User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2009/October-December

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

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)

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)

Boktai: The Sun "is" (not "Is") in your Hands

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)

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)

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)

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)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

rename of Yugoslav wars

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)
  •  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. JKeck (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Template moves and double redirects

Good stuff, cheers.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shōnen Onmyōji move

Talk:Transparency and translucency

RE: Your edit to messages in Talk:Snooker season 2008/2009

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)

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)

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)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing the WikiProject Historical Atlas Talk Page. :) Daanschr (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Deletion of Daniel Jones (Jediism)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Move of Category

Copy paste Miraflores District, Lima

Description

Proposal

TrueColour (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for restoring the talk page- Talk:Knanaya EasoPothen (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bozo (etymology)

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)

Jason Adonis

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)

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)

Rothstein_Rosenfeldt_Adler

  • 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)

Purses and handbags

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)

Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/movediscussion

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)

Jessica Hynes / Samantha Janus

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)

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)


Speedy deletion nomination of E-learning/version 2

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)

Page move

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)

battles

Chess

  • 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)

Deletion of Mango Languages

  • 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)

Edremit

Please continue this discussion in Talk:Edremit (District), Balıkesir#Requested move.

Music for The Native Americans

  • 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)
  • Yes, I know; I'm the person who put that note there in the first place. My point is that the original page move from The to the took place in spite of the note — I was asking if there was anything else that could be done in addition. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Put the page on your watchlist. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

You are using your admin powers against WP rules

Crown Prince

  • Convention: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun.
  • "A crown prince" is an ordinary noun, no capitals.
    • "Crown Prince Friedrich" is a name with title, it is a proper noun, capitals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

regarding deletion of Prem Chaaya: Love-nest for Animals and Birds

Hi,

This article was recently deleted, please let me know the reasons, this prem chaaya is the only place in mangalore where orphaned animals are kept, is something wrong in writing abt it, or is it against the guidelines

Thanks 117.240.88.97 (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Carless Refining and Marketing Ltd

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Carless Refining and Marketing Ltd, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.petrochemcarless.com/docs/about_us_history.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Busch/SeaWorld move

Thanks for your assistance this morning. I was just looking at how we could move this to keep other good-faith editors from making the changes when, lo and behold, you were making the moves at the same time. Appreciate your assistance! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

Since you have contributed to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, this is to inform you of a discussion which I have started at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Criteria for inclusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Op-Center

Hello, I don't think it was appropriate when you converted the RM from uncontested to full as a group nomination, since each move used different rationales (well, they weren't the same rationales, and weren't meant to be either.)

70.29.209.121 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

CAIR

  • Hi. Tx for joining the conversation. I'm not all that familiar with this process. Perhaps I've set it up incorrectly? What I'm suggesting, is that when someone searchs for CAIR they go directly to the organization I indicated, and that that page have a hatnote (if that is the correct phrase) to the disambig page. Does that make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If it can be proved that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a dominant meaning of the initials or word CAIR. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I've suggested as much, and shown how the other use mentioned as competing has 1/100th the ghits.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your move of; Next United Kingdom general election to United Kingdom general election, 2010

  • Anthony can I ask you for the reason behind your move of the above mentioned article. Two weeks ago a discussion took place for over a week which was wholly against any move. Last night a discussion was opened again on this topic and 4 hours later you initiated the above move. A move I might add that occurred just 15 minutes after (some) of previous opposers had been notified of this discussion. Do you not think you have been a little premature in this move? Thank you - Galloglass 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have moved it back and started discussion on this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you Anthony. - Galloglass 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SETUR

  • Hi there; you just deleted this page. The {{speedy}} nomination made no sense, in that it claimed that the article was nothing to do with dentistry - and, as it was about a type of water pump, this is not surprising. Could I ask the rationale for deletion? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And it looks like advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election >> United Kingdom general election, 2010

Firstly, apologies for putting up an Uncontroversial move request without checking to see if there was an ongoing discussion. However, I think the page should now be moved per WP:SNOW on two occasions now (here and here). Also, as started in the discussions, under UK law an election must now take place in 2010. Thank you. --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FlashForward / Flash Forward

  • Oops - did I do that? Clearly I meant:

Flash Forward (Canadian TV series) → Flash Forward
FlashForward (American TV series) → FlashForward
Should I relist at unconditional moves? The requested moves page keeps reverting it. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pinewood Derby

Cyanosaurus into Cyonosaurus

Hello Anthony. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I don't know the method to be followed to effect a merging in this wiki :S... The point is: I'm a biologist, from es-wiki. I have requested the article Cyanosaurus to be included into Cyonosaurus. Despite there was interesting information into the bad-named article, the name "Cyanosaurus" is a mistake. The correct one is Cyonosaurus (gr. "cyon", dog, and "saûros", lizard). For example, Cyonosaurus is shown in the original publication of 1937, in which the discoverer of this genus (Everett Claire Olson) exposes its features: "The Cranial Morphology of a New Gorgonopsian", publisher: The University of Chicago Press... In addition, you can check this issue in any specialized literature, or online-taxonomy... So we had a repeated article, with additional content... but the name "Cyanosaurus" is incorrect, so it must be deleted. I had merged the contents of both articles and Dferg requested the merging of the histories. Sorry if we are wrong. Thank you very very much for your helping. Best regards. Tirithel (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Page move

TIHUS - The International Hindi-Urdu Script

  • Under which provision of db-a7 did you delete this article? It does not appear to me to be a person, a group of people, an organization, an animal, or web content. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It had been deleted before. I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Using Colours rename

Could you please follow up to my comment at Wikipedia talk:Using Colours #Done? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else handled it. Sorry to bother you. Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Twin towns or Sister cities?

  • Hi Anthony, I though I'd let you know that there is a new discussion open on proposed name modification (Twin towns, Sister cities or both?) on this talk page. Your comments would be very much appreciated -- Marek.69 talk 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Restoring a deleted article

  • Hi Anthony, Just letting you know that I am recreating John Lyons (horse trainer). It won't be much more than a stub because I don't care all that much about the topic, nor have I time to do a really big article. But I'm also not sure why it got deleted (I thought I had it watchlisted, but oh well), but the fellow is a notable horse trainer, so a heads up that it's getting recreated and if there is a problem with deletion, be so kind as to let me know and I'll add a bit to it. I'm not in (or out of) the guys fan club, but we have articles on many of his colleagues and he's as significant as several of the others and better at what he does than a lot of them. Montanabw(talk) 06:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It was speedy-delete-tagged as "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", and it looks like advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll try to do it so as to avoid that tone. (grin) Maybe the article was started by a member of the fan club. I'm not. (Don't dislike the fellow either, just sort of agnostic on the topic, personally) The guy is legit and as mainstream as any of the natural horsemanship crowd, and more legit than some. I'll avoid anything that smacks of faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Let me know if it needs more (or less) to be acceptable. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

44th century (Hebrew)

Please reconsider your deletion of 44th century (Hebrew). The article survived an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew), in September 2009. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thank you for translating the text I had quoted from the French Wikipedia at Talk:Cafres. That was somewhat silly of me to have forgotten to translate it myself. Munci (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Well-Tempered Clavier

Yes/old version

Martin Katz

Hi. I saw you worked on the Martin_Katz_(American_jewelry_designer) article. But I believe the redirect belongs on the article about Martin_Katz the musician, not the other way around. Thoughts? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Article title

  • Hi, re the Sarah Thomas thing, I don't know what's going on, but you removed text I had added, so I restored it. If you want to deal with it from now, that's fine, but I think only one of us should, otherwise we have too many cooks. :) I'll bow out unless I'm asked to comment again. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems that we 2 were each trying to do the same thing at the same time. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PTSD article - some thoughts and a question

Anthony,

I like your recent minor edits to the article. To my eye, your revisions simply produce more readable, understandable copy. Always and forever a good thing!

I'm intrigued by your moving the contents list to page right. I think it works, because it helps the reader dive into the text more quickly, while at the same time presenting him/her with an immediately visible contents list to access. I do have a small technical concern however, and I'm not sure what to do about it: I checked page rendering in these browsers: MS IE 8, Firefox 3.5.6, and Opera 10.10 - the three browsers I use most. There's a problem in Firefox: the contents box margin, at the top left, is intruded upon by the text. It's not awful, but its also not right, and looks sloppy. Speaking technically, the contents box object margin is not being respected by the browser rendering engine. We cannot fix that except by adjusting the page CSS. which is something someone else need to do. Do you know where to report this problem?

I notice that on your talk page (here) the page-right contents listing is overly wide, and doesn't look right (again, this is in my Firefox browser). This probably should also be reported, unless it's a user error. Basically, that just shouldn't happen. User error should be prevented by good coding, so I think the Wikipedia staff need to fix this. (It is easy to check the page in a fairly large number of browsers, and it certainly should be checked in that miserable MS IE6 browser which still is in use on far too many computers, but...that's not my job, and my schedule is already quite full. I would hope that the Wikipedia programmers would do this. I know that this is easy 'cause I've designed a number of web pages for various folks.)

Finally, I truly hope you think I wasn't too harsh or heavy handed in my response to your reversion of my recent section deletion in the PTSD article. I can get a bit fierce at times, without realizing it, and that is not my intent at all. My agenda is transparent, in any case: I'm intent on pushing this article toward A-class status. The subject deserves it, I think. While doing this, I have no wish to offend anyone unnecessarily, and I am certainly open to feedback and/or discussion. I do appreciate your attention to the article, and I've noted a number of noteworthy good things you've done to it since I've been involved with it, for which I'm grateful.

I'll be watching here for your comment about the browser rendering problem. Fixing this would be of system-wide benefit.

TomCloyd (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthony, maybe I'm not being clear, so let me try again: As your talk page and my browser tests clearly show, the format change you made to PTSD creates an immediate problem in a browser used by 30% of the Internet (the contents list margin issue), and a potential problem should any section head become really lengthy (the excessive contents list box width issue). The latter problem is replicated in Opera, and well may be in MS IE as well.

So, if you cannot fix this, I will undo the formatting, while you work on a solution - or on getting one done by the Wikipedia folks (trust me, we're not going to get Mozilla to fix this for us).

I don't have time to clean up after the change you made. My time is far better spent slogging through content quality issues. I need to see you take responsibility for the issues I have pointed out - right away, else the change must be undone, it cannot be left in its present state. What we had before worked. What we now have doesn't. It's that simple.

TomCloyd (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • PTSD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The overlapping which you speak of :: I have had it before, but it does not seem to be happening with page Posttraumatic stress disorder on my current Firefox, which is Firefox 3.0.4 . Which version of Firefox are you using? (At the top of the Firefox screen click menu 'Help, Release notes'.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi, Anthony. You moved List of Nazi-German concentration camps → List of Nazi concentration camps.[4] This move popped up on my watchlist via an i-link. Up until that point, I was unaware of the request. The proposal was submitted by User:Koavf as an "Uncontroversial requests" just hours ago.[5] However, the request was highly controversial and should have been listed under Contested requests, with proper template placed at the article talk page first. One of the reasons why the current title is controversial is explained in the opening line of the article. But most importantly, the issue of proper naming of the Nazi-German camps was already addressed by various international bodies including UNESCO, Yad Vashem, and two different governments. Please see article "Polish death camp" controversy for the particulars. Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move 2

Concerning your fast response to my request to move Have Gun - Will Travel to allow popups to function: Thank you. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pixel Qi thanks

Thanks for your swift help, moving the article Pixel Qi. Much appreciated. --Lester 06:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Master Production Schedule

Hi. I notice the article "Master Production Schedule" was changed to "Master production schedule". I think I have an idea why this was done, but I don't agree with the change. At one point in my career, I designed MPS applications, and I can say with certainty it is generally not spelled with mixed uppercase and lowercase in real life. I also wrote the BBC about a similar problem, I think it was spelling NASA as Nasa. (I note my spellchecker marks the lowercase version as a spelling error.) Their response was basically, "It's cool, we like it, and we don't care what the organization chooses to call itself."

Could we review this change, please? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agta (Mythical Creature)

When looking for information on this subject I discovered you deleted an article called "Agta (Mythical Creature)" in April 2009.

I lived in the Philippines for three years and did not become aware of this cultural belief in this super natural being until it was almost the time I moved back to the United States. Looking for information on this subject I stumbled onto Wikipedia and discovered that YOU had erased the article I was looking for. In my opinion this was a very culturally insensitive thing to do.

Please restore the article immediately because I do not know how to do this. If you don't believe this is a mythological creature in the Philippines among Cebuano speaking people I have a reference from Dictionary of Cebuano Visaya by John U. Wolff.

Because you erased the article I was seeking I am unable to find more information on this subject. Dr CareBear (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2009/October-December&oldid=1210736538"