User talk:Robchurch/November 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: Aug 05 | Sept 05 | Oct 05 | Nov 05 | Dec 05 | Jan 06 | Feb 06 | Mar 06 | Apr 06 || May 06 | Jun 06 | Jul 06 || New Message

Contents 1 Deletion of Arvanitika 1.1 about consensus 1.2 about logs 2 Vote 3 re: Yogi 4 Move 5 My RfA 6 Image:Deuel.jpg 7 Pink Floyd 8 Old account 9 Neutral solution 10 response for Naming conventions 11 3RR 12 Iraqi insurgency 13 Cultural appropriation 14 Rajput 15 Re: Weird edit summary 16 It's not... 17 85.103.23.4 18 report on the 3RR violation 19 Proton exchange membrane fuel cell 20 RuneScape cheats/ Cheating in RuneScape 21 User:Goethean 22 talk:Rajput 23 Arvanites etc 24 FAHD 25 It's late, but... 26 WP:MIND 27 thanks for the move 28 Bot 29 Request 30 Jesus_Take_The_Wheel on Wheels! 31 WP:RM 32 Pounds Weight and Pounds Sterling 33 A barnstar

Note: I went on an extended wikibreak at the end of November.

[edit] Deletion of Arvanitika

Did you delete Arvanitika? +MATIA ☎ 14:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I believe that if the article would be named Arvanitic language (I claim that Arvanitika language is the correct but let's skip that for now) then a redirect should exist from Arvanitika to the "correct" (actually "present") wiki.

I also partly disagree with the archiving of the talk page. There's an open ArbCom case related to Arvanites. (I haven't parsed yet User:Matia.gr/Evidence and I have few notes at User:Matia.gr/Arvanites_sources)

check also Special:Whatlinkshere/Arvanitika and Whatlinkshere for other deleted wikis. +MATIA ☎ 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about consensus

The top 40% of Talk:Arvanites had reached a consensus (perhaps Talk:Arvanites#PROOF or somewhere around there is the "end"). I brought books with ISBNs and they are called invisible sources... +MATIA ☎ 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about logs

Can you please tell me how can I see a log of the wiki-moves of Arvanitic language? Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) +MATIA ☎ 01:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Hello, I took your advice and have arranged a poll over the name of the article in an attempt to build a neutral consensus. The poll ia at Talk:Arvanitic language#Requested move to move Arvanitic language to Arvanitic (linguistics), to reflect the fact that its status as a language or dialect is disputed. This is done in all other similar cases (Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) etc). Please vote support if you support the move. Rex^(talk) 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have listed this "straw-poll" on WP:RM. Are you sure that voting is not the way to go? The guidlines on WP:RM say that I'm supposed to list the page there with its proposed title and have a poll on the talk page of the article. Rex^(talk) 20:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 09:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. What do you think should be done on Talk:Arvanitic language? It is quite clear that Arvanitic language is POV as it is contradicted by every other encyclopaedia and every linguist on the planet and even by the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece. ONLY the Arvanites of southwestern Greece say that it is a language in its own right and NO ONE else. Arvanitic (linguistics) is neutral, it is used in other identical cases eg Flemish (linguistics). MATIA and Theathenae are refusing to compromise. I hae suggested Arvanitika (linguistics) or Arvanitika plain. They cling to their obviously POV position. As they are obviously unwilling to co-operate, can't the page be moved to Arvanitic (linguistics) according to the rules at WP:RM and the poll consensus. I mean, every time someone comes along with a nationalist agenda, do we have to try to reason with them? Rex^(talk) 13:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll start by quoting something a headmaster of mine once said:

"Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions."

Ultimately, yes you will have to reason with people, and yes you will need to garner consensus. I've spoken to Matia, who is perfectly willing to try to strike for a middle ground; so we just need to find that middle ground.

I'm thinking of ways to help you guys work this one out - I'll come up with something in a few minutes, I hope. Rob Church ^Talk 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would write on the paragraph you removed that this is absolutely related (but the list of diffs is incomplete). +MATIA ☎ 14:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, what is going to happen with the result of that poll you set up? You told me that Matia.gr has indicated that he will be more flexible in his views. He hasn't, he is ridgedly sticking that stupid Arvanitika language, which I have explained many times why it should not be used. So far, the majority have voted for Arvanitic. When the poll is over is that where it will be moved? (assuming that that retains the majority vote). I have changed my views, he hasn't. It's quite clear that only he and Theathenae support that POV, that is why only they vote for them. They are not co-operating, they have not provided any sources, NOTHING! I know that you are acting out of good faith, but in this case, it's quite clear that Maita.gr and Theathenae will not change their views and nor will anyone else. There will never be a 100% support for one name. What is done in such circumstances? Rex^(talk) 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Yogi

Hi there. Everything in the Yogi article is a repetition of the Yogis section of Yoga. It should be a redirect, like it used to be. See Talk:Yogi for an old discussion of this matter. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Thanks Robchurch! I will do as you say. The Ogre 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your vote and comment in my RfA, Rob! Much appreciated! Babajobu 21:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Deuel.jpg

Sir...thank you,

I will get to tagging the image as soon as possible. But I don't believe it has any copyright, however, because it has been featured on a number of sites. I shall shoot for Fair Use. Best regards. I am much obliged for your assistance.

Эрон Кинней 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of where the image has been on the web, it will still have a copyright owner; only photographs older than about 70 years (plus life of creator; exact details vary according to all sorts of complexities like where the photograph was created, etc.) will be in the public domain. Even freely-licensed images have copyrights.

You may well get away with fair use on this one, provided that you

• State where the photo came from (try to get it from the source, or as near to as possible)
• Write an adequate fair use rationale - details on this are at the image copyright tags page linked to above
• Only use the image in the one article

If you are going for fair use, you need to sort all this out quickly - we tend to clean out copyrighted stuff very fast. Rob Church ^Talk 13:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd

By your edits it seems you like Pink Floyd, it's too bad there is no Wikiproject for the band. What is the criteria for Wikiprojects, or if you know of course.

Эрон Кинней 01:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old account

My old account is User:Kjspahis. I haven't used it for more than a year now. I didn't like that name and I didn't know that they could be changed back then. I think that you should know that an IP check has been performed on me and it retured no results. I am as white as a sheet, despite what Matia.gr and Theathenae may claim Check the result [1]. Apparently I live in the same city and use the same ISP as a certain vandal, but it turns out it cannot be me. This info emerged after a blatant invasion of my privacy and the publishing of my ISP on Wikipedia without asking me. They mentioned the vandal's ISP and they mentioned that I use the same ISP as the vandal. If you want to investigate multiple accounts, check Matia.gr's sockpuppet User:Mik2 or Theathenae's sockpuppet User:Thrakiotis. I believe and now he has double voted now. What is interesting is that I don't have an IP match with ANY OTHER ACCOUNT, WHERE ARE THE SOCKPUPPETS???

Anyway, don't you think it's time to move Arvanitic language to Arvanitic yet? There have been two polls, Matia's proposition is obviously unacceptable as it takes a side and says Arvanitic is a language, which bluntly denies the possibility of it being a dialect and that makes Wikipedia conflict with every linguist and encyclopaedia on earth. I want to use Arvanitic. It is neutral. It is an accurate name and we can add the links at the external links section of the article and let the reader make up his own mind over what he believes Arvanitic is. Anyway, there is a consensus for it according to the guidelines at WP:RM. How many polls are we supposed to have? I have amended my views in the interests of compromise, Matia.gr has not. He is stubbornly denying to accept simple facts. Wikipedia will become a laughing stock if his version is used as it contradicts the authorities on such subjects. Anyway, his views cannot be used under WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:CITE whereae Arvanitic can AND there is a consensus. Rex^(talk) 17:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been accused in the past that I'm a sockpuppet of 3 other users. Mik2 is a 4th one. I've only edit wikipedia with this account, and once that there was a problem with logging in, I've claimed (signed) my edit later. See also User_talk:David_Gerard#request_for_user_check. I know I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone else, but I'm not aware of the check user results. +MATIA ☎ 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you have accused virtually everyone who disagrees with you to be a sockpuppet of mine. User:GrandfatherJoe, User:Grymnir, you name it. The IP check on me yielded NO IP matches with ANY other accounts. How odd considering that there have been moments when Grymnir and I or GrandfatherJoe and I were logged in at the same time. That is allowed though? Rex^(talk) 19:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I did report one of the supertrolls accounts and I had my user_talk page vandalized. See User_talk:REX#Inadvertent_SuperTroll_block. This is also relevant User_talk:GrandfatherJoe#sock_puppeting, and User:Tony Sidaway is aware of what happened at that time on Talk:Arvanites. +MATIA ☎ 19:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Do tell me more about it, how is that so relevant? I have provided evidence that I don't use sockpuppets. Have you *snigger* ? I find it most amusing that you have the sauce of accusing me of sockpuppetry, while you have that whole army of sockpuppets (including Mik2). Tut tut! How do I know that you are telling the truth that you only use that account? You may be lying, you have done it so many times before. Rex^(talk) 20:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant aka I've invited GrandfatherJoe to agree to be checked and later I called him REX. This doesn's mean that he is or that he is not REX, it means that I did call him sockpuppet and then Tony told me not to do that (and he told the same to you too). Rob please bear with us and try to help us understand each other, you did look like a man with patience, and I probably have proven (during the last days) that I'm stuborn. +MATIA ☎ 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral solution

Do you think that you could ask Matia and Theathenae to propose a "neutral solution" which is backed with sources and is not an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy. I'd ask them, but I'd probably be called an Albanian chauvinist and/or be accused of trolling. Please tell them to consider something outside the realm of Arvanitic/Arvanitika language as it is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and try to think of a neutral compromise. I have done all I can! The y won't listen to me! I have showed flexibility, the ridgedly remain fixed to their POV position. They can't call a Arvanitic a language while every linguist on earth calls it a dialect. Rex^(talk) 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] response for Naming conventions

It has been applied to other disputed languages (linguistically disputed: that is other say it is a dialect, other a language, other use the term variety, etc). Macedonian language (MKD) is a language I'm aware of, and Luxembourgish language is another one. There have been discussions on Macedonia related articles that MKD is close to Bulgarian language. I suppose Luxembourgish is close to German, the article is titled that way, and within the article it is analysed. I should have noticed that it doesn't have the proper tag, if you are aware of other related guidelines or conventions please let me know, (I do think that this is exactly for the dialect-language-variety-whatever else problem). +MATIA ☎ 19:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is MATIA that no neutral sources call Macedonian or Luxembourgish dialects. Does Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue, UNESCO or maybe Brian Joseph (University of Ohio) call them dialects? No, they call them languages, but they call Arvanitic a dialect, something I have told you a million times but you choose to ignore. If Ethnologue called Macedonian Macedonian Bulgarian, like is says Arvanitika Albanian, then that could be something. It doesn't though, it calls it plain Macedonian. Rex^(talk) 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MKD is a Slavic (or Slavonic) dialect (or language). +MATIA ☎ 19:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with some kind of source? Like I provided UNESCO which uses the words diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian. Rex^(talk) 19:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at this! Oxford University has no problem in calling Arvanitika Albanian. It's even in the category Albanian language -- Dialects -- Greece. It's incredible how far the Vast Albanian Conspiracy goes, isn't it. What would you think of using their terminology: Arvanítika (Albanian)? Rex^(talk) 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Dear Robchurch, I find your liberal treatment of 3RR highly commendable. 3RR should not be avoided based on technicalities when user adds small changes to stay under 3RR. In the future I would be contacting you when I see users doing that because many admins at 3RR boards did not react when I posted the violations with clear avoidance of 3RR based just on technicality rather than the meaning. However, I would like to appeal your block of Ghirlandajo here. There was a clear consensus on the page in question and AndriyK was just bullying around with Ghirlandajo simply taking a firm stand. He should have been warned about the possibility of liberal interpretation of the 3RR, at least. While, I am happy to see AndriyK blocked since it would give several users a 24-hr of unobstructed editing free from his bullying, if it takes you to unblock AndriyK in order to restore Ghirlandajo, I am willing to suggest that too. Thanks, --Irpen 17:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As you observed, I'm exceptionally firm with those people who think it's okay to revert war. That means, unfortunately that the bystanders sometimes get hurt - Ghirlandajo also violated the policy, instead of asking for administrator intervention. As I'm aware of his good faith, I blocked him for only half the time. I'm sure he can accept it amiably. Rob Church ^Talk 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I repsectfully disagree with your decision but I will be happy to remember to contact you in the future regarding the editors who repeatedly undo other people's edits but avoid 3RR by adding/removing brackets or changing the active to passive voice in the grammar. I've seen much of that. I will be probalby contacting you several times about that. --Irpen 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And we can get right to business regarding 3RR avoiders. I posted this note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Andrew_Alexander to which there was no reaction because Andrew Alexander was sneakily avoiding 3RR in the strict sense.

It is not too late to restore justice since after this report he continued the reverts of that article. If you think that the statute of limitation of this violation already expired, you may at least warn that fella for the future.

On the side note, I would co-sign Ghirlandajo's response on his talk. He is the editor with whom I had particularly many disagreements but I quite enjoyed our working together and was one of those he mentions who asked him not leave the WP. AndriyK's and Andrew Alexander ongoing POV attack is on the nerves of the entire Ukrainian and Russian wikicommunities. Just check their talk pages to get a sense of what was going on. --Irpen 17:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation for a third time, and have thus unblocked Ghirlandajo. And now I apply your friend's logic to the situation with the other 3RR violation you reported, in which case I am unwilling to intervene. Rob Church ^Talk 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get what you meant. Whose friend's whose logic you applied to what? Are you now saying that the behavoir of Andrew Alexander I reported is allowed and should be tolerated? Did you change your mind towards strict interpretation of 3RR? Thanks, --Irpen 18:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken another look, and have decided that yes; these are petty technicalities. Because I wasn't the one directly dealing with the violation, I won't block, but I have left a note on the user's talk page which effectively warns him not to revert-war again. If this happens, please let me know, and I will consider blocking. Rob Church ^Talk 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish the issue with using small changes to avoid 3RR was more clearly written in the policy. I am glad that people start to interpet the rule as such anyway. Cheers, --Irpen 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Andrew_Alexander. Same user, same attempt of avoidance of 3RR based on technicality. The courtesy warning in place of a previous block that should have been applied did him no good. --Irpen 07:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgency

Greetings. You recently edited Iraqi insurgency. I don't know if you realized it or not, but the page is protected from editing. For this reason, I reverted your change. (No offense - it was obviously a good edit. But we have to be consistent.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Keep up the good work! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural appropriation

Hi, I saw that you blocked Deeceevoice (talk • contribs) for 60 hours for 3RR and personal attacks at Cultural appropriation. Just so you know, I just blocked his main opponent, Chameleon (talk • contribs) for the same length of time for the same offenses on the same page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput

Could you block Shivraj Singh again? And the anonIP he is using, 203.101.49.28? He has reverted six times in the last 24 hours, I believe. None of the rest of us have done more than a couple of reverts.

He has a pronounced Hindutva POV and believes that other POVs re Rajput identity should not be allowed on Wikipedia. The rest of us are trying to make sure that both arguments (Rajput is a Hindu caste; Rajput is a lineage) are represented. He will not discuss and dismisses anyone who opposes him as a "Muslim". The rest of us are prepared to give his POV full representation, but he does not want to return the favor. Zora 00:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Weird edit summary

Kim Bruning pushed me off the medcab the last time I was on, saying things such as "You're not a good person for the job", and when I said "But I can prove myself," he went "Your reputation precedes you." This time, he's not going to be able to force me off (NicholasTurnbull wants me on), hence the edit summary.

Make a little sense? --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:03, 4 November 2005 (CDT)}

[edit] It's not...

a barnstar, but it might be of more service to you. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 85.103.23.4

Uh, why did you unblock this IP? [2] It went right back to vandalism and has now been re-blocked. -- Curps 21:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] report on the 3RR violation

Thank you a lot! Can you tell me how I can allert more neutral editors to participate and watch the dreadlocks article? CoYep 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You blocked deeceevoice for 60 hours, but she is already back removing informations from the article again. CoYep 13:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proton exchange membrane fuel cell

Hi there! Thanks so much for moving the Proton exchange membrane fuel cell article! Dr. Eclectic ^talk 10:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape cheats/ Cheating in RuneScape

Hello Robchurch. Please note there is an ongoing discussion in RuneScape cheats about whether to move the article to Cheating in RuneScape. If you would like to participate in that discussion please comment on the talk page. Thanks for your interest in the article. In the meantime it would be very appreciated if you would undo what you have done so that the links under the category tabs work properly. Jonathan888 14:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So, I note you've commented on the talk page. That means discussion is futile and it's a done deal? I'm disappointed to say the least.Jonathan888 15:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Done deal"

Certainly not. I responded to a request in-channel, and idiotically, forgot to check the talk page. It was completely out of order for me to make the move while there was an active discussion, so I'm reverting it now.

I do apologise. Rob Church ^Talk 15:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Robchurch, I'm sorry about my snooty tone in the above and I apologize. I'm a bit touchy about the whole thing because the article is attacked by vandals nearly daily and has been moved before without discussion, again, I apologize I didn't mean to get snippity with you.Jonathan888 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Feel free to haul me up if you ever need to. Incidentally; if you can show me evidence of persistent vandalism by any particular users, then I can do something about it. And if the article's undergoing a particularly nasty bout of it, I can temporarily protect it. Rob Church ^Talk 15:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Goethean

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Rajput (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Goethean (talk • contribs):

• here
• here
• here
• here

Reported by: Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User is clueless about Rajput history and insists on editing. Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Rajput

Hi Rob, thanks for the warning. When I arrived at Talk:Rajput it was nothig but a flame war with Shiraj Singh (AKA 203.xxx.xxx) And the Muslim editors engaged in a complete hate-fest. I felt that it was a poor use of Wikipedia resources and asked them to take their conversation elsewhere. I insisted that they follow the rules, and deleted all personal attacks for a few weeks. Things got better for a while. Then Shiraj seemed to lose faith in the process when he realized that his POV verbiage was not going to be included in the article. He won't even respond to simple queries on the talk page, only bait the muslims onto a pissing contest over "bravery", etc. In my opinion, he has no intention to be a constructive member of wikipedia. As you can see, it has returned to its previously uncontrolled status. Someone needs to police Shiraj. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rob,

I totally agree with Goethean. Actually Tom, Goethean and Zora, all three of them tried to bring the talk back to logic and authenticity but Shivraj is determined enough to promote the biased opinion of a fenatic religious sect. In doing so he defies every logic and every historical evidence. He engages with the other editors including myself in irrelevant edit wars being insulting to other people and their views sometimes even calling them names. After being involved with this issue for more than a month, I have come to the conclusion that this guy is impossible. I would like to invite you to come to that talk page and see it for yourself.

خرم Khurram 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You have reverted the article to the disputed version. Is there anything that I am missing?

خرم Khurram 21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert to Shivraj Singh's Hindutva version? The rest of us are fine with multiple POVs allowed; he insists that his is the only TRUE POV and calls the rest of us Muslims. Even when we aren't. Zora 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arvanites etc

Please help REX with Talk:Albanian language. (he tried to archive it, but not the right way). Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that I was wrong about the above. +MATIA ☎ 22:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

REX and Theathenae had agreed on Arvanitic language as a title, so I agreed with them and REX made the redirects. We'll be in touch. +MATIA ☎ 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAHD

Rob - Yesterday I added Game theory to Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk/Requests Strangely, despite creating the page Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk/Requests/Game theory yesterday it still shows up red on the requests page today. When you click the red link it edits the existing text, proving that the link isn't malformed. Also, when you edit the requests page and preview it the link shows up blue. I don't know the inner workings of wiki very well, but I thought I would tell you in case you thought I just left the red link. Have a good day. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's late, but...

I know this is late as hell, but thank you for the welcome, you really made me feel comfortable when I joined the community.-MegamanZero 20:12 20, November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

[edit] thanks for the move

Thanks for Moving Google Sitemaps

J\/\/estbrook       19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Hi! I'm in need of a bot for simple replace-A-with-B operations, and your bot is the one I see most on my watchlist, so I thought I'd ask you for a few tips as to how to set such a bot up and how to use it... Would you be so kind? Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi, Robchurch. Just a request — would you mind using edit summaries when you remove items from Wikipedia:Requested moves to let others know what the result was? It's handy to know by looking at the history whether an entry was removed because it was no longer needed, whether the page was moved, etc. Thanks in advance. —Cleared as filed. 11:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus_Take_The_Wheel on Wheels!

Just in case you hadn't noticed the wheeler you fixed wasn't actually a wheeler, it was a cut and paste job, so your move back actually deleted the original article and it's edit history. It also colided with me tagging it for deletion, I've fixed the article (removed the on wheels! inserted and the tag) but obviously can't restore the original with edit history, don't know if this is something you can do. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 18:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM

For some reason the requested move for Afrika Korps fell off the WP:RM page without a move taking place although there is a consensus to do so. I have re-installed it under 8 November. Please could you move it before it gathers any more moss. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pounds Weight and Pounds Sterling

Your "bot" has altered a lot of links from "pound" meaning "pound sterling" (i.e., currency) to "pound weight". Would you like to amend the program and correct the links, please? --Jack 12:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar

Making a startling assumption that Robchurch and #wikipedia nick RobChurch are the same person... ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)