| content |
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 ~~~~ .moe back
Charles H. Baker, Jr.
Anthony - Thanks a big bunch for doing the move on this article. Your speedy work is much appreciated. - Ward Arrington GroveGuy (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Ultraexactzz/Fake Real Person
Hi. I notice that you deleted this page from my userspace. Which makes sense, owing largely to the big CSD template(s) I had posted there. I'm working on a new version of some of the CSD templates that would introduce a 30 minute delay after tagging and before adding the page to the categories - and thought I had disabled the categories here. Since it's a test page, I went ahead and restored it. The categories should be disabled again, so (I'm hoping) the page is no longer on the CSD list - but, since you deleted, I wanted to ping you and let you know. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anthony. Thanks for your interest in the 'Emergency medical services' article. You might be interested in noting that the British article is slated for a substantial revision in the not too distant future, in order to bring it into line, style-wise, with the rest of the EMS by country articles. I'm not sure whether or not you'd be interested in helping out with that, but the help would be appreciated! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Arundel
- I appreciate the help moving the article (although it might have been nice to discuss it on the talk page first) but when you move an article could you kindly fix all the redirects you just created? I JUST finished up fixing some of the ones for this person created during the last move on the 18th of September. Also note that there ARE more than one Thomas Arundels, and the article has already been moved from plain TA to two other pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was suggested by User:Srnec in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=242197584 . I have reverted the move and restarted the discussion in Wikipedia:Requested moves, as controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the move. Could you edit the talk page to make it clear that it's a closed discussion? Thanks. PamD (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of E8 investigation tool page
- As one of group of conspirators that saw fit to delete a page discussing the relative value of existing E8 investigation tools, I would like you to send me a copy of the deleted page.
- Notwithstanding the fact that you highlight your own math ignorance in the deletion discussion, I am sure that the "wisdom of crowds" will put this page back at some point. This is due to the fact that the topic is so much more significant than things like fictional ray guns - [1]my reality is so much more interesting.
- It truly saddens me that there are so many spending so much time in WP following "the rules" editing/deleting topics they don't understand or promoting ones that don't further the truly significant dialogue related to the one thing mankind is uniquely capable of - understanding the universe.
- Thanks Jgmoxness (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have put a short spam-free new section in E₈ linking to the two programs mentioned in page E8 investigation tool. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but there are already references to (one of) these in the "External Links" section. I am concerned that the redundancy will become an issue. Also, they are not both "downloadable" as you implied. One is Flash based browser UI and my stuff is Mathematica notebook player download. IMHO it is not appropriate to engage discussion on the tools directly from the E8 page (they are related but different topics). They also link from another more physics based topic on a An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything from the Theory of Everything page. Thus the need for a separate page to discuss the tools. Jgmoxness (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- That page was duly discussed in AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E8 investigation tool. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, but your last tweek helped NOTHING, and causes confusion. You obviously are not part of that conversation so why are you mucking with the content. Tweak WP topics that you know something about and leave others alone. It's truly annoying. This is what I was referring to above. Jgmoxness (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- BTW - I realize you're doing battle against the idiots & vandals in WP (as evidenced by today's changes to this page). That work needs to be done and I appreciate it, but I assume/hope that you have the ability to see the difference betwween this and that. If not, you may need to take a break (take a deep breath, close your eyes, and step away from the keyboard, ingest your favorite relaxation agent...repeat), lest you become one of them. Jgmoxness (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- The best policy here might be to expand E₈#E8 Investigation Tools into a longer description, as long as these two packages are described neutrally and not in a way that tends to advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Beit Nekofa
- Hi Anthony! Recently you deleted the article Beit Nekofa per CSD A3. It seems strange to me that the article had no content, as the user Number 57 created articles for all Israeli villages without an article, likely including Beit Nekofa, which did have content. Can you please share the deleted content, if indeed there ever was any? Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Page Beit Nekofa has these 3 deleted edits, only:-
- 11:38, 19 July 2006 . . User:Huldra (#REDIRECT Bayt Naqquba) // redirect
- 13:41, 17 September 2008 . . User:Nudve (empty) (Beit Nekofa and Bayt Naqquba are not the same locality) // blanking
- 13:45, 17 September 2008 . . User:Nudve (16 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A3). (TW)) // speedy-delete tag only
- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tetragrammaton
- Hi Anthony. There's a discussion on the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in the article which Tetragrammaton refers to as its main article. This article is not about that pronunciation, and stating conclusions from the main article as a fact in Tetragrammaton is pushing a POV inappropriately. Instead of simply removing the POV content again, I have replaced it with a statement that views on the pronunciation can be found in the main article. Please don't simply revert without discussion. At least two editors are agreeing on the talk page that the statement doesn't belong in that article. Perhaps you might want to give your reasons for disagreeing, rather than simply reverting. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Anthony -- we've been having quite a time with multiple socks from a repeatedly banned user cluttering up a number of articles (two socks have tag teamed you above). We'd appreciate your help cleaning up these articles so that scholarly consensus is represented in proportion to notability and verifiability. Thanks for your help. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- "a number of articles": Which articles? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Anthony, please discuss your reasons for continuing to replace POV text in Tetragrammaton. Simply reverting changes isn't acceptable, even for an admin. You wrote in your reversion of 30 September "rv deletion, or please discussit". I've discussed it. You have not. I have made two different edits today, and you've responded to both of them by reverting. I'm going to repeat one of the edits I made today, and I hope you will not violate 3RR by reverting this one as well. Again, I encourage you to engage in discussion on the talk page, rather than blinding reverting. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to be caught in the crossfire of an edit war. What is going on????? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Anthony. There's a guy named David Amos. You can see some of the guises under which he's edited here in the past few months here. Note, btw, that the "two users" who discussed this with you in the section above, Kght and Kurdle12, appear to be two socks of this same user.
- David has a very strong one-issue agenda on Wikipedia, and it's all about validating one pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. He has added content to several articles on this subject pushing that one agenda. Each time he has been banned, he comes back with a new sock (or two). In the case of the Tetragrammaton article, however, you have been reverting changes to POV content without being willing to discuss those changes on the talk page. At least, so it seems. Is it possible that David Amos is someone you know in real life, and that he has been using your account to make these edits? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK OK, sorry, I seem to have believing the wrong side in this argument. If David Amos has sockpuppets, please what are the names of those sockpuppets? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective has the details, but here you go:
- User:Davidamos
- User:Knighthood
- User:LaBible
- User:Mod objective
- User:Alleichem
- User:72.3454.34TT
- User:Kght
- User:Kurdle12
- User:143.53.7.18
- User:143.53.7.76
- User:143.53.7.171
- User:143.53.7.169
- User:82.203.3.3
- User:86.135.199.16
And those are just the ones we know of so far. And as soon as the latest two have been banned, he'll be back with more. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Anthony, thanks for talking. Some of the articles are Yahweh and Names of God in Judaism. There are others, but those are the biggest two obsessions. The Davidamos socks are especially concerned with proving that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and the Tetragrammaton was in the originals -- as well as the idea that Yahweh is absolutely certain as the pronunciation, that the certainty of pronunciation was preserved within Judaism and Jews won't admit it, that the Assemblies of Yahweh is a major religious group restoring the name, etc, etc. Lisa and I as well as Garzo and some other folks from the Wikipedia Judaism project have had our hands full trying to keep the articles in some semblance of Wiki-standards, and we'd appreciate your help keeping POV from being pushed as infallible fact. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sky. You really do lie sometimes don't you? Lisa addressed your tendency to say such things before [2]. I'm also guessing that you are a Christian - a Jehovah Witness in fact - aren't you? Nothing on the Tetragrammaton that Allecihem said was making Yahweh sound ineffable [3]. Your false accusations are only undermining your credibility. Kght (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Davidamos, Knighthood, Alleichem, Kght -- whatever you want to call yourself this minute... the only "identity" I have that objects to your edits is that of "Wikipedia editor." At Wikipedia we do not create new research or establish truth; rather, we report notable and verifiable information in proportion to its relevance, notability, and verifiability. If you found evidence for Aramaic originals, that's fantastic. Let it be properly peer reviewed, and once it becomes notable and verifiable we'd all be happy to include it -- in proportion to its relevance, notability, and verifiability. Wikipedia is not the place to vet new information. Academic peer reviews through accredited institutions exist for that sort of thing. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please continue this discussion in Talk:Tetragrammaton. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Anthony. Sorry about the late reply, no one told me about this page, I, as usual, had to find it myself. Once again these two disruptive members are going for the "sly" approach. I think we should hear the full story. Don't worry it won't take long. One person (sock puppet) has contributed to the Tetragrammaton article. That's right one. Not all those sock puppets mentioned by Sky and Lisa: one. That was Alleichem. No other sock puppet has had any input on the article. No one is misleading anyone here: Ruby Lady, Austin , Anthony and Alleichem are not sock - puppets and these are the ones that agreed on the quote being mentioned.
- Lisa has a problem with the Name Yahweh because she is an Orthodox Jew and doesn't believe in any pronunciation. Sky I believe is also a Jew, but his reasons may be a little different. I've told them on multiple occasions to keep their own POV out of the article and keep it to scholarly evidence, but they are not listening [4] [5] [6] As you can see from the links, they're actually deleting any instruction or warning given to them about their conduct. [7] Also see the "Aramaic Priority" and "Time for another overhaul" section:[8] Kght (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
PSX
- Please continue this discussion in User talk:Silver Edge#PSX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about wrong moves, I really confusing and I ask your help. The "PSX" article shoud be the main article and "PSX (disambiguation)" the content you reverted. The PSX (DVR) should be reverted or redirect to PSX. I made an statement here about this, I'm just following other articles conventions, PS2 (Video game console) as a name don't make sense and the name of the device is "PSX" only. I ask your help for properly moves. --Ciao 90 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Giordano's Pizza
- I must question why you deleted this page. It fell within the scope of Wiki Chicago and Wiki Food. I created this article, I do not work for Giordano's. I have also done work for Lou Malnati's, Gino's East, Sbarro, and created the Rosati's page and Giordanos page. Why would i create pages for 2 companys if I wanted to advertise. Bad call, I worked hard researching that page. If you delted that, delete all restraunts. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have undeleted and AfD'ed page Giordano's Pizza. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Beating up
I have nominated Beating up, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Prince of Canada t | c 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Prince of Canada t | c 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Confusing page history
- Since you seem to have a monopoly on history merging :)
- I have been trying to reduce the backlog at WP:SCV and this came up. The original location was Abdou Traoré - unfortunately it was a mixup between two different Malian footballers with the same name. This was noticed, and Abdou Traoré (footballer born 1981) and Abdou Traoré (footballer born 1988) were created by copy pasting selective parts of the original article. The page history is still at Abdou Traoré. Should something be done in this case, or leave it as it is? I'm new to this page history & attribution stuff. – Sadalmelik ☎ 16:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Best leave it alone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Fictional drug users speedy delete
- Can you point me toward the part of CFD that indicates that the number of articles in a category that's been deleted twice at CFD allows for re-creation in the absence of any indication of a consensus change? Shouldn't the category be speedied and then taken to WP:DRV? Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The category is Category:Fictional drug users. What category are its members to be moved to? As long as this category has so many members, people will keep on re-creating it. Surely the members should be re-categorized or de-categorized first? I did not recreate the category file, but merely {{hangon}}'ed a speedy-delete-tagging. Its delete log reads:
- 05:22, 30 October 2007 User:Cyde deleted "Category:Fictional drug users" (Robot - Removing category Fictional drug users per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 Month 0.)
- 05:13, 16 May 2007 User:Mike Selinker deleted "Category:Fictional drug users" (category change per CFD)
- but the link to discussion about deletion is a redlink to a page name with no deleted or undeleted edits.
- CFD is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
- I have looked at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Fictional drug users and again deleted the category. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- My primary concern is that despite the cat being deleted, a bot hasn't removed it from any of these pages. When will this happen? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry: I am not in charge of that category bot. Raise the matter in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for translating the article of Viniegra de Abajo
Gracias por traducir el artículo de Viniegra de Abajo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gominolo (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Dear Sir or Madam
I am expressing regret at the deletion of Navjot Singh. You mention that the reason is that he is a real person but not significant or relevant- but this is not true...I think the article spoke for itself that he is of significance and that he has done something for China- he is a well established and upcoming author of books on China...so why have you deleted him? Please kindly put back the page...this is very embarrassing for the author and for his publishers as they have worked hard to create a page which has been seen as basically "rubbish", and this is seen as an insult to his integrity and hard work.. Please kindly re initiate his page. Thanks in advance. 05:35, 8 October 2008 User:Gurpalo
- Page Navjot Singh had already been deleted twice before.Its deletion log reads:
- 05:06, 8 October 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard "Navjot Singh" (db|reposted spam / nn-bio)
- 04:37, 8 September 2008 User:SatyrTN deleted "Navjot Singh" (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)
- 20:07, 11 April 2007 User:Anthony.bradbury deleted "Navjot Singh" (NN bio)
- "nn" = "not notable". I could undelete it and AfD it, but the resulting verdict would likeliest be "delete". There are very many book authors in the world. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Bank South Pacific
Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
please restore Talk:Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois)/Temp
- Could you please restore Talk:Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois)/Temp? This is a non-copyvio version of the page Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois) which was deleted as a copyvio. At some point the non-copyvio page should be moved at Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois) with a note at the copyright problems page that this has been done. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I undeleted that page, unless you added much more material to it, it would likely soon be speedy-deleted as "non-notable school". See Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- That document is not policy. Current consensus at AfD appears to be that all high schools are notable. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois) , which ended when the original article was deleted as a copyvio. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored it. I have made page Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois) less like a school prospectus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You had me very worried!
- Just how the script could have been so creative was beyond me ... but I'd already typed in an apology. Cheers 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC) User:Tony1
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)
I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Istighfar
Hello. Earlier today you deleted Istighfar. I have restored the article; the deletion rationale was in error, as I have explained to the original nominator. I would ask that you please be a little more cautious before fulfilling deletion requests in future. Thank you. -- Earle Martin t/c 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Milton Hindus
05:00, 13 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Milton Hindus" (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person
- Hi. Could you restore this article in my user space? I would like to work on it.[9] Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
