User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/October-December

Ely etymology
I am surprised at your recent poorly sourced insertion of an etymology section into Ely in this diff. I am especially suprised as the article has been marked with Refimprove since June 2008; you thus appear to be making this article even more poorly referenced. I may of course be wrong, in that you intend returning soon to add inline citations of reliable sources to these recent additions—Senra (Talk) 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of reliability of JISCMail at Reliable sources/Noticeboard as I am honestly not sure --Senra (Talk) 10:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I came across this on the RSN page, leaving the reliability aside, I'm surprised as a long term editor you are not aware that we do not use bare external links in the text of articles? External links should either be provided as references or used clearly in an external link section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

 * Thanks for fixing Kataragama versus Kataragama temple article, but people have messed up all the work you did, now you have two articles with the same page history. What can you do ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, they have two articles one with a page revision (i.e Kataragama temple) is the same as the new Kataragama article, it is a cut and pase job. Now we no longer have a dissambiguation page anymore. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored page Kataragama to the disambig page and added another meaning and I have put it on my watch list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

History-merge info
Thanks for the information about history merge, my mistake. Thanks. Xguilex (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Eulsa treaty overview
When you closed the move discussion, the block-save text excludes two relevant sections -- compare Revision history of Talk:Eulsa Treaty. As you can see, this text was posted prior your closing decision; and the substance is explicitly related to the topic of re-naming:
 * Final straw
 * Summary for thread-closing administrator

I have two requests:
 * A. Please encompass these sections within the archived discussion thread.
 * B. Please reconsider your decision in light of these brief restatements.

The overview provides a fine-focus summary of relevant elements in this context. --Tenmei (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have put the end tag in the right place. I did consider this text; I have seen several of this sort of discussion before, which rhubarbs on repetitively for weeks and never comes to a decision. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|180px|Parsing argument content &mdash; acknowledging categories of constructive comments:
 * Refuting the Central Point * Refutation * Counterargument ____________ Identifying remarks which are unhelpful: * Contradiction * Responding to Tone * Ad Hominem  ]]
 * Please explain in different words.


 * We learn from experience; and if this is to be useful as a lesson learned the hard way, please clarify what your closure means.


 * As you know, the graph at the right is posted as an illustrative device at WP:Dispute resolution. In Talk:Eulsa Treaty, it seems to me that any hope for WP:Consensus was thwarted by Contradiction. Have I construed this much correctly?


 * Did I misunderstand the purpose or function of the venue?


 * In the limited forum of WP:Requested moves, were each of the participants expected to know from the outset that your role as administrator is to evaluate mere contradiction as equivalent to refutation and counter-argument? If so, please make that conventional policy explicit so that we can be guided accordingly.


 * In other words, should we have understood that the graphic representation of the hierarchy of disagreement was inappropriate as a useful dispute resolution model in this specific instance? --Tenmei (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Down the years I have seen plenty of the sort of long discussion which goes on for weeks and gets to be longer than the article that it is about and never comes to a concensus. This discussion looked like becoming one of those. When I closed that discussion at 08:35 on 4 October 2010 that discussion had already been running for 34 days (31 Aug to 4 Oct 2010) without coming to a concensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The so-called "discussion" dragged out over an even longer period of time. It was initiated on August 8 and re-listed on August 31.  It was clear early on that no consensus would be possible.  My questions are not complaints, but rather a set of practical responses to a murky set of issues. For example, in the broadest possible sense ...
 * What could we have done differently?
 * What should I have done more effectively?
 * It seems that we were wrong when we construed the addition of Eulsa Treaty in this venue was a potentially constructive step.


 * At a minimum, I expected an administrator to encourage using the hierarchy of disagreement graphic as a tool. I viewed this venue as a mechanism for moving the stalled "non-discussion" forward.  That did not happen; and now I am beginning to guess that it was never even a possibility.  Aha -- I see that I missed the point.


 * Our experience suggests that the function of this venue was not adequately explained or understood. This is why I am trying to ask pertinent questions.


 * In this context, I see that I need to thank you for closing the thread. Thank you for helping us to recognize that this venue has nothing further to offer. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "What could we have done differently?": in many of these discussions, there are arguments for "yes" and arguments for "no", and no concensus and no clear majority, and the difference of opinion cannot be avoided. Anyway, the losing name redirects to the winning name, so both names find the article. Same as that e.g. I, being British, have to put up with page Petrol redirecting to page Gasoline, although I always call it petrol. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I sought assistance here &mdash; Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:
 * A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
 * Leave it at its current name?
 * To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
 * To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
 * To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
 * Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.
 * B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.
 * In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer. In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is in demand
Hello Anthony Appleyard, could you please have a look on paragraph Talk:Eulsa Treaty and tell us on this discussion page wheather the first two tables there are all right in your opinion or not? Thank you. Greetings --Valentim (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Back It Up!! (Nils Lofgren album)

 * Regarding the recent move discussion, you might have given your suggestion a little more time for consideration before going ahead and implementing it (and since you participated in the discussion, does your closure not violate WP:RMCI?). Also, while I'm aware of your disambiguiation preferences from your comments at RM, do note that WP:PRECISION is part of Wikipedia policy, and suggests that the punctuation is significant enough. PC78 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I closed that discussion, its link was already in Requested moves. As regards punctiation, often people remember a pop music item only by the text of the name without remembering case of letters and contained punctuation marks, when typing its name into Wikipedia looking for information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address my concerns. As a participant in the discussion, I don't think it was appropriate for you to close the discussion, certainly not in favour of your own suggestion which was made less than 24 hours previously. And you still haven't explained your disregard for article naming policy. The punctuation would have been a sufficient disambiguator, and hatnotes would have taken care of the rest. But now people must find these articles via a dab page. This is not an improvement. PC78 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, I have reopened this discussion, at Talk:Back It Up!! (Nils Lofgren album). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I'll have a look at that in a bit. PC78 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Diesel fuel

 * I accepted the pending change which you later (or before) reverted. I was planning to add as a reference. It's a reliable source from the Jan/Feb 1997 edition of Backwoods Home Magazine.   Goodvac   ( talk ) 08:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for self-reverting.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 08:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Doric

 * I was wondering about your move of Doric_dialect_(Scotland) earlier this year. Is this a specialist area of yours? I would say Doric is by far the most commonly used term. It was unpopular and I have to agree with the individuals --LevenBoy (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Page Mid Northern Scots has been moved a few times but not by me.
 * At 22:45, 4 August 2010 I redirected Doric dialect (Scotland) to Mid Northern Scots, as Doric dialect (Scotland)'s text was also all in page Mid Northern Scots and it was a content forking. The word "Doric" correctly refers to a dialect of Ancient Greek, but some classics scholar re-used it to mean a Scottish dialect of English. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unicode character property page move is controversial

 * Hi, I saw you moved Unicode character property --> Unicode character properties. This page name was disputed, and therefor should not be moved as "uncontroversial". Also, the new name you gave is plural, which is not preferred by WP:NAME at all. I suggest you revert the move.
 * This is the history (the move log does not show all?),
 * Name history:
 * Unicode character properties initial name (by me)
 * Character property (Unicode), move into singular, using a "(dab)" addition (by me).
 * Unicode character property, different name by User:Labattblueboy, I contested here (but I did not revert).
 * Unicode character properties by you. "uncontroversial"? Clearly not. Probably the requesting user knew. Should have started a Talk. -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Left a note about this at the requesters talk. Invited them to start a RM-discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page back to Unicode character property. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wheelock

 * Hi Anthony, I deleted that text from Wheelock, Cheshire because it consisted of either trivia or unreferenced material (which was mostly trivia as well) from 2008. Do you thnk it could be brought up to scratch? I did think about looking for some references, but statements such as "Wheelock has a large housing esate" probably don't merit it. What do you think? Thanks, RC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Roman Candle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The information that I restored in this difference can be checked by going to Wheelock. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do that, but would it constitute original research? I wouldn't have a problem with it. Maybe OR is too tightly defined, but I've seen a few cases here where OR has been mentioned. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Elise Harris deletion/salting
Thanks for helping. Alwayssoma (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Alwayssoma
 * Hello, a page I worked on a little, trying to collect references has been deleted for lack of notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Harris Fair enough, and the deletion discussion was a bit fraught with drama and accusations sockpuppetry (I did not take part but it seems to have got quite vicious) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Harris - however it was on my watch list and I notice the page has now been indefinitely salted because of "multiple deletions and recreations". If that link to the page is correct there WAS a frivolous creation of the page in 2007 but the only other deletion/creation before the latest one was when someone asked for a different version of the page to be migrated over. The subject of the article might or might not have enough references of notability now but that doesn't mean there might not be enough in the future. Salting seems a bit harsh. Is there a procedure to reverse the salting in the future if more notability becomes apparent? And have the accusations of sockpuppetry in the deletion discussion been looked into? Is there a way to check? Discussion -
 * The AfD Articles for deletion/Elise_Harris decided on "delete", and any new appeal for undeletion would likely get the same verdict, unless she does something major new to become more notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Copiapó talk
OK, sorry about that then. --Diego Grez (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:International multi-sport events

 * Hi there, thanks for assisting with the move. Should Template talk:International multi-sport events be deleted since there's nothing much with the template talk page redirect? Thanks, A NG C HENRUI WP:MSE♨ 06:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More than 50 articles link to Template talk:International multi-sport events. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't figure out why there are so many, since they aren't listed as transcluded links. They can't possibly be direct text links to Template talk:International multi-sport events can they? A NG C HENRUI WP:MSE♨ 10:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, at the bottom of page World Games is a collapsible transclusion of, and at the left end of that transclusion (in its collapsed form) are 3 small letters: v (link to the template), d (link to the template's talk page), e (link to the template in edit mode). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought so. Though the links page didn't list (Transclusion) next to the links. A NG C HENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

shroud of turin

 * I went to make an addition to the Shroud of Turin page (a small one) and was not able to do so, even though it states that autoconfirmed editors (and I am one) can do so. Please correct this as soon as possible.  Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you have now made the edits: . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Alvito Municipality

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alvito,_Portugal&diff=374278865&oldid=344541220 - since it is about the municipality it should be Alvito Municipality. Then Alvito, Portugal can be about the town which is located in the municipality. Some municipalities in Portugal contain several towns and/or cities. Thank you if you could move it.TigreTiger (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now in Requested moves as a to-be-discussed move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

IncrediCube

 * For what reason the article about IncrediCube was deleted? IncrediCube is a real and highly serious entity. It is an Internet company devoted to the development of an advanced CMS for mostly academic uses. You can Google the company - IncrediCube - as well as Eyal Engelhardt Ari and Ethan Kushner and see for yourself that these are serious people. Eyal, who is an academic, has published a lot of material both in the field of social history and new internet technologies. Ethan is a respected business executive. The article is not intended as a promotion and is not spam. It is a genuine article meant to give information about a real company and its activities. All the information in it is verifiable and drawn from reliable sources.
 * Hulego (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Page Incredicube was deleted 3 times as advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident Translator slavery!

 * Thank you from all of us! Veriss (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

'DOZAKH'

 * May I ask why? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, typo, I have reverted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was wondering if it was a prelude to some act of deletion. Cheerio, Drmies (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident
Anthony, can you pop over to this discussion on Copiapo mine accident talk page and tell me if I'm being trolled or if I'm too thick to understand his question? Thanks, Veriss (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tianyi Film Company

 * Hi, you omitted to record the reason when you deleted the article Tianyi Film Company. The entity appears from other article links to be sufficiently notable; what was the problem, please? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It has only 2 edits: they are:
 * 16:32, 4 March 2010 by User:Dave.Shun: its text is "天一电影公司", which is Chinese for "Tianyi Film Company".
 * 03:38, 5 March 2010 by User:AMK152: its text is " ".
 * I deleted it at 10:22, 5 March 2010. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - no great loss, although the Chinese name may come in useful! - Fayenatic (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 天一 tian yi means "sky/heaven one". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Securities Industry Association renaming or deletion?
I'd proposed and backed the renaming of this article to Security Industry Association, since that was the name of the association the article content addressed. You executed one of two actions yesterday which resulted in the deletion rather than the renaming of the article. I've discussed this in more detail here, at the page of the other editor involved yesterday. Maybe total deletion was intended by one or both of you, but other editors had indicated agreement with the idea of renaming on the (now-deleted) talk pages. I'd appreciate your further input.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Peter Karlsen has given his view of the history of the development at the above "here" link, indicating the deletion was intentional because of cut-and-paste copyright violations by Vegas949. He also referred me to you if I had made original contributions to the deleted article. I had not -- I came at the whole problem from the Securities side. Peter did not say who'd made the deletion determination and sort of seemed to want to say I'd wasted his time on renaming by initiating it without, I guess, catching the violations. I did invest alot in the article's renaming, partly because it was new territory for me, partly because it seemed to be in what I see as the generally weaker business realm of the encyclopedia.

If I may ask, isn't this also the kind of violation which often gets addressed with an advisory template, looking for improvement?

If you care to go further on this, I guess I haven't quite given it up or made full sense of what happened. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Articles for deletion/Security Industry Association. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Well, thank you. I've responded in some detail at Articles for deletion/Security Industry Association, with background, new info, ideas and the hope we don't have to start from scratch.

One specific which may be in your power alone to help with I mention there but repeat (revised) here:


 * On the old talk page of the old Securities Industry Association page, I think it was, where discussion was proceeding about my name-change proposal, I worked out the template to refer inquiries about the Securities Industry Association to the successor SIFMA page. If that template could be retrieved, I'd appreciate it; would save doing it again. It would of course be better than having Securities Industry Association redirect to the now-correctly named and unrelated Security Industry Association page. Maybe a corresponding template at SIFMA would be wise, too, though, since maintaining the name-distinction is difficult. I'd do that.

Thanks again for your work on this. Nice boost the temporary respite has given me. I really was pretty discouraged, above there. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of English language idioms derived from falconry for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article English language idioms derived from falconry, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/English language idioms derived from falconry until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — out of focus 03:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Democracy is Freedom

 * Hi Anthony, I noticed that you moved Democracy is Freedom – The Daisy to Democracy Is Freedom – The Daisy as an uncontroversial move. It was controversial indeed as è (in English is) was not capitalized in the original name of the party. We discussed that before and there was no consensus about the move. I urge you to move back the article to your previous title. Many thanks. --Checco (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See Naming conventions (capitalization). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Series 10


The article Series 10 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Series 2


The article Series 2 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Series 3


The article Series 3 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Series 5


The article Series 5 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Series 8


The article Series 8 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Series 9


The article Series 9 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Urquiza Line (Buenos Aires)

 * Hey Anthony Appleyard, thanks for moving Línea Urquiza (Buenos Aires) to Urquiza Line (Buenos Aires), for some reason i was not able to do it, anyway, Got A Question; a′m not too savvy with the licensing procedures, but got a friend who uploaded the following images for me → http://www.flickr.com/photos/19522461@N00/  and i dont know if i can use them in Wikimedia Commons, he told me to use any of them and he even named the page Galería de para_wikipedia, Gallery for Wikipedia, any way i could use them without bothering the photographer too much, please let me know your thoughts, kindly —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is information about this at Upload/Flickr. Or see Media copyright questions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for the move of Vyacheslav Gaizer. Have to see if the new editor comes back to it to add some content now! Mechanical digger (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your patient work and for your note, AA. Redheylin (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Any action required for this cut and paste move?

 * Hello Anthony, I have seen you at the cut and paste move holding pen a ton, and was wondering if any action is necessary for this? After I reverted the IP, I hastily apologized and asked for an explanation; they then proceeded to undo the cut and paste. Any input would be appreciated. Regards, Airplaneman   ✈  05:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it as it is. The word "The" is part of the episode's title. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. Airplaneman   ✈  23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Previously deleted article 'resurrected'

 * Hi. An article you previously deleted in 2008, Nigel Spencer, on grounds of notability has been recreated under slightly differentl title Nigel Spencer (writer) by apparently the same editor using a slightly different User Name. Appears to be a clear conflict on interest and misuse of multiple accounts. Just wondering what the next step should be? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have AfD'ed it: Articles for deletion/Nigel Spencer (writer). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems correct. Haven't had much experience myself with AfDs. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article probably meets notability requirements, (you may have seen my efforts to 'wikify' the page). Hope you don't think I've been deliberately wasting your time, but the CoI matter 'muddied the waters'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheraman Perumals

 * Your move on style grounds has been reverted. I do not know how this could be done as one cannot normally move to a pre-existent title. Please advise. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If page A has only one edit in its (not deleted) history, and that edit is a redirect to page B, then ordinary members can move page B to name A. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. And now what? The move is a simple style issue, but should it be submitted to moves requested? Redheylin (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put this move in as controversial: see Talk:Cheraman Perumal. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about leaving a junk WP:RM in my sandbox. I was just doing some testing of the template and forgot that it would get copied across to the real page by the bot! Thanks for raking it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion
Regarding Talk:Mission_Earth_(novel), please see my recent research efforts, resulting in the creation of new article, Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Music To Picture
Hello Anthony A page was created entitled Music To Picture, and it is being considered for deletion by two administrators. I can partially see their point in that not much has been written about this album, even though the few references listed are legit and noteworthy. ASCAP is one of the three leading performance rights organizations and the link provided lists many songs Terry Silverlight has written that have been aired in TV and film. The other references listed are equally as reliable with references to Terry Silverlight's notable work. Whether this page is deleted or not isn't a major issue. The main concern is that they are implying a possible deletion of the main Terry Silverlight page. That I find unreasonable and will do whatever possible to dispute that. It's a concern that these two administrators are referring to the deletion warning that still exists on the Terry Silverlight discussion page. The fact is, that warning was issued early on in the article's life, and since that point everything needing improvement has been corrected. So, the warning at this point is completely inapplicable. Had the administrators been more thorough, they would have followed the edit history of the page and found that out for themselves. They're going back in time about something that no longer is a problem with that article. Before a response is made to the Music To Picture talk page, or any significant action is taken, I was hoping to get your advice how to proceed. Would you advise responding to them, or just let it go at this point? I'd like to prevent an issue with a new deletion for Terry Silverlight, so do you think it's best to step in now, or wait. Thank you for your Wikipedia expertise. Fjwihjs (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Best add your opinion to the page Articles for deletion/Music To Picture. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reelin' In the Years
Ah... good point. "Are you reelin' in the years/Stowin' away the time" etc. etc. "Reelin'", "Stowin'", "Gatherin'"... context is everything! Steely Dan lyrics tend to be quite impressionistic, so I guess I got it into my head that he meant "reeling" as in "thrown off balance", feeling dizzy with the rush of it all or something... in which case it would be "Reelin' in the Years". My bad. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut&paste move from Henrietta Anne Stuart to Princess Henrietta of England

 * That was quick :-) ; I was still working on the Cut and paste move repair holding pen description when I noticed that the move had already been made. On more issue though: The discussion page with a lot of info is still at the original location Talk:Henrietta Anne Stuart; perhaps that can be moved to Talk:Princess Henrietta of England? I didn't do the move myself since there is some new discussion on that page JdH (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Already being ✅ while you were typing this message. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Was this a recent cut and past move (after my first warning (18 August 2010 ) to user:LouisPhilippeCharles) not to make these moves or an old one? From the edit history it looks like it was made in July this year is that correct? BTW Anthony I much appreciate the work you've done cleaning up after user:LouisPhilippeCharles. -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This page has a complicated history of moves and cut-and-pastes and at least one previous histmerge. Its last cut-and-paste seems to have been at 16:00, 20 November 2009 by User:LouisPhilippeCharles. The edit entry "22:10, 14 July 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles m (15,494 bytes) (moved Henrietta Anne of England to Princess Henrietta of England" describes a move by the proper method, not a cut-and-paste. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Ex Occidente page

 * I assumed that there would be some warning (a proposed deletion notice?) that the page did not come up to a perceived standard before it was simply deleted? If I can come up with a line or two explaining why this particular small press is notable is it possible to reinstate it? Ghostlybrian (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted "not notable": see WP:NN. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it did read like a trade listing. I would have proposed noting that in a short period of time the press has published a number of books by notable authors (Reggie Oliver, Quentin S. Crisp, Mark Samuels etc) which have individually received positive reviews. The early, out of print titles appear to be sought-after by collectors. "Weird fiction" is a specialist field, but one in which the press is notable. I have had problems finding references to the press as a whole, though - I would suggest the restoration of the article with a notice that it requires the references I've been unable to source.Ghostlybrian (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where each of these books is described, it would be enough to include a link to its publisher's website. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken! Thank you for you advice on this.Ghostlybrian (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Aqua buddha?

 * I'm curious why did you speedily delete Aqua buddha, despite my hold on? It was a redirect, so did not fall under WP:CSD A3. Shouldn't it go through WP:RfD? —hike395 (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where the name comes in, I have undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

List of last surviving Canadian war veterans
You participated in a discussion respecting the proposed move of this list. Unfortunately, the proponent of the move initiated overlapping merge, move and AFD discussions, causing some degree of confusion, when it appears that his objective was to merge this list into one list for North American veterans. If you are interested, the actual merge discussion is at Talk:Last surviving United States war veterans. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 15miles Page
In your speedy deletion of 15miles page, I didn't have a chance to convince you otherwise. I shortened and revised the original copy to remove promotional verbiage, including the company's tagline that has the word "Sales" in it. I am trying to create a post similar to the 360i page, which even explains awards (I removed awards from 15miles' page to be less promotional). If permitted to continue this page, I will simply state what 15miles is, unless you can accurately pinpoint for me what prompted the deletion. Corygrassell (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The following message came from Fæ, as I contacted her also regarding this issue. I wasn't sure whom to contact, as I received messages from you both.

"If you ask AA he can, at his discretion, put a copy of the deleted article in your user space as a draft for improvement and to resolve any issues of notability or promotion. Fæ (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

As a result, I would be pleased if you would put a copy of the deleted article in my user space for improvements. If that happens, how will I know that my future edits will make the entry permissible? Is there a message/code I should be looking out for? Corygrassell (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Anthony, thanks for your cooperation and patience. Bear with me, as I aim to get this right. I have revised the copy for 15miles, and followed the model for the 360i page. As I'm new to this, how do I submit my changes for review/approval and/or move it from a User page to a standard wiki page? Thanks. Corygrassell (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put in a discussed move: see User talk:Corygrassell/15miles version2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A revised version has been saved at User:Corygrassell/15miles_version2. I established notability be revising the content, and I included footnotes where external links appear. Please advise on the next steps. Thanks. Corygrassell (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help and patience. My final question (I hope) is: With the approval of the 15miles page/revisions (version 2), is the "move" something that happens on my end or via Wikipedia/bot? If it is something that I must do, do you have any resources to direct me to for assistance? Corygrassell (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This move request will stand the usual length of time in Requested moves and then an admin (perhaps me) will obey it or reject it. The main hazard is that the page 15miles will be deleted as WP:SPAM and/or "non-notable corporation". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yasoshima

 * Noticed this on the Requested Moves page, and your comment for not moving it. Japanese cruiser Yasoshima would actually be the preferred title for the page, under WP:SHIPS page naming standards. (There's currently a huge discussion going on about this, with, last I checked anyway, no consensus for any change (or much of anything really).) Thought you might want to reconsider, considering that, or at least thought I'd comment. Although it's possibly moot, as the page should be merged (I've posted the proposal for that) anyway... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now as a discussed move: see Talk:Yasoshima. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yael Meyer Page

 * Dear Anthony, I saw you deleted Yael Meyer's page because of copyright infringement. I am a personal friend of Yael and used her webpage content with her explicit permission. How can I take te page back online? Thank you for any help. Gottlieb (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Articles for deletion/Yael Meyer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI: When there's an assertion of permission the page should generally stay deleted or (or it could be restored and be blanked with {{subst:copyvio}} per the instructions at WP:CV) until permission is confirmed via OTRS. Also, we do have confirmed permission for the article now, in case that changes your reasoning for the AfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Majority for oppose"
Re: your "majority for oppose" close decision at: Talk:English.

No other commentary?

So, Wikipedia is a democracy now? So much for WP:NOTVOTE. Why don't we just throw out all the policies and guidelines and just let people vote their preferences, count the votes without regard to the arguments made, much less how well they are based in policy, and make decisions accordingly? WIth all respect to all the work you do, isn't that pretty much how you close RM discussions? Isn't that how this one was decided? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there had been no concensus in 33 days of discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the 33 days, discussion was just beginning to get active, and possibly moving towards consensus, when you shut it down. There were about 18 edits total while the discussion was open, but about half of those occurred within a day or two of your closing, and 7 out of 9 of those on the very day you closed it!  Please take "current discussion activity" under consideration when closing discussion in general, and, on that basis, I suggest this one was closed prematurely.  Would you consider relisting it?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Archiving steps
..., which I've found so useful that I put it at User talk:Thomasmeeks in slightly expanded form for ready reference and recall. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Terry Farrell (architect)
Thanks for moving this so swiftly Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * Hi Anthony--do you mind checking whether I moved Dul Hasti correctly and followed the proper procedure? I couldn't find anything on removing the entry from the Requested moves page: does that happen by some bot? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been moved correctly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So how does an article get removed from the list? Drmies (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In Talk:Dulhasti I have marked the move request as "done". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Telephone numbers in Romania

 * You helped with moving Bessarabia Governorate (Romania). Can you also help here: Talk:Romania_telephone_area_codes. Target is now occupied by emptied parallel version which should be kept for licensing. Maybe move that to Telephone numbers in Romania (parallel version)? And after the other is moved move it to Romania telephone area codes, so no strange redirect exists? Transnistriei (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. The duplicate version is now in Telephone numbers in Romania/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tacit endorsement?

 * You recently accepted a page I edited as the newest edition. Is this to be taken as a tacit endorsement that what I added was a good edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which edit of which page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, that's a maybe? Umm, List of common misconceptions. I edited |Human Body and Health. I added *It is a common misconception that some particularly emotional events (9/11, Challenger explosion) cause memories which are stronger (Flashbulb memory),  and more reliable than normal memories. In fact, the details of any long-held memory are similarly very untrustworthy.  TheThomas (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Malabar Rebellion

 * An editor has moved this page to Moplah Uprising. If you remember, this was named Malabar Rebellion after a discussion based on the sources available. Please look into this. NMKuttiady (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)NMKuttiady (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentors (band)

 * I mentioned switching to Mentors (band) at the end of my introductory comment. You know, the more I think about it - why don't we just move it there...it's not worth it fighting for Mentors... Wikkitywack (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the repetition: it was a bit early in the morning for me :: I am in England and my clock time is Wikipedia signature time. This move is now in Requested moves and its procedure should be followed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to reinstate my introduction to the top so it shows up on the WP:RM page? It looks like it got dislodged... Wikkitywack (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The messages in Talk:The Mentors are in time order now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

La-200 move
Thanks. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vimanapura
--Nayvik (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to correct link url in the Kama Sutra pages notes section
Anthony, writing to you because you semi-protected the notes on the Kama Sutra page, so I can't edit them directly.

Note 1:^ Common misconceptions about Kama Sutra. The link is broken. http://indrasinha.com/kamasutra.html is out of date. The correct link is http://indrasinha.com/kama-sutra/

I request that you make this change on my behalf, as I cannot.

Rivergod (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:The Black Eyed Peas move

 * Thank you very much for moving, but it seems something went wrong? Yves (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Something did go wrong. Looks like what you deleted to make way for the move was the template and all that was left was a looping redirect circle. Not sure the correct way to tidy up but I deleted it all and restored the good bits. Might mean some of the recent move logs aren't fully accounted for but at least the template now shows properly and is no longer missing. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! :) Yves (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like that something had a glitch and obeyed the move request twice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WWF Hong Kong


The article WWF Hong Kong has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * >3 years no references, no notability established for this chapter of WWF specifically

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. L.tak (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

surnames, partial titles and primary topics
Hi. I obviously agree with you at Talk:Freston, Suffolk, and would like to see this reasoning more clearly explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but am having trouble coming up with persuasive arguments for those who seem to think that surnames in particular, and "partial titles" in general, don't count in determining primary topic, unless the topic in question is particularly known by the surname or partial title (as in Einstein). For the general discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But look at the article traffic stats, Freston doesn't get many compared to the other entries (see http://stats.grok.se/en/201010/Freston and http://stats.grok.se/en/201010/Tom%20Freston), it would seem as if thiese people are not called by their 2nd names. Crouch, Swale   talk to me   My contribs  13:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Blvd move oppose
But of those main entries, one isn't named Atlantic Boulevard and one's a redlink... This page is the only article named Atlantic Boulevard; the FL highway and the see also can be hatnoted  Pur ple  back pack 89    06:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

JCB Academy

 * If the infobox really must be placed on a separate page and then transcluded back into the article, instead of being placed on the article directly, then that separate page has to be outside articlespace — because every single page in articlespace has to have real categories on it, and there aren't any categories that are appropriate for a standalone infobox. Really, I don't see a compelling reason why it's necessary in the first place — articles with vastly longer and vastly more bit-heavy infoboxes than that still have the infobox placed directly on the article — but if there's a genuinely good reason, then it needs to be done properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, OK. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gruta das Torres
Hello Anthony, and thanks for dealing with the history move. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

White Rabbit (disambiguation)
Hello Anthony Appleyard this is Macr86 look at Talk:White Rabbit (disambiguation) he/she says a ridiculous number of move requests on this topic at Talk:White Rabbit. says there is a related move request that wants to move the disambiguation page to white rabbit. Macr86 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hokkaido
Please see discussion on talk page, Talk:Hokkaido. Thanks. -- Klein zach  00:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Move request

 * If you have a moment, and it hasn't already been taken care of, would you mind taking a look at, and completing, the move request at Talk:30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)? My thanks for your attention.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  06:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you did this move you may be interested in this discussion. Personally I think the way you made the move has created a bigger problem with attribution than a copy+paste move although I accept what you did is a common method of dealing with this issue.  As such the discussion isn't about your actions but more about the general problem, however as this move is the example, I felt it fair to let you know. Dpmuk (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop moving "List of" articles

 * I'm not sure how you got mixed up in this, but there is a giant discussion going on about the naming of these articles, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). It is only proper to not move any pages pertaining to that discussion while it is going on. Thanks.  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They were listed in Requested moves: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=402932727 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Party leadership contest, 2011

 * Could you please explain this move to me? As far as I can see the discussion linked to in the speedy request was closed as a no consensus (by an involved party but no one challenged it) while the only other move request on that talk page is till open (having briefly been closed by the same involved party and then reverted be me). 14:05, 21 December 2010 User:Dpmuk
 * User:117Avenue asked for it as as a db-move in this edit which was previously in the redirects page which was at Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2011. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I worked that out for myself but I thought administrators were meant to check that a speedy deletion was appropriate before deletion. Given that in this case the discussion used to justify the deletion was closed as "no consensus" I'm interested to know what made you decide it was an appropriate deletion (well more move in this case due to the way you did it). Dpmuk (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:117Avenue put it in as an ordinary uncontroversial move by a db-move hoping that someone would see it and obey it while wading through a long list of speedy-deletes to be done. I have now moved the page back to Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Party leadership contest, 2011. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ViaViente deletion
Hi Anthony,

I am attempting my first article and am trying to navigate the Wiki criteria. I believe I have met all of the criteria for notability. Criteria for speedy deletion include the following: "it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant." However, I have never seen an approved entry explain why it is important. It seems to me that meeting notability achieves importance. Also, you selected "unambiguous advertising or promotion" as the removal criterion. I am presently making revisions in an Editing User:Davidnbell/Viaviente page. Can you please assist me?

Also, thank you for your patience. This experience is a bit like learning a new language :)

Davidnbell (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Davidnbell/Viaviente ViaViente


 * Hi Anthony, is the bullet, above, a reply from you? If so, what does it mean? Thx. Davidnbell (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is merely two links for me to follow to find pages. Pages VíaVienté and VíaViente have been queried as advertisory at times. VíaVienté has been deleted 4 times. Please see WP:NN and WP:SPAM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1) I believe the independent media citations meet all of the criteria for general notability; 2) I have nothing to do with previous articles; 3) I have used company/product descriptions that are accepted (e.g. SoBe) for guidance. Can you please explain for me how a listing can be accepted as a legitimate company/product description while another is considered "advertising masquerading as an article?" if both are objective, neutral descriptions?

Will you please review my modified entry?

Davidnbell (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have somewhat wikified the article. However, it still seems to concentrate on promoting Viaviente and in my opinion is liable to be deleted as advertisement. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony...I appreciate your help! My objective is to describe honestly not advertise. I understand you see the nuances here like a first language. I cannot distinguish between other objective listings and this regarding promotion. Can you suggest some techniques for making it seem less promotional?

Thanks, again, for your constructive guidance.

Davidnbell (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, do you suggest that I should submit it now and see how it goes? I would prefer to make any additional changes you suggest before hand. Thx.

Davidnbell (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to belabor this, but I have one last question. Do I now load the user draft into a new ViaViente page? Thx

Davidnbell (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There also would be the matter of whether the Wikipedia community at large considers Viaviente to be noteworthy (see WP:NN) among thousands of food products available in shops. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights. As a "newbie," but an experienced business analyst and writer, I do have two thoughts. First, why won't all entries that objectively describe just one company and its product(s) (e.g. SoBe) be considered "concentrated on promoting itself?" Second, there are hundreds of thousands of food products and very few companies that are on a national consumer radar screen (e.g. Kraft, Coca-Cola). However, small companies such as ViaViente form the engine of innovation. That is why Coke and Pepsi, for example, have purchased innovation in the likes of Odwalla, Naked Juice, etc. This makes the small companies meaningful if not commonplace. Thanks, again, for your kind assistance.

Davidnbell (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My son, who has some experience editing Wikipedia articles, recommended that I contact you to let you know that I will be submitting this edited article under the spelling of ViaViente with 2 capital "Vs".

Davidnbell (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony...just a quick note. You were right, the entry was deleted again. Thank you for your assistance. I would also like your advice about where I might have a general discussion about some of the key challenges I faced with this submission that are also applicable to other potential small company entries.

Thanks, again, and happy holidays

Davidnbell (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * About "small company entries", the smallness of the companies described makes it likely that their Wikipedia entries would be deleted as Not Notable = WP:NN. Regrettably, Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx, very helpful :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidnbell (talk • contribs) 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stibine (data page)

 * I noticed that you have removed the qd tag. Please look at the page again. It does not have any data on the page. It is an empty template. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite empty now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

NL PC Leadership and BC Liberal leadership
You did something today when moving the Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Party leadership contest, 2011 and now the talk page for it is mixed in with the British Columbia Liberal Party leadership contest, 2011. Jordo72 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please revert

 * Please undo this. It was not the request to rename Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. 117Avenue (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Oops sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, please do this too. 117Avenue (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

 * Hey. I was wondering if you could help me understand WP:N a little better.  On pages like no claim of notability is made but there are several reliable and independent references given in the article, how does their inclusion work?  I'm an established editor and have been on WP for year.  I made Patxi's Chicago Pizza and while I can't say that the company is clearly notable, there were at least 4 independent references given from what I consider to be reliable sources.  The article was tagged for A7 which I didn't remove so I plead my case on the talk page.  In short, why'd you delete the page and why would there not even be a discussion in an AfD regarding a subject who has been received significant coverage from provided sources?  I'm not trying to attack you or anything like that, I just want to know if I'm misunderstanding something.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the talk page is still there so I hit it with a G8. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Articles for deletion/Patxi's Chicago Pizza. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Brig/Brigantine
Anthony, thanks for reverting the requested move of Brig -> Brigantine. As you'll see at Talk:Brig, the two meanings are different, and the articles as they stand accurately reflect that difference. Shame you were put to the trouble in the first place, if you ask me. Shem (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Close move request for La Stazione

 * As the admin who fixed this malformed move template for the article La Stazione, could you please close the request? The requester has not responded to the points I brought up, and there has been no further contention over the article's title. The request is now past the one week mark and can be closed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps leave the discussion to run a few more days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cat: The Nutcracker
Hey, I know this was in mid-2008, but I see that you deleted Category:The Nutcracker as db-empty - is there anything standing in the way of my re-creating it, given that there would be a number of pages to put in it? Thanks. Roscelese (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fiery cross

 * Mind explaining why you reverted me? -- &oelig; &trade; 07:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored some deleted 'other meanings'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhh ya, I can see that. I take it then that you didn't notice my edit summary? I moved the 'other meanings' to their own separate disambig page and added an otheruses hatnote. We can't be mixing an article with disambiguation links before the lead.. precisely why the cleanup tag was there, which you subsequently also restored. I'm still having trouble understanding what your rationale could be for reverting. --  &oelig; &trade; 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But you did not put in a hatlink from Fiery cross to Fiery cross (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm yes. Yes I did. Are you not checking the history? I must admit, I am bewildered by your seemingly careless lack of a proper thorough investigation of this matter, the fact that you considered it appropriate to mix together an article with a disambiguation page, and (by what I could best interpret from your above responses as) an overall apathetic attitude of this whole situation, even more so because you are an administrator and I expected much better. I'm actually rather worried now if this isn't a compromised account... --  &oelig; &trade; 03:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I had other things to do over Christmas. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I may have been overreacting, we all make mistakes. People have pointed out to me in the past many careless mistakes I myself have made, when I'm tired or in rush or just not paying much attention to what I'm doing, so I shouldn't be so quick to judge others. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bruery
Anthony,

Why did you delete the page I created for The Bruery? I supported the page with several references including the New York Times and OC Register (if you would like, I can also include references to their beers in other major publications). I also referred to the several gold medal awards that their beers have won at the two most prestigious beer events in the world: The World Beer Cup and The Great American Beer Festival. There is no reason The Bruery's page should be deleted if it is ok for Stone Brewing, Dogfish Head Brewing, Firestone Walker Brewing, Sierra Nevada Brewing and countless other craft breweries to be included on this website.

It seems to me that you are unaware of this upcoming craft brewery and don't realize all of the awards they have already won, despite my having referenced several of them.

I would like to request that you undelete the page that i spent so much time creating.

Cheers, Brocofly1 (Ben) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocofly1 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Page The Bruery was deleted because of its advertisory nature. I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: see Articles for deletion/The Bruery. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What a Surprise

 * I Am Just Like You Check Out My Talk And Page (Michael Robertson (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC))
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks (+addnl request)

 * He Anthony, Thanks for removing and the Caribbean Netherlands. Could you also remove Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten administrively, so I can finally proceed with the page move I was planning to make from the beginning (discussion on Talk:same-sex marriage in Aruba)... Tnx! L.tak (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

SCVNGR
I noticed you deleted the page Scvngr yesterday. Is there a reason it shouldn't be a redirect to SCVNGR? Just wanted to know before I recreated a deleted page. --Strangerer (Talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Kota tribe
I have update the article, please look into it also can you redirect it to Kotas instead of Kota tribe as it is now ? Kanatonian (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?
FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines. --Lambiam 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mian Shams Uddin deletion
The following was posted on your user page. I've moved it over. — Half  Price  12:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My article with the name of Mian Shams Uddin was deleted. It looks like that was deleted based on assumption that it was adverting or self-promotion but the underline message was noted. This person died more than one hundred years ago and his writings are not yet published / uploaded on internet but his poetry has been published / printed many times in the past. We are planning to have his poetry and other writings uploaded on internet but will take time to do so. I want to know what can we do as we need some assistance from common people who might have some material of his writings or about him who may want to share. We would like to collect that material to publish. Please advise how can we proceed?

Regards, Rafiullah Khan (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)