User talk:Amakuru/Archive 2

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:GOOGLE

I have nominated Wikipedia:GOOGLE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. moɳo 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Homs/Hims

You recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Hims Gap. You might be interested in a move proposal at Talk:Hims. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

King County

Talk:King County (disambiguation) - The one in NSW is not defunct. I also added a 4th King County, one from Queensland, and created a stub for it at King County, Queensland. All other dab pages are at the bare name, see Category:County name disambiguation pages. TakakaCounty (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:HexRotated.png

Thank you for uploading File:HexRotated.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled?

Hi Amakuru, I was recently patrolling the New Pages and I saw a lot of articles you were creating. Seeing as you have made over 100 articles, I was wondering if you might want to request autopatroller right. This right makes any new article you make automatically patrolled, so it is less work for new page patrollers. Just an idea.

Cheers, ∙∙∙Pepper 21:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pepper, thanks for the heads up. I have requested AutoPatrolled status as you suggest. Hope that helps!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem - just making my life easier! :) ∙∙∙Pepper 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I've just made your life harder again by putting a talk back at the top of your talk page. I'm just experimenting with that; not sure if it's a good idea. Maybe worth waiting a while as people are likely to watch each other's talk pages anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback is a great tool - just some advice: make a new section and put the notice in there, see what I did on my talk page. ∙∙∙Pepper 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okey doke... sounds a good way of doing things. I felt a bit embarrassed in your case because you'd already replied to the message on my talk page while I was busy putting the talk back on yours. So that was rather pointless. It might be worth my while waiting 5 minutes or so to cover such a case. Happy patrolling, anyway :-)  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ∙∙∙Pepper 23:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiving off

Hi Amakuru,

You've been doing quite a bit of 'hiving off' - unfortunately, the edit tag is just appearring as 'hived off' - no real explanation of what that is, or why you did it. Looking at your 'contribs' list, I can see what you're doing and why, but the simple 'hived off x' tag on your edits is confusing. Perhaps a clearer tag? Thanks.Gabhala (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiving off

Hi Amakuru,

You've been doing quite a bit of 'hiving off' - unfortunately, the edit tag is just appearring as 'hived off' - no real explanation of what that is, or why you did it. Looking at your 'contribs' list, I can see what you're doing and why, but the simple 'hived off x' tag on your edits is confusing. Perhaps a clearer tag? Thanks.Gabhala (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gabhala. My edit summaries have been saying something like "hived off international rankings section per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries" which seems clear enough to me. Were you not seeing part of that?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru - the detailed summaries are showing up in your contribs list, but on the page(s) in question, all that is in the edit tag is 'Hived off' - I almost reverted, until I checked your contribs and saw what it was all about. Gabhala (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please could you provide an example? I've just looked at a random article changed as part of the move, Ghana: [1] and the full edit summary seems to be there as expected.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The one I noticed was Republic of Ireland [2] Gabhala (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at a quick glance over the list of your contributions, it appears that that particular article is the only one where the full edit summary doesn't appear, so this is really a non-issue. Sorry for troubling you. Gabhala (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, not a problem - and apologies also for not putting the correct message on the Republic of Ireland article; I think it's because Ireland is a special case in the List of sovereign states in that the list says "Ireland" whereas the article is at "Republic of Ireland". Hence I did the "hiving" by hand rather than using AWB and failed to paste in the complete message. Have a nice day...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it would be good if a link to "International rankings of X" was added on each country article, so it is at least accessible from the main article. Could you do that perhaps? Thank you, SPQRobin (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, not a problem. I'll try to do that later on today. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That was fast :) Thanks! SPQRobin (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Countries

Awhile ago I made the suggestion [3] to discuss a template change to include a possible Foreign relations and military main section. No responses there, either because the page is not looked at or there are some archived long conversations I have missed? Anyway, glad to see the international rankings thing was worked out. What's your opinion on a foreign relations and military section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Would you mind if I move your comment to the left, bold your "Oppose", and put a bullet beside it, for consistency? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it!! Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cresix... Yeah... not sure why I didn't format it correctly the first time! Too late at night perhaps.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda

Please don't be sarcastic. There's no need to say "last time i checked". It's enough to point out that "unitary" starts with a consonant sound, for many incorrectly learned in school to go by the spelling and do good faith edits based on that. --Espoo (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Espoo, I apologise for the above comment - it was not intended to be sarcastic or offensive. In fact, my school physics teacher (who was Welsh) used to say things like that all the time - "an uniform magnetic field" etc... so it probably isn't even incorrect in some contexts. Anyway, I'll try to use better edit summaries in future.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

As you've commented on a similar discussion earlier, I hope you would participate in this AfD and comment on the matter. Thank you. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexican

Hi, now that Mexican is a disambiguation page, could you help redirect links to a proper target per WP:FIXDABLINKS? WP:AWB is helpful, although you need approval to use the tool, and navigation popups (with the popupFixDabs flag set to true) is also very good. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 16:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi JaGa,

I started working on that earlier with AWB, but I'm just realising what a daunting task it is - 2100 pages is a large number! Part of the problem is that some "user input" is required in that some links should say "Mexico," some should say "Mexican people" and some should just be dropped altogether. Ah well...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For outstanding work cleaning up Mexican dab links. --JaGatalk 11:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooh thanks very much for that, JaGa - my first ever Barnstar :)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Signature

You need to sign your posts please. --Tarage (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Countries of Europe

I can't see what I have done to warrant your rebuke of me for “sarcasm, political arguments and borderline personal attacks” at Template talk:Countries of Europe#Requested move. Please tell me. You may answer here (as I will keep your page on watch) or at my Talkpage. Alternatively, If you feel it necessary, please take it up with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Also, is it your contention that discussion may not take place in this section? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daicaregos. The comment I was referring to was this one:

At the moment I am listening to argument before deciding. You should try it sometime.

which looks to me to be somewhat sarcastic and likely to provoke negative reactions in other editors, even if you didn't mean it to be insulting. Obviously it is only a very minor issue and not one I would dream of taking up with any etiquette committees... I was just hoping the conversation could get back onto the subject matter rather than personal issues. Congratulations on all the good work on South Wales topics, by the way.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm sorry if you feel the comment would be likely to provoke negative reactions in other editors, as I was hoping for the opposite effect. Listening to argument before deciding is exactly what I am doing. Obviously, my preferred outcome is to have the UK countries included on the template in accordance with NPOV, which no-one else seems to be too concerned with, but I was hoping to debate. My next best option is for the template reflect its content. However, User:Hans Adler has indicated the template's heading would remain 'Countries of Europe' despite a page move: again something that no-one else seems to be too concerned with. So, does that mean that discussion on the issues may continue in that section? Daicaregos (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. The move request seems to have united people at opposite ends of the divide in favour of the move, but with an unspoken hint that some massive edit war will break out afterwards concerning the wording on the template. Personally I wouldn't particularly mind if it is changed to "Sovereign states of Europe" even in the wording at the top level. Or it can remain "Countries of Europe" with the current list. The only thing I don't really find sensible (and I know you disagree with me on this, but it's my opinion anyway) is to have England, Wales and Scotland on the same level in the template as France, Spain, Bulgaria etc. Because whether we like it or not, those are self governing independent nation states, while the home countries are all subsumed into one nation state at present.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The point I have been trying to make (though obviously not very well) is that the template is not a 'Template of self governing independent nation states in Europe' or anything similar. It is a 'Template of countries in Europe'. We have many reliable sources saying that Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries, and they are in Europe. It isn't up to us as editors to determine what is a country. It is our job to reflect what reliable sources say are countries. That way editor POV is removed. Millions of people in the UK (and elsewhere) consider England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to be countries, despite being perfectly aware that they are not sovereign; a valid a viewpoint that should be reflected on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm sure you don't want to rehash the argument on your Talkpage. I just wanted to let you know where I am coming from. Let's hope everyone is sensible and no edit war ensues. Btw, thank you for your kind words about my work here. Coming from you, an editor of high standing, I take it a great compliment. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again - I think people do understand the point you're making (I certainly do, anyway). And of course, the individual articles on those countries will refer to them as countries. To me the debate is not about semantics, but whether the template is useful or not. So yes, technically England, Wales, France and Bulgaria are all entities which are called countries, nobody denies that; however, other than for national sports teams and maybe one or two other areas, you are not really comparing like for like.

Anyway, I'm glad you think me an editor of high standing :-) I have the advantage of working in an area with not too many other editors around so have less opportunity (!) to get into fights with people.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The "try it sometime" comment was directed at me, but it's no big deal. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. No offence was intended. You really should listen to the arguments put forward and base your decision on them and/or give your own reasons for your choice, rather than make what appear to be baseless decisions. I have asked you to do so many time before. Daicaregos (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made my choice based on past arguments, honestly. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda, AU

Is there a reason there's no mention of the African Union in the article? It might be useful to include somewhere information about Rwanda's contribution to AU forces in Darfur etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Amakuru. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requested move

Hi Amakuru, I corrected the article and eliminated the redundancies in Northern Italian languages.--Enok (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Transport in Rwanda

Hello, Amakuru! Thank you for your considerable contribution to this topic, it was really informative to get an insight into it. But since most of this information is hard to find elsewhere, can I ask you to indicate the most important sources you used to expand the article? I'm working currently on covering related topics in the Ukrainian Wikipedia (using materials from here as well), so your help will be appreciated. --Microcell (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, what interests me is the description of the public transportation system about taxis and so on. Sorry if my first request seemed too excessive to you, but could you point me at the source for this section's content? Of course, I do not demand citing every single phrase from it, all I wish to have is just a basic mention, if it's not too hard for you. My apologies for disturbing you again. --Microcell (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for not replying to this earlier... were there any particular bits you need citation for? As far as I recall my principal sources were the Rwanda travel map [4] and the Bradt guide to Rwanda [5]. It's possible some of it may just have been from personal experience, which is a bit more tricky and not technically allowed of course! As it was one of my earliest contributions to Wikipedia I was not yet up to speed with citations and so on, but I can go back and try to re-cite it when I have a spare moment to do so. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! No, the matter is that now part of my work on ukwiki is devoted to gradual expansion of important articles about states. Your material about the transport seemed quite interesting to me for the Rwanda article, so I contacted you to make it not look "taken from nowhere". As fas as I remember, I already cited the Bradt Travel Guide in another section, this source is available online on the Google Books. Sure I have no desire to demand additional citations from you, thank you again for helping. --Microcell (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

BHG speedy closing of David Gold

I do not beileve that BHG was correct in speedily closing the David Gold RM as BHG has been involved in a discussions and is heavily in favour of retaining peerages in titles and supports unilateral moving of pages to peerage titles under auspices of NC:PEER. I beileve BHG has acted out of line in moving the page back, closing the RM and then leaving a warning on my talk page when they are not an univolved user in the discussion. Please can you give some help and advice on this matter. Many thanks --Lucy-marie (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi - the problem was that once BHG had moved the page in the middle of the RM discussion, the whole thing became confused - it was appearing on the central WP:RM as the reverse move, back to David Gold again. Thus "oppose" and "support" votes were the wrong way round.

Regarding the actual process, it seems that the article was created by Kittbrewster on 28th January and then moved by him/her on 2nd February without anyone else editing it. Hence, as the article creator it wouldn't necessarily be necessary for that move on 2nd February to be discussed and the community would *probably* view David Gold, Baron Gold as the incumbent article title intended by the creator, (although feel free to seek a second opinion on that if you wish). So the best thing I can suggest in this instance is to start a new RM process to move it back to David Gold and see where it ends up. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first page BHG has moved the title after an RM has started thus destroying the RM and requiring a new one, is there a case of BHG being disruptive and gaming under WP:POINT?--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Without getting too involved in the argument (and in general I agree with you that WP:NCPEER is not a great policy and long peer titles are too cumbersome for many of the articles), on a purely protocol argument I don't think it's generally a good idea to move a page back to an earlier title and then promptly open a WP:RM with the intention of opposing it. The reason being that this compromises the WP:RM from the start because it gives incoming users a false impression of the "default" location of the article. Therefore in this case I think BHG was probably legitimate to close it (although she should have closed it fully, as I later did, rather than keeping it open after the page was already moved), and then allow anyone to reopen it back in the other direction if they so desire.

The only exception to this would be if the original title had stood for a long time and the unilateral move had only just been made. In that situation you would be free to "revert" the move, and invite the other mover to submit a WP:RM from the existing location. If that makes sense... But in the case of David Gold, the "default" title was the long peer form, as that's how the creator left it.

This is my interpretation of good protocol, anyway... others may disagree! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what you make of Lord Glendonbrook. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding protocol, I think that it was fine for you to make the original move from the longstanding Michael Bishop (businessman) to Michael Bishop, Baron Glendonbrook per WP:BOLD, but it was then also fine for Lucy-marie to flag it as not being uncontroversial and therefore reverting the move. At that stage it would be proper to bring the move to the WP:RM forum as you have done. If the move is strongly supported, great. But if there is no consensus in the move request, then the longstanding title will be the one that retains the name.

Regarding the actual case itself, my personal opinion is that if he were the only Michael Bishop then it should be retained at Michael Bishop, but given that disambugiation is needed, the provision of WP:NCPEER to use his peerage title for disambiguation is a good one. So I will support the move in this case I think. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

CSD of Dennis Bloemke

Hi, the correct criterion to cite here is WP:CSD#G8, not WP:CSD#R2. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. The Dennis Bloemke was a redirect to Dennis Blömke which I had just moved to user space per a user request. I read that WP:CSD#R2 was the correct template for Dennis Blömke and therefore assumed it was correct for the second degree redirects at Dennis Bloemke and Dennis Blomke too. I will now know for next time :)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to railway stations

Hi, regarding these redirects that you created - why were they all necessary?

In many cases the redlink was supposed to point to the place (town, village, locality, etc.) and not to the railway station. Most railway stations, are, after all, named after the places that they serve (a few places are named after the station but they are in a tiny minority). Whilst it is true that London Waterloo EastLondon Waterloo East could only refer to the railway station, many, such as LlangynlloLlangynllo are villages which haven't had an article created yet, and so should have remained as redlinks. If you're reading an article like Llangynllo railway station, you may be interested in the locality around the station; and in the infobox you see "Place Llangynllo", which you click only to be brought right back to the railway station you started at, which is really annoying.

It would have been better not to have created any redirects, and instead amend articles where necessary from e.g. [[London Waterloo East]] to [[London Waterloo East railway station|London Waterloo East]] - in many cases the use of {{stnlnk}} would have worked, as in {{stnlnk|London Waterloo East}}.

Please consider removing all these redirects again. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My rationale for those places is that in the absence of any article on the village in question, a link to the railway station is more informative for an incoming user than no article at all - at least the station article may contain some nuggets of information regarding the locality (even if it's just a coordinate link). And, looking at it from another point of view, if the station has an article and the town doesn't, doesn't that imply that the station is a de facto primary topic for that name and should be therefore be a redirect?

Anyway, I'm not an admin, so can't personally delete all the redirects, so you could bring it to miscellany for deletion if you feel strongly about it. An alternative might be to create a stub article which also links to the station, and could be expanded later. I'll look into doing that myself if I have a spare moment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the premature closing of the WP:RM discussion about David Gold. The thread is Premature close of RM proposal.The discussion is about the topic David Gold, Baron Gold. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CCI for User:Kittybrewster

Thanks for the heads up. I'm in the UK and was up rather late watching the superbowl so must have missed that part of the instructions. That said as Kittybrewster had been made aware of copyright concerns about her being raised at ANI and the fact that a CCI had been started was mentioned there I don't think there's been any harm done as they should have been aware of it anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you'll have heard the incorrect national anthem by Christina Aguilera, being falsely blamed on Wikipedia by the Daily Mail. Scoundrels :)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't actually catch the anthem and even if I did I probably wouldn't have picked it up as being British I don't know it that well. But on the actual Daily Mail article am I being dumb or was that change made to our page made after she'd have sung the anthem. Dpmuk (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was, hence my comment about our being falsely accused. Quality journalism at its very best...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous notice. It seems there is nothing for me to do except assist and watch as my contributions are analysed by others. What a lot of work :(. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome... I've not looked at the "accusations" in detail, so I've no idea if you're "guilty" or not, but good luck with it anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Accommodation

Thank-you for your tireless work in correcting the spelling of "accommodation" in articles such as Push-pull train and many others (I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to get this spelling wrong. According to the date I made that last change, I must have been using this laptop and missed the red underlining (although I do find I get quite a lot, especially as I haven't worked out how to change it to British spelling (ie en_GB)). Tim PF (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem and thanks for your message... Spelling correction is a new line of Wikipedia work I've recently discovered for moments when I feel like being on-wiki but too brain-dead to do any work on writing actual articles. Just searching for something like "occured" or "accomodation" brings up thousands of matches, although you do have to be careful as many of the uses of "accomodation" are actually in external website links, so changing the URL to say "accommodation" would break it.

All the best, and have good luck with your Wikipedia career!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you. Have you thought of adding a Wikipedia:WikiGnome to your user page? I came across it the other day when I noted that Gaius Cornelius had gone around sorting out the accessdate parameter from scores of pages. Tim PF (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)