User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2013/January-June
| ARCHIVES |
Vandalism warning master copy
== Vandalism warning ==
At xxxx you, or someone using your [[Wikipedia:Username|username]] or [[IP address|Internet Protocol address]], [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalized]] the English Wikipedia page [[yyyy]]. Please stop this practice, or you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing in Wikipedia]]. ~~~~
Links
{{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} {{subst:RM bottom}} {{pp-semi|small=yes}} {{talkquote|1=
Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. The Mediation Committee has been disbanded as a result of this discussion. Other dispute resolution processes should be used for content issues. |
The Mediation Committee was a panel of editors who resolved content disputes on Wikipedia articles by providing formal mediation. The Mediation Committee was established with the Arbitration Committee in 2003 by Jimmy Wales and was the last stage of content dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. Mediation was entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and did not result in binding resolutions. The Mediation Committee policy documented how the Mediation Committee, its mediators, and the formal mediation process operated. This policy was maintained by the Committee and was considered an authoritative codification of how Committee matters should be conducted.
After a substantial period of inactivity, the Mediation Committee was shut down by community consensus on 12 November 2018.
Archives
- For a list of declined requests, go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases.
- Previous requests for mediation are indexed below. Please note that mediation often took place on the talk page; the latter box allows those pages to be searched.
 | |
| |
File:OS Heathrow 5th Edition.jpg
How to AfD
- On page for deletion:-
{{subst:afd1}}
nominated for deletion: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
- ({{afdx}} if repeat AfD for same file)
- On AfD vote page:-
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] because ...
- At THIS PAGE (or find it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion):-
{{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}}
(or) {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}
Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
On closing, {{subst:afd top}} & {{subst:afd bottom}}, and after the top template, put Delete or Keep and ~~~~
Temp links
- List of mammals of Madagascar
- List of medieval Slavic tribes
- User talk:Anthony Appleyard/WP SCUBA
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Manchester/14
Nomination of SOTI for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SOTI 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/SOTI 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 high-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. Biker Biker (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Requested moves/Technical requests
- Hello, I added a request at WP:RM/TR and I saw that you removed my request and wrote "done 2" in the edit summary. However, the page I requested has not been moved yet, and neither did it appear here. Is there something wrong? LDS contact me 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Done now. Sorry. It was Jiang Shi → Jiangshi. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. LDS contact me 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Shane Ryan (association footballer)
- Following your move, we might wish to consider moving Shane Ryan to Shane Ryan (Gaelic footballer), turning Shane Ryan into a disambig and Shane Ryan (footballer) into a redirect to the disambig - what do you think? GiantSnowman 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation page mess
Hi Anthony, I know you're pretty active in page moves and history merges, so I thought I'd run this past you.
Is it possible to do anything with the split page histories of these five pages? The 'original' is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz but, over a period of a few months, the author has created new drafts in their userspace sandbox. These have then been moved into AfC space (following the normal project convention of adding a number to end of the page title). In this instance we now have 4 additional pages, each with not-insignificant page history, that have been redirected to the original title (along with a copy and paste merge) by a well-meaning editor who didn't realise that could be problematic. The titles in question are:
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz (2)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz (3)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob rubinovitz
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz2
Pol430 talk to me 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz (2) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob rubinovitz (the redlinks) have no edits deleted or undeleted: they are names that pages were moved away from without leaving a redirect. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz (3) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Rubinovitz2 are WP:Parallel histories and so cannot be history-merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. No sooner had I messaged you KTC (talk · contribs) came by and did some of them. Interesting read at WP:PV. I suppose, for the future, we should avoid creating parallel pages and distinguishing them by a number. The above situation is an exceptional one though. Pol430 talk to me 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Animal Crossing character list
- I request a history undeletion of List of characters in the Animal Crossing series & then merge with List of Animal Crossing characters. SNS (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- These two pages have WP:Parallel histories and cannot be histmerged. There is plenty information about the characters in the Animal Crossing wiki. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Animal Crossing series. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Close of Alan K. Simpson RM
- Hi Anthony, per WP:RMCI, "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly..." While the vote count was 2-3 against the move at Talk:Alan K. Simpson#Requested move (3-3 counting the request), I don't believe you properly evaluated arguments and assigned due weight. Both supporting voters, as well as the request, made arguments with appeals to policies and guidelines; the oppose voters talked about how the figure isn't known outside of the US, or by bringing up another article with relatively very few page views. Could you elaborate on your rationale? Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- It had run nearly a month and no decision. I have seen this sort of discussion, if left, run on repetitively for many weeks creating the best part of a megabyte of arguing and still no decision or agreement. Some opinions say that Alan K. Simpson is dominant; others say that "that is a USA-based opinion, there are other notable men named Alan Simpson." That sort of pair of conflicting opinions tends to be incompatible. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- But it's not like the discussion consisted only of opinions. Did you think the dissenting opinions outweighed supporting policy? Did you think the supporters erroneously cited policy? Of course a move wouldn't've been appropriate if it were just a vote, but the content of arguments is supposed to matter. --BDD (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, OK, I have reverted the close. It will reappear in the list when the bot runs next. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see there's already another editor voting against because he's "Never heard of him." Sigh. If it happens again, I won't bother you. Thanks for your willingness to change your mind. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, can I also ask if you did the same for the This Requested Move? when a clear majority was in favour of the move? MisterShiney ✉ 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- No need for this. There was no clear consensus, the change would've gone against MOS:CT and the title had been stable since September last year. The move discussion was closed per policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that Scjessy was against the move in the discussion and one could reasonably assume that seeing as the move was not made, in line with his views, that he isn't interested in as to why. But I for one would like some additional clarification as to how you came to a "No consensus" view and any advice how the said group of editors can move forward for the benefit of the article! MisterShiney ✉ 14:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion had already produced 136 kilobytes of arguing over 29 days over one small point without reaching a decision: "In the title "Star Trek into Darkness", can punctuation or a break be assumed to exist after the word 'Trek'?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Myself and other editors are just after a little more clarification on how you reached the decision to close and explain a procedure that could help us reach consensus in answer to a discussion that will more than likely come again in the future with people repeating the same information. MisterShiney ✉ 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm with him on this one, even though I favored a rename. Ruling against a headcount is fine when there's a clear policy or guideline in support of the minority, in this case MOS:CT. The current name is ugly, and I'd like to see it changed. But we may need to change the guideline first. See this discussion. I think it may be time for an RFC. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the name "Star Trek into Darkness" looks badly chosen, blame the script writer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- With all respect due to an admin of your standing, but making comments like that might imply that you didn't actually bother to read the entire discussion as it appears to show a complete lack of understanding of what the discussion was about... MisterShiney ✉ 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have read through the argument. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. :) MisterShiney ✉ 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- It could be that the name was first thought of as "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and somewhere in the studio before release of information the colon went missing. Typos happen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put it past them lol. MisterShiney ✉ 23:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is a fair ask actually. I'm not disputing the decision but policy states "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". It would simply have been helpful if there was some outlining of the thinking behind the decision to illustrate that this was done. The simple sentence "no consensus reached after 29 days" on the heels of such a lengthy debate seems, for want of a better word, abrupt. Nsign (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- The rule as it stands says "into", as there is no punctuation after "Trek" and no evidence (except analogy) that "Star Trek" is its title and "into Darkness" is a disambiguator. It is my experience that if this sort of discussion is allowed to continue indefinitely, it goes on repetitively for megabytes or until the participants at last get tired, and in either case it still ends as no consensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- But consensus is generally defined as the "general/majority opinion" is it not? The majority opinion was for it to be moved and policy was equally quoted on both sides. It is unreasonable on such a yay or nay topic for a compromise that everyone was going to be happy with. MisterShiney ✉ 09:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to show my support for Anthony's decision here. Consensus is a "process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members", not a majority vote. We clearly had no consensus, as there was strong opposition to the move. In the event of no consensus, standard practice is not to move. Also, Anthony followed instructions WP:RMCI, "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." As far as a compromise goes, this was clearly not going to happen, so Anthony was clearly in a very difficult position - of course there would be dissent which ever way the sword fell. What choice did he have but to go along with the guidelines? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is to be wondered what "a compromise" would be: the offending 'i' in "into" can be uppercase or lowercase, not something between. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I think "Into" is the compromise. Some were proposing we add a colon as per what's already been done on Wikipedia to Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: Nemesis when official sources for those don't have a colon either. Some would have us believe that the guidelines are inflexible and the MOS trumps all but Wikipedia already sidesteps them where appropriate. Simply capitalising it allows for both interpretations and follows official sources and "real-world" usage. Nsign (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- We're all already aware of what the guideline says and of what constitutes consensus - we've talked about nothing else for the past month - but I think the feeling here is that the discussion was closed prematurely without addressing the fact that the MOS allows for common-sense exceptions. Every mainstream source including newspapers, magazines, websites and the filmakers themselves spell it with an uppercase "Into" and this encyclopedia stands alone with a spelling that no other reputable source does. No one's saying you necessarily had to agree that this was an exception, only that you don't seem to addressed that element of the discussion. Nsign (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't spelled with an uppercase "i", it is styled with an uppercase "i". And how is a discussion that has been going around in circles for a month without any possibility of resolution closed prematurely? It needed to be brought to an end by an admin so that we can all get on with our lives! Perhaps if Anthony can embellish his points in the relevant part of the close, then this will satisfy the editors in question. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK then Rob - every mainstream source including newspapers, magazines, websites and the filmakers themselves style it with an uppercase "Into" and this encyclopedia stands alone with a styling that no other reputable source does.
- And "prematurely" may be the wrong word given how long this has gone on but the rest of my point stands. Nsign (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't spelled with an uppercase "i", it is styled with an uppercase "i". And how is a discussion that has been going around in circles for a month without any possibility of resolution closed prematurely? It needed to be brought to an end by an admin so that we can all get on with our lives! Perhaps if Anthony can embellish his points in the relevant part of the close, then this will satisfy the editors in question. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't use this talk page to debate this matter. The closing was perfectly legitimate and in line with policy. Any further discussion needs to be made on the article talk page or not at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- You know, it's not every day that a sysop blows it badly enough to be mocked (if indirectly) on xkcd. There's no barnstar in the offing but it's definitely an accomplishment of some sort. Please try to do better next time. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Which issue of xkcd? Here I seem to have been caught up in a long acrimonious dispute, and whichever side I decide for, the other side will accuse me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You've been duped into making lots of GAA moves
- You have moved a slew of GAA related articles London GAA Intermediate Football Championship using the “Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial”. In my opinion, you've been duped into doing this by an unscrupulous editor. Firstly, it was grossly misleading of the requestor to have entered those requests as uncontroversial as he knew quite well that they were very uncontroversial. Secondly, the requestor did not put up a flag on the articles notifying others of the intended move. Thirdly, we and others were engaged in an active debate on numerous forums including here, here and here.
- There are two main editors that have been undertaking this sneaky way round discussin – the current requestor and User:Brocach. On Jan 1st, the latter induced the Admin User:Malik Shabazz to undertake the same “uncontroversial” moves. When their underhand methods were explained to Malik, he reverted them. See here. They are now up to their same tricks. Please undo all that you have done in good faith until the discussions have reached a consensus. By the way the emerging consensus at “Tipperary hurlers” is in favour of using the GAA suffix. Lastly, are the actions of these two editors sufficiently in breech of wiki etiquette as to warrent censure? Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done I have moved all 14 back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The "current requestor" was User:86.40.107.199 (User talk:86.40.107.199); his contributions list is Special:Contributions/86.40.107.199. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- He did it again: see Talk:Leinster GAA Senior Football Championship#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- And again: see this diff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Redirect not done properly
- Hi there. A few hours ago you redirected/moved the PSY article to Psy. Apparently the redirect wasn't done properly as all other links to PSY now land in the disambiguation page. Also, the PSY_(entertainer) link leads to the dis page. I don't know much about redirects and how to correct them. Could you please take a look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The move / redirect of the PSY article has started to attract editors, who are now re-redirecting and reverting. It's getting a bit confusing now. Could you pls check if the article is correct the way it is now? Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar for someone who deserves it...
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Do you get a lot of these? I hope so! Your prompt, efficient, and tireless contributions at Requested moves are greatly appreciated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Hi - a few days ago this was foolishly moved to English idiom & then moved back, but not properly, leaving the history stranded. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Anthony.
You've helped me move a number of asana pages. I made a mistake with that one. Is there anyway to rectify it or is WP:OFFICEACTION the only way?Curb Chain (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The history merge still isn't complete, as most of the article's history (everything before the cut and paste) is still at Thurleigh Investment Managers. Peter James (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You removed my request and never acted on it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This request is present and correct now: see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Historic sites in Orissa
- Hi Anthony. I'm puzzled by your comment at Talk:Historic sites in Orissa on the request to move the article to Talk:Historic sites in Odisha. There has been a long discussion at Talk:Orissa on a requested move, which resulted in the article being moved to Odisha. It should follow that all the sub-pages move to match the main article. If we have a debate on each sub-page, we are likely to finish up with a real hotchpotch, with readers and editors left totally confused. That surely can't be what you are advocating. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done 8 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks for that. It's always a pleasure doing business with you! You may not always get it right first time (though usually you do), but you're always open to reason. Wish there were a lot more like you around! Thanks again. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Mario Kart Wii U
- I request a history undeletion of Mario Kart Wii U. SNS (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh & I forgot to request a history undeletion of the talk page Talk:Mario Kart Wii U. In addition I request history undeletions of Mario Kart (Wii U), Mario Kart U. & their talk pages. SNS (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp
A tag has been placed on Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...)
A tag has been placed on Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Alphons/Alphonse Mucha
- Despite a clear consensus against at Talk:Alfons_Mucha#Alphonse_vs._Alfons a while back, McCandlish has moved it without any further discussion to "Alphons". Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I started this as a discussed move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, the discussed move you started has now (rightly) been closed as no consensus, which I presume means the undiscussed move preceding should be reverted, and "Alphonse Mucha" restored, as various people in the discussion have said. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion as "Alfons Mucha to Alphonse Mucha?" and it ended as "no consensus". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but the article had been stable at Alphonse before the undiscussed move I complained to you about here. As the move request you began instead ended NC the article should be returned to the status quo ante. Not doing so just encourages other out of process moves. The previous discussion at the page a couple of years ago had also supported Alphonse, as I say above. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- See much discussion in Talk:Alfons Mucha. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen it. That's why I ask. Note in particular that (last comment before the RM discussion), McCandlish himself said that he would have moved it back to Alphonse & started an RM if you had not already started one without moving it back! If you don't move it back you are in effect endorsing the move from the title it hhad had for some years, when the RM to change it failed to get consensus. That can't be right. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, OK, Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| For your VERY difficult decision in closing the Star Trek Into Darkness move discussion. Was a hard one to make and you were right in that you couldn't make a decision either way without annoying people. MisterShiney ✉ 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Hello Anthony. Someone has tagged this for G6 deletion. They want to move Folklore Museum of Kastoria to this name. The Delinanios article is new since 2012. It is the one that has substantial content. The Folklore Museum of Kastoria article is older (2008) but had practically nothing in it for a long time. Technically one could insist on a history merge. Someone cut and pasted 1,400 bytes of good content from Delinanios to Folklore Museum. I would be tempted to take the good material from Folklore and restore it to Delinanios. Then we could keep the real article at Delinanios and leave Folklore as a redirect to it. We would still keep the history of Folklore under the redirect. That would preserve the record of authorship of the material, and eliminate the need to delete either article. Is this allowable? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was not a 100% cut-and-paste but a text-merge. I have moved Delinanios Folklore Museum to Delinanios Folklore Museum/version 2 and then Folklore Museum of Kastoria to Delinanios Folklore Museum. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Duino Castle move
Just wanted to thank you for your assistance in the requested move regarding Duino Castle. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wet, wet and wetter
You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Maproom#Wet, wet and wetter. Senra (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48
A kitten for you!
thanks for sorting out the Electoral district moves!
Kerry (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Departments of Colombia
You closed Talk:Caquetá Department#Requested move in 2009. The agreement was to leave all Colombian entities consistent within this country-specific set and also within the wider set of department articles worldwide. The situation was stable until end of 2012, when one user lower cased and now another user at Valle del Cauca even removed the term department completely. Maybe you can give feedback at Talk:Valle del Cauca#Requested move. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
For tidying up the mess I made :) Lukeno94 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| A request was brought up for a history merge at ANI and after doing it, I wondered where the chasm of death for these annoyingly tedious requests are supposed to go. After finding Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen I noticed that you handle most requests. Good on you, someone has to do it and you've been at it alone. I've watchlisted it. v/r - TP 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hardest working admin
Hi Anthony. Just wanted to say thanks for the move. Also, thanks for the histmerge last year. I always see you working. You are just a working machine. Anyhoo, I just wanted to tell you how much of a benefit you are to the project. A lot of people owe you a great deal of thanks, myself included. I appreciate all the help you've given to the project. Best regards. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Uncontroversial move request???
- How did the moves of Metropolitan Statistical Area and related articles get to be deemed uncontroversial? The most recent move discussion, at Talk:Statistical area#Requested move, indicates the opposite -- but it did find consensus for the moves that made these into proper nouns. --Orlady (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Cherkash listed it at 19:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC) here. See Special:Contributions/Cherkash. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the histmerge of Airports in the New York Metropolitan Area. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Halifax Explosion
Thank-you for moving Halifax Explosion, (by the way, could you close the move request?) I am getting frustrated with the different interpretations of an uncontroversial move. I tried to speedy delete Halifax Explosion with the explanation that it was the obvious name, but it was denied by another admin, then you accept a request citing BRD, with the B being two months ago. Thank-you. I had more frustration at Magrath, not being able to revert that move, 7 hours later. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Aqueduct move
Re the move of Aqueduct at [1] where did the original talk and history for the (old) Aqueduct end up? —Sladen (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- To answer my own question, Talk:Aqueduct/version 2. —Sladen (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Kingston High School, Hull
Thank you for responding to the RM, but something got messed up during the move. Now both pages (Kingston High School, Hull and Kingston High School (Hull) are redirects to each other, and the content has disappeared. Could you please fix it and restore the article to Kingston High School (Hull). Thank you. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. Based on your contribs, it looks like you're not around now. (It's probably night wherever you are). No problem. I'll post to ANI and see if I can get someone to fix it up. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, appear to have been some problems with this one but I have restored it to the original comma version as that is correct for UK schools which use the comma separator rather than the bracket separator for dab purposes. Keith D (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
PlayStation 4
- I request history undeletions of PlayStation 4 & Playstation 4 (as well as their talk pages). SNS (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Judgement reserved.Pages PlayStation 4 & Playstation 4 have been deleted many times before, and their deleted versions contain little information, except to say that PlayStation 4 will come. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)- Done A recent television news report showed that PlayStation 4 IS coming soon. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Weights
Anthony Weights (talk · contribs) keeps contributing things without consulting with others, like me. Look at his contributions; he didn't respond to my messages. Rather he just... argh! --George Ho (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Phrasal verb
- Hi, I noticed you fixed the page history for Idiom. The same problem occurred at the same time for Phrasal verb - it was moved to English phrasal verb and back again incorrectly, and now the page history is in the wrong place. Would you be interested in fixing this as well? Count Truthstein (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Technical requests
Thanks for your help. ----Jack | talk page 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920)
- Please, return Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920) back to its correct name. --Lecen (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Khans
Negar 
Nigaar
Hello! Negar Khan and Nigaar Khan are actually two different actresses. I am seeing that some user has mixed and merged and copy pasted and moved and what not. Finally the article is at "Negar" and "Nigaar" also redirects to it. Instead of directly changing the redirect you created into an article, i thought its best to ask you if that is okay. There seems to have been "history merger" or something. Will it be okay if i simply write about Nigaar on the article "Nigaar Khan"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looking through page Negar Khan's old history, I get the impression that various editors over time thought that Negar Khan and Nigar Khan were the same woman, and some edits say "Negar Khan, also known as Nigar Khan". Best turn page Nigaar Khan into a new article about her, and at the starts of Negar Khan and Nigaar Khan put hatlinks each directing to the other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure! Will do it that way. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Charles M. Schulz
- You just moved the page Charles M. Schulz to Charles Schulz, with the claim that such a move is non-controversial. No one brought this up on the talk page to see if there is any controversy. Schulz is credited as "Charles M. Schulz" on all his major works, the museum in his honor is the Charles M. Schulz Museum, and "Charles M. Schulz" pulls over a million ghits. I'm not saying that there isn't a claim to be made that he's more often referred to without the middle initial, but it is a question which should have at least been raised on the talk page. I appreciate that you went through considerable effort in this move and were trying to improve things, but that may not have been the end result. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done I have moved it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks from me also. I was going to ask you to undo the move when I saw you already had. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech 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/Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech 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 high-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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Page move of West Indian cricket team in England in 2011–12
Hi. I think you should have checked the page history to see it's been moved back-and-forth several times, so it wasn't uncontroversial. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Many thanks for your constant efforts in all the thankless tasks of page protection, moving etc: it is much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC) |
- Hi Anthony. You have moved the article Edouard de Pomiane. Could you please clean up after the move and add the interwikilinks. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata and moves
Replied here to your comment about Wikidata since the issue appeared to be worrisome. Apparently the fix will be done automatically. The initial implementation consists of a bot which updates Wikidata. Though I wonder if anyone will monitor the process to be sure it keeps up. I checked one entry, and noticed that Wikidata was updated about half an hour after the article was moved, which sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Moving "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" : uncontroversial?
Hello,
You proceeded to the moving of "Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" to "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" and justified it by the fact that it was "uncontroversial". Unfortunately, it is a highly controversial topic and the previous situation (to have two distinct articles, one for each) was a result of a RfC.
Since your move, which is actually controversial, goes against the decision obtained through this RfC, I ask you to undo it and to seek for a new consensus.
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done move Coat of arms of Western Sahara to Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- thanks :) I restored the article Coat of arms of Western Sahara to its version preceding the move. --Omar-toons (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Schmaltz herring
- Would you mind cleaning up Schmaltz herring after an inexperienced editor renamed the article by recreating it instead of moving it? Relevant discussions are here and here. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Marilyn Yalom has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
RM
- Hi Anthony, is it proper to ask an admin to look at an RM to see if it can be closed? It's 5:1 but dragged out and clogged with verbiage. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Which RM is this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was playing safe and asking if proper to ask first. Talk:Han tu, dragged on enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done; a history-merge was needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. There's Talk:Cơm tấm as well, dragging on less long, only since 22 Feb. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion at Talk:Cơm tấm is not remarkably long, and I prefer to wait a full month before closing a move discussion which has not reached a consensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw you hadn't worked on it in around 16 hours so I removed the AFC submission template from the top. —rybec 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of 9ice for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9ice 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/9ice 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Queried history-merge request
See Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Queried requests. --Vivaelcelta {talk · contributions} 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Gracias --Vivaelcelta {talk · contributions} 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Warshaw
- Hi
- just saw your message re. Jack Warshaw. It's intended as information not promotion. The format attempts to follow guidelines as seen in similar writings concerning other artists. If you would be so kind as to help correct any wrong impression I would be much obliged. I have not saved the material elsewhere and would be grateful if you can let me have it back in the meantime for further work.
- best
- Seanojackson (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the moves!
I watchlisted WP:RM/TR a while back when I requested all the "at large district" moves... and every day since, your name has shown up next to it in my watchlist. As one of the maintainers of one of Wiktionary's big request pages, I know how tedious such a nevertheless very necessary job can be. So: thank you for keeping that page running so smoothly! It's a Herculean thing you do! -sche (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Move
Hi! I guess you copied too much here: [2]. --DixonD (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Trans-atlantic Tunnel → The Tunnel (1935 film)
- Hi AA, Can I just ask how long you normally keep these discussions open? Don't worry, Im not asking for a faster-than-normal close or anything, it's just that I'm going to be away for a couple of days later this week and don't want to miss out on any discussions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- This move discussion was started at 06:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC), so there is plenty of time yet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sanfu
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sanfu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are not any challenging topics. Just an episode and a song. I wonder if you can delete it. --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Jilla
- Hi Anthony, could you also delete this page as well since Jilla (the article) is deleted and there is no need to have the redirected (empty) page. T4B (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you also delete this as well which is currently CSD#4. I'm not sure why there are so many Jilla articles here. T4B (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have AfD'ed it, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilla (film). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for all the help. T4B (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Coat of arms of Western Sahara for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coat of arms of Western Sahara 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/Coat of arms of Western Sahara 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
French chess piece names
I'm not sure your revert was correct. See http://www.catherinetranslates.com/french-english-chess-glossary-glossaire-echecs/. See also fr:Échecs. Quale (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- ie wife of Gordon Brown. Moved out of process by Andy Mabbet, when the talk page has 2 RMs confirmiung the old name. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Horrible Histories
- Hi, I see you have moved the Horrible Histories (franchise) page. I think the change of page name will lead to confusion. The page was named as Horrible Histories franchise because that's what the page is about - it lists the theme parks, magazines, books and so forth. Horrible Histories are primarily known for the books, found under Horrible Histories (book series). The TV series are found on three pages. Just having one page name Horrible Histories doesn't point to its content. I recommend changing it back. Span (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have put a move discussion in Talk:Horrible Histories#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Nordic aliens - what was this about?
- Has your account been compromised or have I misunderstood this edit?[3]. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, OK, I have deleted it. I have seen speculations that some UFO's seen in USA were real secret human-made aircraft. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you're an Admin and you've been around longer than I have and have a lot more edits - the edit summary by the deleting editor was right, anything like that needs sources, especially when you are adding to stories that some UFOs are real secret aircraft (and these stories can be sourced) that these might be flown by Nordic aliens (never heard that one). Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not flown by aliens but Earth-made aircraft (not spacecraft) flown by ordinary white American Earth humans. OK, OK, sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Move request
- Hi, you probably don't remember me, but you helped move List of Michigan State Historic Sites out of my sandbox before. When you did that, you were able to move out certain edits but leave others in place. Well, I have made the same mistake I made last time haha. I started a page there without thinking about previous edits already in the sandbox. Would it be possible for you to move out all the edits since (and including) this revision to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress? Sorry :\--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thanks so much!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Technical moves -- done?
- Hi, I requested a couple of technical moves--this edit summary suggests to me that you did it? But the pages haven't been moved. Did you actually reject the technical moves? Thank you for clarifying my confusion. Red Slash 20:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Spui (river) → Spui River and Drin (river) → Drin River are being discussed. See their talk pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Response?
- Contested your denial of history merge, as it robs me of attribution, conceals actual steps taken in achieving the present result. What remedy for this? LCS check (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- If page A was cut-and-pasted to page B with a single clean cut-and-paste action, then they can be history-merged. See WP:Parallel histories. Otherwise, put in the affected article's talk page a section headed ==History== explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Merge history from Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism into Pandeism. Following discussion on Talk:Pandeism I created a bottom-up draft to remove OR/SYNTH from article. Done at talk subpage sought to be merged, where I performed a great deal of work with many edits on this draft. Another editor reversed support for draft process, duplicated some of my steps in the article, so I thought my work would be copied without recognition, went ahead and copied the draft into the article. Would like histories combined to credit my many steps taken to achieve improved result. LCS check (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done WP:Parallel histories Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wish to contest this - not really "parallel" histories because the other fellow only duplicated two of my edits. Disruption in time from one to the next is negligible. Current article state reflects hard work and numerous contributions on my part not shown in edit history, and details each specific instance of error repaired in the page, important to understanding the resolution of OR/SYNTH issues, which I dealt with, one at a time. Only other recourse is for me to restore the earlier version, then redo every single one of my string of 50 edits. I'll do it, but I won't like it. LCS check (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Page Pandeism at 12:45, 1 April 2013 seems to be a cut-and-paste of Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism as at 12:42, 1 April 2013. But Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism's first edit (at 23:50, 25 March 2013, 21,074 bytes) looks very different from Pandeism as at a similar time (23:16, 25 March 2013, 46,093 bytes). This is a case where I would have to break one editing history to re-link another editing history, as I would have to split off Pantheism's 8 edits from 04:31, 26 March 2013 to 20:58, 30 March 2013 inclusive to another page name. This sort of thing happens when the same article is edited in parallel under two names. The only way to avoid any broken editing histories would be for me to split off all of Pantheism's edits from its beginning to 20:58, 30 March 2013 inclusive to another page name, and then to history-merge from Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism to Pandeism. And/or to put a history section in Pandeism#Talk explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks very different because it is- that's the reduction which needed to be made to Pandeism and would've been done there had they not been made in draft, which was always intended to be merged back, and override Pandeism, because of SYNTH/OR issues. Not sure what Pantheism has to do with it; wholly separate article. Surely it's more important for edit history to reflect steps actually taken to get Pandeism where it now stands (and authorship of those steps)? LCS check (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, while you were editing Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism, other people were editing Pandeism. That causes a parallel-editing problem: see WP:Parallel histories about history-merging two pages which have parallel editing histories. I could split off all of Pandeism's edits from its beginning to 20:58, 30 March 2013 inclusive to page Pandeism/version 1, and then history-merge from Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism to Pandeism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would make the most sense, wouldn't it, since those edits no longer relate to what's in the article? LCS check (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
