Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2011/April-June

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

Tel Abib

DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels)

Turquoise Jeep Records

Major Regression on Space Tether

FYI

You deleted EcoGem as G12 when the talk page had an OTRS tag on it and there was a comment left in the article history that OTRS permission was verified. Just a heads up for future reference. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature

  • Anthony, between here and here you apparently added my signature to the RM name line. Move the content isn't a real issue to me (although, I don't think it was necessary or a good idea, I'm not going to argue about it at all), but I do have a problem with putting my signature places that I haven't put it. Please don't do that again.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry to have annoyed you. A discussed move request without a signature causes a malfunction in the bot User:RM bot which sets up the file Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Also, the move request must be in the talk page of the page which is to be moved, not elsewhere, else again the bot User:RM bot misunderstands. I checked in pages' history lists to see who had composed that move request text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Anthony, I'm not "annoyed". You misrepresented yourself and me by adding my signature to a talk page where I hadn't. Your reply above makes the situation worse because it seems to indicate that this is some sort of a regular procedure you use. You can not be adding other people's signatures to talk pages. I can't believe that I have to say this to an admin... And please tell User:Harej to fix his damn bot already. These same issues were issues two years ago! Although, I will mention that placing the RM on a sub-page doesn't at all appear to be an issue, with a small bit of post-placement editing. I didn't see where that tripped up User:RM bot at all. Just because the template includes the sub-page name is no reason to assume that there's a problem (although the template itself is certainly in need of an update...).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If the move request does not contain with a signature with a date in, User:RM bot cannot find which day to classify the move request under. I found by experience that that signature must end in the date and then "(UTC)", else User:RM bot does not identify it. Please, what changes do you want to be made to User:RM bot? (For a long time Wikipedia has had a bot User:SineBot that adds signatures to unsigned messages in discussion pages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Securities Industry differs from Security Industry

  • Greetings -- Securities (stocks, bonds and their derivatives) differ from Security (guards, surveillance equipment, etc.) The Securities Industry Association, which was widely known by the initials SIA, should never redirect to something called Security Industry A______ (Authority, etc.). May I have your blessing to re-create the page Securities Industry Association, with a redirect from the SIA disambiguation page? If so (I am new at this), what else do I have to do to avoid having the page re-deleted? Kirkpete (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify, even though the only change in the text string is one changed letter and two additional letters, "Securities" is unrelated to "Security". Applesauce and orange marmalade -- except the S words are spelled almost alike. Kirkpete (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • See this diff. I have made stubs at the two pages under question. The original long page Securities Industry Association was a copyvio of an external web site. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclosed AFD

Removal of Request Page

Move request

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Histmerg of 3d Wing into 3rd Wing

Thanks! Ng.j (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

South Tyrol

Requested Move close at Korolyov

Tornado move

I was not trying to close it, I was just trying to say that whilst this move was suggested it wasn't proposed by me although i did put it on RM. I originally moved it per above. And now please ignore my first request above. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

History merges

See User talk:Pichpich#New big wave of histmerge requests.

Cut-and-paste merges

Absolutely up for doing more. I will try to make it part of my routine again. Cool Hand Luke 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification re Carter IV

Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol

  • Hello again. Thanks for moving Trentino. Now that you've moved both that province and South Tyrol recently, I was wondering if you'd like to take a look at the region page, which is also under a current move request. In particular, I'd love your thoughts (either as a closer or a participant) on the issue of WP:COMMONNAME (and the other WP policies at issue). The provincial pages were moved largely on a common name rationale, but for whatever reason, the focus at Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol has been on official usage and previous compromises (both of which applied but were disregarded at the provincial moves). I think a consistent application of WP policy on these three pages would benefit the encyclopedia, but I'm looking for more thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello. Just thought I'd ask you about your closing rationale here. As I'm sure you noticed, there was a tremendous amount of overlap among the participants in this move request and the ones for Trentino and South Tyrol, which you also recently closed. A large number of people who supported the latter two explicitly referenced WP:COMMONNAME, and rejected earlier editorial consensus and "official" usage. In this discussion, however, many of the same people reversed themselves, citing earlier consensus and "official" usage as reasons to override WP:COMMONNAME. (I'll add that even the stats posted by one of the oppose !voters show just how much more common "Trentino-Alto Adige" is in English.) Did you take any of that inter-article inconsistency, or the common-name dominance of "Trentino-Alto Adige" into account in this move request? Does it bother you? Interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As I wrote, there was no concensus after 3 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • But don't you agree that there was consensus that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is the common name of the region? (Even the opposer's stats show it at 90% of English-language usage.) Which is why my question for you was whether, as the recent closer of the moves of South Tyrol and Trentino, you took notice that many of the same folks who relied on WP:COMMONNAME there rejected it here - even though it's a stronger common-name case? In other words, did you take into consideration the concerns I outlined above? I'm just trying to figure out why WP:COMMONNAME wasn't applied consistently to this third move. Sorry to bug you. Dohn joe (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, OK, I have reopened the discussion, at Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol#Requested move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have again closed this move discussion: there was no concensus in 28 days, and no concensus was likely. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The actual closing is not my main beef. I'm more trying to understand your evaluation of the discussion, and, I suppose, your view of the role of a closing admin. Here, the proposed name was clearly the common name, as acknowledged by essentially all of the participants. WP:COMMONNAME was then rejected. And seen in isolation, that can be fine - there are times when the pure common name can be overriden by other considerations. But read together with the two other page moves that you closed, it's odd that the same people who argued for common-name usage in the first two would argue against it in the third, when the naming backdrop for all three was so similar.
    And so I'm asking for your understanding of how an admin should evaluate these sorts of things. It was my understanding that an admin doesn't have to be just a !vote counter, and can take into consideration things like strength of argument - and, I'm suggesting, consistency of argument among a group of related pages. How do you see it? Dohn joe (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The discussion has much to say for "accept", and much to say for "reject", and much to say for other possible names. It is a no concensus. I have seen many discussions get longer and longer and never reach a concensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, that still doesn't answer my question about whether you (as the closer of all three, and having been notified of the issue prior to closing) compared the participants and noted the difference in arguments some of them made here versus at South Tyrol and Trentino, but thanks anyhow. Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Odd move

Speedy deletion nomination of User WikiDan61/Sandbox

A tag has been placed on User WikiDan61/Sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Székely → Székelys

abortion moves

  • To be blunt, I feel what you have done is a travesty, and I urge you to reverse both of your decisions and recuse yourself from any admin action on any of those articles in the future. It is not appropriate to start a move discussion, comment in it, hold an opinion, and then close it yourself. I don't see how you could see one of those as no consensus, and the other not. And again, commenting on discussions where you clearly have an opinion, then closing the discussion to favor your opinion is inappropriate. I said a little bit the first time around at pro-choice, but now that you have closed pro-life as well, I feel even more compelled to share my view. I intend to ask for an uninvolved admin to review BOTH of your closures. -Andrew c [talk] 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I have re-opened the move discussion at Talk:Pro-life movement#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijanis

  • Is the page itself meant to have full protection? It wouldn't surprise me given the potential for edit-warring on it. A user has asked on my talk page what I think of it. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Raft of undiscussed moves - "Islamic" to "Saracenic"

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rules of chess

Thank you

Thank you for performing 2 requested moves for me. Cheer! Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 06:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Hatlink. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia Hatlink redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

Nomination of Ordering flowers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ordering flowers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordering flowers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Move back to pro-life movement please

  • Dear Anthony,
    You're recent move of "Pro-life movement" to "Anti-abortion movement" is highly irregular and you should reverse it. You opened the discussion, and closed it. Then you re-opened it and moved the page a few days later after a handful of additional support votes. First of all you should not close a move request you have initiated yourself - certainly not as the result you desired. Besides this the closing and re-opening is also highly problematic. When you close a discussion like that people take the page off of their watch-lists because they think the matter is settled. Please undo this and leave it to an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone had to close the discussion, which has rhubarbed on repetitively for 7 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Peter E. James's talk page.
Message added 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Petr Nedved

  • I am confused about why your first moved “Petr Nedvěd” to “Petr Nedved” as an uncontroversial move; and then a few hours later you moved “Petr Nedved” to “Petr Nedvěd” as an uncontroversial move. The article should properly be titled “Petr Nedved”. This matter was discussed on the talk page where it was agreed that the article should be named Petr Nedved (without diacritics), however the page was later moved ( against consensus) to “Petr Nedvěd”. The request was made to have the article reverted back to “Petr Nedved”, which is an uncontroversial move because it has already been agreed to in the talk page discussion. Will you please now move it back to “Petr Nedved”? Dolovis (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done. I had moved Petr Nedved again by obeying an uncontroversial-type move request in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras

Dear Anthony

Thank you for the closing at St Pancras. Would you please consider respelling "concensus" to "consensus"? I don't want to sound snotty in any way about this and I apologize for bothering you - if you don't feel like it please feel free to ignore me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!! :) DBaK (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

French frigate Egyptienne (1799)

Thanks for handling the move. It must be a relief to occasionally do an uncontroversial move. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Move request

Petr Nedved (again)

Tomas Kubalik

I appreciate your position of starting the discussion on my behalf, but pursuant to WP:BRD the proper procedure should be to 'Revert' the article to its original position, and then after that reversion, the editor who made the 'Bold' move may then start a discussion, if desired. Dolovis (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Glee characters / Characters of Glee

Move of Llyr Huws Gruffydd

Really appreciate your speedy response to the move request on Llyr Huws Gruffydd. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Islam and Sikhism

  • Hi Fellow Editor, I wonder whether you could assist. This, editor appears to be doing some very strange edits based on some per conceived notions he has put on his talk page. I think it borders on WP:POV. He she has been issued with 3 warnings, and before I issue a final warning I wanted your intervention as you have done some work on that article. Thanks --SH 07:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The page in question is Islam and Sikhism. Judging by the amount of anonymous edits followed by usernamed reverts in its edit history, this looks like a more or less standard case of needing semiprotecting, which I have now done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. --SH 09:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Julie Robinson (curator)

I asked for an A7 speedy tag on this page and on the talk page (in the move discussion) you state "That speedy delete was challenged, so I changed it into an AfD". However it was challenged by the page creator and that's no reason not to speedy delete - if we allowed a page creator to stop a speedy delete the whole speedy delete system would grind to a halt. If you don't think it was a speedy delete candidate that's fine but the wording you used doesn't suggest that. Dpmuk (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Animals known of from Malagasy native tradition

Hi Anthony, I added this section to Fauna of Madagascar, where I think it fits in better, being a more general article that also discusses birds. If you think it is appropriate there, we should probably delete it from List of mammals of Madagascar, to avoid duplication. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy

You could have dropped me a note after doing this, you know. :(
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

iPhone 5

The Pain and The Great One

  • Hi! Could I enlist your help in this matter (since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about phrasal capitalization in titles)? The Judy Blume book The Pain and the Great One should be The Pain and The Great One, should it not? This from the article: "The girl refers to herself as The Great One, while calling her brother The Pain." Since this is the case, "The Great One" should have a capital "T", because it's the start of a separate phrase, correct? (Also, see the cover - the separation is apparent.) User:memphisto refuses to see my reasoning and has reversed me twice now, blindly citing WP:CAPS which does not really speak to this matter in specific.
    Ah, since I've written this paragraph, User:memphisto has written on my talk page comparing this title to "The Owl and the Pussycat" and "The Cat and the Canary" - which are not the same thing because they are not called "The Owl" and "The Pussycat", etc. I think your status as Administrator and your experience with phrasal caps. would help to arbitrate in this matter. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have started a move discussion at Talk:The Pain and the Great One#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly Stoopid (album)/old revert war listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slightly Stoopid (album)/old revert war. Since you had some involvement with the Slightly Stoopid (album)/old revert war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert van Kerckhoven RM

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Thank you! And thanks for the tutor of how the the moves are done. I need to know this stuff if I want to be a administrator in the LONG future. Jhenderson 777 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent history merge at Ol class tanker (1965)

Hi A.Appleyard. With regard to your recent history merge at Ol class tanker (1965) may I refer you to the discussion at User_talk:Antarctic-adventurer#History_merges (specifically my last comment) in case you have any input since you are experienced in these moves. Thanks. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

History merge at Lincoln Barnett

It looks good. But I think that next time I'm moved to write an article I may not use the sandbox. Cardamon (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Ophelia S. Lewis Move

Thanks for moving my stub article on Ophelia S. Lewis! I recently placed it in feedback to be reviewed in order to have the "unreviewed article" tag removed. If you could be of any assistance with that matter, I would GREATLY Appreciate it. Thanks again. (BellaBeau (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

The Game of Love move

Edit histories

Protection of Never on Tuesday

Multiple cut-and paste moves

I see you're active at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Would you be able to have a look at User talk:Andrewa#Cut-and-paste page moves? It seems a valid and possibly urgent request, and I'm probably not the best one to handle it. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Kabachan

Come on. The only people who responded to it were two IPs who did not raise good enough reasons as to why the page should not be moved. Please move the page as there is a standing consensus that individuals can format their name however they please so long as it is not a non-language entity as is apparently the case at Kesha.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Head over Heels

Brics Move Discussion

Thanks for that link. If you look at BRIC's talk page, an editor discussed how it was improperly moved. After it was moved, it didn't seem to have corrected the page history. But I did try to get an administrator to move it/fix it, but you can see he said consensus needed to be moved.Curb Chain (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Late-2000s financial crisis → Financial crisis (2007–present)

I noticed you undid the move.

Do you want me to remove the new section at the talk page I made?

Because there was already consensus here: Talk:Late-2000s_financial_crisis/Archive_2#Requested_move.

As I mentioned over there, there needs to be the word 2007 in the title. Otherwise it seems like the crisis started in 2000. Which makes the current title is very confusing.

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Move of Late-2000s financial crisis --> Financial crisis (2007–present)

Making WP:Mediation meaningful

Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who you will know is the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.

As context, please scan "Hands off" mediation plan.

Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party 9

Hawaii Territory

Maybe you can help with:

  • Hawaii Territory oldest edit from 19:12, 19 April 2003, which is a redirect to the following since 18:13, 22 May 2004,
  • Territory of Hawaii oldest edit from 16:38, 22 May 2004.

There is no overlapping edit except for the redirect creation and the 2003 article has no talk page, therefore a merge should be easy.

Merging Territory of Hawaii into Hawaii Territory would properly documented that a Hawaii Territory article already existed in 2003 and also credit would be given to the original creator. HawaiiLibre (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Then it would be correct:

Territory of Hawaii move

  • Why was the Territory of Hawaii moved to Hawaii Territory? There's no such thing. The entity is called "Territory of Hawaii". That's the official name. And what does the edit summary "asked", mean? I've seen an increasing number of page moves that make no sense whatsoever. For example, the move of Cuisine of Hawaii to Hawaiian cuisine. "Hawaiian cuisine" only refers to the food of Native Hawaiians, which is not what the article is about. The article is about the "Cuisine of Hawaii, which is the appropriate name. I don't know why these pages are being moved, but they are entirely incorrect. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Er, Anthony? Are you aware that the editor who requested this strange move created their account on June 8? Please revert the move request. There is no such thing as "Hawaii Territory". Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii: continued discussion

Hawaii Territory move

Both names are valid, "Territory of Hawaii" is more official and Hawaii Territory is more colloquial. This is similar to counties:

Officially it is "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", but the article is named Massachusetts. On http://www.nyc.gov one finds "Copyright 2011 The City of New York" and "New York City", the article is called New York City.

Hawaii is part of the United States of America and the article should use the common name instead of the legally more correct name. Wikipedia is not written for lawyers alone. HawaiiLibre (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, the common name is "Territory of Hawaii" not Hawaii Territory. Creating a new account to engage in controversial page moves tells me that this might require an SPI. I've seen this kind of disruption before. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Michigan State Historic Sites

Thanks! I guess making the /version2 subpage a redirect serves the same purpose.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New Super Mario Bros. Mii

Thank you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I know you already received one of these a year ago, but I think you deserve another one for your tireless and efficient work on merging histories and fixing cut-and-paste moves. It's much appreciated! Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

History merge

Thanks for letting me know about parallel revisions. I didn't know about that. I'll do as you said. Thanks again. Novice7 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

East or West?

Hi Anthony, thank you for reading and mulling over the Battle of Valmy article. I was indeed trying to say that Dumouriez reversed his march on the Austrian Netherlands, thus moving west – in the same direction as Brunswick, and arriving behind his lines. It's a somewhat confusing scenario: can you help clear it up? SteveStrummer (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I reworded that part slightly: hopefully this new version is less confusing to readers. Thanks for pointing it out! SteveStrummer (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Move question

Theatrology and Theatre studies

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
And from me too! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing the move, again

Two comments:

  1. While it's difficult to find a consensus for one set of titles over the other, there's a strong consensus that the titles need to be parallel. The close should reflect this, either by moving one article or by laying out a next step where a firm consensus for one set of titles over another can be determined. (Probably by doing something like what's going on at Talk:Santorum (neologism), where there's a section for one option, a section for the other, and a separate section for discussion so it doesn't get cluttered.)
  2. Given your history of problematic closes at these two articles, which always lead to more chaos, I suggest re-opening and letting another admin close before anything silly happens.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the merge proposal failed (at least there was no consensus for it, while there may not have been consensus against it). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my question. I asked if I should get another admin to open and re-close the discussion, both because your close does not reflect the consensus that arose from the discussion, and because your previous involvement has been both, well, existing (ie. involved) and contentious. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I added some stuff which should help. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gough

Hi, as you moved it and there is a thread at BLP noticeboard , would you please comment,Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian Gough - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM for Stick Style

Thanks much. Chris the speller yack 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

  • Morning Anthony, you well?
    I've never done a meetup before, but fancy this Manchester one becauses a) it's close, b) it's payday weekend, c) it's another thing ticked off the list of ideas I've always wanted to follow up. Dare I ask how I identify other Wikipedians? Do I wear a red carnation or is there a handshake? doktorb wordsdeeds 09:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I made up a badge from a safety pin and a piece of white cardboard with "[[User:Anthony Appleyard]]" written on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Haha, superb. I might "embrace the geek" and do something similiar :) doktorb wordsdeeds 10:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I can recommend the Wikipedia T-shirts! Not that I'm anywhere near Manchester. Andrewa (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Transformers Universe

Histmerge question

Hi Anthony, at Talk:Lying down game#Requested move, Herostratus has suggested that Planking (fad) and Lying down game should be histmerged. As far as I'm aware, they shouldn't be histmerged due to parallel histories (and I've commented saying as much at the RM), so I was wondering if you could please weigh in to say which one of us is correct (or if neither of us are!). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heathrow articles

  • Hi, saw your tweaks at Heathrow (hamlet), also now some welcome edits to Heathrow. After I created Great West Aerodrome and it was bedded down, I planned to do a proper summary per WP:SS in Heathrow (hamlet), but another editor was busy adding lots of duplicated stuff there for DYK exercises. Similarly, perhaps Heathrow should have a MAIN template to Great West Aerodrome and another to Heathrow (hamlet), and chop out lots of duplicated stuff. I suggested also splitting Heathrow airport history from modern Heathrow, but that was also stillborn. I'm usually quite busy elsewhere, but if you've got any spare time and inclination, suggestions welcome. PeterWD (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I seem to have shot myself in the foot there. My view is that Heathrow airport did not exist until 1946, so the hamlet and the 1930 airfield were not the same place, they just happened to have been demolished and overwhelmed, and there was no continuous aircraft operation, so separate airfields should appear as such. IMHO the loss of decent standalone articles is regrettable, especially as Heathrow page is already way too big and cumbersome to read or edit. Discussion might be nice.PeterWD (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have started a discussion at Talk:London Heathrow Airport#Text-merging with page Great West Aerodrome. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

Move to thank

Pardon the pun, but thanks for these moves and the other sterling work that you do round here that goes largely unnoticed and unappreciated! – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wii Series & Wii 2

I request history undeletions of Wii Series & Wii 2 as well as their talk pages. SNS (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks

for the Tanner move. now, I have to put more content in there. Work, work!  ;) TCO (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2011/April-June&oldid=1136208368"