This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Per the move discussion, this should have been moved to The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya without the disambig as it is completely unnecessary. Can the article be moved (hopefully for the last time) to the proper name? -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cuma, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/wiki.asp?k=Cuma. 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) 06:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please explain to me the nature of your changes to March (disambiguation), as I am not clear what you are accomplishing. --DThomsen8 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 ( talk • contribs)
• I put section headings in, so a contents list can direct readers to parts of the page. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Anthony. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamdanis is back R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I just want to know how you are reasoning around this snake thing. You reverted both mine and Ethan Mitchell's deletion but you have not replied to eatiher of ous in the discussion page, yet you write (restore deletion, or please discuss). I'm a bit lost, do you want me to restore the deletion if I really mean it or should I disuss it with you like I'm doing now.

Anyway, I'm aware of that it is possible to die of fright, however the current text implies that people actully are dying of fright after snake bites, if this is the case I think a citation is needed.

If you really want it to stay without a citation might I suggest we change

"An example of nocebo effect is someone who dies of fright after being bitten by a non-venomous snake."

to

"An example of nocebo effect would be someone who dies of fright after being bitten by a non-venomous snake."

Brainz ( talk) 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey there Anthony Appleyard, I recently requested Game (film) to be moved to Citizen Game due to the fact that the film was renamed, but you denied a history merge. I'm a bit confused here. Citizen Game should have been deleted to make way for the move, considering it was a cut and paste merge and that page had few edits, but that didn't happen. Could you clear this up a bit? — Σ xplicit 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry. I thought from your message that you wanted Citizen Game to be histmerged to Game (film). I have now moved Game (film) to Citizen Game, and the old Citizen Game to Citizen Game/version 2. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• No worries. Thanks for the move, and sorry for the mix up. — Σ xplicit 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the housekeeping. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another editor moved the above article because he wanted to add a spamlink into the disambiguation page he created (not an article!). You have now moved the song to to Piece of My Heart (song), to allow Piece of My Heart to become a disambiguation page. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't mind - save in this case we now have over 200 articles pointing to a disambiguation page which wasn't necessary in the first place. How about either fixing all the links to the disamb page or moving the song back where it was originally. We never needed a disabiguation page in the first place! Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Done moved the song page back. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir, I thank you. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed the move on List of Mayors of Corpus Christi, TX. I've got no problems with the move (I made the move, not the article), but I abbreviated the name because I found a number of other List of Mayors articles with a similar convention. If the full name is correct, then those other pages should be moved as well (and there are more than a few of them). Shadowjams ( talk) 06:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• People outside the USA may not know those 2-letter USA state abbreviations so well. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• You moved Trapezium rule to Trapezoid rule, and in doing so showed no regard for the last two comments on the relevant section of the talk page, including mine. Why? -- Smjg ( talk) 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• OK sorry: I have moved it to Trapezoidal rule, which the majority opinion seemed to be for. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs licensing, or it may be deleted. I'm trusting you can tag it appropriately with a GFDL-self tag since you claim you the image yourself entirely. — Moe ε 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the move and clean-up on red rice. I didn't intend for you to have to do the clean-up part, too, but I appreciate it.  :-) Wrs1864 ( talk) 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya. I was browsing Google Maps and got the notion in my head to geotag a few articles, but when I actually went to do so discovered that you had deleted Aruba Networks for "blatant advertising". I went back to the deleted version and only one sentence that's really advertising ("Aruba securely delivers..."). Admittedly, the article is a generic infotable plus a pretty lousy little stub, but I think the company is, in fact, worthy of some small article (they compete well enough with Cisco in the "wireless" niche, have a vaguely notable patent lawsuit with Motorola that might be mentioned, and have a few vaguely interesting technologies - and if you're looking for hype, they've been placed in a few Gartner "magic quadrants" lately). Would you kindly consider restoring the article with the removal of that sentence, and mmaybe even adding Cisco to the "Competitors" list? Or at least bring the article back for a proper deletion discussion. I'd do it myself except for the fact that I work there, and would prefer to avoid editing the article proper.

Thankees, -- Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I was in the process of declining that speedy deletion when you did it. The article made claims of notability, invalidating an A7 deletion. Why do you think it qualified? LadyofShalott ^Weave 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• No other articles linked to it. There are thousands of boxers. It seemed reasonably not notable to me. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are arguments for afd rather than speedy deletion though aren't they? If if makes a claim of notability (valid or not) speedy is not valid. (Incidentally, it's already been recreated at Joseph Paquet, listed at CSD, and I've declined saying take it to AfD.) LadyofShalott ^Weave 05:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you were the one to move it to proper capitalization. :) LadyofShalott ^Weave 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have undeleted and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! LadyofShalott ^Weave 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Paquet. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• You recently moved the article Late 2000s recession‎ to Late-2000s recession‎ and moved its talk page along with it. This is to inform you that Ratemonth ( talk · contribs) moved the talk page, Talk:Late-2000s recession‎, back to the old name, Talk:Late 2000s recession‎, (without moving the article itself back). So now the talk page and article are separated. JRSpriggs ( talk) 07:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Done moving Talk:Late 2000s recession‎ back to Talk:Late-2000s recession‎. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest dropping by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charismatic Christianity/version 2 and explaining what you expect to happen with these "version 2" articles. Uncle G ( talk) 11:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Done

• I was dismayed to see that the Transona Five page has been subjected to speedy deletion. As the page history will show, I've put some effort into adding sources and information to this page. Alleged vandalism by a third party is grounds for reversion of that person's edits, not speedy deletion. If there are problems with the article, those can be addressed. Otherwise, could you clarify what the issue is here? Goldenband ( talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response. As you can see, the user who requested the deletion joined today, and has no previous edits, so I'm wondering what's going on here: possible conflict of interest? Goldenband ( talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy note, I hope you have no issues with this. Please let me know if you do. Regards, Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, as a principal author of Kenya Flourspar Company, I wonder if it would be possible to list the article at WP:DELT for a proper discussion. Since notability is the issue, here are some facts from the company's site:
  • KFC, Front page: "Watch Charles Field-Marsham, Chairman Kenya Fluorspar interview with CNBC Africa."
  • KFC, Our history: "The company is the only large scale mining and metallurgical operation in Kenya and ranks as one of the country's leading foreign exchange earners."

  As a Wikipedian experienced in corporate articles, I certainly feel that the company is indeed notable. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 05:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have undeleted and AfD'ed page Kenya Fluorspar Company (with -uo-). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rama rarma - hi, you declined a speedy because of a lack of an edit history at the mentioned CFORK article, but that article was pagemoved between the {{ delete}} nomination and your review of it. (actually, both articles were pagemoved...) 70.29.213.241 ( talk) 06:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• The move discussion was just closed as "No consensus", which surprised me a bit, since I understood your comment as actually supporting the move, and the comment by Imbris as not opposing it to say the least. Am I getting it wrong, or the closing admin misinterpreted the discussion? GregorB ( talk) 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• At 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) User:Aervanath closed the discussion in Talk:Croatian Krajina#Requesting a move to Croatian Military Frontier as "no consensus". Best ask him. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, what I meant to ask you is: do you actually support or oppose the move? Because if you oppose the move, then it's really "no consensus", case closed. But if you do support the move (or merely not oppose it, I guess), then the closing admin got it wrong, and I'd go and ask him to reconsider. GregorB ( talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• As my own point of view, here in England on television news I always heard this area called the Krajina. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's right, but that was actually Republic of Serbian Krajina (1991-1995), not really the same as Military Frontier (historic region, 16th-19th century). But that's beside the point now; since you had reservations about the new name, the closing decision was correct and, as I said, case closed. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, GregorB ( talk) 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony, Thanks for taking care of the My Name Is Khan move. Would it be ok for me to archive the move discussion or do we have to wait for a period of time to do so? - Classicfilms ( talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! - Classicfilms ( talk) 00:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you put semi-protection on chess. I think it would be a good idea to have Rules of chess semi-protected too, vandalism is pretty common. Perhaps it could be the new form where an edit has to be approved by an established editor. Thank you for considering it. Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, you have just closed the move discussion about Portland but I think you put the tags around the wrong section at Talk:Portland: you tagged the old 2006-2008 discussion instead of the new 2009 one that's in "Requested move" below. (I'd fix it but that may have the appearance of impropriety, especially since I participated in it.) Regards, —  The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 09:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Anthony Appleyard (I, of User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Public economics infamy ;). (Archiving of Talk page for PE completed without a hitch, thank you.)

I was hoping that you might be able to advise or assist me on the following. After a near-year-long merge proposal at Talk:The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics#Merge proposal, a merge took place of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics → The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, except that there was no revision-history merge. Prior to that, I moved the article title of The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics to add ", 2nd Edition," [1] thereby more clearly distinguishing the 2 articles.

With the merger, the distinction of the 2 articles is unecessary. And so is the "2nd Edition" part of the article title. Rather, the distinction can be made in the article, not the title. So, I today proposed to Talk:The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition#Move article title back to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics is now a REDIRECT. So, here is what I hope could be done:

1. Moving The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (I'm assuming that a move by me would be perilous, but I might wrong on that.)
2. Making The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition a REDIRECT (That I think I could do.)
3. Merging the revision history of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_New_Palgrave:_A_Dictionary_of_Economics&limit=500&action=history to the revision history of The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (as the new article title).

As to overlapping revision histories, it matters little to me how that's done. The most promising possibilities, I'd think, would be merging the revision history either in 2 complete blocks (NP1, 1st; NP2, 2nd) or, say an incomplete block of NP1 history up to the start of NP2 revision history (Oct. 29, 2007 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics,_2nd_Edition&oldid=167834443). I'd sure appreciate any advice or help on this. I'll look for your answer(s) here or wherever. Thank you so. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here,  Done #1 and #2, which are merely page-moves. But #3 is a request to history-merge the histories of two pages which have been edited in parallel, and sorry, the answer to #3 is NO. That would interleave and shuffle the edits of the two histories together in order of time and make a mess. See Wikipedia:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazing speed. I see the point of preserving the whole history and not shuffling revisions. Given those as basic, here is a question:

Is there any practical or technical reason why a complete revision-history merge could not be done in a total block of the non-target article (NP1 here) to precede the revision history of the target article?

That would avoid shuffling. It would be simple and understandable, and it might make mergers more acceptable (a good thing). Thank you, again. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Of the pages mentioned here, the two with history are:
  1. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, edits listed from 13:27, 29 October 2007 to 09:46, 15 April 2009
  2. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, edits listed from 23:27, 10 January 2007 to 00:14, 11 March 2009

  These are parallel histories. However they are brought into one page, their component edits would automatically sort into date order, mixing the edits of the two editing histories. Leave a comment in Talk:The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics explaining what happened? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, done. So, it looks like the default merge produces a good result (as to preserving revision histories) only with non-overlapping histories. To me that's an argument for changing the revision-history merge default to article-successor revision histories, so that the accident of overlap does not prevent a full revision history merge. (I do see from the link that you provided that less comprehensive solutions are also possible.) Again, thank you. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• What you mention in "change the ... default" seems to need a change to Wikipedia software.

  A partial merge that you mention, would need a history-split to isolate the mergeable parts; history-split of a continuous history is the sort of damage that history-merging is designed to avoid. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr. Appleyard. One follow-up from your help in the above change of change of name for the merger. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics now redirects to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics at the top. There would be advantages of having the link for "The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics" be the section with the same heading, that is, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics#The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.* May I request that redirect link for "The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics" (& similarly for "New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics")? Thank you for your assistance.

* Among the advantages:

1. That section & what follows it are self-contained, not requiring reference to the preceding.
2. Wiki article links to the first ed. section would be more related to readers following the link than the first sections on the 2nd ed.
3. Many page and artticle references for Wiki articles are to the 1st ed. and for articles not in the 2nd ed.
4. Many lack access to the 2nd ed., but they do to the first. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 21:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Currently, The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics is a redirect to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics#The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. What needs to be done? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

When I tried your 1st link, it took me to the Lead. Your comment led me to think that we were getting different results. When I reduced the security setting, your first link took me to the desired section.* When I reset my security setting to the previous level, your first link took me to that section (!). Still, I'm guessing that it was related to my security setting being too high.* At thin point, it appears that the answer to your question is "nothing". Thank you for your patience and providing me with a crucial lead from your comment.

* I may have earlier not gone to a sufficiniently low security level for "trusted" vs. non-"trusted" sites. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've recreated this category which you deleted recently. I don't know why it was empty, but it now has a sub-cat and an entry. Other ships will be added in due course. Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• You recently changed the name of "Nuclear program of Iran" to "Nuclear power in Iran." I did not see any explanation for this change. For reasons cited on the discussion page, I believe it is inaccurate. Please revert to the more accurate title or, if you disagree, please respond to my post. NPguy ( talk) 09:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kai Frobel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability?

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article you created: Kai Frobel may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Frobel.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{ Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Kai Frobel: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the article you started on Separate reality (shamanism) for provisional deletion. I am concerned it lacks any WP:RS and lapses from compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Leopoldo Alas - it still needs serious work done on it (incl. inline citations) but give it time... Cheers!-- Technopat ( talk) 09:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 06:13

• Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but don't we need to have the previous history of the disambiguation page Old Man River at that title, rather than under Old Man River (musician) where it currently resides? Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Baileypalblue ( talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Currently, page Old Man River (musician) has 17 edits, all only about the musician, and no deleted edits. Page Old Man River has about 70 edits, mostly disambig pages, and no deleted edits. Please explain. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like MacGyverMagic moved the previous page history from Old Man River (musician) to Old Man River in between my query and your response. Or maybe I'm still confused. Anyway, all's well that ends well, thanks for responding. Baileypalblue ( talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You deleted this article. Can you please restore it along with its history. I have a number of good sources that can be used for it.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Including the Department of Justice [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trinitario&action=edit&redlink=1

CashRules ( talk) 07:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've nominated this redirect for deletion here. It appears you created it via a pagemove while doing some complicated merging. If I've missed some reason we need to retain it, or you would like to make any other comment, please feel free to do so at the discussion linked above. Thanks. — Gavia immer ( talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to your comment at The Killers (band) talk page. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also here and here. Basically the same arguments in both discussions, though :) Jafeluv ( talk) 10:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for performing the mult-page move in and around Patrician (post-Roman Europe). Efficient and practical. Well done! -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow - that was quick. Thanks a ton! -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've effectively reverted the article pheromone to the April 28th version. Templates such as Template:TOCleft should not be added before the text of the lead section, as that messes with the expected page layout for screen reader users; see the accessibility guidelines. Also I've removed the text added by Iyantha ( talk · contribs), because it goes to a spammy blog (see his other contribs for evidence). This edit is better, but it's horribly anthropocentric. Graham 87 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you might want to be just a little more eloquent with your move summaries. Because I'm familiar with WP:RM, I understand what " req" means, but most people aren't going to. It's easier for newbies to understand what's going on if you're more explicit in your move summaries. Keep up the good work!-- Aervanath ( talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless and unceasing work at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and Wikipedia:Requested moves, this barnstar is well-deserved. Cheers, Aervanath ( talk) 14:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anthony

Sorry to see you have deleted the COCO SOLID page quickly. It says that you don't think the listing is of high enough importance. Coco Solid is a top New Zealand musician who has been performing for many years. She has won a top musical award on New Zealand college radio. She has also recently received a significant song writing grant from the country's composer organisation APRA. Here are the references to what I have just explained.

http://www.amplifier.co.nz/news/33258/bnet-awards-winners.html - the bnet awards

http://www.apra.co.nz/html/news_item.php?id=6564&newsCat=s - the recent song writing award

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10569342 - an article from New Zealand's biggest cities website refering to an up coming artist as sounding like Coco Solid.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10552915&pnum=0 - another New Zealand artist saying that Coco Solid is someone they look up to.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10533097 - an article about Coco Solid pressing a record

Please write back to explain what you think needs to be explained to restore the listing

( Dalmationsforlife ( talk) 10:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC))Dalmationsforlife

• I have undeleted and AfD'ed page Coco solid. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was wondering about the rationale for this being only a redirect. The article lede still only covers the human anterior cruciate ligament, not all cruciate ligaments. Please reply at [ Wiktionary], if possible. Thanks. DCDuring ( talk) 14:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• A while ago someone complained to me about having to be sent on from Cruciate ligament to Anterior cruciate ligament; he said that "the anterior cruciate ligament suffers most of the cruciate ligament sports injuries that happen and is therefore the dominant meaning.". That is why I let Anterior cruciate ligament be the dominant meaning of the cruciate ligaments. But I have now changed to letting page Cruciate ligament be the disambig page. Thanks for pointing this out. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't get whipsawed on this. DCDuring ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. About this edit, I don't mind the change myself but I feel it is likely to be controversial. There has been some disagreement over the name of the article before. There was no mention of the requested move on the talk page. Can you point me to the discussion about the name change please? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=287714916#Uncontroversial_requests . Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• This article has been called Australian rules football since it was created in 2001 and is marked as high importance on it's talk page. So why exactly was this proposal under "Uncontroversial requests" and how was anyone supposed to know that such a discussion had taken place? I far as I can tell there was no notice on this article informing us that there was a page move proposal nor was anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL notified. In fact, after just seven hours of the person putting in this request and with no input from anyone else, you moved this page. Due to the clearly controversial nature of this move, can you please return this article to it's original name and allow a discussion to take place before any decision is made. Thanks. Jevansen ( talk) 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done I moved this page back to Australian rules football.
  • The request was:
    • Australian Rules Football → Australian football -- Because it is the official name for the sport - "not Australian rules football" which is an unofficial name. "Australian rules football" should redirect to "Australian football" rather than the other way around which it is currently. -- Rulesfan ( talk) 15:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actual move is Australian rules football → Australian football. 199.125.109.135 ( talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 09:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Anthony. Jevansen ( talk) 01:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion you sent me today ("Seeing the amount of edits that you have made, why not register as a user?"). Most of the time I don't remember to log in or don't bother to. DavidMaisel ( talk) 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried that! Only the disam project can simultaneously contend that one meaning is not primary, and remove the only possible other contender from a disam list! Johnbod ( talk) 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, that's because disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and aren't meant for listing (other) definitions, external web pages, and other things. But the other "favorites" that do have Wikipedia articles listed are the other "contenders" for the dab page to remain at the base name. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No contest there, then! Johnbod ( talk) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone your move of Moon Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: the county name was added to the article title as the result of discussion on the appropriate wikiproject talk page. Nyttend ( talk) 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've seen that you have modified the pages about Alitalia and Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane. Please read the discussion before editing again it, because there has been a discussion about moving the article about the old Alitalia to Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane and creating a new article at Alitalia (the new Alitalia). -- StuporesMundi ( talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Anthony,

I think I remember differing with you over this paragraph before. I realise that you are extremely attached to your boilersuits, but they are simply not relevant here, and the rest of the paragraph is inaccurate on several counts:

The usual style of lapel (the notched lapel) originated in older types of jacket or coat that buttoned to the neck,...

Not necessarily at all: many of the earlier coats had very low buttoning points.

...by unbuttoning and turning back the upper part of the closure at an angle indoors or in hot weather,...

If you consider the thickness of the fabric habitually used then, the weather can hardly have been a contributing factor.

...and then removing the upper buttons. The upper points are derived from the end corners of the collar.

The buttons were removed about a hundred years later, and the early frocks and dress coat designs did not necessarily have collars.

This can be duplicated by similarly turning back the closure in a modern button-to-the-neck garment such as an outdoor coat or a boilersuit.

As we decided before when removing the picture of you, a period image is more appropriate, and the modern analogy could be more gainfully replaced by commentary on more of the portraits from Commons.

Sometimes when caught outside in bad weather in a lapelled jacket and nothing over it, its wearer may unfold the lapels and hold them that way to temporarily reproduce the ancestral to-the-neck closure.

This is in fact a genuine feature on some modern hacking jackets (for example picture, see [9]).

So, there are some good thoughts there, but the consistent theme of boilsuits (usually involving pictures of you) in all our crossings suggests that you are attached to this paragraph on more than just stylistic or factual points. I am unwilling to simply exacerbate the question by deleting the material again, but would like to hear your justification for re-adding it.

Best, Kan8eDie ( talk) 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, try this. (I have no unusual or odd attachment to boilersuits: they are merely convenient, and cost far less than office/business suits, and are much easier to clean (I wash it in the bath, instead of expensive drycleaning), and last much longer.)

The usual style of lapel (the notched lapel) originated in older types of jacket or coat that buttoned to the neck, by turning back the upper part of the closure at an angle indoors or in hot weather. This can be approximately duplicated by similarly turning back the closure in a modern button-to-the-neck garment such as an outdoor coat or a boilersuit. Sometimes when caught outside in bad weather in a lapelled jacket and nothing over it, its wearer may unfold the lapels and hold them that way to temporarily reproduce the ancestral to-the-neck closure.

Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that you are active at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and may be able to help me. I recently reverted a copy and paste move of Stephen [10] to Stephan [11]. I'm not familiar with what (if anything) more should be done here. After about 30 minutes of the maze that can be Wikipedia space trying to find the procedure, I gave up and posted here. Do the revisions that were copied onto Stephan need to deleted or is a revert enough? Also, if it does need to be deleted, should this be posted at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen? I started to post it there, but it seemed to be more for merging the histories than this situation. Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• In this case, best leave it alone. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. I appreciate it. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted the page for Karnivool's new album Sound Awake. The reason you left was "A9 Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article" yet they do have a wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnivool and they are a notable band so the page for Sound Awake should never have been deleted. Albert5268 ( talk) 10:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have undeleted Sound Awake and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. I think you made a mistake in deleting Tetsuhiko Kikuchi (I was about to declined it). Don't you think that designing notable games is an indication of why someone is importance or significance? Regards So Why 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for deleting the pages that I requested to be deleted. Zachary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach111493 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi! You recently closed the move discussion at Perdido (Juan Tizol song) as a no move. I thought all three people involved in the debate agreed that the page should be moved, with JJB and me preferring Perdido (song) and Station1 arguing for Perdido. I wouldn't say that's "consensus for not moving"... Did you mean "no consensus"? Should I maybe relist this with Perdido (song) as the target? Thanks for your time! Jɑfeluv ( talk) 11:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have now moved it to Perdido (song). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 14:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you just renamed the company page, I would suggest you do it again. The company name really is "Bouygues Telecom" without any french acute accent on télécom. References include :

• the home page (legal section) : http://www.bouyguestelecom.fr/client/infoslegales.html
• google search : http://www.google.fr/search?q=bouygues+telecom

I would have renamed the page myself but the rules on en: are different from fr: and I just can't!

Cheers. Bub's ( talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, the request was for a move to Favorite (disambiguation); all the non-English entries are from French and without the U. Johnbod ( talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as usual! Johnbod ( talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, my detailed and thoroughly thought of support just missed the poll at Talk:7.62 Tkiv 85 when you closed it –.– Oh well, maybe someone will relist the article when appropriate time has passed. Or if there's silence, the better. Regards, Jafeluv ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason the infobox on Canis Minor is not picking up File:Canis minor constellation map.png is that {{ Infobox Constellation}} is looking for "{{ name}} constellation map.png" (File:Canis Minor constellation map.png - note upper vs. lower case "minor"). I don't know if a redirect can be created on commons, if not the file will need to be uploaded using the correct name. 199.125.109.88 ( talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi! Any chance of reverting this move, which was done "perhaps somewhat boldly" when opposition to it had already been registered on the talk page. I can't now revert it. Talk:List_of_ceramics_museums#article_title_rename_and_need_for_separate_Ceramics_Museum_disambig_page. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why did you move this page? The IP said it was to fix a copy ans paste move. I explained that page was always at Alexander Smirnov. I fixed the page by restoring it to the correct spot (check the history of the page). I await your reply, if I have to I will request a move back to its original name since there was never any discussion to move it and I had already pointed out at WP:RM that I fixed the problem. TJ Spyke 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have moved it back. I misunderstood the request in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=290381262#Uncontroversial_requests . Sorry. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:George Town, Penang#Georgetown vs George Town revisited. -- Tcncv ( talk) 01:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have listed this move discussion in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a moving discussion & survey going on, on the page " Bitch". Your opinion has been requested, click here to vote, it is urged that you vote in a timely manner. Thank You.

I Seek To Help & Repair! ( talk) 21:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• May I Post your comment on the discussion page as a "Support" vote? I Seek To Help & Repair! ( talk) 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, I Seek To Help & Repair! ( talk) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help & Repair! ( talk) 22:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can I ask about the recent article moves you did around CIRCA: and their album CIRCA: 2007? The band style themselves as "CIRCA:" rather than as "Circa", so why move the article? Is there Wikipedia policy to not use idiosyncratic stylings for article names? Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• See this old edit of 'Wikipedia:Requested moves' and WP:MOSTM. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Cheers for the explanation. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not, most of the material you restored at Blaster (Star Wars) was a near-exact copy-and-paste (i.e. copyright violation) from the Lucasfilm Star Wars databank entry. The rest was uncited summary, speculation, trivia, and extraploation. I have removed the copyvio and replaced with a shorter, but at least cited and paraphrased, "explanation" for the make-believe technology. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thought you should know, User:John J. Bulten has reverted your changes to Talk:Longevity myths. Apparently he thinks the polls are not closed yet. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 01:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed you protected the Tit page, and I wonder if you'd be prepared to offer the Titt page a similar level of protection for the same reasons that the Tit page has been protected. I only created it today so the vandals haven't found it yet. Mjroots ( talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Mjroots ( talk) 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your note - I had noted the rejection of request and wondered if I'd have saved you time if I had been able to determine the matter for myself and what the practical implications are - can you refer me to anything on this? Redheylin ( talk) 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, including Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Well, that tells me I am "ill advised" but does not advise me enough that I'd care to make the decision myself (having been called the same for NOT reporting) So please excuse me if I just continue... if you look at Category:Ragas, for instance, you'll see a fair number of duplicates that someone ought to sort out. Thanks. Redheylin ( talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• If pages A and B are about the same subject: see Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merge. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Why did you reject this WP:RM request? Please respond on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• There were 2 requests there:-
  • Burn it Down (band) → Burn It Down (band) — caps —  Done
  • Alfred N. Duffié → Alfred N. Duffié :  Not done, as it moved the same name to the same name.

  Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi! You recently moved Igor Ponomaryov (soccer player) to Igor Ponomaryov. After that move, someone's created Igor Ponomarev (diplomat). Since the names are most likely identical in Russian (Игорь Пономарёв, just two different transliterations), do you think the soccer player should be moved back, and Igor Ponomaryov redirected to the dab page? Moving the dab page to either Igor Ponomarev or Igor Ponomaryov seems reasonable as well, but that's already listed at WP:RM. What do you think? Jafeluv ( talk) 06:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Igor Ponomaryov now points to Igor Ponomarev, which is now a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Jafeluv ( talk) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Cool :-) -- ilgiz ( talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess I made yesterday, I wasn't fully aware of the procedure by then. Thanks for sorting it. -- MLauba ( talk) 09:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Serbian library being destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing is certainly tragic, but unless there are sources saying was a intended result, I don't think it belongs on the list. Otherwise, we have a definite can of worms situation where anyone can list any major bombing (like say the March 9-10 firebombing of Tokyo) as being a book burning. Edward321 ( talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

in response to your comment on the Mark Martin (racecar driver) discussion page; yes the racer is the main use. If you type Mark martin into any search engine the first thousand results you will get are about the racer. He is on the list of 50 greatest stock car drivers of all time.

The other articles listed on the DAB page lack notability. With only 2-3 references cited each. I think it is very clear which article holds the main use of the name. Thanks!-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't wish to be rude, but, respectfully, I don't think you've much knowledge of firearms at all (and you've said as much earlier in the discussion) and creating even more confusion doesn't help. There's no such thing as a "Short shotgun"- it's either a "Sawn-off" (illegally modified) or a "Short Barrelled" (legally modified) shotgun. Please, I'd ask you to delete the suggestion to prevent any more un-necessary splintering or confusion of the discussion. Also, the deleted info was irrelevant, badly written, and largely redundant (or glaringly obvious). I would have appreciated a message BEFORE you reverted it so I could have explained that in more detail. Commander Zulu ( talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have moved this discussion to Talk:Sawed-off shotgun#Split short-barreled shotgun / sawed-off shotgun?. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi! Recently someone moved Template:Possible article to article space after writing their article there. It's currently located at Mushir Redjeb Pasha, and every user subpage that uses the template currently has a lot of text about Redjeb Pasha in the beginning. Could you help somehow undo the move and split the edit history so that the pasha article is not lost and the template's edit history is preserved? Thanks! Jafeluv ( talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you restored this, but I have deleted it now. Hope that's okay. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 10:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ospalh ( talk) 12:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry! Didn't mean it like that. This was partially a Twinkle mouseo. I think the redirect should be deleted, as it was the result of a malicious page move. I know you weren't the vandal.-- ospalh ( talk) 12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have deleted page United Airlines Flight 427. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks. I wanted to get an apology in quick, so I may not have been all that clear in my last comment. All I wanted to say is that there should have been no redirect. Twinkle didn't quite work the way I thought it would. Sorry about the nonsensical and vandalism bits again.-- ospalh ( talk) 13:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• (For more info see Talk:USAir Flight 427#Merge proposal. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)'')

• Hi Anthony: You've just added a completely unsourced multiple paragraph entry to Peregrine Falcon, which is a featured article. Please provide sources for your information, and please move the British information out of your newly-formed "In the United States" section! MeegsC | Talk 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• wishing to re-write chezvous content according to wiki policy. The first chezvous editing was a mistake. alfconde888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfconde888 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed it, but I've archived the talk, not deleted it. See the archive page for details.-- EclipseSSD ( talk) 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cut and paste move here [12] though the move seems a sensible one. Johnbod ( talk) 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• I found no cut-and-paste move there. But I histmerged Katrina (disambiguation) to Katrina. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, the talk page was repeated in two places, & a redirect was in the VA project articles. But it seems ok now - I might have picked it up in mid-move. Thanks. Johnbod ( talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I keeping you busy yet? :-) Matt ( talk) 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Mikaey is going through BLP talk page redirects. I've done several, but the category is getting replenished as more are found. I expect to find more when I wake up! Cool Hand Luke 07:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I do list them, and I haven't done any in a long time. However, it was very late for me last night, so I postponed listing them until today. Cool Hand Luke 14:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:F-GZCP.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your response is wanted at the talk page for Retinoblastoma, where you restored a large table of links for charitable organizations. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

You sneaky little devil, you read my mind. I was going to do that move after you had completed the history merge. Thanks! Matt ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article is protected for 2 months already. Isn't it time to unprotect the article? SkyBon ^{Talk\ Contributions} 08:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• You recently deleted Category:Languages by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) out-of-process, instead of WP:CFD.

  This is actually a category created by consensus, and the decision was recorded in the official policy at

  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country".

  Please undelete with all history.

  -- watching here -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. It was (and still is) speedy-delete-tagged (at 12:29 & 12:30, 31 May 2009 by User:Trondtr) "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because This page is a dead-end, it only have two references, but has lead the other wps astray. The correct page here and elsewhere is Category:Languages by continent.". Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Removed the speedy. Somebody emptied it of dozens of country entries.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work to undo the mess at Robert W. Jordan. I wouldn't have been surprised if you'd said that absolutely nothing could be done, after almost three years of parallel editing. I'm very impressed that you were able to stitch on the pre-fork history. Good work! JamesMLane  t  c 01:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For moving the Cherokee Nation article to the tribe's actual name. Cheers! - Uyvsdi ( talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Sigh* A user moved the name back to Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, which frankly is not the legal name of the tribe. I've tried to discuss this on the user page, then just left the page alone until you moved it. How are disputed like this settled? According to the tribe itself and the US Department of the Interior the name is simply "Cherokee Nation." I've cited those sources; I can't think of sources with higher authority than those two. Cheers, - User:Uyvsdi

• I have raised this dispute in Wikipedia:Requested moves, which see after its updating bot has run again. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the Mare Liberum move. I had absolutely no idea what chaos I had apparently caused with my cut-and-paste. Never Again:-)-- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Richard Doherty (military historian) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Matt ( talk) 06:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. I noticed that you moved Dead Is Dead to Dead is Dead because you were asked by User:Evanreyes. This move should not have been done because the proper title of the work uses a lower case "i". This move was previously requested before and denied by an administrator. Please see these links to the publisher's websites where the work is referred to as "Dead is Dead". [13] [14] I kindly ask that you revert the move and possibly move protect the page to prevent further confusion. Thank you. -- Jackieboy87 ( talk · contribs) 06:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have started a move discussion about this. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:New histmerge list. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because someone asked, you moved the album page called day&nightdriving to Day & Nightdriving. I am completely opposed to this move, and simply didn't get to reply before the improper move quickly happened. The band writes the name without spaces or caps ( see here or here), and the album art doesn't use spaces either. Just because All Music and online stores (who likely get info from All Music) put spaces doesn't mean that is correct. And by the way, grammatical errors in a lyrics section (as mentioned by the nominator) has nothing to do with this issue. The band's actual website uses "day&nightdriving", and that is what we need to use here. Thanks. -- Mtjaws ( talk) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• See WP:MOSTM. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • While the rules say to ignore artistic choices, there are exceptions to everything, and common sense should be to use the same format as the band intended, and uses. Especially when the deciders don't realize the intent was to follow that logic all along. I know you are just following Wiki's guidelines, but I still think it is wrong to add the spaces that aren't supposed to be there. -- Mtjaws ( talk) 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have started a discussion in Talk:Day & Nightdriving#Move?. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I moved Getica to Getica (disambiguation) and redirected it to Getica (Jordanes), which is clear primary usage (note red links and obscure references to an old glossary at the dab page). Could you move it now? Srnec ( talk) 05:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Always a thoughtful and pleasant admin to work with. Srnec ( talk) 01:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). With this series of edits, you made just about every kind of mistake I've ever seen made on a dab page, including several I had just fixed. Dab pages are not articles, and do not have the same formatting rules as articles. Specifically:

1. Linked articles should be at the beginning of each entry, or as close as possible.
2. Entries should not end in periods or other punctuation.
3. Every entry should serve to direct the user to a specific article. There should not be any entries:
   • without links ("The plural of any of the above.")
   • with more than one link
   • with links to articles that would never be confused with the term being disambiguated ( Operation Crossbow)
4. Dictionary definitions of the term ("An adjective meaning...") should not have entries—that's what the {{ wikt}} template at the top of the page (which you removed) is for.
5. Descriptions should be kept short—for people, only the years of birth and death should be used.
6. Entries for people should not have an "a", "an", or "the" at the start.
7. An "Other uses" section should go after all other sections, except for "See also"

It won't take much of your time to read over guidelines like MOS:DAB, and to refer to them whenever you are editing a dab page (I refer back to MOS:DAB all the time). The guideline is designed to make dab pages 1) consistent, and 2) as useful as possible for the sole function they serve: navigation. When you neglect the guideline, you make a great deal more work for other editors. » Swpb ^{τ • ¢} 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony - can you advise on why the corizon page was deleted. I understand its about a company, but so are all of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_the_United_States and pages like IBM, MS,
• Its also similar to pages such as jackbe
• I am working on this content arleady with one of your colleagues as you will see from the revisions.
• We have patent pending technology that fits into the SOA story that is well documented here already.
• can you advis why therefore it was deleted?

Many thanks Nigel Nigelwalsh ( talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I restored the Category: Category talk:Monasteries in Prague

Could you advice/help? Thanks! Franta Oashi ( talk) 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Franta Oashi ( talk) 03:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, could you possible take a look at this request regarding page move stuff? I think I know what the person is saying, but I can't do anything in any case because an admin is required. It also involves page moves, which I know you're an expert about ;-) Killiondude ( talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• See User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman#Question for administrator 2. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Greetings! Concerning this redirect and this move that you've recently done, I wanted to ask you whether you think that they are really necessary. I would say that this makes the access to one of those pages pointlessly more complicated, because I suppose that readers who are looking for article about "decapitation" will write everything but "decapitated". I understand that those words are closely related (and even that "decapitation" has heavier reader traffic), but is that a reason for making the "navigation" more complicated and creating extra pages with specifications in brackets, even if we could keep it simple? Consider looking at results for "decapitated" on Google. Thanks for reading this.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• That move was requested in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=298063893 in ==Uncontroversial requests==: " Decapitated → Decapitated (band) — This is the past tense verb form of the action of decapitation, hence should point there. — 70.29.212.226 ( talk) 04:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, allright then. That'll do ...if you think so. Have a nice day :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a history article about an American dermatologist. (Still working offline, not ready to create the page yet.) In researching the appropriate Categories to list, I was surprised to see that you recently deleted the category "American dermatologists". Why was that? Will it be OK if I recreate it when I have my page ready, or would you consider recreating it?

That field does seem to have been neglected here. As I worked I was surprised to discover that some of the most famous American dermatologists do not have a page (Walter Lever, Hermann Pinkus, etc), and I had thought I might try to research them after I finish the one I am working on now.

By the way, a question about nationality: suppose a person is born (say) German but does all his work in America, would it be appropriate to list him under both "German physicians" and "American physicians"? Or which should you call him?

Another question: does the "people from..." category refer to city of birth, or city of mature residence and professional achievement?

Thanks for your thinking! MelanieN ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

• I was surprised to see that you recently deleted the category "American dermatologists". Why was that? :: it was listed for deletion as it had no members.

  Will it be OK if I recreate it when I have my page ready? :: yes.

  Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I recreated the page "Category:American dermatologists" but I don't know how to make it a subcategory of "American physicians". Can someone fix this? Thanks! MelanieN ( talk) 02:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
• Done: See the bottom of the page Category:American dermatologists, there is Category:American physicians listed. Franta Oashi ( talk) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• THANK YOU! MelanieN ( talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
• UPDATE: I found another category that should be made into a subcategory of "American physicians". It is "Category:American pathologists".
•  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

THANKS for all your help! MelanieN ( talk) 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

I placed a {{ db-g3}} on Pat McCarthy, Artist. I know your creation of this redirect was part of your attempts to deal with a persistent vandal. But since the non-notable artist shares nothing except a similar name with the USN officer the redirect should go. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For sorting out my whole FAQ histmerge screw-up! -- Banjeboi 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you explain why you deleted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_insolvency_helpline it was created as a valid reference to a national uk organization and the page was improved by a number of wikipedia authors. Techdoctor ( talk) 21:00, 23 June 2009 (GMT)
• The page is UK Insolvency Helpline. At 18:16, 22 June 2009 User:Testing times tagged it for speedy-delete as a copyvio of http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/company-info/ih-introduction.php . Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would you mind taking a look at the history and talk-page of Great Mosque of Cordoba? The same user moved this twice, then edited the redirect in spite of the evidence I presented on the talk-page. I believe this should be moved back to its established title (as used in the sources and other encyclopedias) pending any potential move request. Many thanks, Knepflerle ( talk) 23:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• This editor, with extreme views on local spelling, has been following me around for a week. Rather, please ask him to stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have tried to start a move discussion about this article name. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DMacks ( talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chennai suburban railway, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unwanted Redirect

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Coolguyche17 ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the right sided floating TOC? The only change you seem to have made was to move it to the right side, which I thought was something in general to be avoided. Am I wrong? Loggie ( talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Is there any policy to delete empty categoreis whenever some such is seen? Is there any method how to prevent such deletition even if it is empty yet realy? I believe, that even empty category is OK. (very different task comparing to Articles) Franta Oashi ( talk) 03:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I sure hope this was an erroneous automated bot that reversed my latest edit, since I can't possibly think of any other reason. 87.69.130.159 ( talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• To me the inserted word "himself" seemed to be redundant. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your recent edit within a referenced sentence (about the etymology of decoy) is not confirmed in the source. I have therefore moved the citation to its original place and should be grateful if you could add a reference to your edit. Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion in Template talk:1948 Palestinian exodus#Requested move: continued discussion. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony, can I ask how you measured the consensus to move the Nakba template to 1948 Palestinian exodus? There were objections on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 22:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• I found and obeyed this move request in the uncontroversial section of http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=298811167 :
  • Template:Nakba → Template:1948 Palestinian exodus — Will somebody please move " Template:Nakba" to "Template:1948 Palestinian exodus?" I tried to do it myself, but it didn't allow me to because its a redirect or something. The discussions here and here call for it. Thanks in advance. -- GHcool ( talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I had looked at this (sometimes emotional) inconclusive discussion before, and I was beginning to think that a " casting vote" was needed: in my experience most people know that there was a mass refugee movement out of Palestine in 1948, but far fewer English-speakers outside the Muslim communities have much knowledge of Arabic words or know what a nakba is. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Aren't these things meant to stay open for a few days, and be moved only if there is consensus to do so? There was no consensus. I believe just one person wanted it to be moved. Could you move it back, please, and allow it to remain open? SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Done. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 06:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe that SlimVirgin is misrepresenting the results of the RfC. The way I read it, there was a fairly broad consensus that Template:1948 Palestinian exodus was the correct title and that SlimVirgin herself even agreed to that term. -- GHcool ( talk) 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Stop misrepresenting this, GHcool. That link you gave above was me agreeing that a separate article called "Nakba" ought to be created, and you know that's what it was. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • an-Nakba seems to me another name for the 1948 Palestinian exodus and its effects, or for part of it. If so, Nakba and An-Nakba should redirect to 1948 Palestinian exodus, and not be developed into a large content fork. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, that's clearly what you think, and that's the opinion you expressed on the page. You therefore can't use admin tools in relation to the dispute. Please move it back, unarchive the discussion, and allow an uninvolved admin to take over once the discussion has run its course. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If so, what is the difference between the Nakba and the 1948 Palestinian exodus? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The 1948 Palestinian exodus describes those who left in 1948. The Nakba is an entire confluence of events, including the exodus in 1947, 1948, 1949 and later (I believe it also includes the exodus in 1967); the loss of property and homes, the creation of Israel, the wars, the displacement among other Arab nations, the refugee camps: basically the destruction of Palestinian-Arab society. Now, please, with the greatest of respect, you are involved in this, and you're misuing the tools because you added your voice to that of GHCool, and after that you moved it back to his preference. Please move it to where it was when I created the template, and allow people to discuss it. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done moved it back. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your sound judgment. -- GHcool ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is absurd. The result of the RfC was that 1948 Palestinian exodus should not be moved to Nakba, but that a separate article called Nakba should be written instead. The template is part of that effort, to consolidate the Nakba articles. The RfC seemed to agree that "1948 Palestinian exodus" and "Nakba" were not the same thing. Anthony, please allow people time to discuss this, and hand it to an uninvolved admin. You've expressed a view on the issue yourself so you can't keep moving it. It is a controversial move. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 23:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion in Template talk:1948 Palestinian exodus#Requested move: continued discussion. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This has to do you with your misuse of the tools, not with the template. When another admin suggests you're misusing the tools, the normal thing is to withdraw, Anthony. You have clearly expressed your view on the template talk page, and there is no consensus for this move. Please undo your admin action. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 05:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In Template talk:1948 Palestinian exodus I have started a place for continued discussion, but someone edited the page partway through that. I felt that the discussion could proceed in the affected page's talk page as well as in my user talk oage. There seems to be a dispute between User:SlimVirgin and User:GHcool. Please specify in detail my "misuse of the tools". OK, OK, I have put this page back to as it was. OK, OK, I now know that the 1948 Palestinian exodus is only a part of an-Nakba. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• You have not put it back. Please stop the games and undo your move. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 06:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, OK, 06:17, 30 June 2009 Anthony Appleyard m (2,821 bytes) (moved Template:1948 Palestinian exodus to Template:Nakba over redirect): is that what you were wanting? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what's going on. You made a decision twice now and closed the discussion. Is there some rule on Wikipedia that says that if somebody pesters an admin enough, they must keep the discussion open? -- GHcool ( talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but there are lots of rules saying that admins who've involved themselves can't use the tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion in Template talk:Nakba#Requested move: continued discussion.

Thank you

• Thank you for undoing that. I was in the process of writing it up for AN/I. I have to tell you that that was one of the clearest examples of tool misuse that I've seen in some time. First, you moved it without consensus, but worse than that, once you post your opinion, especially when you refer to it as a "casting vote," or whatever the expression was that you used, that's it -- you can't take admin action after that. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm concerned about your comment on my talk page: " ... please do not post ... [on your talk page] until you two and any other interested parties have come to a decision." I am asking you again not to involve yourself in this any further, except as an editor, and in particular not to close or move it again. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry :: I felt that I had to do something about the contradictory orders that I was receiving. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the Cut and paste, but something went wrong after the move was made, so how a redirect appeared back to the old artilce after the move had been approved. I did not know how to correct the problem, nor who to ask to help. Thank you for resolving the problems There is a similar move in the pipe line Wikipedia:Requested moves/current-oldstyle June 20, 2009

• Reading comprehension → Reading comprehension in the United States — (Discuss) — All of the content and refernces of this artilce only apply the Education System and Education Practicioners of the United States, there is little or no scope for globalisation dolfrog (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

hopefully there should be no problems. dolfrog ( talk) 22:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Currently Special education in the United Kingdom and Talk:Special education in the United Kingdom seem to be set up correctly. Did you look at them while I was partway through the histmerge?
• Do you want me to move Reading comprehension to Reading comprehension in the United States? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • yes please dolfrog ( talk) 04:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony,

  I was wondering your reason exactly for the protection you added on Boy. I looked at the history, but it seemed to me like it was mostly one or two people during a small period of time who were vandalizing the page. Plus, it doesn't exactly seem like a high-visibility page, or even one that would be vandalized much at all, which certainly doesn't seem like it might constitute an indefinite semi-protection. I'd like to get your reasoning on protecting this page before I go start a discussion on the talk page (one has not already been started).

  Thanks!

  - (npcserver) ( talk) 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Most of its last 100 edits seem to be anonymous edits and reverts for same. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The result of the proposal was: Casting vote". [15] What does that mean? :O Jafeluv ( talk) 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Re Shades of Green (resort), see casting vote. The discussion in Talk:Shades of Green (resort)#Requested move could not reach a decision, so I made my own choice, as Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog was getting steadily longer and longer. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for the explanation. Just wasn't aware of the term. Jafeluv ( talk) 18:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Using my method, where page A is the page where the posttext is and Page B is the location of the pretext, I do it like this:

1. Grab the text of page B from the list, and copy it to the clipboard.
2. Move page A to Page B (using the clipboard to get the title of page B as described above), and answer "yes" when asked whether to delete the revisions
3. Once the move is done, there's a "view" link next to the text "<page b>" has been deleted. I open that in a new window (I could used tabbed browsing, but the keystrokes for moving by window come more naturally to me).
4. Select the revisions I want to history merge (using the invert selection button if required), and press the restore button.
5. Press alt-tab to move back to the "move succeeded" window, activate the revert link, then move the page back. I use a feature in my screen reader JAWS that lists the links on a page to get to the revert button quickly.
6. alt-tab back to the undeletion window for page B, then press alt-left arrow to go back to the list of deleted revisions (which will just contain redirect edits). Type something in the comment screen like "restore other edits" and press the restore button.
7. Close all the browser windows. That's it!

The easy history merges take me one or two minutes, maybe more if I suddenly go paranoid about overlapping edits or redirect revisions or other inane trivia. All the history merges I did yesterday (over 100 of them) took me about six hours. I guess it's a combination of muscle memory and fanaticism that allows me to do fifty or a hundred of them at a stretch. I think a sighted person could probably do history merges faster than I can.

I tagged all the false positives I found with Template:Nahmc. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Nahmc, there were seven false positives from the original list. I found the "Out of africa" false positive, which appeared in page 11, while doing disambiguation link fixing. I tagged "Demographic of Colombia" as a false positive after doing the history merge because there was a second cut-and-paste move to that title which might confuse the script. See the first three edits of its history. None of the history merges had been done before I worked on them through the histmerge list. Graham 87 10:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh ... I also don't check the diffs between the pretext and the posttext often - it's usually not necessary. If the diff score is 0.00%, then they'll both be exactly the same; if it's less than 5%, not much text has changed and it's generally safe to do a history merge. Since I'm working on the early part of the history merge list, a lot of the cut-and-paste moves were made by established editors when the move function wasn't reliable. So if I find a name I recognise like Mav or Eclecticology, I'll know that it was a proper cut-and-paste move. If it's above 5%, or there are other problems, I'll check the diff just in case. I check for any edits made before the edit that introduced the posttext (i.e. the one that made the cut-and-paste move), because they're usually redirect edits. If I'm still not sure, I'll check the edit summaries ... sometimes they'll indicate that two articles have been combined into one, and there's no need to fix the cut-and-paste move in those cases. Graham 87 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Anthony. Thanks for closing the "circumcision controversies" proposal. I'm a bit confused by this, though, as I thought we agreed to merge in the same discussion as the "Move, merge, and rename request". Do you agree? Jakew ( talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I was updating the {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}} links to match the page move. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, but I don't understand why those templates are still needed. The "Discuss" link in the {{ mergeto}} points to Talk:Circumcision controversies#Move, merge, and rename request, which is now closed. So my question is, did we in your opinion reach a consensus to merge as well as move (in which case the mergeto, etc., templates are no longer needed)? If we didn't reach a consensus to merge, then I think we need to change the templates somehow, because we can't have a "Discuss" link pointing to a section that says "The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it." Jakew ( talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have done the textmerge. Talk:Circumcision advocacy is now Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 3. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) Jakew ( talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hello. You recently moved Characters of Dollhouse back to List of Dollhouse characters with "asked" as your edit summary. May I ask what you say as the benefit of the latter page name? Following the example of Characters of Lost, the former title seems more suited to an encyclopaedic assessment and summary of the show's principal characters, whereas the latter could tend towards a fancrufty list.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• There are 2 moves here:
  • At 06:11, 29 June 2009 I found and obeyed this request in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests:
    • List of Dollhouse Characters → List of Dollhouse characters — I made an error and capitalized the "c". MS (Talk| Contributions) 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Since that request was made and before I obeyed it, someone moved List of Dollhouse Characters to Characters of Dollhouse.
  • I have now moved it back to Characters of Dollhouse.
  • Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)