User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/January-March

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

• Howdy! I noticed you removed the speedy deletion request on this article in favor of the AfD. In the AfD discussion you stated that it's not a copyvio if the same person wrote the Wikipedia article and the article at the external site.
  WP:COPYVIO
  goes on to say that in the case where "all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement" and if no "older non-infringing version of the page exists" "the page will normally need to be deleted." This is how I have seen this type of problem handled in my limited experience.

  So, I'm trying to clarify the reason for declining the speedy deletion and how I should have best handled the situation. Was the decline simply because the page had already been nominated for deletion? Rather than stacking a speedy deletion on top should I have simply marked the content with a {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} tag? Or is there something else that would have been better done? Thanks for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought that having two sorts of delete procedure current on the same article at the same time would confuse matters. The AfD will decide whether or not the article is suitable to be kept.

  I wrote "... it may not be copyvio ...", with "may" = "perhaps", as I was unwilling to come to a definite decision yet.

  If John wrote a web page, and Peter copied it into a Wikipedia article, then Peter would have committed a copyvio. But what if Peter wrote the web page and the Wikipedia page? Has he committed a "copyvio against himself?" The Wikipedia version is public use; the version in his web page is his copyright. The two contradict. I suspect that we need a ruling here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you worked on the

Hey man, thanks for all the assistance! 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at MegaSloth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Resolved

Further to the recent discussion on Avram (name), I decided to go ahead myself and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution by adding dummy edits giving attribution at the various pages, in addition to your helpful notes on the talk pages. Unfortunately I accidentally added incorrect attribution to Abram (disambiguation), inadvertently adding to the mess. Fortunately the message makes absolutely no sense, however I would like your advice on how best to fix things. I can think of the following ways:

1. Ask an admin to selectively delete the dummy edit. While I realise such an action is unusual, it seems to me to be the cleanest way to fix things; no real edit history is lost as the edit was deliberately a dummy one. I appreciate that admins may feel such drastic action is unwarranted however.
2. Leave things alone; since the edit summary makes no sense, it does no real harm.
3. Add yet another dummy edit, noting that the summary of the incorrect dummy edit is nonsense. This might be done with a formal "undo" edit history or similar.

I can see drawbacks and advantages to each choice and given your experience combined with your familiarity with this case would value your input. I also realise that the creative content we are talking about on the affected material is at best strictly limited and that this case is therefore relatively trivial and any remedies should reflect this. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Flatscan has kindly reassured me everything is OK on this issue, resolving my concerns. Thanks again for your assistance. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aa 5000BC spring midnight.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

• Hello Anthony, Excuse me if I've got the wrong person, but I'm a bit confused. You see, it seems that the page H2O Audio keeps getting deleted, I question the deletion, prove my points of why it isn't advertising, that it is notable and back it up with tons of third party reputable references, and the page gets put back up, not by me, but by a member of the Wiki-community. Then another member of the Wikipedia community will come along, delete the page and the cycle starts all over again. This time, it seems that someone even marked me down as vandalizing the very page that I wrote. So I'm really confused as to what is going on and why my notable contribution keeps getting deleted. Would you happen to have any insights for me? Thank you so much for your time. DanaS (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS
• I have undeleted it and AFD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H2O Audio. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you! I do welcome any help on how to make it more objective or notable.

DanaS (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS

Hello. A couple of days ago, at my request, you moved the article

FYI, User: Malik Shabazz took care of the move back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Can you help me?

This discussion has been moved to Category talk:Catholic Liturgical Rites#Move category and/or files?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, see my message at Talk:Circumcision controversies#The archives of this talk page for my explanation. The situation with the archives was quite bizarre,, so I thought it would be helpful to write about it in case something similar happens in the future. Graham87 15:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Diving-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Could you possibly review your close on this move proposal. Contributions to the original proposal were evenly split. And all the contributions to the amended proposal were posted on the same day and then closed two days later. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion but I looked at amazon and record labels and he is usually sold under "Shivkumar Sharma". This user just came along and changed all the spellings in the article. Could you fix the name again? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. I attempted to add a page on AlertSite before and apparently incorrectly deleted the entry. Sorry for any breach in deletion procedure. More relevant information is now available and I would like to revisit posting an entry. What is the best way to do this? The comment states that I need to speak with you prior to posting.WebWonderGal (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• At AlertSite are 4 stub-length deleted edits dated 13:04 to 13:07 10 March 2009. They say "AlertSite is a Web site performance monitoring and management company [and link] headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida." and it was speedy-deleted {{db-corp}}, i.e. a typical "non-notable corporation" deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Okay. Thank you. If I have more relevant, "notable" information, is it okay to post it? Or should I place it in the sandbox to review first?WebWonderGal (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.20.4 (talk)
• Post it again at
  not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• You have removed this move I requested even though the actual move has not been dome yet. Can you please fix this? Many thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oops, please ignore this, maybe something was wrong with my cache. Kiwipete (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I do not understand why you moved the
  Princess Adélaïde of Orléans article to Prince Adélaïde of Orléans. Such a move makes no sense. The object of the article is female. Her appropriate rank in English is "princess", not "prince". BoBo (talk
  ) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I do not understand either. Moreover, I do not understand why all these articles are being moved without the courtesy of prior notification on talk page(s) so that regular editors can have their say. --Frania W. (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• As asked in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=341634992 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have put
  Princess Adélaïde of Orléans. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is d'Orléans being changed?

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans#Move?.

Merging Images and Media-Taskforce

• Hi, thanks for taking a look at
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration
  with useful information, which is the main issue I had with doing a simple redirect. Also the "Taskforce" name isn't descriptive. Would
  1. Moving
     Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Taskforce to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce
  2. Moving
     Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illustration to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce/Archive 1
  3. Redirecting
     Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration (and its talk) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce
  4. Starting the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration task force with a {{copied}} template for the WP:Illustration copy.
  5. Merging/redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject SVG (after a discussion on related pages or via MFD) to the Illustration task force.

  sound like an ok solution to you? I know there's several discussions need to take place, but I recently updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia#Files and its a mish mash of overlapping projects there. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I could not perform the history-merge requested because the first 33 edits of
  WP:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 10:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Taskforce#Move?

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the AI :) Avé[[]] 06:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard,

Why all these sudden moves on the "de France" & "d'Orléans" articles with no prior notice?

We went through long discussions months ago & now all is being changed with no notice.

The surname of members (children of the king) of the senior Bourbon branch of the French royal family was "de France", up to & ending with Charles X, and eventually his children who were born "d'Artois". The next & last king to reign was Louis-Philippe d'Orléans who took the title King of the French. From the generation of the children of Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, brother of Louis XIV, the Orléans branch took the surname d'Orléans, all the way to today (legally, as it is the only surname they are allowed to use in France, (a surname like that of Charles de Gaulle: are we going to change it to Charles of Gaulle?). In other words, "'Orléans" is a surname, and so is "de France", not only something to put after a title. As an example:

• Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, duc d'Orléans, in French, becomes
• Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans, in English.

The daughters of Louis XV were all surnamed "de France" and were addressed to as Madame + used baptismal name (which may not have been the first). They were not given the title of "princesse" as is given them in en:wiki. Children of the king & members of the king's family were "prince/princesse du sang" but, the only members of the king's family to be princes of anything were the eldest males of the "Condé" & "Conti" families who were "prince de Condé" & "prince de Conti", their respective wives being "princesse de Condé" & "princesse de Conti".

The daughter of Louis XVI was Marie-Thérèse de France, and was addresssed to as Madame Royale. May I point out to you that while you have changed her to Marie-Thérèse of France, you forgot to change "Madame Royale" to "Royal Madam" or "Royal Mistress" or "Royal Mrs." or whatever proper English should be.

Bathilde d'Orléans, the sister of Philippe d'Orléans (Philippe Égalité) was not a "princess d'Orléans". She did become a princess when she married the prince de Conti. Accordingly, she should be Bathilde d'Orléans, princesse de Conti, in English: Bathilde d'Orléans, Princess of Conti.

I simply do not have the time right now to go through all the past discussions on the subject & bring them to your attention, but it is becoming tiresome & depressing to do so much work and then, months later, have someone come & erase it all as if previous editors were ignorami & their work worthless.

When --Frania W. (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)such moves are planned, a notice should be posted at the talk page of each article because all cases may not be the same. Some of the Orléans women of the 17th century are being given the title of "princesses" in en:wiki, which is totally wrong. Only the children of Louis-Philippe I, king of the French, (1830-1848) were princes & princesses d'Orléans (not de France)

Please feel free to bring this to whichever talk page the discussion is taking place.

Best regards, --Frania W. (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some of those previous moves were asked for in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=341634992 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion in Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans#Move?.

• I find it extremely strange that an anonymous IP who signed up at Wikipedia just over one month ago, yet who seems quite savvy about Wikipedia & its "rules & regulations", should be able to dictate his/her demands with no discussion whatsoever, and be "obeyed". That IP's two dozen requests were granted within a few hours with no notice given & no discussion permitted at articles talk pages. That is dictatorship. Following this logic, should I go and make contrary requests expecting the moves to be done with no further discussion??? Why not???

  Since I joined Wikipedia, some time in 2007, I have participated in quite a few discussions, never as an anonymous IP, and the few times that I edited not realising that I had logged out, I always have returned to the edit & identified myself. It seems to me that radical changes should not be permitted under an anonymous IP's signature. --Frania W. (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I understand :: soon after, someone put in another multiple move request in the uncontroversials, and I listed it for discussion. Point taken. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Not sure whether this could be listed elsewhere, but I could do with your expertise.
  Lindsay Hamilton (footballer)? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk
  19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  Excellent. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For all the work you do with fixing cut-and-paste moves ( Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen). You definitely deserve this. Keep up the good job! :) Theleftorium 17:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, per

• Hi Anthony... the policy page
  WP:Naming conventions was recently moved to WP:Article titles... we need the archives and history moved as well, but none of the current participants know how to do it. Can you take care of this? Thanks. Blueboar (talk
  ) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• The move of page
  WP:Naming conventions
  seems to have been a proper move, taking its history with it, in the article and in its talk page; there is no histmerge to be done.

  As regards the archives, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Wikipedia%3ANaming+conventions&namespace=0 :: please which of that lot is to be moved? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think just the first one ... "Naming conventions" without any parenthesis (the ones in parens are topic specific guidelines... they may end up being moved/renamed, but that has yet to be discussed). Thanks again. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to

• What the heck man? I thought this was a cut-and-dried case...did you not read my reasoning? 1 Oppose does not equal denial of move (especially such a weak, unfounded Oppose) - it's in the rules! It's about what's correct. Justified ampersand Ancient is clearly the proper title here (look at the picture - and even look at the back cover on Google Images). I understand the Manual of Style might oppose ampersands and other such symbols if there were good reason for it - like if the record were actually titled "Justified and Ancient" - but encyclopedias are about accuracy of information, not proper grammar at all costs. This is a huge misinterpretation. The current title is, in fact, incorrect. Just as Corn for
  How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? Seriously. Wikkitywack (talk
  ) 08:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• WP:MOSTM. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 10:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sorry. I see nothing about "ornamental typography" on
  WP:MOSTM. Please point it out to me. Actually, while we're on the subject, how is "&" an ornament? It's a very common symbol... Wikkitywack (talk
  ) 06:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and I saw that "
  WP:MOSTM that I'm not seeing... As it is now, I think you are misinterpreting it. Wikkitywack (talk
  ) 06:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Eureka! Disregard my former comments. I didn't do my homework. Here it is, from the Wikipedia Manual of Style itself (under "Article Titles"): "use and instead of an ampersand (&), unless the ampersand is an accepted part of a name (Emerson, Lake & Palmer)" (emphasis mine). Straight from the horse's mouth. Now to the issue at hand: an ampersand is clearly part of the title as the image shows (check Google Images to see it on the back cover as well) - therefore the current page title is, in fact, incorrect and must be changed (as per WP:MOS). (Also, as I mentioned in the move request, every mention of the record in the article already conforms to this - so it's just the final piece of the puzzle.) Cheers! Wikkitywack (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans/d' or of query

Hi Anthony, following on from the discussions at Talk:Scuba diving#Rebreather without nitrogen, I've made a draft of proposed new text at User:RexxS/Rebreather#Proposed draft with as much sourcing as I could find. I'd be happy for any comments, suggestions, etc. either at User talk:RexxS/Rebreather or at the article talk page. Dive safe! --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I'm a bit concerned about the inline reference regarding the benefits of Forcefins. They way it was originally written in (with a link to the forcefin website), it is presented as an independent review of the fins by a recognised university. I'm concerned that this reference may not be entirely legitimate. The named referenced does not come up on any of the journal search engines, and googling the author and university also brings no results. Looking at the paper on the forcefin website, I get the impression that the paper is a sham. The reasons why are as follows:

It's written in a heavily promotional way with conclusions about the benefits of forcefins in the introduction.

It includes no citations whatsoever

It has a sample size of 1, so no statistical inferences can be made

There is only one comparison made

The conclusion comes before the discussion (That would not even pass highschool science).

For these reasons and the strong benefits being claimed, I think it may be worth having the reference hidden until the actual reference (if it exists) turns up. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

With this revert, you have restored text which is unsupported by any third party reliable source. The study referred to is published at http://www.forcefin.com/FF_wisewords/lindsey-study.htm - that does not meet our standards for independence, nor for having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I request that you self-revert, or explain your reasons on the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony, I appreciate your work and help in Scuba and other articles. But as a veteran editor, I am sure you know that, per
  the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Material published on a manufacturer's website does not qualify as a reliable source for promotional claims about the product, as I am also sure you know. Please do not restore this material unless you also add the appropriate independent sourcing for it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk
  ) 13:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• I found the refs, with less than a minute of googling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anthony, AFAICT this is the exact same source we had before, on the manufacturer's website, which does not qualify as a reliable source for promotional claims about a product. If you have an independent source, published on an independent non-promotional website, please provide it. Otherwise, please don't restore material which has been challenged. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I overlooked this discussion until noticing on my watchlist that the resultant move had occurred. (Having previously reverted the same move after it was unilaterally performed by the editor who just requested it, I would have appreciated notification of the proposal.)
A key fact not raised in the debate is that the word is clearly rendered as "the" (with a lowercase "t") on the album's cover. Any grammatical error (if one exists) is that of the publisher, and it isn't our place to correct it.

• Hi! I've contested your speedy nomination of Category:Famous polar bears at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. I don't think it can be speedily renamed, but feel free to nominate it for a full CfD instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why did you move this page to Golden hamster. Only 2 people agreed to it being moved and one was against. Do articles not need a 60% majority to be moved? --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• In Talk:Golden hamster#Requested move Feb 2010 I counted the original move suggestion, two supporting the move, a definition query, and no explicit objections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please remove the move protection on the page and move it to "Phantom Ruler: Zoroark"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Or, could you move it back considering
  it was a controversial move?—Ryūlóng (竜龙
  ) 03:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Brought this up on ANI to see if what was done was proper (I had Zscout370 reverse the move based on the talk page).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Gah, you didn't have to permanently move protect. The official title is out, but we need to determine the proper way to translate it. Something would have come about by Thursday when the protection would have expired anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have un-move-protected
  Phantom Ruler Zoroark. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards. Pournick (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Best report it as vandalism :: see Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Re your comments at cut and paste move repair holding pen. I agree with your comment and accept I probably posted it to the wrong place - you're right it was a copy and paste. My concern is that regardless of exactly how it was done this article is not properly attributed as the copy and paste is not acknowledged. I don't really edit wikipedia any more but when I see something like this I think I should raise it for someone to fix. In this case I raised it in the wrong place but I didn't (and still don't) know where else to raise it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have put a note in Talk:List of Brussels Metro Lines to say what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Cheers. I would have done something similar myself except a) I wasn't really sure what form it should take and b) more importantly I couldn't could my head around what affect (if any) the likely merge of the two articles would have on the situation. I've been a bit ill the last few days so that may have affected my ability to think it through properly! Dpmuk (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Anne Marie of Orléans even though the page is still under an RM. Could you move it back and, if necessary merge the histories. In the vein, LouisPhilippeCharles has been doing a lot of cut and paste moved for in relation to the whole of Orleans/d'Orleans debate. I left him a brief message requesting that he not engage in cut and paste moves but rather use the RM process. If you could keep an eye on it that'd be appreciated. All the best.--Labattblueboy (talk
  ) 13:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anthony, many of these articles were at "of Orléans" initially anyway before they were moved without discussion or consensus. Isn't there a convention for restoring the article titles and then discussing?
  Seven Letters
  21:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Which of these articles need to be moved to where to get them back to their original names? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested at

• "And Concordia University to Concordia University (disambiguation)."

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean: "I am proposing that Concordia University be moved to Concordia University (disambiguation)."?
Do you mean: "Concordia University was moved to Concordia University (disambiguation) without discussion."?
Or do you mean something else?
I'd appreciate a clarification please. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Proposed. I have made it clearer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, but I'm afraid I still don't understand. Are you supporting, opposing, or commenting on the move? Apologies for being such a pain. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Someone requested the moves
  Concordia University (Montreal) to Concordia University and Concordia University to Concordia University (disambiguation) in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests. I realized that there many be two opinions on this move, so I put it to be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Right! Thanks. Good idea. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why this revert? 92.4.59.122 (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I have re-reverted it back again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks. 92.4.59.122 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It actually is possible, as long as you're an administrator. (This is a fairly recent development). I performed the move. harej 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you help me with this article? Basically, there has been a decision to rename this airport, though the exact new name is a matter of much debate. One user has just gone and made a couple of moves that I am unable to undo myself, so I'm asking for help! There's an ongoing discussion here where all but one editor has said the original name should be retained until the exact new name is known. The editor who moved it is also not totally sure! Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have linked this discussion to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Jasepl (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• MOS Two style guides (one general, and one specific to music articles) are very clear on how these articles should be titled. I don't see how this is in any substantial way controversial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have re-proposed these moves back as discussed moves, which will duly appear in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony! You previously commented at

Howdy. FYI, I've had some more thoughts. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. I suggested David Wilson (footballer born 1908) in the RM discussion, in the light of new sourced information on birth and death. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else got round to actually adding said info to the article. I've now done so, so would it be reasonable to move the poor man again, to David Wilson (footballer born 1908), or, if we're being precise, David Wilson (footballer born c. 1908), for consistency with how the other ones are named? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have started a move discussion about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
  talk
  ) 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Requested move: Mary, Queen of Scots. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that your closing of the discussion at Up in the Air (film)#Requested move adequately considered the validity of the arguments. The opposing arguments consisted of:

• "The phrase "Up in the air" has been around longer than the book or the film" - Yes, that's true, but entirely irrelevant since there is apparently no article with information about the phrase itself. Also,
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  is pretty clear that the criteria for determining a primary topic is about which topic users are seeking, and not about which topic came into existence first.
• "leave a dab page at the primary location" - No argument whatsoever, despite much earlier discussion about why that's not a good solution.
• "I don't see any problem with a two entry dab page. It's very clear that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - neither page should be [[Up in the Air]" - Again, no actual argument addressing the earlier discussion, which had virtually all been in consensus that the film should be the primary topic. And isn't it a coincidence that both of these last two statements, promoting a view that nobody else agreed with,came from anonymous users, within a few minutes of each other?

There were several hundred words of thoughtful discussion of the kind Wikipedia should be promoting, and everyone who participated in that conversation (by which I mean replying to people who disagreed with them) had arrived at the conclusion that the film was the primary topic. It's discouraging that several people who take the time to hash out an issue, can be overruled by a few sentence fragments with no sense of sincerity behind them. I request that you reconsider, and if you still feel there was no consensus to move the page, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the right way to seek a second opinion. Propaniac (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted my closure. But, looking through the discussion I have found 3 each of support and oppose, and much inconclusive discussion giving plenty of opinion for both sides. That looks quite like "no concensus" to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Much of the discussion opposing the move came from a single user (
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. And I really, really do not think that two IPs that don't address any of the discussion should be given much weight. But thank you for reopening the discussion. Propaniac (talk
    ) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony, I noticed that you moved
  Trentino – Alto Adige/Südtirol as an uncontroversial request. You shouldn't know it, but the article title has always been very controversial. The current title was chosen as a compromise and reflects the official title of the region per Italian Constitution: "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" without spaces (see Costituzione Italiana – Titolo V). Moreover, as the move was proposed only at Wikipedia:Requested moves and was not linked in the article's discussion, had the chance to oppose it. I would have definitely opposed the move if I had been aware that it was proposed. I thus ask you to rollback the move. Kind regards, --Checco (talk
  ) 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have reverted the move and tagged it for discussion: see Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed that you canceled the History Merge claiming that the page was always a History. You were looking at the wrong page where Tilikum redirected to which was Tillicum. This edit in the edit history of Tilikum shows it was there and it was merged into that one page and then split back out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilikum&oldid=270214351. Please take a 2nd look at it. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 04:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Communauté métropolitaine de Québec#Move?

The first of the two articles mentioned at

Please discuss this in Talk:Mastic (plant resin).

• "
  Mastic " is made out of Pistacia lentiscus tree ! . Unfortunately many people in the world do not know this spice is known to only a few in the Middle East, And a secret except for people as a great healer. I ask not to be confused with Gum arabic is something else entirely! . " Mastic is made of wood and Pistacia lentiscus ". And Gum arabic is produced from a Acacia tree resin. This spice also does not appear in any dictionary in the world and the first time he appears in the encyclopedia That he always appears in the encyclopedia as a "resin of Pistacia lentiscus" . Recently I went to the Hebrew Language Academy to recognize this word of this spice to appear in the dictionary. Greek island " Chios " know the spice is already 2000 years. Today Mastic known oriental foods, especially " Mastic ice creams " like Dondurma (turkish ice cream gum) and " Booza (arabic ice cream gum) . I would like to know about " Mastic " as an independent value for all. this spice is called only " MASTIC " and nothing else. in hebrew it is have many names and latin the word mastic is mean chewing gum. burekas (talk
  ) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mr Appleyard

  You have deleting some of my material in different operation I have corrected. I have studying these battles for over 30 years and a history major in school. I also fought in some of these operation when I was a Marine grunt in the Nam! I was wounded several times. I was with 2nd Battalion 4th Marines in 1967 and 3rd Battalion 4th Marines in 1968! I know most of these people personally. I do have my connection. What I give you is true!

  Thank You! 18:08, 5 March 2010 User:Traveler52

• Which of your materal have I deleted? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mr. Appleyard...

  You deleted a page that was absolutely noteworthy. It contained verifiable information as well as worthy content. I compared Mission Community Church's content to several other churches within Wikipedia and mine was far more content rich. Please explain the purpose for your deletion.

  Kerri Lawrey-Jones 22:21, 5 March 2010 User:Mission68

• At 23:11, 4 March 2010 User:Phantomsteve tagged it for speedy deletion "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).". Its deletion log reads:
  1. 17:52, 5 March 2010 User:Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mission Community Church" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  2. 19:19, 27 January 2010 User:NawlinWiki (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mission Community Church" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  3. 21:24, 26 January 2010 User:Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mission Community Church" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the headings for the various 'market theatres' by renaming the Johannesburg article, as I requested earlier.

I recently made some corrections to the Wiki article "The Market Theatre (Ledbury)", with which I'm connected (as well as running its website). I don't know who the original author is (Wobblydog).

This page is still preceded by the following, presumably placed there by Wiki moderators:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "January-March" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "January-March" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

I have put in one reference today - but I note the Johannesburg article, which has no references at all, does not have the above notices. I would have thought there was no difference in 'notability' between the two articles. Could you remove the notices now?

Superstevegs (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Re Market Theatre (Johannesburg), is there any ref-type matter at the external links? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry about the article, it's my first, but I think I found out the problem and I'm going to try again.Futuramarama (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I am will shortly be posting to

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project".

• I am sorry that I seem to have made some mistakes with a disabmbiguation page regarding Magnus I of Sweden. Thank you for restoring things! I'm not very good at such technicalities I'm afraid. The actual move needs to be done as per the discussion here. Looks like that disambiguation page may constitute a hindrance in getting that article appropriately named. Can you help accomplish that? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Appleyard! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi AA. Thanks for carrying out the renaming of Peter Kjær (architect)! I noticed that at the same time you moved "the other" Peter Kjær to Peter Kjær (footballer) and created a disambiguation page. Looking at Google News hits, and for that matter Wikipedia article links, it seems that there is a case to be made for keeping the footballer as the primary topic. You probably have considerable experience with this, so I'll yield to your opinion. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• That depends on how much Peter Kjær (footballer) is a dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• The criteria suggested in WP:PT include news search and article link, and these are both strongly in favor of keeping the footballer as the primary topic. If truth be told, it took bit of an effort to assemble the reliable sources for the architect. Favonian (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony!

  I noticed your moving

  Giovanni di Stefano (personality). While the former is unproblematic, the latter has been discussed with quite some controversies. While the discussion didn't produce a clear result, it is obvious that Privatemusings' request wasn't supported by a single discussant. Please reconsider your decision in that light. Regards, PanchoS (talk

  ) 12:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• and also please note that the lawyer's name is spelt Giovanni Di Stefano, with a capital "D".
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 16:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• I moved my comment to
  Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(lawyer)#Requested_move. Were you sent any private email asking you to do that move? --Enric Naval (talk
  ) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• I should probably head to the talk page too - but I'll echo enric's comments there and point out that the (lawyer) bit is probably inaccurate, and doesn't have a consensus - my reading of the talk page is that the (personality) title is best, and has the strongest support - how would you feel about fixing that up, or would more eyes be handy? Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion, I shall probably raise further discussion at WT:WikiProject Bristol. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• You closed
  Talk:Elizabeth_II of the United Kingdom/Archive 20#Requested move. Was this your (in)famous "casting vote" in action again? Let me know when you're taking a break and I'll see if I can open a request when it might end up being closed by someone who hasn't expressed a view in previous discussions. Angus McLellan (Talk)
  23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• My message was a question, not a statement of opinion. OK, OK, I have reverted the closure. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks for that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I recently updated a profile for AlertSite, basing the overall format on another company who has a Wiki entry (and after re-reviewing information on posting your first article multiple, multiple times). The version I posted had an additional paragraph that provided additional source information to demonstrate its notabilty. The profile was deleted for unambigous advertsing. In your opinion, is it better to only have the first two paragraphs with one source listed (like the other company has done)? Any assistance and/or guidance that you can provide on getting this entry posted would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time. 76.109.251.11 WebWonderGal (Talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you. If I resubmit my article with just the first two paragraphs and the external link for the company website, would the article be accepted? If not, what would other things would need to be done to keep the article on the site? WebWonderGal (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• AlertSite. Try it, but there is a risk that it will be deleted {{db-corp}} (= "may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you for feedback, I really appreciate it. One thing I am confused about - other company articles (ie Coradiant) are accepted. Would you be able to explain why Coradiant is considered noteworthy and AlertSite is not? Any additional insight that you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Also, I assume that with each speedy deletion entry, the liklihood of getting your article posted is reduced. Is this the case? I don't want to limit the liklihood of it being posted. Thank you in advance for your time. WebWonderGal (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, as there was consensus on
  Nev1 (talk
  ) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done I histmerged
  Comparison between Roman and Han Empires to Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires and make Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and its archives into archives of Talk: Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires. I checked the edit version compare astride the merged cut-&-paste point and this histmerge seems valid. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• That's great stuff, thanks very much for sorting that out. Sorry to force the issue, but I was under the impression that a merge wouldn't be possible, and as the article had been languishing in project space for over a month without any attention I thought it was time to move it. Thanks again,
  Nev1 (talk
  ) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have left some information at the end of Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires/Archive 4. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of this. I apologize for losing track of this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've started several palaeobotany stubs on Alethopteris, Neuropteris, and Annularia, mainly because I have great pictures of them from the State Museum of Pennsylvania. You seem like the type that could contribute effectively to them, or know someon that would want to. I hope you can contribute. Jim Stuby (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• The information in page
  ISBN 0-901702-53-6, which I borrowed from a library and is now back in that library. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 06:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please move this page back to its proper name. This title has been discussed ad nauseum, and it is the consensus that" War on Terrorism" is more descriptive than "War on Terror." Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• There was no consensus for moving that back, only William's objection. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have started a new move discussion at
  Talk:War on Terrorism#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 13:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A quick perusal of the recent discussion indicates three editors in favor of moving the article to "War on Terror", with one dissenting. Arguments for keeping it as "War on Terrorism" are inconclusive, not following the terminology throughout the article, and (in my opinion) not warranted. To say that "War on Terror" is "less descriptive" simply flies in the face of history, I feel quite strongly. We are an encyclopedia, not a place to revise or quantify what was termed the "War on Terror", when it clearly was termed as such. Thank you for your time! :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Noted at the RfD of at least three redirects that currently point to
  War on Terror. B.Wind (talk
  ) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, Thank you so much for your help in moving the Love/Truelove Brewster page. Dranster (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Okay' Here's what makes sense to me:
  • WP:MUSTARD
    .
  • The Best Christmas Album In The World...Ever! should be an unprintworthy redirect to The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever! from alternative capitalization.
  • The Best... Album in the World...Ever! is fine where it is, as it's an album series. This article is about a whole bunch of albums named "The Best [X] Album in the World...Ever!" including The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever!.

  Does that make sense? If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks for helping out with the Advocacy group history merge. 15:12, 16 March 2010 User:PeterEastern

• It appears that your proposal for dabifying
  WT:RM). In the discussion I made a suggestion for an alternative that I think would declutter the top of WP:Requested moves in the way that you seem to desire: why not start a WP:RM (disambiguation), to which you can link a single hatnote from the WP:Requested moves page (if you create it, don't forget WP:WikiProject Romania!). B.Wind (talk
  ) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• You shouldn't have deleted this page, it's charting on the Canadian Hot 100 now, there's a reason to have it now. Please bring it back. TheBigOnesEater (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Get Paper. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, sorry but THAT DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!!! Things have changed now, it is charting in Canada on the Canadian Hot 100, now please undelete now. TheBigOnesEater (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Interesting it entered that chart at #59 [3] and I cannot find the Canadian top 100 on
  WP:MUSIC criteria 2 now... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions}
  00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have undeleted
  I Get Paper and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 06:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Might want to watch this. Author is still trying to get rid of the redirect even though there was a consensus to do so (I boldly redirected already). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have put page
  I Get Paper on my watch list. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 07:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are invited to join the discussion at
  talk) 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see
  }})

• Why did you move
  SOCKS (protocol) only to move it back again? --Hm2k (talk
  ) 09:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Second thoughts. I decided to wait for more discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Then, perhaps you could share your views in the discussion instead? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, next time you move/rename an article that has existing links could you also move the 'what links here' article links? You moved
  Victory Station that had a well established usage on WP but failed to edit any of the templates or articles that linked there Special:WhatLinksHere/Victory_Station. Maybe next time you could just suggest the rename on the talk page and let those who care about keeping everything neat prepare for the move? I check this article a lot and was rather surprised when it moved, but only thought of the link impact when visiting another article and saw the problem. Thanks! Spectre9 (talk
  ) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• What was you basis for establishing
  the move of Ortega. There was no support stated for the proposed move and even the nominator couldn't decide on one destination title. — AjaxSmack
  04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• The discussion had run inconclusively for 15 days and someone had to make a decision. The information in the original page
  Ortega (surname), is about the etymology and heraldry of the name Ortega, and I decided that most people looking up "Ortega" would be look for some man named Ortega. Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog has got massively long and someone needs to start getting it shorter. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 05:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the need to clear the backlog and I appreciate your work but a move is not required of every RM. If you had a strong opinion as to the location, you probably should have left it to another party to close the move. As far as your reasoning, I understand it but a disambiguation page is not supposed to list every page that includes part of that name in its title.
    WP:DABNOT says: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title..." Therefore, none of the people named Ortega should be on the dab page anyway which would render the need you proffer for Ortega to be a dab page moot. Since your reasoning is not supported by existing Wikipedia policy, no consensus resulted from the discussion, and closure of RMs by interested parties is frowned upon, I ask you to reconsider the move. — AjaxSmack
    07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I have redirected
  Ortega (surname). That will produce the effect of the original layout. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anthony, your move of Division I has left a number of problems in its wake. Please return to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Division 1/I/One and respond to the concerns brought up there. Thanks. Powers ^T 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have source for this? [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• I saw it spelt that way in a modern-age map in the back of a Bible that was printed before the state of Israel was founded. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't restore an old atrociously in-universe fan version of an article like you did for the article on the Zerg. The article was merged two years ago along with the others to create the
  sourcing available at present to build a proper Zerg article with comprehensive and verifiable reception and development information, as surprising and annoying as that might be. Perhaps after the new media is released, we'll have enough to work with to create a fully-fledged separate article (at least that's my hope), but as it stands at the moment, restoring something that just reiterates plot at a stupidly specific level (especially when we can provide links to places that provide that approach and do it far better than the old version) isn't the way forward. -- Sabre (talk
  ) 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Rv. I have heard and read "Noddy" used this way plenty times by computer users in former decades - because the term "Noddy" isn't mentioned in either of the target articles, this listing does does not belong on this dab page. It may be true (I don't doubt your word) but if it's to be included on the dab page, the information needs to be added (with <ref>s, obviously, as <ref>s are not permitted on dab pages) to the target article first.

See

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Talk:Flashback.
Message added 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at User talk:Marcus Aurelius Antoninus/Main Battle Tank.
Message added 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

does this convince you?

• Please see here Do you watch those move requests that you make? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Sarah Brown (public relations). Johnbod (talk
  ) 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have moved it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Was it your intention to add that extra period at the end of the title? Propaniac (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oops typo sorry. Now corrected including incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I need help sorting this all out. I don't think this page move will work. Dlohcierekim 14:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• AA, and I also need 1 day, so don't do it right now.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I already replied.

  And don't put it as AFD right now, I want to take few days until I can finish all of them. I can't finish this in one day.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't finish all of them - just finish the one, with proper references, and let it get through a new page review - if it passes that, then you can think about linking it up to others, to disambigs, etc. And it doesn't matter if it gets tagged for
  WP:AFD, as you can then make your case on that discussion, and will have 7 days to convince people to keep it -- Boing! said Zebedee
  15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Anthony, I now see what you did w/ this. I think a lot of sifting needs to be done. Off hand, I don't think usurpation of existing articles, even redirects is workable. Would value your view. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• But today I can't finish the main article!--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move Channel 3 (Thailand) to National Broadcasting Network (Thailand) and I will add some references that I found 3 in past week.

  I also have hard work on other websites, maybe I should go FAST FAST FAST!!

  See u tomorrow--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see any justification for that - Channel 3 (Thailand) is a major notable Thai TV station and should surely keep its own article with that title? -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also find some template(s) to put that I am still finding refs.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Hey I will move that you said in Talk:Myanmar Radio and Television#Move done because it's unrelated.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've reverted 118.172.189.233's refactor of Anthony Appleyard's comments and have warned him about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've done a bit of research into those Myanmar TV channels that our friend keeps claiming are Thai - I've added my comments at Talk:Myanmar_Radio_and_Television#Some_research -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a typo (which I didn't notice because it didn't show up as red link in the tag). It should have said Andrew Carnegie Free Library and Music Hall. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Cantonese