[edit] Vandalism warning master copy == Vandalism warning ==
At xxxx you, or someone using your [[Wikipedia:Username|username]] or [[IP address|Internet Protocol address]], [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalized]] the English Wikipedia page [[yyyy]]. Please stop this practice, or you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing in Wikipedia]]. ~~~~ [edit] How to AfD {{subst:afd1}}
nominated for deletion: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]] - ({{afdx}} if repeat AfD for same file)
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] because ... {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}}
(or) {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}
Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
On closing, {{subst:afd top}} & {{subst:afd bottom}}, and after the top template, put Delete or Keep and ~~~~
[edit] Rocker jacket - I'm a little baffled by what happened with this article. It all made sense up to the point where it was deleted; there was a discussion and the result of the discussion was delete. Then, somehow a decision was made to undelete it -- was there a discussion of that anywhere? Now it is back, in truncated form, an still with zero sources. Why does this article still exist when it doesn't even have one single reliable source? --Dbratland (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- The page Rocker jacket has incoming links. Google search shows that the term "rocker jacket" exists. If the information in this article is wrong, someone please correct it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- In other words, somebody made a decision without further discussion? I'm trying to find out what happened. If you look closely, many of those Google hits are artifacts created by the existence of this near-hoax Wikipedia article for more than 3 years. The rest of those hits only prove that some people out on the internet put the words "rocker" and "jacket" together in a sentence, to mean whatever they want them to mean. The result of the deletion discussion, and several discussions before that, was that nobody could find ONE single reliable, verifiable, authoritative source to demonstrate that "rocker jacket" actually means anything. And since when do internal Wikilinks count as reliable sources? See also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Wikipedias_in_other_languages.
- Let me put this a different way. Out of all the google hits, can you nominate even one of them to serve as a reliable source to define "rocker jacket"?
- As far as your suggestion to "please correct it", nominating the article for deletion was the correction. Should I re-nominate it? --Dbratland (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 A tag has been placed on Rocker jacket requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you.--Dbratland (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)- It was not a "repost of material that was previously deleted": I felt that some sort of page was needed there, in case anyone looked here wondering what a rocker jacket was: I replaced it by a sentence taken from the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocker jacket. (My attention was drawn to page Rocker jacket by a request to histmerge the earlier part of page Rocker jacket's edit history to page Leather jacket.) "Rocker jacket" seems to be a term that was used to some extent in the 1980's or earlier, and went out of use before the internet appeared, and thus it did not get on the internet much. I am old enough to remember when the Rocker (subculture) versus Mod (lifestyle) hostility was a big feature of British teenage life and often got in the newspapers and the television news here in Britain in the 1960's, even if not in America: I was born in 1942. As the rocker cult seems to have been specific to Britain, so likely also was the term "rocker jacket", and that may explain why some younger users and American users in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocker jacket may have not heard of the expression and thus thought that it was a hoax. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- When Administrators conclude deletion discussions and decide to delete pages, they are aware that they might be creating some red links on other pages. In any event, I've gotten rid of the links to rocker jacket and an admin has once again deleted it. It would be great if you ever find a reliable source for any of this, but until then there is no basis for a page to exist. Perhaps with your experiences you could publish a book or article on the rocker jacket, since clearly no one else ever has. --Dbratland (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Zenwalk/redirects et al. at RfD Hello Anthony Appleyard! Four redirects you recently moved (as part of processing WP:RM?) have been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD with discussion here. -- ToET 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Boktai: The Sun "is" (not "Is") in your Hands [edit] Contested move Per this Here are the lyrics. I guess you can move or close the discussion based on that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] St. Louis Thank you for your work at WP:RM. I know it's mostly thankless work, so before I proceed with my complaint, let me give you a ...
Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! While you're enjoying that, please allow me to express my dismay at the reasoning you gave when you cast your vote in this discussion. You wrote: "St.Louis/St. Louis/Saint Louis also means many other places and the saint." Of course it's true that it also "means many other places and the saint", but no one has ever disputed that. How is that even relevant? This discussion is all about whether the city in MO is the primary topic for the name, and I would think the administrator casting the deciding vote in such a discussion would at least address why or why not the given topic meets the relevant criteria. Primary topic criteria is very clear: "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Who refers to any Saint much any more? What percent of the general public could tell you anything about the person who was Saint Louis, except that maybe he is the namesake for the city? 1%? I doubt it. Who even knows about any other place with that name? Finally, St. Louis has been a redirect to the city for years. That in and of itself establishes by definition that this is the primary topic (if it weren't, then St. Louis would be a dab page rather than redirect to the article about the city). So despite all the other (undisputed) uses, this use is clearly the primary topic. If this topic is not "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which [St. Louis] may also refer", then by that reasoning no topic with other meanings can be primary. Is that your position? Clarification would be much appreciated. A realization of your error and a reversal in your decision would earn you another cookie. Cheers. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC) - Someone has already redirected St. Louis to St. Louis, Missouri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it was redirected to the city (St. Louis, Missouri) 2 1/2 years ago, which is why I wrote above, "St. Louis has been a redirect to the city for years". That redirect established that the primary use of St. Louis is the city in Missouri. So how is the fact that there are many other uses of the name (your stated reason for not moving the article to St. Louis) relevant to the proposed move? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- For an example of an argument against a given topic being primary, see here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Anthony, there's a discussion going on about your above closure at the RM talk page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] EA move Now that the new arrangement has been in place for a month, I checked out the traffic stats and made a note of them at Talk:EA#Traffic stats. I'll be proposing a move again later this week; I figured I'd let you know as the casting vote. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Paintball marker protection - Hi Anthony Appleyard, I was just going through some articles and noticed that the Paintball marker article has been protected since 21 November 2008. Would it be appropriate to remove this protection by now, since at least 10 months has passed? Cheers :) Jwoodger (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 Y Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Thank you for history merging Hey there Anthony Appleyard! Thank you for processing those {{db-histmerge}}s. That's the first admin superpower I've seen that I'd like to have someday. -- ToET 11:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Mather & Platt Its great to have someone else working on the same article. I am having difficulty verifying all the dates- the sources are all over the place. I cant trust the two Boschi websites as they seem to contradict. I am thus trying to put the article in narrative form and eventually leave the timeline as an additional illustrative table. We also have the problem of deciding exactly what the scope of the article is, at the infobox says M&P is now an Indian company- but to my mind they are a Gorton and Newton Heath Company!? ... I am at the moment scouring the web for some more material. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Deletion request Hi Anthony, Could you help me delete these images because it is copyright violation: Thanks. --Amazonien (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Peter Whatshisname - Hi AA. Just noticed that you moved Saint Peter to Simon Peter with an edit summary of "asked". Personally, I don't really care one way or the other, but from the talk page it appears that a proposal to rename the article to Peter the Apostle didn't obtain consensus and that tempers were getting a bit heated. Has there been another debate somewhere that I haven't noticed? Cheers, Favonian (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon, but the (now) Simon Peter talk page says quite clearly that there was NO concensus to move the article. So I gotta ask - why did you move it anyway?Farsight001 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was requested by User:Newman Luke at 15:59, 17 October 2009 in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=320570248#Uncontroversial_requests Anthony Appleyard . I have moved it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for a quick response. Guess there's no such thing as an uncontroversial move when religion is involved. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Religious People! A poorly written c-class article that needs a lot of work...and we spend all that energy fighting over the name!? No good deed goes unpunished. Let this be a lesson to you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) - Why isn't Paul of Tarsus named St. Paul? - Go figure.
- Please continue this discussion at Talk:Saint Peter#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] rename of Yugoslav wars [edit] New Atlantis - Why did you think it necessary to rename the New Atlantis article as New Atlantis (novel by Sir Francis Bacon)? The magazine is named after Bacon's work, and The New Atalantis, even though it has a similar name, has nothing to do with Bacon's work. In short, there is only one New Atlantis; it is the primary analogate: the other is derivative, and the third only pronunciation-wise related. It seems to me that New Atlantis should be the name of the article with disambiguation links to the other two--as it was before you intervened. JKeck (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that a now-little-known novel published in 1627 may not necessarily be a dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it is unambiguously the dominant meaning. It sounds like you are open to the old name. If so, would you mind terribly moving it back to the old title? I had enough trouble (and ended up needing administrative help) moving "The New Atlantis" to "New Atlantis". If you don't agree with me, we could continue this conversation on the talk page for the article. Thanks! JKeck (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks. JKeck (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Template moves and double redirects - Good stuff, cheers. Skomorokh, barbarian 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed multiple movereq to how it should be setup. You did not specific the reasoning of the move & this is why I have changed. If you wish to give a reasoning, then by all means change it, but it not, please don't change it. Also Koavf's signature is not needed for the movereq, since you have already signed it. If Koavf supports the move, they need to state it under the initial movereq. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 07:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Helicopter article Anthony, I know I use words forcefully. I'm pretty blunt as a byproduct of my occupation. I apologize if this makes me difficult to work with. I've reread the disagreement over the origins of helicopter, and while I agree that the word comprises the elements currently discussed in the article, I believe that D'Amecourt arrived there via a similar but different word. I apologize for arguing as forcefully on the breathing accent transliterated to h, since that isn't a big issue, and my arguments seemed dismissive of the actuality of any literary errors on the part of the source, whether its author or publisher. Our current disagreement seems to be over the images in the Uses section. I did state my opinion on the talk page, and there is one who agrees with me, but if you would respond with your thoughts/opinions, it may encourage others to speak their opinions so we can move forward with a truer, broader consensus. I have learned a bit on how to live with a consensus that excludes my opinion as the minority, I can't say that I won't speak my opinion any less or any less forcefully in the future, but I've learned how to accept the consensus for the good of the article and community. --Born2flie (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Article deleted: request for reconsideration - Hi Anthony -
- A colleague of mine tried to start a new article titled "Confederation of Italian Entrepreneurs Worldwide", which was deleted by you. I would like to question your decision to consider "not notable" this organization, which reports to the Italian Government and connects thousands of entrepreneurs worldwide. The Italian version of Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, does include an article: it:Confederazione degli Imprenditori Italiani nel Mondo. The organization is also often referenced by the international press. I would like to ask you to reconsider and allow us to re-publish. Thank you,
- Giovanni.Gbattistini (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have undeleted and AfD'ed Confederation of Italian Entrepreneurs Worldwide. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you Thanks for fixing the WikiProject Historical Atlas Talk Page. :) Daanschr (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Copy paste move 18 January 2009 saw you moved Zaire -> Zaire Province, a province in Vietnam would need your help too: TrueColour (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Deletion of moves to template space for (Card|Ord)inal 0 to (1|9)9 Thanks for deleting these. The fourth (Ordinal 0 to 99) was easy enough to crib from Cardinal 0 to 99 that I created it straight in template space. Anyway, what I wanted to ask was whether I should use G6 (uncontroversial page move) rather than G7. I am happy using G7 since I can do it with one click (ish) using WikEd or popups or whatever it is that provides it, rather than edit the article to add a reason etc, and admins seem to see straight away it's a page move and redirect and I've had no problem from admins using G7, but just wondered if sooner or later I will be told to use G6. On the whole, the move process is a bit of a faff anyway for uncontroversial moves (i.e. that it creates a redirect behind you even though nothing links there anyway, as I change the doc and test to point at the template proper before I move them), so anything that makes the process simpler is good by me, and G7 is simpler than G6 because I don't have to edit the article to slap the reason in. Thanks once again. Now for the hundreds (then thousands and millions and billions... and maybe decimal points...). These conversion templates are not particularly useful I know, but do no harm that I can see. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - Which templates do you want to be moved, and where to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want any moved, I do that myself. Of course, it leaves a trace behind in the form of a redirect. I go G7 on the redirect and it gets deleted by an admin. All good, but I wonder if I should go G6 instead. Si Trew (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Daniel Jones (Jediism) [edit] Deletion of Turbulence: Ideas for Movement Hi Anthony, Could you explain further the decision to delete the page about this magazine, please? I'm concerned because the decision reveals a real inconsistency. Consider the Wikipedia pages for magazines and journals such as Red Pepper, Historical Materialism, Mute or Left Turn. I am not suggesting they too should be deleted, but none offers more external verification or justification of their notability than the Turbulence page; indeed they probably offer less. As I tried to make clear in the article itself (and on its talk page), Turbulence has received endorsements from and published contributions by some extremely influential scholars -- many of whom warrant their own Wikipedia pages. Obviously, I am really requesting that you reconsider your decision to delete the page. But if you decide not to reinstate it at this stage, I'd be grateful if you could send me the source code of the page you removed (david.unruhe@gmail.com) -- or paste below or however is most appropriate. Thanks David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidUnruhe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Internet Censorship Page - Why did you not discuss your huge edits to the page? And why did you make zero discussion of a page merger before going a head and doing it? Outback the koala (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I found matter on that topic content-forked about in several places, and I gathered it together in page Scunthorpe problem. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] James Atkinson (Persian scholar) hist merge Hi Anthony. Last month I requested a hist-merge of James Atkinson (translator) into James Atkinson (Persian scholar) which you rejected commenting "histmerge rejected: WP:parallel versions". Comparing the histories of James Atkinson (translator) and James Atkinson (Persian scholar) shows: Do you still see this as WP:parallel versions, and if so, what am I missing? Do the stumbling attempts at redirection make the hist-merge more difficult? -- ToET 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Dear Anthony, I agree with Mr. Giovanni Battistini. You should reconsider the importance of the "Confederation of Entrapreneurs Worldwide" page. This association is directly linked with the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and it is actively involved to promote the Made In Italy concept worldwide. The CIIM has thousands of members , coming from all different kind of industries ,all actively involved. Thanks for your time, Tomaso Veneroso —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasoveneroso (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks - Thanks for fixing up my mess on Tigon though it was in vain as an editor moved it again without discussion. They decided to move first then mention it on the talk page. I have requested that the editor explain their actions so i will see how that plays out. Once again thanks for fixing my mistake. ZooPro 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Duffy (singer) - Since you have given the casting vote on the requested move for Duffy (singer), can you give a reason ? Cjc13 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The name Duffy has many other meanings, as page Duffy shows. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- But there are few that use Duffy by itself. It appears mainly as a surname and the surname page has few visits in comparison to the singer. The statistics suggested in WP:PT support the singer as primary topic, as per Station1 in the discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The vote was 3 for, 5 against. Page Duffy lists 10 meanings, and many people looking for information about any of them is likely to type in merely "Duffy". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The figures suggest that they are nearly all those looking at the Duffy page are looking for the singer and there would still be a link to the disambiguation page on the Duffy page. I am willing to accept the vote, although those opposing the change seemed to show little knowledge of the stats for the pages and it could not be called a consensus. Cjc13 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Move of Category [edit] Copy paste Miraflores District, Lima Description Proposal TrueColour (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Thankyou Thanks for restoring the talk page- Talk:Knanaya EasoPothen (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) An article that you have been involved in editing, Bozo (etymology), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bozo (etymology). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Powers T 13:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) -
- There is a Bozo article in Wiktionary. Perhaps people can be directed to it from the Bozo the clown article. From looking over some of your contributions I guess you know about that.--Fartherred (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Jason Adonis [edit] Robert B. Jones (Linguist) - This article I have now written twice. I defended it in the proper way against deletion and it was nonetheless deleted without comment. I think this is rude, inexcusible, and gives no consideration for my time. R. B. Jones is no less important than any other linguist working at a university and I think you will find hundreds have pages. Please restore the page I wrote. Tibetologist (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Jones (linguist). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] NowCommons: File:Aa orchids tattonpark 2008-07-24.jpg File:Aa orchids tattonpark 2008-07-24.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Aa orchids tattonpark 2008-07-24.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Aa orchids tattonpark 2008-07-24.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - File:Aa owlrov 01.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Aa owlrov 01.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. Earlier today, User:Thewtfchronicles marked a page for CSD without notifying the user. Upon asking him to notify users, I noticed that he has had difficulty CSDing pages. Then I saw that User:Flsaisalie complained to the user that he tagged the subject article an "Attack Page" when it was not actually. I noticed that you were the admin who deleted this page. Could you please verify it was properly tagged and deleted by CSD policy? Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- If CSD means Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: page Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler has 6 edits dated between 5.6 am and 6.9 am on 9 Nov 2009. The first edit says "By ALEXANDRA CLOUGH / Palm Beach Post Staff Writer / Sunday, November 08, 2009 / Before word emerged last week that Fort Lauderdale lawyer Scott Rothstein may be the architect of a $500 million investor swindle, attorneys in Palm Beach County knew him as something else: A clown. A showoff. A mystery.". This incident looks like an over-early speedy-delete-tagging (after only 1 hour 3 minutes!) of an article that someone was working on. The brief text "web search "Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler"" is a note to himself that the page's first author left. Hold your horses. Google search shows that the accusation in it may be valid. I have undeleted it and started a stub-and-external-links there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wasn't sure of the details of the delete, all I knew was that the author seemed to have created it in good faith and it concerned me that the tagger had issues with CSD. And yes, by CSD I did mean Criteria for speedy delete ;). I appreciate you taking another look into it.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have redirected Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler to Scott W. Rothstein, as Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler is a firm, not one man, and it is described in Scott W. Rothstein, who is one of its members. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Purses and handbags - Making purse into a dab page for the two separate articles was certainly the right thing to do. But perhaps Purse (USA meaning) was intended to be a temporary page and should be deleted? Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted Purse (USA meaning). See Talk:Handbag#History of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the history is missing from before the split – is it in the deleted Purse (USA meaning) page, or somewhere else? snigbrook (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Which page's early history seems to be missing? See Talk:Handbag#History of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The edits which are now in Purse (USA meaning) are a short article about purses and handbags. The edits which are now in Purse are disambig edits. The first edit of Purse is at 05:06, 12 April 2007 by User:Muchness with edit comment "(create dab)", so it is likely a first edit of a new page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- That edit was the creation of Purse (disambiguation); what I can't find anywhere is the history of the Purse article that was split to create Handbag and Coin purse. snigbrook (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- That older matter that was in Purse is now in Purse (USA meaning). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks Hey, Thanks again for your help. I would award you the 'random acts of kindness barnstar' but I see you already have it :-) --عيسى (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Hey, Thanks for working on this. This is resolved now: any suggestions on what to do with the discussion page? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Plese remove - your illegal rfm you opened at the "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" article. The name "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights" was forced upon the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was such an amount of acrimonious dispute about this and other matters in the article's talk page that I felt that I better get this move discussed. If this move is justified, the discussion will likeliest say so. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Quneitra edit - FYI, I've asked an expert here about this. --NSH001 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Anthony Appleyard: qunaytira (قُنَيْطِرَة) is a diminutive form of qantara (قَنْطَرَة) (which means arched bridge, see Alcántara). Wehr's alternative meaning is not completely implausible, but doesn't "sound" quite right. Possessing riches I assume comes from qintar (قِنْطار), a unit of weight or money (a very large amount). I would only include that meaning if there is a reference in Wehr specifically saying the origin of the word is possible from qintar. Otherwise, I would go with the little bridge meaning. Another possibility for the origin is that it is an Arabization of a name in another language (it is after all the site of a Byzantine/Roman settlement). Here is a reference (in Arabic) from Al-Jazeera confirming the "bridge" meaning: كلمة القنيطرة تصغير لكلمة قنطرة (جسر) التي تعني أنها عبور من وإلى فلسطين والأردن ولبنان وسوريا, the word qunaytira is a diminutive for of qantara (bridge) which means it is a passage way to and from Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria... --Fjmustak (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. —Thank you. | A tag has been placed on E-learning/version 2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hgfernan (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Page move [edit] Sperm whale - Please put further discussion in Talk:Sperm whale#Move?.
-
- It's not an uncontroversial request. The Cetacean WikiProject has standardized its naming convention to capitalize the names of species, similar to the Birds WikiProject. Additional information is available in the "standardization" section on the WP:CETA page. Can you please revert your page move? Neil916 (Talk) 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) Ah, OK. Well, I'm afraid this isn't quite an uncontroversial request--there have been massive wars on several mammal pages on whether or not to capitalize species names (Talk:Marsupial Lion, throughout the WT:MAMMAL archives, and various other places). I personally don't care much about whether or not to capitalize, but this really shouldn't be done as an "uncontroversial" page move. Ucucha 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] battles - Just curious to see if Rules of chess really needed indef anon protection from editing. Dreadstar ☥ 02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I semiprotected Rules of chess at 05:11, 16 April 2009 to stop excessive vandalism by anon users. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, I was wondering if indefinite semi-protection was necessary per Wikipedia:PROTECT#Semi-protection. Dreadstar ☥ 21:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I had that endlessly with page Duck: whenever the semiprotection was removed, the vandalism restarted within a day or so. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you mean...it's tough keeping some of these articles vandal-free when we're supposed to be the thing "anyone" can edit...even them vandals... :) I was just checking, I might make the notice smaller, but I'll leave it semi'd. Dreadstar ☥ 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was performing a web search on this software system, as I found it in my local library and wanted to get more information about it. Thinking that Wikipedia wouldn't skimp on the details, I looked it up. It seems your interests have superseded that of a potentially large group of interested web surfers, as you've deleted the entry. Are you going to allow this legitimate resources an article on Wikipedia? ElahNiwde (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- At 07:44, 11 July 2008 User:Brilliant Pebble speedy-delete-tagged it as advertisement: see WP:SPAM. It is easy to find its website by a Google search. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- So just because I can find its website by a Google Search, it doesn't need to have an article on Wikipedia? Your logic is flawed my friend. ElahNiwde (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have undeleted Mango Languages and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Edremit - Please continue this discussion in Talk:Edremit (District), Balıkesir#Requested move.
- Hi Anthony! Regarding your comment at Talk:Edremit (District), Balıkesir pursuant to my previous move request Edremit (District), Balıkesir to en:Edremit, there are indeed, as I stated in the move request, two district centers (and districts) named Edremit in Turkey. Edremit in Balıkesir Province has a population of 49,122 for the district as a whole [1] and Edremit in Van Province 18,005 again for the district as a whole [2]. The third one is a small village ([3]) and Edremit in Northern Cyprus is covered under its Greek name. I did not make a move request to Edremit (disambiguation) from Edremit for the current disambiguation page since I thought that could be done manually. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moving Edremit to Edremit (disambiguation) and Edremit (District), Balıkesir to Edremit would need proof that Edremit (District), Balıkesir is a dominant meaning of Edremit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi again Anthony! I replied in Talk:Edremit (District), Balıkesir#Requested move. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with the move (per talk page note and the fact that I created the article), I just thought I should mention that according to the article history it was also an WP:RM that moved it the other way in the first place. Since my original talk page note obviously wasn't enough, is there any other way to flag it for caution so that it doesn't turn into a circular move war? Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:Music for The Native Americans#Title note. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Supernatural - The move for Supernatural (TV series) has been contested. Please stop moving the article. Ωphois 12:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have made the plain name Supernatural (TV series) into a 3-way disambig page. "has been contested" seems to mean a history of dispute about which of the 3 serieses is a dominant meaning, but where is the discussion about the move? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was no discussion. Some anon nominated a move without alerting any talk pages to the proposal, and you moved it. I contest the move, and changed the nomination into a controversial nomination. From my understanding of policy, it should be moved back until a discussion takes place. Ωphois 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are 3 television series named "Supernatural". I will start a move discussion about this return move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- But the first move was controversial. From the policy, things should be restored and a discussion take place on whether to move it the current name. Ωphois 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the move was controversial—the fact that it has now been unmoved three times is clear evidence of that. If you want to start move discussion, you'll need to discuss a move to the new name, not back from it. Feel free to start a new discussion at Talk:Supernatural (TV series). —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] You are using your admin powers against WP rules - I have counted all the votes, there was no consensus for a change from the original one. So therefore you can not change the name and then start a RfC back to the one that people did not want to change from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looking through Talk:Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights shows:
- Move discussion List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel → List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated by Israel, starting 10 November 2009: verdict = "no concensus"
- Link to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel at 18 Nov 2009: verdict = "keep"
- Link to a discussion, now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus., started 18 November 2009.
- Much general discussion, among which I do not see a concensus or a clear succession of votes.
- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- The number one you posted, there was no consensus for move of original name. Number 2 the consensus was keep without consensus for rename. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you change the name of the RfC? It hasn't been a list for a long time. "Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel in the Golan Heights" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requested moves is the correct and standard place to list proposed article moves, unless procedure has changed in the last day or so and I have not been informed about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- You don't understand what I'm saying, why are you proposing that the article name be changed to "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel " when its not a list anymore? No one is gonna support the move. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I put a second section name the same in the same talk page. I have changed the second use. The new discussion is now at Talk:Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights#New move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
|
