * Rivierduinen (singular rivierduin) are low hills of sand along a river formed by drifted sand (or other material). 'River dunes' is OK.


 * A donk (plural donken) is a hill, often a river dune or a buried river dune dating from the last glacial period (Weichsel). It's not a common Dutch word. The translation I found in a bilingual dictionary is: Pleistocene dune. But the Van Dale dictionary tells me a donk may also just be a swamp, a marsh. I'm sure, though, that the translation you're looking for is Pleistocene dune.

6. Open water (zee, lagunes, rivieren)


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

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


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

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

If I were to translate a book about geology, I would probably first do some thorough research to familiarise myself with the terminology in both languages. But obviously there was no time for that now. Still, I hope you find the information useful. All the best, --ErikvanB (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would only question two of those. I agree "old river course" is a decent literal translation of verlande stroomgordels, but it doesn't ring true to my ear, especially since I tend to think of oxbow lakes when I hear "old river course." I'll bet that alluvial plain is actually what is meant, but that would need further discussion with native Dutch speakers. "Crevasse" also seems doubtful to me, although I haven't got a better word. A "crevasse" in English includes just a large dry crack in the land with no relationship to rivers at all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a geologist and Dutch is my mother tongue. I agree with the translations ErikvanB came up with. "Kwelder" is a tidal flat with vegetation on it, directly adjacent to the shore (dike); as opposed to a "wad", which is a tidal flat farther offshore, without vegetation. Verlande stroomrug/gordel would be "old river channel". EN oxbow lake = NL hoefijzermeer. EN alluvial plain = NL spoelvlakte. EN crevasse (a crack in a glacier) = NL gletsjerspleet. EN crevasse (a small channel over a point bar along a river) = NL crevasse. Regards, <font color="#223300">W <font color="#335500">oo <font color="#557700">dwa <font color="#669900">lk <font color="#77AA00">er talk 15:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

 * Hi, A while ago you moved the original presidential elections in Singapore to presidential elections in Singapore/version 1 to allow for an uncontroversial subpage-to-mainspace move. However, the old version's still technically in article space and is still being tagged by bots. Would a better idea be to move the old version to talk space? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Presidential elections in Singapore/version 1 is now at Talk:Presidential elections in Singapore/version 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ain't and amn't
Would you look in on the naming dispute here? -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)