Mistaken edit

FYI. [1] --Guinnog 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for that. I did look at it for a few seconds, and it seemed like a typo. Now that I look at the overall article, it's obvious that the quote should be left alone. Sorry about that. Interesting article by the way: I'd heard of the ship of the same name, but I never knew the etymology of it, and never thought to look it up. Cheers, CmdrObot 15:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Advance Fee Fraud

The Bot edited some text in an e-mail received from a scammer. That should be left as it was received, as it is an example of the scammers' work. I have undone the un-needed edits, and left those that were correctly made to the rest of the article Pontificake 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pontificake. You're quite right, and I've made note of what I should have left alone. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Level Playing Field

in [2] there was a war about commercial references, with some Editors complaining that there should not be any in Wikipedia. I argued that did not make sense and lost. The editors then removed all commercial references and threatened to ban me if I replaced them. Please remove the reference or add one for my company, which for some reason they don't like. Tmcsheery 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


You changed Hommage to Homage in Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen. I have reverted. The album is actually called Hommage. Please ensure that your valuable botting activities don't change it again. Thanks. Hebrides 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta H. I've made note of it. Cheers, CmdrObot 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Why is it changing U.S. to US but ignoring, for example, U.K.? - Dudesleeper 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dudesleeper. I think you might be a little confused. I'm actually changing "U.K." to "UK", and leaving "U.S." as is. The reason is mentioned in my talk page archives, it's simply that U.S. is the preferred abbreviation in America, and UK is the preferred abbreviation in the Commonwealth.This is documented in the Manual of Style. Hope this helps, CmdrObot 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Use of Ashes

You changed "jewellery" (UK spelling) to "jewelry" (US spelling). Why ? Most of the world does not live in the US, including me, the UK-based author of the page. Please only make changes which are necessary. Ghmyrtle 11:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, it was a genuine mistake. I'm well aware of the differences between British and American English; indeed as someone living in England, I use the former myself. I'm also aware of Wikipedia's policy of not changing between American and British spellings (unless it's to restore consistency within an article). In this case, changing from jewellery to jewelry accidentally got onto my bot's spelling list, and I've removed it now. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. CmdrObot 21:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All Music Guide

I feel guilty in creating work for you. The majority of the 'External link' references for various pop music personnel to the All Music Guide pages, were created by me. I do not know what to do, except copy and paste the page details as they appear in the "address" box on my Microsoft Windows page. Also, why is it desirable to shorten these "URL"s - as you term them ? In addition the changes to Imagination (band) seem to have created a different font for that page. I guess your answers may be far too technical for my little brain - but I am trying my best. Do I deserve a big dunce's cap ?!

Derek R Bullamore 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Derek, don't worry about it too much. The AllMusic URLs you've copied and pasted have bits of 'how did the user get here' information embedded in them. All I'm doing is stripping that stuff off, as it makes for a neater URL, less space is used in the Wikipedia database, and possibly protects user privacy a little bit.
As an example, I'll show you what to strip off the following URL:|CLARK|FIVE&samples=1&sql=11:ntklu3t5anxk~T0
The biggest bit is the &token=.... part. All the characters from &token= up to the next & can be removed, leaving|CLARK|FIVE&samples=1&sql=11:ntklu3t5anxk~T0
Then you can remove the &searchlink=... and &samples=... parts of the query too: they just tells AMG's server what search term you entered. This leaves which identifies a particular entry in AMG's database.
Sorry about changing the font size. That was a user error on my part, and I've changed it back. Hope this helps, CmdrObot 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


For some reason you changed the spelling of Councillor to Councilor on the Brian Coleman page. The proper English spelling is with double L, hence the shortened version Cllr. However the correct spelling remained on the link to the Councillor article. Page94 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry about that. It accidentally sneaked onto my spelling corrections list. I should have noticed it too, as the double-L in British English vs the single-L in American English is a fairly common pattern. I've removed it from my list anyhow. Cheers, CmdrObot 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

great Dane?

I don't see the logic of your change to the Elliott Erwitt article. Why would you capitalize dane, not great and not the name of another dog species in the phrase (your edit) "great Dane's legs and a little chihuahua"? SteveHopson 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes, you're quite right. I had a rule for capitalising 'dane' to 'Dane' (which makes sense when it's a person's name, or someone from Denmark). I've added an exception to that rule to ignore it if the preceding word is 'great'. Thanks! CmdrObot 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Creek Language

How do I mark a term as from a language other than English? The creek word acces looks a lot like the English word "access" (at least to a robot, as we have seen). Actually, it means "[She] is putting on a dress." If I knew the standard system, I could flag the words in the Creek Language article. -- Bruce H. McCosar 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry about that. There's no standard as such, but you might want to take a look at the following: User:CmdrObot/archive1#How_to_Force_a_Misspelling. I've added the word to my exception list for that article. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


You're the only spelling bot I can find :/. Anyway, I did a search on the word "accross", which is wrong, and 1439 results came up - looks like a lot. Also, other variations on across like 'acrross" and "accros" might be used somewhere in Wikipedia - just an idea, anyway. Bronzey 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. I think the search is probably out of date. I did a search on the database dump I have from November 6th and only found 66 uses of 'accross', which I just fixed up. I already had 'accross' in my list as it turns out, but I didn't have the other variants you mentioned. Thanks for suggestion though. CmdrObot 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


The bot is replacing 'fulfil' with 'fulfill'. The former is correct in all non-American modern spellings. Please remove this from the list. Bastin 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is indeed doing that. 'Fulfil' is interesting in that it's the correct British English spelling, as you say, but it looks really wrong to my eyes despite having used British spelling all my life. Ho hum, time to upgrade my eyeballs I guess! Thanks, CmdrObot 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Gustafson

Whilst clearing up an amazon link on this page you accidentally inserted an unnecessary | between the URL and the text so it was *[url |text] rather than *[url text]. This has now been reverted. Just thought i'd let you know so it doesnt happen again. badeggbill 2 dec

The Best of 1990-2000

I have reverted your "corrections" to the spelling of hexadecimal to how it was spelt on the actual CD. thanks. see: [3] --Merbabu 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. I've made a note of the deliberate misspelling. Cheers, CmdrObot 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Emanuel Shultz

The Vinyard in this article refers to a proper name (his mother's maiden name) and is not a mis-spelling. I've reverted. David 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I've added that to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot Performance

I was wondering, if I make a mistake on some page somewhere, how long could I expect to wait until your bot happened across it and eliminated it? Do other bots move at the same speed (e.g. redirect-fixing bots)? How many pages a day does your bot ensure are purged of mistakes (including ones checked that contained no mistakes to correct)? --Username132 (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Username132,
It's a good question, and unfortunately the short answer is "I don't know." To give you a couple of statistics though, I tend to make edits to an average of about 300 pages per day. The last time I got the bot to process an offline dump, and to give me statistics on articles, it told me there were ~180,000 articles with misspellings, so I guess I should take something like 600 days to get through this.
There are, however, a few factors to be added to this.
  1. This count will grow as I find new spelling mistakes to add to my correction list.
  2. The count shrinks when I find special cases to remove from the spelling list (eg 'mariage' is not correct in English, but it is correct in French, so I've started checking for things like 'le mariage'; 'emerg' is usually a misspelling of 'emerge', but it's used in emedicine2 templates, so I have to allow it in those templates; etc)
  3. There are lots of other people doing spelling corrections too. Particularly people using AWB.
  4. Wikipedia itself is growing. It's not clear to me whether or not the proportion of articles with misspellings is growing or not. My statistics say the proportion is growing, but that could well be because of the many new rules and spelling corrections I've added to my lists recently.
I'm afraid I've no idea how many edits other bots are making, although, obviously fully automatic bots will be able to work much faster than ones that required human supervision.
I hope this is of some help to you. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. I'm not clear on what kind of supervision do you need to give it? And would it be an idea to split the functions into two bots; one fully automatic and one needing supervision or is that just the sort of suggestion that comes from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? I was going to suggest adding italicising of Latin Genus species names to the functions of your bot, but if you've already got a two-year backlog...! --Username132 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the way it works is I feed my bot a text file which consists of a list of article titles it show me. The bot itself shows me a web page in a window that it controls. It loads the article in edit-mode (in a web page) from wikipedia, copies all the text out of the edit box, feeds it into the bot's spell fixing code, takes the result and puts it back into the edit box, and then 'clicks' the show changes button. Then it sits there and waits for me to look at the changes it's made. If the changes are OK, I can click save, and the bot loads the next article.
I'm afraid that for the majority of the changes I'm making, it's very very difficult to be 100% certain that the changes would be completely safe to make in all contexts, so splitting them up into 'automatic' and 'supervised' isn't an option. For example, someone asked me to ad italicising of 'et al' to the bot, which I've done recently. Now this is perfectly fine to do 99% of the time; but supposing someone has an infobox for a music CD, and they just happen to have 'Image = britney spears et al.jpg' in it. My bot will incorrectly change the filename, and without human intelligence, there's just no way the bot can recognise all of these possibilities.
Tell me more about this italicising suggestion of yours though. If there aren't too many different "Genus species" out there, I'd be quite happy to give it a go. Cheers, CmdrObot 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know you had to put in so much effort. I'm actually the same guy that requested italicising of et al.! Unfortunately what I meant by 'Genus species' was aalll the known species in the world preceeded by their taxonomical 'genus'. That's obviously too much work ask you to supervise but thanks for listening to me anyway! :) Username132 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


The bot replaced "Americal" with "American" in the Michael Crescenz article. The problem is, there really is an Americal Division, it is not a typo. I have reverted the edit. - Jwillbur 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there is, and worse, I even knew it too. I've taken 'Americal' out of my spelling correction list. Thanks for the tip, CmdrObot 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hard Water


the bot edited Hard Water recently, and put in the incorrect unicode symbol for indicating a chemical equilibrium. It should be ⇌ which is: {{unicode|⇌}}. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines Other Topics - Special Symbols - Arrows. - WLD 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the note. You had me worried that my UTF8 processing had a bug in it, but it turns out though that all I did was turn the HTML entity for that symbol into the UTF8 for symbol. The incorrect symbol was already being used by the editor who added it in the first place. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops - sorry I didn't check for that. Mea culpa. Sorry to have incorrectly added to your workload. WLD 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire

Sir, this article is being nominated for FA review. A thorough spell check would be appreciated by me( whenever you have time). In fact, waiting for a few days for reviews to get over before spellcheck may be a good idea. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for doing spell check.Dineshkannambadi 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, and good luck with the featured article process. By the way, did you know that Firefox 2.0 has a built-in spellchecker for many languages? You might find this useful in future. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


You editted the Fallout 2 page to correct the spelling of descendent, but according to merriam webster, either spelling is correct, btwAir of reality 22:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Actually things are a bit more complex than Merriam Webster suggest. If you google for 'dependant dependent spelling' you'll see what I mean. Lacking a clear consensus one way or the other, though, I'll remove that spelling from my list. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call. There's no use in making more edits than necessary if the spelling can go either way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Air of reality (talkcontribs) 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

et al.

Hi the correction of your bot on this page Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe turned out wrong, replacing et al by ''et al'' does not work when the text is part of a larger part of italic text (such as in a template). Sander123 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. I've made a note of it so I won't make that edit again. Thanks, CmdrObot 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your bot did not transform all the "et als" on aggression, leaving several unitalicized. Also, are you sure that this is supposed to be italicized in Harvard style? The example given on the wiki page is not italicized... Thanks. --Jcbutler 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Websites showing usage of "et al" without italics: [4],[5], [6],

Please also note that APA style also uses et al. without italics. --Jcbutler 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should stay away from italicising "et al." for the moment, although I *will* continue to change "et al" and "et. al." to "et al.", since that's the proper abbreviation of "et alli" Life is full of exceptions isn't it? Cheers, CmdrObot 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


On the protostar page your bot changed Sherriff to Sheriff, however in this particular case it is somebodies surname and not the gunslinger from the Old West. Probably best of leave that particular edit to a human as Sherriff is a fairly common varient when used as a surname. --Jason Kirk 12:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Yes it's probably best if I leave it alone when capitalised. Cheers, CmdrObot 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nigel Molesworth

Hello, controlling human. Please go read the comments right at the top of Nigel Molesworth before your bot goes and mucks up the spelling there again. This is why automated spelling checkers can be considered harmful in some circumstances.. --Mike 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I've added an exception to my bot. It will ignore any misspellings in that article from now on. CmdrObot 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response, robot or human! (Sorry, it's hard to tell - don't have enough text there to administer the Turing Test, but never mind - I'm the kind of person who says "thank you" to ATMs, so robots have feelings too.) --Mike 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Here the robot replaced "refere" with "referee". Should have been "refer". You might want to correct this so it doesn't happen again in future. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wreckless Edit

The bot "corrected" the spelling of a word in an album title in the Robert Pollard article. Whether or not "wreckless" is a mis-spelling, that happens to be the way it's spelled in the title, and should have been left alone.Artax1 04:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


it is unclear why your bot would do that. The combining diacritic was intended, and perfectly correct. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I intended for my bot to correct misuses of ` and ´ as apostrophes, eg "don´t do that" and "it doesn`t work". I'll try to make sure this doesn't happen again. Could you point me towards a guide describing how the diacritics are used please? Thanks, CmdrObot 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
hm, it would probably make sense to restrict these replacement by a lexical list (i.e., /'s/, /n't/, and similar instances; or if you want to catch "single quotes", require a space before or after. In any case, I would tell the bot to leave alone text enclosed in {{IPA}}, {{IAST}}, {{unicode}} or {{lang}}, since people using these usually know what they are doing. regards, dab (𒁳) 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Ignoring the contents of the IPA, IAST and unicode templates is a good idea, I'll do that from now on. I think building a whitelist of diacritic replacing sequences will be fairly tricky: there are many different possibilities, eg "they'll do", "they're ready", "thank y'all", "Histoire d'un crime", "L’Allemagne" and so on. CmdrObot 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! -hotspot (come say hi) 24 December 2006 (UTC)


George Frederick Wright

The bot edited the word evidences to evidence in a book title, but evidences was in fact the word used. I assume that it was a plural that has fallen out of use in the last 120 years. Kezinge 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My apologies, I've made a note of it so it won't happen again. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quebec French lexicon

Just to say your bot mistakenly replaced the word orignal (moose in Quebec French) with "original" on December 17, 2006.--Boffob 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You learn something new every day! Sorry about that. I've made a note of it so it won't happen again. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reckless robot editing

You've twice now edited Nuwaubianism to change "oftentimes" to "often" in quoted text from a source in a footnote. Please do not make stylistic, grammar, and other such changes to direct quotes. If you're going to use a robot to make vast changes for style, spelling, grammar, and such, you need to verify by inspection that these changes are correct and appropriate. -Moorlock 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moorlock. My apologies for changing the quoted text. I do in fact inspect the changes my bot makes before approving them, it's just in this case I slipped up (twice!) and didn't notice that it was modifying quoted material. I might note that I've changed oftentimes to often in >500 articles (and specifically left it alone in a number of others where I saw it was inappropriate to change it), and only got one complaint so far, so I don't think that's too bad a track record. Perfection would be nice, of course, but I'm afraid I'm only human. In any event, I've made note of this exception in my bot and it won't happen again. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Please consider using the human touch instead. You changed a direct quote. I will be back with references to educate you on capitilisation. Why don't these bot edits post their changes to talk pages where stakeholders (actual editors) can see them first. You cost the above people, at least, time in correcting your automated, and unreviewed(!), edits. It "tedious and repetitive" to be beta test for you bot jockeys. "Anyone can edit" - not anything! Fred

P.S. response at my talk page please. Maybe you can make a bot to post your apologies without the disgruntled needing to watch this (your) page. Sorry that you are on the receiving end of my frustration with bots. Fred 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred, please could you tell me what article you're referring to? I'd like to make note of it in my exception list so my bot doesn't make the same mistake again.
I can't speak for other editors and their bots, but the reason I don't post change requests to article talk pages is because it's seems overly bureaucratic given the trivial nature of most of the changes my bot makes. (Do you really think I should post a message to the talk page for 'Fossicking' asking should I change 'a icence' to 'a licence' for example?) I'd also like to pull you up on your claim that my bot makes unreviewed edits. It most certainly does not. I look at every single edit my bot makes before approving them. Unfortunately, I'm only human and I do occasionally slip up and approve an incorrect edit. On the other hand, my bot has made 100,000 edits at this point, and I've got <120 comments on it's behaviour, and not all of them complaints. That's not doing too badly I think. Also, I already as a matter of course post responses to both my and the original poster's talk pages, so the snippy comment was unnecessary. Cheers, CmdrObot 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and clear response. It does a lot for your credibility. You do not fit the typical profile I hold for bot editors. You understand the language. You lack the arrogant and chiding tone of others (or me). Most of your scope, e.g. SI notation, is worthy. It was a snippy comment and not the best method of eliciting response from often 'superior' wikipedians. Apologies.
What factor do you multiply your complaints by to estimate actual grievances or problems. I thought more than a few would set off warning lights. You seem to have been reasonably thorough although my incentive to comment was only due to vanity.

"... spellchecking shouldn't be done on template names or inside quoted text unless it's obviously a typo; brackets should be left alone inside math tags and so on). This bot attempts to recognise these scenarios, making the manual supervision a lot less onerous."

In my case the tyop was taken from the quote, not my error. It can not be obvious whose error it is. Put it on talk page in these instances.
I seem to recall there is variation in use of the indefinite article, or is this one of few absolute rules in our language. As spoken, 'a aesthetic' or 'an aesthetic'? I only have an eye (or ear) for these things, a hazardous method, and know few formal rules. I'm assuming you are the full bottle on this.
My main concern with bot use is that others have to point out their users mistakes. This is usually how they are developed into useful things but it preys on others time. You are probably underserving of this criticism as only minor tweaking has been required, apparently.
Variation and mistakes in language should not be replaced by a homogenised version of it. I envisage american editors through force of numbers coud(sic) change spelling overnight. This may be an unintentional consequence of excessive bot use. It also seems to create historical revisionism. 'Mistakes' often reveal as well as conceal. Humans don't mind a bit of noise, it adds 'warmth', and that machines don't like it is probably a good thing for humanity. The value of wikipaedia is in the community, not the code.

Please pardon my approach. You say you know how to code for Mac OSX, I had better get on your good side. Fred 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Capture of Cyanne

I have reverted your changes. While nothing that I write is beyond reproach editing an historic referrence is. I will remind you that the letters are from Captains of ships from the 1812 period. Both spelling conventions that are not 21st century and errors are in such documents. While we may look at them and smile I would submit that changing them should not happen.

Please feel free to change anything I personally write but hands off the Captains letters of report.

Tirronan 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tirronan, thanks for letting me know about that. I'll make a note of it so my bot doesn't edit it again. Can I ask though: are you sure the two apparent typos I picked up are actually in the original document? To me they look like they could be transcription errors. I'm pretty sure even in 1812 'an ensuing' would have been used over 'a ensuing', although I'll grant that "untill" was a definite possibility at the time :)
Cheers, CmdrObot 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In documents of this sort (remember they would be typing downa a handwriten after action report by the commanding officer by another at his direction) mispellings may be part of the letter and should be faithfully preserved in transcriptions. I'd hope they are faithful to the document but short of traveling to the nation archive and sumbitting a request to view the the letter I'll have to assume that the Navy Historical Center did the job correctly. The letter may be viewed by following the link. I've done nothing to the transcript but to take out a few spaces so that the letter can be viewed. If you find anything that has changed beyond that let me know and thanks again! respectfully Tirronan 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire

Please run a spell check on this FA candidate when you have time. It is nearing a final stage before it gets the nod.Sincerely.Dineshkannambadi 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I just finished the spell check. Good luck with the FA process. CmdrObot 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.Dineshkannambadi 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Weather terms

Hi! I appreciate your bots functions, but an occurance just arised where your bot made a wrong change: [7]. In terms of weather, "trough" is a valid word. Your bot changed it to "through", which is incorrect. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Have a nice day! -- RattleMan 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry about that. I noticed quite a few weather related troughs in other articles, but I guess I missed these two. Thanks for letting me know, I've added it to my list of exceptions. CmdrObot 00:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/External resources

Twice this bot has changed [ International Association of Professional Numismatists] into an internal link [[International Association of Professional Numismatists]]. This page is used as an external resource page. That's the only link he's changed tho(and only started today), whatever the problem, please leave the external links. Thanks :) Joe I 03:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I've made note of it so it won't happen again. Cheers, CmdrObot 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicolas Bouvier in English - proof-reading

Just wanted to thank you for the effort you put into correcting all my typos in this article. Much appreciated.

Tobateksingh 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)