User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2007 February

I have no interest in communicating any further with he who shall not be named here - I have left my parting shot - please remind him hes on wikipedia from time to time... :) SatuSuro 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heheh - we ended talking amicably - and then another arose - but keesie reckons we wait till you run your thingy again! SatuSuro 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that a number of users use this template to indicate that they are admins on other projects, but this template includes them into Category:Wikipedia administrators. (see User:CHV as an example.) Is there a way to include only enwiki admins into the category? I suppose we could also create new categories for admins of other projects, or create a parallel template for non-enwiki usage. I'm not sure how best to proceed. You seem to know how to handle these template parameter things. What do you suggest? NoSeptember 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:49 27 January 2007 (GMT).

Are you sure? CHV and others still appear on the list. NoSeptember 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The category doesn't always update for a while (due to the job queue), and occaisionally not until the page is edited. I just did a dummy edit to User:CHV. The cat was already gone from the user page, though. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23 27 January 2007 (GMT).

OK, thank you. I'll wait a bit and then spread your fix to the others in Category:Admin user templates. NoSeptember 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through my list of articles created, and I noted that SmackBot delinked "Monday" from Dawa (Tibet) - a context where, you must admit, linking is wholly appropriate. If you could adjust the bot to make sure it doesn't go after that article again, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. DS 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that was a long time ago! Unlikely to re-run, but I have created whitelists for this very purpose at: Wikipedia:Date formattings. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49 29 January 2007 (GMT).

Hello again, Rich! I noticed that little while ago SmackBot dated a {{mergeinto}} template for December, but the merge tag was actually added in September. I don't know if it is possible for the bot to go through page histories to see when a tag was added, and I also realize that even if this is possible it may be more effort than it's worth. However, I just wanted to make you aware of this in case any improvement can be made. Thanks, Dar-Ape 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I am aware. I've used a mixture of approaches, in this case, as I recall, deriving the date from the irregular database dumps. Once a backlog is dated, of course, it is then simple to keep up, only mis-dating articles right at the month boundary. Rich Farmbrough, 11:58 28 January 2007 (GMT).

Okay. Keep up the great work with your bot, Dar-Ape 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich. A belated Happy New Year 2007. The article on Homelessness has been getting a lot of vandalism and spurious changes lately from anonymous editors ... we have had a lot of work to constantly and vigilantly keep up with it. Is it possible to put a non-anonymous editor lock on it for a while ? I don't know what else to do except to frantically keep up with the spurious changes, like matter/anti-matter. Please advise. Thanks and Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Hi Rich. Thanks. I wasn't sure what could be done, if anything other than our continuing to be vigilant and editing out the vandalism and spurious changes. It just recently got way out of hand and we were losing article information. But, maybe the s-protect will calm it down for a little while. I know that anonymous editors have made some really good contributions. In a quandry, I am. I guess you should lift the s-protect as soon as prudently possible. Thanks. Best Wishes --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Hurricane Juan was a significant hurricane that struck much of Atlantic Canada in late September 2003. It was the tenth named storm and the sixth hurricane of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. Juan formed southeast of Bermuda on September 24 and peaked at 105 mph (165 km/h) as it rapidly approached the coast of Nova Scotia, losing little intensity over the cooler waters. Juan made landfall near Halifax, Nova Scotia early on September 29 while still a Category 2 hurricane, and remained a hurricane across Nova Scotia and onto Prince Edward Island, weakening to a tropical storm over the island. It was absorbed by another extratropical low later on September 29 near Anticosti Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The storm left extensive damage across central Nova Scotia and into Prince Edward Island, with lesser damage east and west of the storm center. Most of the damage was as a result of the high winds that whipped across the region. Juan resulted in eight fatalities and over $200 million (in 2003 USD) in damage. It was described as the worst storm to hit Halifax since 1893. (more...)

Recently featured: Space Shuttle Challenger disaster – Alain Prost – History of saffron

Hi Rich. Any thoughts ? Editor User:PelleSmith deleted a Further reading section I added with an important academically accepted work in the Religion and God articles. Confer: User_talk:PelleSmith#Your_expurgtion_of_Dr._Knuth.27s_lectures_on_the_MIT_God_and_Computers_series and User_talk:Wikiklrsc#Curious_additions ... any thoughts ? It seemed a bit heavy-handed. Dr. Donald Knuth's work is very important and highly respected in many fields. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Okay, Rich. Thanks for your comments. So it goes. I heard Don's lectures and found them profound. So did the religious experts ! Thanks again. I'll leave things as they are. Glad for your input. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Hi Rich, I see this edit. I used the ISBN printed on the document (visible by going to the last page of the .pdf link in the article). Can you provide a link to what you found in ODIN? I searched a bit and did not quickly see what you saw, but, not having used ODIN before, I probably missed something. Thanks for your help. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream Nightscream 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What can I do to make the page acceptable? I'm not exactly sure as to what I'm missing. Thanks

24.240.32.251 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dodgeville, WI School Sports is probably not a sufficiently notable subject for Wikipedia (note though that I did not add the tag, SmackBot merely dated it). You could perhaps make it part of the artcicle onthe High School, if there is one. Consider also what information belongs in the encyclopedai, and what would be better elsewhere, possibly linked to. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00 31 January 2007 (GMT).

Rich, Thanks for the clean up work on the A-12 OXCART article. I knew most of that needed to be done, but have been on three business trips and a 3-day professional course all in the last 8 days. In fact, I flew back home less than two hours ago, and was itching to put some of that stuff right. Appreciate that you've already attended to nearly all of it. Especially appreciate the accessdaymonth in the web citation. I simply could not find that correct tag for that line in the template, and it was driving me nuts why I couldn't get that date to wikify. - Thaimoss 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. Rich Farmbrough, 10:51 31 January 2007 (GMT).

I noticed that Smackbot changed a word where we had the | pipe symbol in a wiki link such that the word after the pipe symbol was plural and Smackbot changed the format to remove the pipe symbol and pluralized word after it and simply made it a singular linked word with an "s" after the link closed. Is that current approved style? It doesn't look as good as the way it was prior to Smackbot's change. Please provide guidance. Thanks. Emerman 04:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes this is preferred style Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form. Most people think it's easier to read. Rich Farmbrough, 10:50 31 January 2007 (GMT).

Ok, thanks. It looks like this copying of entire threads from page to page is the current vogue way too now. I've now seen three people do that. I thought I was just supposed to reply at the person's page. Anyway, I'll remember the plural method now on links. I think people used to change it the other way in years gone by. Emerman 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm an avid editcountitor & was wondering when you were planning on updating the rankings on your given subpage? Is there any way you can keep up with current edit counts? I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd be able to... :) Spawn Man 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just as soon as I can is the answer. I have the data, I just need to recover the hard disk with the program on it... Or quickly re-write it. I should have a toolserver account any day, at that point keeping up with the current figures may be possible. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56 2 February 2007 (GMT).

Hello,

I have attempted a "major overhaul" of the article entitled "Sohmer & Co." This has included a MAJOR re-write, addition of a picture, division of article into sections, and addition of References and External links. (I had not worked on this Article until now.)

The article still has a "This article needs clean-up" box. Would you mind checking my work, and if you feel the article is now "up to par", removing the box? Thanks for you time and effort. Prof.rick 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hi,

I was just wondering why you removed an external link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost ? The link in question was/is http://home.pacbell.net/dbk4297/readyboost_vista_memory.html . This a valid information page about using Vistas new ReadyBoost system. The information is correct, and seems to include much more info that any other page listed here or online by searching with Google. There are no spam links on the page, or badware either. I admit the page is not yet listed in the search sites as it just went live today.

So I was just wondering why you removed it.

Thanks in advance, Darrell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.116.5 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

I didn't remove it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:22 5 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi, and thanks for your speedy attention to the "Sohmer & Co." article. Glad the clean-up tag was removed, and that the article is generally acceptable. I'll do the metric conversions as soon as time permits. (Your minor revisions have been noted as a "lesson"...i.e. "DON'T CAPITALIZE UNNECESSARILY IN SECTIONS".) Thanks for teaching so tactfully!!! Prof.rick 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hi. I have suddenly encountered formatting problems. Please see bottom of the page of Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks re material and cluttered visible references. Thank you. Dogru144 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS the problem specifically appears after the references in a section entitled, "Various volunteers."

I spent quite a while tryign to fix this on my own. Thanks. Dogru144 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a "ref /" instead of "/ref" tag. Rich Farmbrough, 10:48 5 February 2007 (GMT).

Thank you very much for the tip. Dogru144 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me get this straight, You probably wouldn't take the time to look up the references yourself,therfore you want people to tell you that the sources ARE IN THE TALK PAGE!!!! I have not added many of these, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robbyfoxxxx (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

No, I just dated the tag, I didn't add it. Refs should be in the article thou, not the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28 5 February 2007 (GMT).

Hey Rick, there is a discussion over at {{fact}} about adding dates to this tag and making it go into categories by date. Only problem is that we have no idea how to add this into the code. I was just wondering if you would be willing/able to fix the template and maybe sending good ol' Smackbot on a date adding rampage. If Smackbot it too busy, let me know if you have any other ideas. I could create an account and request bot approval and go through the whole ordeal I just figured it would be easier for you since Smackbot does similar work already. Thanks! ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you know why Category:All articles with unsourced statements didn't seem to exist until a MascotGuy sockpuppet created it? I was hesitant to delete it, but I assumed it was uncreated for a reason that I just wasn't aware of. —tregoweth (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the template that puts things in to it {{fact}} was only just updated. I guess Hearts saw the red category and created it as a redirect which was a reasonable guess. Rich Farmbrough, 18:15 5 February 2007 (GMT).

TonyTheTiger 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

... in the process of adding a date. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazing_Stories&curid=255474&diff=106015772&oldid=99791258). The date may or may not be useful (in fact, adding it to tags that have been there for months or years may be a bit confusing), but I'd like to vote against changing the tag type. I have found that using 'fact' can be more combative, as editors feel that the factual accuracy is being challenged. I have had fewer disagreements when adding 'citation needed' or its variants. This also makes sense because it matches the displayed text; it helps the novice editor understand the effect and meaning of the tag. Notinasnaid 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion about the appropriate name (and content) here. If the general feeling is to go with citation needed/cite needed/cite-needed/citeneeded/cn then I am happy to change. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05 6 February 2007 (GMT).

Smackbot has taken it into its head today to remove two links in the Wheellock article: I can't think why - the links seem useful and valid to me. Any reason you can see? Thanks
Nick Michael 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the editing of Wheellock. It looks much better!
Nick Michael 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich. I noticed smackbot on the Barelwi page took off the stub citations. It still has a long way to go in the article. Does it use a character count argument to determine if something is a stub? I wanted to check in with you regarding this.ZaydHammoudeh 19:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, it is a WP:AWB feature. I think that article has moved beyond stub status, you could put an {{expand}} or {{expand section}} tempalte in as you think necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 23:06 7 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi, Rich. There's no need to write back. I just want to let you know that a number of the links on the User:SmackBot page were broken because of archiving activity. (I've noticed this on other pages, and even reported it to Werdnabot, which breaks a lot of links, but I haven't heard back from Werdna.) Anyway, I searched the archives and patched them all up for you, except for a "task approval VI" link, for which I could not locate the desired target.

I did notice one odd thing. The patched links work right. But "navpops" malfunctions when I hover over any of them, probably because the links are nested two deep (nnn/xxx/yyy). I guess I'll go report that to the navpops guy.

Thanks for all your hard work! ;^> DavidCBryant 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those links. They have moved more than once! Rich Farmbrough, 10:07 8 February 2007 (GMT).

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

I commented on a phrase you used in a recent edit -- which I think obfuscates the simple truth.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why you have deleted biographical data from the article on Tom Marshall Bible teacher.　Ｕｓｅｍｙ他ｌｋぱげ。 Philip　Ｍａｒｓｈａｌｌ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip.marshall (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

I see you've been around for a while now. Please get into the habit of signing your messages on talk pages with ~~~~. Also it would have helped me if you'd left a link to Tom Marshall (Bible teacher), or even better the diff, like this. You will see clicking on the diff, that I have not removed the text, it was rather User:Slf67 who explained that it was persuant to WP:BLP. Nonetheless I have added the information back as reasonably sourced and non-controversial. Rich Farmbrough, 09:57 9 February 2007 (GMT).

P.S. Please start new threads at the end of others' talk pages not the top. Rich Farmbrough, 10:31 9 February 2007 (GMT).

I was wondering about these bots and how they are created. Can any registered user create one? Longbranch 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In principle. See WP:BOTS for the restrictions. Why would you want to run one? Rich Farmbrough, 21:51 9 February 2007 (GMT).

I noticed in this edit that Smackbot took out all the links in the titles for the sections. While links in section titles are to be avoided, there are exceptions and this is one of them. Is there any determination that Smackbot makes in doing this or does it do this to all sections with links? I'd say the latter would be very inappropriate. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of the often overlooked problems with links in headers is that those with preferences set to edit on clicking a header, are unable to use the links. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05 9 February 2007 (GMT).

That's fine and all, but I don't think that a bot should be the one to remove them. Your edit to the page addresses the issue in a much more appropriate manner but how would you change list of common phrases in various languages? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think on the language level headings I would replace the word "Phrase" with the linked language name. The famil.y headings I would use {{main}}. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38 10 February 2007 (GMT).

Don't suppose there is some way that your bot could find the date that tags were actually added when it is dating them? Just wondering. AlistairMcMillan 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just came here to say the same thing myself. This one, for example, was added in January but is now dated as February by the bot. Anyway you can get that to work? Thanks, Metros232 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The short answer is no, the longer answer is not unless and until my other PC is fixed (has required disk space, scripts and data dumps on it), even then it's a fair amount of work. Ongoing the dates should be virtually correct, as the bot is generally run on daily (or more often). This already applies too all the tags except the "fact" related that are actually categorising by date. Note that several thousand were categorised during Dec and Jan. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19 11 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi Rich Farmbrough, a user Lakers89 added some material to the Brett Favre page, correct stats and he added citations and administrator Jaranda and Isotope23 keep reverting his additions and are calling him a sockpuppet, whatever the reason that info belongs there, it's correct and I was hoping you could come in and let Lakers89 additions stand, since your the best administrator on wikipedia, they are bullying by refusing to let the material be added, even though it's correct and there are added cits, they keep removing them, this is not right, wikipedia is not supposed to bully because someone wants things there way, admin Jaranda is a 18 year old from Miami and he refuses to let cited material be added, please look into this and let Lakers89 edits stand, just check the Brett Favre Page history, it tells the story, I can't edit there because Jaranda has semi protected the page, but please step in and fix this, it's turned into a reverting or editing war and for no reason, Lakers89 info is correct and cited and they should be added without this bullying by users Jaranda, PSUMark2006, AdamWeeden, Aviper2k7, King Bee, Isotope23 and MrDarcy who keep reverting his good correct info, these users have ganned up and refused to let this material be added, all others users editing and visiting the Brett Favre Page have no problems, please take the time if you could and step in and correct this situation, Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.120.70 (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

I'm touched by your faith, and have left a comment on the page that I hope will help. Having reviewed the history, it is clear that sockpuppetry has occurred on that page. I would suggest that a calm and polite discussion will eventually result in the correction of any inaccuracies, I have seen that you are capable this. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 10 February 2007 (GMT).

Reversions were made per WP:DENY of a sockpuppeteer who was rather abusive and disruptive in the past regarding this article.. The account is more than welcome to discuss the changes on the talkpage (If you look at the edits this a content dispute pertaining to different stats from different sources). This isn't ganging up; it is one editor trying to hijack an article without discussion and then complaining when he doesn't get his way. Regardless I would like to see some good faith discussion on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The original poster is indeed Starwars1955. Please ignore his queries, he is banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes he is banned, which is why I've been blocking his socks on sight.--Isotope23 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The identity is, as you say, self evident, and the user is indef. blocked (although his page says banned), and certainly has been "hard to work with" in the past. Nor would I expect anyone to think that I did not understand (in broad term) the sock history, the edit history or the discussions on the article talk page, the discussions on 3RR and Admins noticeboard. Nonetheless, as Isotope says there is still hope that a. People interested in the article can work together towards accuracy and verifiability and b. this user can find a way of transacting with other users that will not become confrontational. Rich Farmbrough, 18:15 10 February 2007 (GMT).

He has been given more than enough chances to work well with others in a way that will not become confrontational. He has squandered those chances, and lost the patience of the community. I do believe he is honestly interested in the Brett Favre article, but he has refused to read Wikipedia policy and guidelines in the past, shirking all the rules so that the page could "look good." However, it proved impossible to show him that Wikipedia would take what he considers to be ugliness over having reliable, verifiable information. This discussion should be over; he is banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The starwars1955 account was banned in the first place only because the users I mentioned before didn't like it's additions and they refused to let it stand because they want the page there way or no way, and they say starwars was being hateful or rude in the past, they were the ones being hateful and starwars1955 was defending the position, but there has been no rudeness of anykind for months, there has just been attempts to keep the correct material added by Lakers89 at 05:42 stay on the page were it belongs, no material is being deleted, all can stay, but these added stats should be able to stay, they are correct and any Brett Favre fan wold like to review them, I included you Rich to see that all that is being done here is that I'm trying to add these stats that belong there, compare the last post by laker89 at 05:42 compaired by the current version by Jaranda, it's just a few correct stats being added that Al Michaels talked about on Sunday Night Football when Favre played the Bears, and he's at 8,224 attempts, nfl.com own packers.com, and that's why the mistake is on those two sites, a simple mistake, nfl.com has Favre at 4 attempts in 1991 with Atlanta, it should be 5, it's a simple typing error on there part, espn.com, yahoosports.com, profootballreference.com and Foxsports.com Brett Favre pages all comfirm the 8,224. A citation was added to the playoff stats making it a direct link to the stats, check for yourself, and they want to put 5 links if you look now in the playoff section to number 12 citation, click on that citation and find the playoff section were they mention the playoff numbers, it will take you 10 minutes to find it, the direct link is easier and all the numbers are correct nfl stats and need to stay, all I'm asking is you look into the additions by Laker89 at 05:42 and confirm they should stay, if you revert to that version it will stay and this will all stop, it's valuable info that's correct and needs to stay. These guys are bullying the site and they revert and info someone adds because they want it there way, they do it to anyone trying to add a sentance or something, they run them off, and that's not right that 7 people control the page by ganging up and I'm sure you'll agree, they've not only done it with this case if you'll check the past history, I added the playoff section if you'll look way back in the history and now in the past 4 months nobody can do anything without those 7 or 8 doing something about it, and the "put Ty in" comment is correct, they just don't want it here, he says there no proof, well is there proof for every sentance, no but it's widely known that it's true, they just don't want it there, if you check in the past they deleted a sentance for no reason, aviper2k7 did, that was a known fact that Deion Sanders is the only person to intercept Favre in College and NFL, but they didn't like that tidbit so aviper2k7 deleted it a long time, because it was about a interception and they didn't like that, so what it's a known fact about Favre and although interceptions aren't fun, Favre's done so much more great things, but they won't let facts about anything remain if it bothers them, I just hope you'll step in and put a stop to this for good and let Lakers89 additions remain once and for all, they are correct and useful to the page, just check for yourself, I'm sure you'll agree and if you have any questions about the the additions from Lakers89, just ask me and I'll explain everything, they belong there and this fighting needs to be stopped and I had to go the best administartor on wikipedia to get this done, because those 7 or 8 users just won't reason over there, Thanks

OK, I suppose I knew this wouldn't be a quick fix.

Let's separate the factors out.

1. You got blocked for unacceptable behaviour, and evaded that block.
2. You still have some concerns with the content of the article.

What to do?

It is not acceptable for me to go and put "your" version back, for several reasons (not least I don't know what a "second down" is).

It is not acceptable for you to do it, for several reasons (you are blocked, it will be reverted anyway, etc.)

Even if you set up a new account, people will know you are trying to evade the block, because of the changes you will make, and your unusual spelling and writing style.

There are two options left, you can hope that your information will be picked up and put in by others (perhaps by persuading them to discuss it in cool detail on your talk page), or you can find a way to get unblocked.

But let's be clear, you have been un-blocked several times in the past, and it hasn't helped (and yes, I have seen all the edits on your user talk pages).

Regardless I would suggest that you need to understand your co-editors, and take the items that are in dispute one at a time. You also need to understand that the Wikipedia policies are to protect the encyclopedia, and that the other editors are trying to put together a good article too.

Do you think that you would be capable of calmly discussing the facts and sources with a knowledgeable editor on your talk page if one can be found willing to take the challenge? You have managed it reasonably well here. If this worked out, I would be prepared to ask for a probationary unblocking.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:59 10 February 2007 (GMT).

Oh and as far as the 20 and 30 touchdown seasons, there are 2 categorys most season with 20 or 30 touchdwn seasons in a career and most consecutive 20 and 30 seasons in a career and the Laker89 has those 4 categorys seperate which they should be, but there is a cite on all four so people can look for themselves which makes it easier to understand, the currect Jaranda version has all 4 categorys edited together in 2, but those are the only additions Lakers89 is trying to make and I hope you can look into and see they are all correct and useful info Rich, and I can answer any questions you have and everytime this info is added the user is immediatly indefinitly suspended by Isotope23 and Jaranda of sock puppet and they revert back, but Favre has 12, 20 td seasons and 12 con. 20 td seasons, but he has 5 con. 30 td seasons but 8 overall 30 td seasons, so once again Lakers89 version is much easier to understand and they have cits that people can go to, Thanks

There behavior is unacceptable, and I do have a lot of friends that are Favre fans and they know that the info is correct, they can revert to my version, they are wikipedia users and they know all the info is correct, the way they treated me and others is bad, reverting good and true facts, quit letting these people run this page, so my friends will revert my info, it's all correct and factual, but they are worried they are going to be suspended of being a sock, it will be there computer and I won't have nothing to do with it, but nobody can include that factual info cause they don't want it and they suspend people without even checking there web address to confirm it's not me, and what's the point in discussing it, if you had really looked, you would see they won't let the info be there simply because they don't like me and starwars1955 was suspended because I keep reverting to the correct version, and not for arguing which they mostly did, starwars1955 shouldn't be suspended at all for adding correct info, it's unjust and you should see this, but the reason they won't let it be there is because they are mad and you'll see this in the Brett Favre talk page because they added Brett Favre is on pace stuff to the page and I turned them in because it's a violation of the wp:NOR policy and they are mad, if you look at the past history you'll see the info that I put on there stayed for a long time, but then they decided to delete what I'm trying to add later on, I mean really look into it, people that are Favre fans around the country will revert to my version, but they will just be repremended for no reason, because they just won't have it for no reason, this is wrong and the info belongs, really look at the history.

1. Favre has 2,562 career quarterback points, second to Marino, they won't let this stand, but it's on Marino's page, it's correct 414 pass tds + 13 rush tds = 427 x 6 = 2,562 fact. 2. Favre has 147 reg season wins and 11 playoff wins + 90 reg. season losses and 9 playoff losses for a record of 158-99, second to Elway 162-90-1, profootballreference confirms this fact 3. Favre has a regular season record of 147-90 second to Elway 148-82-1 profootballrefernce and packers.com confirms this fact 4. Favre has 237 starts all consecutive and he is 3.rd for most starts all-time by a quarterback behind Fran Tarkenton and Dan Marino, they had 240 a piece, packers.com confirms this fact 5. Favre has 241 total games at quarterback, third all-time behind Marinos 242 and Tarkenton 246, profootballreference and many other site confirm this fact

and these are the 5 categorys I'm adding that they keep deleting , it's not right, they are fact and the only reason starwars1955 was suspended is because this keeped being added, this is very unjust and I though you would see this Rich, my new ID is Galaxy071, but they will block me again, I never should be blocked in the first place, if everyone is being blcoked for editing, block us all and I admit sometimes I reverted the wrong page and corrected it, but I was new then and made mistakes, but all I wanted to do is add this correct info that visitors and fans would like to see about this player, Thanks

Hi Rich, I've added a unblock request to my discussion page, please go to starwars1955 discussion page and you will see it, it's a unblock request with a explaination and I've asked that only you can take care and review the unblock request since your wikipedia top administrator, Thanks, starwars1955

Now user Yamla has deleted my unblock request which I have a right to do from the starwars1955 discussion page and deleted the previous statement by me, he was the other one I couldn't remember that was harrassing me, see what I'm saying Rich, please step in and put a stop to this, don't let Yamla do this, just more harrassment that I don't deserve, all I wanted to do is improve the Brett Favre page with correct info, I don't deserve this cause of bullies. starwars1955

I am away for the rest of the day, please do not edit using your new account in the meanwhile. Rich Farmbrough, 10:39 11 February 2007 (GMT).

PS, I am an ordinary admin, with rights and duties no different from any other. Rich Farmbrough, 10:40 11 February 2007 (GMT).

The editor was indef blocked (I could have sworn there was a ban discussion, but I could be wrong) not because of the addition of information, but because of a string of sockpuppets and personal attacks after repeated 3RR violations. Seeing how the editor has repeatedly engaged in sockpuppeting to continue adding the exact same information into the article (including a number of sock edits today after you specifically asked him not to edit in the meanwhile). This isn't harassment; the editor has repeatedly demonstrated they are not interested in taking the time to simply discuss changes, or wait on the current effort to reconcile the disparate sources. If there has not been a community ban discussion it is getting pretty near the time where there should be.--Isotope23 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was a very long discussion on the original user's talk page; after things didn't go his way, he saw fit to delete everything. Please ignore him from now on, per WP:DENY. Keep reverting his edits and blocking him, but don't respond to him anymore; it's ridiculous. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You would like that wouldn't you KIng Bee and Isotope23, but no material is being deleted and there is no interest in deleting material like King bee would like you to believe, all that is happening is the addition of correct and factual stats, heck, King Bee and Jaranda won't even allow the addition of three direct link to stats of Brett Favre's from espn, cbs and SI, it's getting sad, they are ruing this page of being up to date or anything, it's pure bullying and they should be stopped, only correct and factual stats are trying to be added, no deleting, even a new cit was added, but they delete that too, King Bee and Jaranda and vandalisng the page and getting away with it also, King Bee broke the 3RR rule on the Brett Favre discussion page and Brett Favre main page several times yesterday and no suspention, this is very unjust and something needs to be done here, but no one will, because they have ganned up and they are doing this together and getting away with it, someone needs to step in fast, because this info is correct, compair the edits by user BevrelyHills85 to the current version by Wizardman on the Brett Favre Main Page, all info that is trying to be added by BeverlyHills85 is 100% correct and factual information, but they won't have it, you can't even add the direct link to Brett Favre's stats on ESPN, CBS, and SI in the infobox under stats, they won't allow that, and user PSUMark2006 was the one that approved that, please look into it, Malibu55 08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55Reply

Here's the thing. There are two disagreements going on -

1. About content.
2. About behaviour.

Now on both of these it seems it's you against all the other editors of the article. But for me the difference is that while it is possible to discuss the first problem, I have no opinion about the content, only that it would be good for the other editors to specifically discuss on a point by point basis why they disagree, and this has happened to some extent. The other editors of the article can, of course, continue to discuss among themselves if there is any merit to your discussions,if they so wish. I can't (and don't want to) make them, nor can I really get involved in the technical detail (really - I have never watched an Amercian Football game in my life).

I also have no doubt that your behaviour warranted being blocked - I have blocked people for less. There is no point unblocking you if you only get blocked again. What is more, next time it would almost certainly be a community ban. So really lets focus on what the Wikipedia community would need from you for an unblock. I would suggest the following:

• To choose one account and stick to it.
• To respect the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks, notability and verifiability.
• Not to edit the Brett Favre article.
• Respect the consensus when it goes against you.

I would also suggest to help you that you:

• Only discuss one change at a time.

Now I don't know if this is something you think you want to do or can do, but if you agree to it I will suggest it to the blocking admin. Alternatively you may wish to look at another site with less onerous standards, like Wikinfo or Wikia or set up your own fan-site on geocities or similar. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46 12 February 2007 (GMT).

User Starwats1955 requested to be unblocked recently on 06:57, 11 February 2007 on his talk page and user Yamla illegally reverted that unblock request and fully protected the page for a month, he had no right to do that and I hope you go to Starwars1955 talk page and look at this yourself, Thanks Malibu55 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55Reply

Smackbot poorly auto "corrected" a page I had recently edited. In heave compensator, it turned

  [[kinematic ]]constructions

into

  [[kinematic]]constructions

The effectual difference is that the bot leaves the two words merged. I suspect your bot is trying to correct additional (unwated?) spaces before the end of the link, but (a) the PHP code already does this, and (b) the code executes whether or not the trailing space exists (although there's a lengthy footnote to that). Anyway, I ask you to fix your bot to either recognize the contractions (space, followed by ]], followed by non-space) or to remove the fix altogether, or show me some editorial policy which points to my construction as ill-conceived. Thanks! --Otheus 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is quite clever. SmackBot uses WP:AWB as it's platform, I have raised the issue. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33 12 February 2007 (GMT).

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hey, your bot Smackbot is misspelling template as tmeplate in the comment section when it makes edits. Here's an example on List of YWAM bases: 17:46, December 26, 2006 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (replace deprecated tmeplate using AWB). Though you might want to fix that. --Davidkazuhiro 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks David, that was fixed I believe. Rich Farmbrough, 22:22 9 February 2007 (GMT).

Speaking of Smackbot: he's everywhere! and he seems to be doing a good job. Kudos! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou, a bot that corrects for my laziness when typing tags. I never need type in the date again, fabulous!--Shakujo 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another Smackbot thankyou - being a newbie I missed a couple of details in editing a page. Smackbot fixed them and the transparency of wikipedia makes it nice and easy for me to learn from the bot's edits. —Eldan Goldenberg 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich,
Hope I've diagnosed this correctly, as I wouldn't want SmackBot to change the good work it's otherwise doing:
Going by the example history here, I think SmackBot is moving <!--Interwiki--> new-user-assistance comments from where interwiki links may begin (featured articles on other wikipedias [wikipediae?]) and replacing subsequent <!--Other languages--> assistance comments with it. If so, could you modify SmackBot's code so that this doesn't occur...?  As a bonus – if it's not too tricky to implement – maybe SmackBot could be programmed to check/move/insert these comments in the appropriate places, including the initial <!--Categories--> comment, i.e.:

...[end of article]...


<!--Categories-->
[[Category:...]]
[[Category:...]]
etc

<!--Interwiki-->
{{Link FA|af}}
{{Link FA|fr}}
etc

<!--Other languages-->
[[af:...]]
[[am:...]]
etc

Thanks for your (and SmackBot's) work!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

AWB takes certain things to the end of the artcile, viz: interwikis, cat's and stubs. It has also had a feature added to recognise "understand" some comments such as the ones you mention above, as these were being left stranded by the tide of bits being moved to the end. I think the possibility of adding thos comments was discussed, but I don't know what happened. I'll have a look at the AWB archives. Rich Farmbrough, 16:30 12 February 2007 (GMT).

Thanks – I see my query is one amongst a number SmackBot happens to've prompted, so if it's less than straightforward to address this issue, I'll happily try to do so; it was something I raised soon after I began using AWB, but let lie as AWB was so useful otherwise. Maybe, though, it might have more impact coming from you as a bot owner... Ideally, I support modifying the MediaWiki software (and/or whatever else would need modification) so that metadata is handled in a separate window/fields, but I realise the developers have so much else to maintain and/or patch... Regards, David (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that a smarter edit interface would help avoid lots of problems, in fact (almost) everything that SmackBot does could be at least warned about at edit time. In terms of development time, now we've lost Bluemoose, MaxSem is develping AWB (possibly with others) and although there were some good fixes early on, there hasn't been a release for a while I believe. So there's may be a similar bottle-neck. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46 14 February 2007 (GMT).

Can you please not change {{mergefrom-multiple}} to {{Multiplemergefrom}} as it did in this edit? The Multiplemergefrom template is an older version (should be deprecated) that does not support a long list of pages to be merged. In fact, you should probably be converting usage the other way. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for spotting that, fixed. Both are rarely used, and you won't believe the number of templates that redirect or match other templates! Now you suggest migrating to Mergefrom-multiple, and deprecating the other template. I would suggest making the other template a redirect, (once the migrating has been done) otherwise there will still be two distinct syntaxes. I have migrated a couple. Let me know if you see any more incorrect renamings like this. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19 13 February 2007 (GMT).

Actually, they are slightly different, so I just added a note on Template:Multiplemergefrom to redirect people to use Template:Mergefrom-multiple which is a little less typing to use. There still might be reasons to use Template:Multiplemergefrom, but it should be the exception instead of the rule. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you know, the bot was reverted thus. --teb728 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The user Tarun2701 who added the cleanup tag to SPEED Channel has made no contributions at all since December 1, 2006? And has no user or talk page. You added the date to the tag (Nov 2006), but it was, I assume via a bot. There is nothing in the discussion page about the cleanup required (and no indication anything was added at the time the cleanup tag was added). It might be nice if someone created an agenda. I don't feel I have the experience myself, to spearhead such an effort. And the page is not under the umbrella of any project, as far as I can tell, although maybe there is a suitable such project for it?--SportWagon 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've done some trivial cleanup, and removed the tag. The lead section is alittle long, could do with a "History" section. Rich Farmbrough, 10:05 14 February 2007 (GMT).

I missed the Wikipedia:WikiProject_North_Carolina affiliation, actually. But that seems rather tenuous. The intro isn't canonical for wikipedia, but I'm not rushing to create the usual first sentence, which can sound inane. I dropped a few notes on its discussion page (i.e. Talk:SPEED Channel). Thanks.--SportWagon 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that some edits by your bot caused a few articles to show up in Category:Articles with unsourced statements since February 2,007. Upon further investigation, it appears that the formatnum function that is being used in {{Infobox City}} is causing {{fact|February 2007}} to change to {{fact|February 2,007}} (or something like that). Throwing nowiki tags around the year within the template call seems to fix this, but is there a better way to fix this via changes to either {{Infobox City}} or {{Fact}}? --- RockMFR 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I've moved the "Fact" to "population_footnotes". A sort of kludge, but so is "Fact" anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 14 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi, Rich! Why does {{unreferenced|Date=February 2007}} need to be converted to {{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}}, as in Micrometer (device)? -- Mikeblas 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, strange isn't it? But the parameter is "date", "Date" will not work. (The capital for "Unreferenced" is merely stylistic.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:07 15 February 2007 (GMT).

Why does you bot change city links to city and state links? For example, instead of having Los Angeles, California (one link, to the city), it will change it to Los Angles, California (two links, one to the city and one to the state). It's not needed and is really annoying. TJ Spyke 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because someone reading, for example, the article Kennesaw may wish to visit the page for Georgia or Cobb County. If they click on "Georgia" they should go to that page, just as clicking on "United States" takes them there not to "Cobb County" or "Georgia". In this particular case Georgia has been split out in the article since 11 September 2003, up to your edit earlier today. Rich Farmbrough, 10:22 16 February 2007 (GMT).

An article that you created, List of unboundedly long songs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unboundedly long songs Thank you. SkierRMH 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A rather important issue has arisen with the way Smackbot gets rid of thing like the "st" in "1st March" for dates. On List of British Rail classes, Smackbot did this with the names of some images (diff). Specifically:

• Image:97201 ex 24061 Coalville Open Day - 1st September 1985.jpg changed to to File:97201 ex 24061 Coalville Open Day - 1 September 1985.jpg
• Image:D6130, Fort William MPD, 4th September 1966.jpg --> File:D6130, Fort William MPD, 4 September 1966.jpg
• Image:45111 Crewe 16th July 1986.jpg --> File:45111 Crewe 16 July 1986.jpg
• Etc. - you get the idea. (These images all had captions as well)

Therefore, could you ensure Smackbot doesnt change the names of links to images? Tompw (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tom, thanks for bringing this up, and for fixing the article. Problem will be avoided in future. Rich Farmbrough, 10:05 19 February 2007 (GMT).

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

The use of a bot to go around automatically date-tagging every little "fact" template really is a bit much, IMHO. I can understand automating the larger "Unreferenced", "OR", etc., but this is pretty extreme, and generally an unnecessary feature in order for the various editors to do their needed work on individual articles. Perhaps one might wish to notch this bot's tasks back just a bit and stick to the larger issues? ... Kenosis 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are more articles in this cleanup category than any other. They are dated as a response to a request, see Template talk:Fact for details. Clearly dating the existing tags was a large chore, but the ongoing tagging should be easy to keep up with. Rich Farmbrough, 19:27 14 February 2007 (GMT).

Neither this, nor the talk page content you mention, justifies this feature of the bot. It's ridiculous to have a bot going around adding dates to every darned "fact" tag on the Wiki. A more sensible argument was rendered by User:Ligulem, which questions the wisdom and utility of having a category for articles with fact tags (apparently in excess of 20,000). The date feature of the tag is properly an option to be exercised by editors who are involved in the content of individual articles, at their discretion, rather than a mandate of any kind. ... Kenosis 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The immortal phrase "going around", funny how someone who "goes around" doing something is always doing something negative... the purpose of the date is twofold, firstly to allow focus on un-sourced statements by month, the same as the other major cleanup categories, secondly to help editors decide which un-sourced statements are so old that they are unlikely to be sourced and can reasonably be removed. If you think this is a problem, may I suggest you discuss it at Template talk:Fact, and see if you get agreement there. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38 14 February 2007 (GMT).

Why begin the response to my initial objection to this particular function of "SmackBot" with the [obviously sarcastic] statement "The immortal phrase 'going around', funny how someone who 'goes around' doing something is always doing something negative" ...? In any event, I beg to differ. The pupose of WP:BOT and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is because bots have frequently tended to overreach as they "go around" doing their bit at the behest of their creator. Sometimes well intended things get a bit too ambitious (read that: a bit out of control). The initial grant to use this bot stated as follows:

Question: "What are the maintanence templates this deals with? Please list those on the bot's page. This seems simple enough though.[[User talk:Voice of All]] 19:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: "Those that put things in subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month - currently

• {{:tl:wikify}}
• {{:tl:orphan}}
• {{:tl:uncat}}
• {{:tl:uncatstub}}
• {{:tl:cleanup}} and their synonyms.

[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 22:39 [[20 November]] [[2006]] (GMT)."

Note that the creator of this bot needed to be prompted for some degree of specificity as to the intended role of the bot. And at the present stage, some two-and-a-half months later, it has gone several additional steps without broader feedback from the WP community. As of now, this bot has successfully labeled most or all of the "citation needed" markers applied to many tens of thousands of individual clauses, sentences, and paragraphs on the wiki as "February 2007". This hardly accomplishes the objective just stated above by User:Rich Farmbrough, at least in the short term. Moreover, if it's to be a long term endeavor, plainly it needs to get the approval of interested members of the broader community, not just a quick go-ahead by a couple of participants in one template discussion. ... Kenosis 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be inclined to agree with Kenosis here. Before using a bot to make sweeping changes, community buy-in is a must. I see no value to date tagging in this case. Jim62sch 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, others do see value, though, and requested it. Please discuss at template talk:Fact. Rich Farmbrough, 10:43 16 February 2007 (GMT).

It seems to me the issue here is not limited to Template:Fact, but also involves WP:BOT and questions of what are the range of expectations placed on users to discuss significatn modifications to the bot's function, i.e. requests for approval to significantly expand their role. That's part of the larger community process to which I was referring. ... Kenosis 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As one of the users who helped implement dated fact-tagging, I absolutely support the use of a bot to enforce that tagging, for the reasons Rich mentions above. It's important to have them dated so that we don't end up with a supercat with hundreds of thousands of articles with no indication of when they might have been tagged (last week or three months ago?) without going through the entire page history. That's tedious work that takes away from the actual purpose of the tag, which is to improve articles. Bots cannot do the latter. -- nae'blis 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.199.7 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

<sarcasm>I'll send him some ping's via his IP address. </sarcasm> I know it's not my business, but Really, geriatrics is not very new, and it's not clear why he couldn't push this subject at Harvard. But it does raise the question, if one is to start original research, and an institute around it, how does one get it jump-started? Alas, wikipedia is not the place for it, I know. --Otheus 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, click on Category:Articles with unsourced statements since February $3 and Category:Articles to be merged since February $3 (yes, I know that they look like edit links, but despite that, there are 4 articles in the first cat and 32 in the second.) Both cats contain Broccoflower among others. Just thought you'd want to know... --mikeu 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

looks like I spoke to soon. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54 20 February 2007 (GMT).

That should really be it (unless I get reverted of course!) Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06 20 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi, Some input needed here

Thanks

Reedy Boy 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply