I was just wondering why you sent me a message saying something that I added to a page was vandalism??? I was not trying to vandalise anything and just wanted to add something useful so I was wondering why it was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.37.118 (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, I wrote on Gerlinde Sämann, a wonderful soprano who is blind, and nominate her for DYK Special occasions, perhaps you are the one to look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of her! (Still needs an ok on the DYK nominations ...) She uses Braille music, I found in one of the German sources, I think in the interview if you perhaps want to dig. I heard her in the Monteverdi, beautiful! Travelling soon to celebrate more 25 years, singing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK ok now, was parallel to my writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea rodent q answered where you raised it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you removed one of the quote boxes at [Chamber Music]] and replaced it with an ordinary file reference. This makes editing more straightforward, but it looks a lot uglier. When the link is in a quote box, it has a nice pink background, with a picture of the composer, and with the names of the composer, the work and the performers in a neatly formatted frame.

I don't know if you can see that, so you may not be able to tell the difference.

Best regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was actually thinking about whether removing the first quote box would make much difference. Apparently it does, so I've framed the Brahms Clarinet Quintet file in a quote box, like how the Schubert Octet was laid out. I do like the convenient "play sound" link that comes up when using a plain file link, however. If you don't mind, I want to remove the links in the images accompanying the sound files, by adding "|link=|alt=", so screen readers ignore the decorative images. Graham87 02:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I would have done it myself had I known such an option existed. thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Graham87 03:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted a comment you made on Wikipedia talk:MED#Adding template in another conversation: Portal talk:Disability#Where the template does and doesn't belong. Not trying to involve you directly, just to let you know. Please answer here if you wish, I find it much easier to follow a conversation in one place. Mirokado (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Graham87 03:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The relentless linking to anything that can be remotely connected to Jacob Appel continues: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:AN#Checkuser_request:_Appelphilia Flowanda | Talk 08:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was me who added the website. I thought it would be quite a reliable source as it was checked over by an Orthopedic Surgeon who has been an Orthopedic Surgeon for a very long time and has used the Ilizarov Apparatus many times and knows quite a bit about it. I myself have used the Ilizarov Apparatus before and so I also shared my personal experiances on the website so that I could help others. That is also why I shared it because when you look up Ilizarov Apparatus in google or something, wikipedia is usually one of the first things to come up so, parents who are researching for their childs up coming surgery will probably look at it and find the website that I put on there and many people have told me this website has really helped them. The fact that it was checked over by an Orthopedic Surgeon and that many people find it very helpful should be enough to convice you that it is a reliable source. Now, I could pay tonnes of money and this website would no longer be a freely hosted website but that would not change any of the information on it, it would just change the web address. I do not see how paying lots of money to make it so it is not a freely hosted website changes how reliable it will be when clearly, if a perosn who is actually in this profession thinks it is reliable and accurate and then people who have visited it have found it to be reliable and helpful. And, no I do not think you should have accused me of vandalism because it doesn't really seem like you knew what you were doing. Before you removed the website and accused me of vandalism you should have looked into it more. Like put yourself into my shoes for a second, all I was doing was trying to help people because I care and want to make the limb lengthening process easier for them, then all of a sudden I get this message saying that it was vandalism!! I think that this link should be allowed on there. It will really help people. When I first had my surgery (I have had nine in total) I could not find any website like this one that could help me actually prepare for it. All everything said was how the surgery was done and that it would be painful. There is actually a lot more to it than that... that is why I have made a website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.37.118 (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather you've been moving and renaming the Egyptian dynasty pages. Where was this discussed before you began? To my knowledge, no one from Wikiproject Ancient Egypt was given a heads up or asked for any kind of input. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Dodoïste suggested in this featured list candidacy to check with you if JAWS properly reads dagger and double dagger or if it reads them as question marks. The two symbols follow here: †, ‡. Did it work? bamse (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The conversion script, didn't it also remove line breaks so there would only be one line break between each paragraph? Is it something worth mentioning, since it was also a change in the Phase II software? HeyMid (contributions) 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the articles belonging to Category:Orders of magnitude (length) have been moved from the format of the type 1 E0 m to what is apparently intended to be "common names". Was this move ever discussed? The 1 E0 m format strikes me as much more logical and consistent, especially in the context of orders of magnitude. Other Orders of Magnitude pages, for examples those in Category:Orders of magnitude (volume), haven't been moved, and they retain the exponential format. Also, numerous links, including those in the template, retain the old format. Frankly, the moves strike me as unnecessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed that the moves are already so old. I see that the articles in Category:Orders of magnitude (time) have been moved away from the titles employing scientific notation, as well. But in that case, the template has been adapted. Weird. But anyway: Thank you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for you on Talk:Islam and animals. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there. Graham87 04:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits at the SP, Graham. I've reminded SP journalists. Tony (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for improving my English, BWV 11 . Could you also look at BWV 140, BWV 12, Missa (Bach) (including BWV 102, BWV 72, BWV 187), BWV 120 and BWV 29, some new, some expanded - our concert program next Sunday, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for editing thoroughly! I forgot the latest one, not for the concert, just for the "ordinary" Sunday, BWV 96, with the open question on the sopranino recorder, raised on classical music. I try to write one cantata a week, as Bach did, smile, keep looking. - As for text vs. words: Text in German sounds more like business. This may be different in English. - I replied to Weinen Zagen where you left it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Replying here because the indentation would be crazy otherwise): I've gone through BWV 96 as well. "Words" sounds a bit colloquial - it makes it sound like a pop song to me. It's interesting that it has a business-like connotation in German. Maybe "texts" in the plural would actually be better in English, assuming there's more than one. Graham87 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I like to learn from a native speaker, thank you! One cantata contributor used the phrase "of mixed authorship". I feel that in most Bach cantatas this was desired to happen: a fusion of the Bible (Bibelworte in German), chorale and contemporary lyric, really contempory that is, 10 years old was an exception. - Thanks for the move, I deleted my request then. As for Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland, I feel that it should be the chorale, and a disamb page be created for what it is now, because the chorale really is the source for all the others, + for consistency with the other chorale articles. What do you think? - After looking at the Missa (s.a.), link to the Morgenstern chorale for a good picture, as a little token of thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Something like what I've just done to the chorale and disambig pages. Graham87 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To be sure: this is different, unlike the others: there IS a disamb page, that should fist be moved to "... (disambiguation)", than as before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving! I found a latin article, Nun komm, surprise. No German yet ... Could you please also look at Missa (Bach)? In prep already. I worked on BWV 29 again, - hoping not to bore you. Singing was again tremendous tonight, even Weinen Klagen a bit faster, we are no professionals. I's a wonderful way to get to the core of that music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All done. Singing this music must be an incredible experience. It's an amazing way to learn how the parts all fit together. Graham87 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is! Especially standing mixed - as we did in preparation. Yesterday we sang in the church, more difficult, too much reverbaration. One more rehearsal choir, then orchestra, then concert. - Thank you for your wording! I like "derived" and especially "concluding his great work", because I feel it was the work of his life which concluded. For my last birthday I had a wish, I asked my guests to sing along Wir danken dir, Gott ..., fulfilled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are there so many log entries on my watchlist? These entries are regarding Constitution-based articles. Were there problems with those articles? Is there any way to remove those entries from my watchlist, without also removing the articles? SMP0328. (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What was your edit (movement) of the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay page about?

I read your import page, but can't say it explained the question "why".

As far as I can see, your edits did not change anything about the page. The only change as far as I can discern is that you add in some edit from "Aristotle" and then immediately revert them.

I simply don't understand what it's all about, could you please give a short introductory non-technical answer?

Feel free to explain here, rather than on some random user page (i.e. mine)? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I imported the edit by Aristotle, the first edit in the history of the WFRP page was by Conversion script with the edit summary "Automated conversion". So I imported the very first edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001, to show who actually started the article. Graham87 13:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. So essentially what you are doing is deleting pages, starting new articles (using text from Nost), and then applying all the changes back in again, yes? CapnZapp (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I moved the article so its title is the same as the one on the Nostalgia Wikipedia (and moved it to the MediaWiki talk namespace), pressed the import button to copy the edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia to here, then moved the article back to its original title. You seem to be getting a bit confused by an annoying software bug related to the Wikipedia database. Every time an edit is made or imported to Wikipedia, it gets a new revision ID, which is one higher than the previous edit. In most cases, a high revision ID means that the edit was made relatively recently. However, the edits that I'm importing get a high revision ID, as if they were a new edit, even though they were made in 2001! The previous/next edit links in old revisions and diffs take you to the previous/next diff by revision ID, not date, unlike the page history, which orders all edits by date. Therefore it's easier to understand what happened if you just check the page history and/or the logs, rather than relying on the previous/next edit feature. Graham87 02:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for replying. Unfortunately, you seem to assume a much higher level of understanding than what a mere user like me possesses. Could we take it from the beginning...:

• First off, I'm here because of three inexplicable lines in the history of the article in question (the WFRP page in this case):

(moved Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to MediaWiki talk:WFRP: import old edit, see User:Graham87/Import) (1 revision from nost:WFRP: import old edit) (moved MediaWiki talk:WFRP to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay over redirect: revert)

None of these lines by itself make any sense. The only clue to what happened is the link to your import page. Unfortunately, it lacks a friendly, introductory and non-technical summary of what you are doing, and why. It's much the same as your responses to me (above) - they talk about technical details such mediawikis, conversion scripts, and revision IDs. I might be daft, but I'm not getting the overall picture.

Please keep in mind I am not here to question or contest your edits. I merely want a simple explanation - in layman's terms.

So, if the answer I suggested (deleting pages, starting them off with the Nostalgia edit, and then applying back the page history, in order to "inject" the page with its original first edit) doesn't cut it, that's fine. Could you please provide an equally non-technical, short paragraph that answers the why and the how (that happens to be more accurate, of course).

Then perhaps you would consider to enter that on to your import page? As it is today, that page will only make the eyes of an ordinary user glaze over, I'm afraid.

Thanks for your patience, CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try. I was once offered a computer teaching position in a previous life, and you can probably understand why I never took it up. :-) Basically, I moved the Warhammer page so it lined up with the WFRP page in the Nostalgia Wikipedia (a read-only copy of the Wikipedia database from December 2001), injected the 2001 edit into the page history, then moved the page back to its original title. Using the import feature in this case is like copying a file from a CD-ROM to a hard drive. If I copy a file called "test.doc" from a CD-ROM to a hard drive, the version on the hard drive will always have the file name "test.doc". So if I copy the WFRP page from the Nostalgia Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, the page on the English Wikipedia will always have the name "WFRP". However I can choose what namespace to put it in; namespaces on a Wikipedia are like folders on a hard drive. When I copy edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia where there is a page title mismatch (like what happened in the Warhammer case), I always copy the them to the MediaWiki talk namespace, since it's not well-used. The MediaWiki talk namespace is the discussion area for pages in the MediaWiki namespace, where system messages like the copyright warning are stored.

If you find that explanation helpful, I'll copy some of it to my user page about importing old edits. But the problem is that I use three different procedures for importing edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, depending on the circumstances.

Feel free to ask me any more questions about my import procedure, or ... almost anything! :-) Graham87 13:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Graham. Re this: what difference does it make either way? I can't quite see the value of that edit. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How do I add another archive (archive 6) to the talk:culture page? The infobox seems to allow no editing by which to add a new link. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. i understand what you wrote already. But the way I normally create that link is by editing the talk page. On other talk pages when i click "edit" I usually find the line where the archives are, and I add the link you describe, and hay presto. But for this article, although I see on th page archives, when I edit the page, I cannot see where the archive line is so I do not see where to add the link. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request that DragonFable (now a redirect to Artix Entertainment#DragonFable) would be userfyed to User:Harry Blue5/DragonFable or some such so I can see if I can find some sources. Feel free to decline if you think that an article for DragonFable is impossible. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

... for your thoughtful copyedit from one of the Husák's Children :) I appreciate your recommendations in the edit summaries, they're helpful and correct. Best regards, Graham. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Currently, most users are reluctant to produce row headers because they are centered by default, which looks messy. They have to add some extra code in every row header (style="text-align:left;") to have them left aligned. This makes the table more complicated to newbies and more complicated to produce.

So the proposal is to have row headers left aligned by default, when they are accessible using the code scope="row". This proposal was already adopted at fr.wikipedia, and is doing a pretty good job at encouraging users to make row headers marked with scope="row".

So could you please comment MediaWiki talk:Common.css#The main proposal to left align row headers? Edokter is the only one who is opposing it, because he believes this is a negligible change. And 4 users support it already. I'd need you to weight in favor of this proposal. Thanks. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm vaguely sure that I moved those over to the current archives; I'll check it out. As for the numbers, I don't know, an error in when I set up the bot. I'll take a look at it later, thanks. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham87,

I'd like to discuss an article that you've edited - can you help me with it? Could you please email me at ajppicken.com.au I don't use wikipedia and don't know how to receive your reply.. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.67.86 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just sent the email, and I've obfuscated your address so spambots can less easily harvest it. Graham87 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Graham. Motmit suggested that you were very good at merging accounts and I was wondering if you could help me. I used to use the accounts Boleyn, Boleyn2 and Boleyn3 but now only use Boleyn, and would like it if they were fully merged, so that when I look up/other people look up my old contributions, it comes up just as Boleyn and so is ultra-clear it was me. Thanks for looking into this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This cantata is not yet covered, but there is a redirect to BWV 60 to BWV 20, nonsense of course, probably happened because the two share the first line - one of the reasons for adding the BWV #. Can that redirect be deleted until creation of the article? - Different question: how do I get a user page deleted which is not needed any more? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you were faster than I could explain, smile. The deletion worked already! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Graham, your help on this article is invaluable. I look forward to working with you more in the future. Thank you again :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I didn't know. I figured an external link is an external link, therefore we are not in violation of anything. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you wrote in my talk page. I will comply and remove "Light my fire". I agree with you, it is a nice tune. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So, hi. Its me again. If you remember I asked that DragonFable could be userfied so I could work on it and turn it into a real article. I've now done that (see here) and I was wondering if you could userfy AdventureQuest Worlds for me. It is currently a redirect to Artix Entertainment#AdventureQuest Worlds. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham87!
"The Split" is arguably the most important event in Australian politics, but the article as it currently stands is an unruly blob of unMossy text, random referenced info without any kind of chronological rigour, and empty sections. Analogous to Coandă-1910, would it be right to replace the mainspace article with a slimmed down version, and create Australian Labor Party split of 1955/Sandbox version for improvements?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the sort key on this article. The first character of each word in a sort key is to be capitalized, per WP:SORTKEY:

Because the software uses Unicode rather than true alphabetical ordering (see details), it is important that sort keys be capitalized consistently. By convention, the first letter of each word in a sort key is capitalized, and other letters are lower case. For example, use "Dubois" in sort keys rather than "DuBois".

So unless you know of some recent change to this (and if you do, please let me know!), please capitalize the first letter of each word in sort keys, whether they're specified in DEFAULTSORT or elsewhere. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I made that change to fix the placement of that page in Category:Aesop's Fables. I knew that categories were displayed in Unicode order, but I didn't know that the first letter of each word had to be capitalised. Thanks for informing me; it means that I'll have to change a few other pages in the Aesop's Fables cat so they alphabetise correctly. Graham87 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if you'd like any help -- I can use AWB to load everything in the category and check all the default sort values. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Could you help me with this task? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Solved. Sorry for spamming your talkpage ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you please import the history of this page from Ideas on how to write about--and how not to write about--film and then notify me so that I can re-delete it? Thank you. --Nemo 17:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at what you did, could you explain how you did that? Or direct me to the page (if one exists) here to describe the process. I'm thinking of getting a new subscription to help with some of the articles I'm working on, and would like to make the links accessible. Also is there still a way to access their archives for free? They used to have a Times Select program that allowed access to 100 articles a month for $49.99 a year and now its $4.62 a week for the same rights (I think). I love using those archives but 240 bucks a year is a bit much. Quadzilla99 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How about older ones? I'm working on an old article (atypical for me, I know), that I could use their archives for. I think I read somewhere there was a way to access the archives for free if you had an "edu" email or something? Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

k ty Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Heya G87,
Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in. Paesanu miu, is it not unreasonable that we should should woik together on the article? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham87,
In the edit summary: "redo the edits that were rolled back, they seem to have been reverted accidentally ... I can't think of a rational reason to undo them, at any rate." Apologies, and thank you for the kind "they seem to have been reverted accidentally" - "they seem to have been reverted what-on-earth-was-the-guy-thinking-ly" would have been more accurate. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, but I'm involved in a discussion at WT:FLC#Accessibility and its changes to tables, and while trying to explain the value of table captions, a question occurred to me that you may be able to answer. I know from HTML Tables with JAWS and MAGic that a JAWS user can use INSERT+CTRL+T to bring up a list of tables on a page and then select one – but where does the list come from? My assumption is that the table captions are used, but what if there are no captions? – would JAWS then use a table's "title" attribute, if it were present?

In other words, it may be that I can't convince other editors to use table captions, because they don't like their appearance. As a fall-back position, would something like a title attribute on the table still allow the functionality of INSERT+CTRL+T for a JAWS user? Thanks for any help you are able to give. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. At the French Wikipedia, an accessibility expert made a code to re-enable skip links. I just made a slight adaptation to make it work here, and request a bug at bugzilla to re-enable skip links. But beforehand, I'd like to know a little more about how skip links got turned off.

As of now, they are hidden with the CSS code "display:none". But it may have been otherwise earlier, and I believe they were working fine before Vector went in beta testing. Can you confirm that? It si important, because if it is indeed the usability and Vector guys who broke it, there is a developer willing to fix the issue (Catrope, aka Roan Kattouw). If there isn't, well, I'm not sure.

Also, I'd like to ask if you would want to use skip links. I'm not sure, because you are a proficient user of JAWS so you may have other means to access the search and navigation. Plus, there are some accesskeys which plays the same role, but they may conflit with your screen reader shortcuts.

At any rate, if you want to have you skip link re-enable, tell me and I'll provide you the necessary CSS and JavaScript code right away. :-) Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dodoïste, the skip links were only intended for use by browsers and other products that did not support CSS. I actually complained about them when they were introduced in October 2005; see this thread at the technical village pump (my username at the time was Pianoman87). As I later found out, the version of JAWS that I used at the time, JAWS 5.1, did not fully support CSS. However, contrary to the above message, A user of JAWS 7.0 reported to me by email that he encountered the skip links, and he thanked me for asking the developers to add an option to disable them. IIRC JAWS versions above 7.1 have full support for Wikipedia's CSS system, so they never show the skip links. I personally found them to be a nuisance and I never used them. Graham87 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I was not expecting this answer, but it's interesting. Skip links are an accessibility requirement, but users preferences sure vary greatly among screen reader users. Anyway, If they are re-enabled, I'll provide you a way to remove them once again. And I'll hope that there will be a user preference to disable them, just like at Wikia. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to this, yes, it was a bot from the beginning, but as the account database was lost years ago, someone recreated the account in April 2006 and then either that user intentionally impersonated the bot by blanking articles, or the bot itself started fake-converting, as the account had been re-registered. Please reply at this talk page. HeyMid (contributions) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The account database wasn't lost; it never existed until the conversion to Phase II software, and most edits by Conversion script have a user ID of 0 (like edits by IP addresses today). Yes, someone registered the account "Conversion script" in April 2006 for the purpose of creating mischief. Re: the 2005 edit that you linked in your above diff: I accidentally imported it from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. When revision move is implemented, I plan to delete these unhelpful edits. Graham87 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which edit is from 2005? As far as I know, I haven't referenced a 2005 edit. HeyMid (contributions) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit is from 2005. Graham87 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Also, the problem in that diff is that the 2005 edit is compared with your history merge edit. HeyMid (contributions) 14:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because the 2005 edit has a high revision ID because it was imported at the same time as my history merge edit. Graham87 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I got it: MediaWiki's prev diff system is based on the edit on that page with the highest revision ID. For example, if I make a prev diff with the latest edit at a page, that edit is compared with the edit at the same page with the next highest revision ID. Also, did you import the 2005 edit? Hasn't it existed at Wikipedia forever? HeyMid (contributions) 12:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, you've got it. Yes, I accidentally imported that 2005 edit. See this page history from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Graham87 14:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have Social Sciences on my watchlist, and darn you were busy. What exactly was going on? Just curious... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I imported some old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia and did a history merge on the social sciences page. The result of that work is that the date of the first edit has been pushed back from August 2001 to January 2001. Graham87 00:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow did not know that existed thanx for dealing with my curiosity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Argh, thanks for the warning there, looks like I'd misunderstood how much of the process STiki was automating (I thought it was tracking "good" edits and lumping bad ones together to question them). I'll be more careful in future, or more likely just stop using it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, for a reason I cannot understand the page Borg (Star Trek) is called MediaWiki talk:Star Trek/Borg. If I log out Borg (Star Trek) redirect to the Media talk. Is this a bug, or a wrong history merge? Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Graham87,

    I am an almost new user (editor) of wikipedia and a well informed prostate cancer patient.

I notice you are monitoring the above titled page for vandalism. My questions are: 1 Is there anyone monitoring this page for factual content? 2 Who monitors for revisions that remove correct information? Just because they have an MD dosen't mean they won't lie. I want to be sure what is defined as vandalism and what may be one person's livelihood being put into jeoprady by current information are not confused. Anything I revise will be covered by a reference usually from another wiki page. Not sure yet about how to import an outside reference but I think I can follow what is written for other references.

The cancer industry in the US is a $60 billion/yr enterprise. Much of the $ spent centers around using x-rays for both diagnostics CT scans and tumor damaging therapy IMRT.
X-rays are cell damaging and the ionizing damage is lifetime accumulative. The US FDA even has a records form that a patient should have his Doctor fill out after each radiation exposure. I have the .pdf and plan on posting. The NIH list 330 x-ray centers in the US. If each one cost $20 million thats a $6.6 billion investment. Some are owned by the MD's that use them. Plus $ for radioactive chemo needed for IMRT (big profit for MD's).

That is a big incentive to muddy the waters.

I have been on the provenge site and noticed that a better site was moved to a talk page while mudduled info remains as the "official page." It was disheartening for me to spend time updating a page to find that it had already been done on what is now someone's talk page. That is a seperate issue as serious criminal activity took place regarding that drug company. I will have to find someone else who cares on that. If you have suggestions please advise.

    There are two different technologies that can help reduce x-ray exposure while still giving the Doctors the information she needs to fight this disease. 

1. MRI which works for anyone who has no metal implants. 2. charged particle therapy which is a more precise ionizing therapy and damages the tumor's double-stranded DNA

     something that IMRT does very poorly. IMRT relies on the tumor having a good oxygen supply. Tumors out grow their oxygen 
     supply and many drugs are needed to improve this. Charged particles deliver their energy to the tumor directly oxygen or not.

I also notice that your watch page is not semi-protected like the cancer page. This page and several others with related medical information i.e. prostate cancer, proton therapy, Provenge especially provenge are the subject of much controversy. The sad fact is that when one googles these items wiki comes up. It would be good if the info presented by wiki be accurate. Can you help make this happen. Bgordski (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It was chivalrous of you to remove the changes made by some disaffected former Administrator to a completely innocuous stale user page. One might wonder if boredom enables pettiness. I rarely log in any more even though I have watched the | New Age article's changes since I created it over 9 years ago. Thanks. Φ BF (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, please reactivate your toolserver account so this tool can work once again. Thanks. Graham87 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, sorry about that, I've not been very active this year and I forgot to renew my account last time they came up for expiry. They've reactivated my account now so it should all be working again. --bainer (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, You appear to have deleted the Galileo Galilei article! Please restore ASAP. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it's back, phew, I thought it had been a mistake. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For this. I've read that page several times, including at least once recently since I've had to use the account for the time being, yet I still missed that! Good catch, and thanks again. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Graham87 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, do you remember our first conversation about inter-wiki-links and Wolfgang Schäfer? I started, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! What is Schulmusik, what you study to become a music teacher, please? Farewell concert is good and supported by the source "verabschiedete sich ...", but it should be understood that it was only a farewell to the Hochschule. His chamber choir singers convinced him to keep conducting (them), so we will enjoy their concert in a month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried music pedagogy, what do you think. I learned that "Germanistik" is "German studies" and wonder if there is a similar specific term in music as well. Please reply here, easier to follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You've obviously seen this edit. Graham87 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the edit after I asked, and left it, smile. Just to understand: Music education is "Musikpädagogik" in German, which is different from "Schulmusik", a field of studies, whereas Pädagogik is more general, different approaches to teach music. We call that Haarspalterei, smiling more. Just drafted an announcement of the concert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Graham, we appreciate your careful eye at The Signpost; but may I argue? "The ruins of the castle built at Acton Burnell by Robert Burnell, where it is believed the first parliament of England at which the Commons were fully represented was held, in 1283." This caption is just a nominal group, and as such would not normally end with a period, per the MoS. I guess "castle" is the head. The other items are all down-ranked.Tony (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your edit at "Sitting" (and elsewhere), eg: [1] and [2], I'm wondering if it is necessary to add the <br/> at the end of each item, or if we just need to remove the blank line between the bulleted items?

I understand how removing the blank line lets the list become a single unordered-list, rather than two separate unordered-lists; but I'm not sure how the <br/> helps, or if that was just an unintentional addition? It doesn't seem to make any difference in the way the page renders in my browser, but perhaps it does in a screenreader? If so, we'd have a lot of lists to update!

Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity, just removing the blank line would do the trick. I added the <br/> code because I thought it would simulate a line break, thus making the spacing between items the same as it was before my edit; the addition of that tag makes no difference to screen readers. Graham87 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think there might be a 1-pixel difference between with and without the <br/>, but the blank line between items creates about a 5-pixel height difference. So, I'd recommend not adding the BR in the future. Thanks again. (And a huge thanks for all your work with nostalgia imports. I smile when I see those in my watchlist :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for the info. I'm glad you like the Nostalgia imports ... some of the info that I've unearth from the Nostalgia Wikipedia is fascinating! Graham87 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodoïste suggested at WT:WPACCESS that I ask you the following: Can JAWS read the character ƒ? It is Unicode code point 192, officially called "Latin small letter f with hook". Some mathematics articles use it as a replacement for an italicized lowercase f, that is, instead of f(x) they write ƒ(x). There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Back to the original discussion as to whether this is appropriate, and one of the concerns is the accessibility of this character. Can you tell us whether this character works for you? Thank you. Ozob (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there. Graham87 02:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Ozob (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)