User talk:Khaosworks/Archive1

Moving articles
You can move articles without manually cutting and pasting the contents by clicking Move this page. See How_to_rename_(move)_a_page. Also, it is customary for page titles to be in the singular form of a word (Ogron instead of Ogrons, Bacterium instead of Bacteria, etc). Guanaco 23:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see someone had left this note for you already when I started going around putting those various articles back at their singular locations. Didn't mean to harp on it. Bryan 23:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's okay. I'm trying to fix it myself. Thanks for the heads up. --khaosworks 23:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm sorry I wasn't able to merge the histories of the articles that you did further work on after moving, I tried to leave notes in my edit summaries so that future editors would know where to look if they were interested. Not likely to come up, but I always believe in giving credit where it's due if possible. :) Bryan 00:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moving articles (again)
You really shouldn't cut and paste an article's text to move it. The Talk:Doctor Who/Archive1 page now contains none of the discussion history. I think the proper way to archive a discussion is to move the talk page, then start a new talk page with a link to the old one. --Doradus 16:44, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops. Will remember that. -khaosworks 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Brigadier
I just want to point out, since I've had to correct it on a couple of different pages now, that the rank held by Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart is that of Brigadier, not Brigadier General. --Paul A 08:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

General article overhauls
Just wanted to say great work on the Doctor Who overhaul. It was in dire need of it, and is now a much better-reading and generally nicer article. Good stuff! Angmering 22:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Glad to know that my near-obsessive tweakings of the articles are meeting with approval. :) --khaosworks 17:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello there, I would like to add my support in the work you're doing on the Doctor Who pages ; very impressed by the way you took my stubs on Rassilon and the Eye of Harmony and turned them into very respectable fully fledged articles. Keep up the good work!  Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Other Appearances
I left this one in the main article rather than transferring it to the piece on The Doctor when I did the move. I thought it was better placed there as it outlines some of the way the show has spread to other media, but I suppose a more basic spin-off paragraph could be written, with links to the main spin-off article, and the Other Appearances section moved to The Doctor (Doctor Who). Angmering 10:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This might be a better move, since it would stave off any confusion about who's played the Doctor - we've covered the series' actors, might as well cover the webcasts, plays, movies, etc. as well. -khaosworks 16:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Evil of the Daleks
Thanks for your help with The Evil of the Daleks - i only used human Dalek as the previous wording "obedient Dalek drone" sounded too much like the Borg and not the Daleks. PMA 08:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Davros' Daleks
I see you listed Davros' Daleks as a candidate for speedy deletion. I don't think this page meets the requirements. Please feel free to list it on votes for deletion. Thanks. --timc | Talk 14:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tom Baker photo
Out of curiosity, why did you change the picture in The Doctor (Doctor Who)? -khaosworks 14:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * the old one made the text look all weird on certain browsers plus the Season 18 red costume isnt as well known as the earlier multi coloured one. PMA 14:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah. Didn't realize it messed with formatting. Okay. -khaosworks 14:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Human League
Just a note about The Human League's Doctor Who inspired track Tom Baker. Although The Human League became an electropop group, in an earlier manifestation the group (without the two girls) was a post punk ('indi' or 'alternative') synthesiser based group. Arguably electronica, but equally arguably not! (i.e Your edit is fine by me!). Around this period the most appropriate term would probably have been Experimental or just Electronic (similar to Kraftwork, Isao Tomita, and Walter/Wendy Carlos).

The track itself (if you have not heard it) is an instrumental piece with dark and moody overtones perfectly capturing the feel of menace in some of the stories in season 13-15. IMHO the only track I've heard so far that can be said to equal the original version, would make a great theme tune for the new incarnation of the series!

Thanks for all your great work on Dr Who articles! - Zik-Zak 13:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jon Culshaw
It was mentioned in many Who forums at the time of the sketch that Baker was both familar with the impression and was acquainted with Culshaw as they both work in voice overs. PMA 07:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who on Region 2 DVD
Think this might go better at List of Doctor Who DVDs on Region 2 or something to that effect? --InShaneee 16:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I named it in accordance with the earlier, complementary article, Doctor Who on Region 1 DVD. I think it's fine as it is, though. -khaosworks 17:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who planets
You're not supposed to orphan categories. The correct procedure is to place the tag on it, and request it's deletion at WP:CFD, noting that you're not supposed to empty the category either. 132.205.45.110 19:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You should start a Doctor Who Wikiproject, then list your own personal rules that you've been using to edit the Dr. Who articles in it, so other Whovians can debate it. 132.205.45.148 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doctor in Distress
"Anyone want to see a more detailed article about it?"

No. No no no no no no. No. No!

Let us never speak of this again.



Angmering 17:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delgado/Troughton
Sorry mate didn't know - just wanted to get the better photos up. PMA 15:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who Serials
Thanks for your corrections on my first Doctor Who serial entry, The Web Planet. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations before I do more? I tried to follow the style you used on existing serial entries. Thanks, --Kralizec! 01:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

World War Three edit
Hello. I noticed that you changed "the Prime Minister, Tony Blair" to "Prime Minister Tony Blair" in World War Three (Doctor Who). Although both are correct, the former sounds far more natural to British ears. Unlike the office of President, Prime Ministers are never addressed as such. Thus you would hear the BBC say "President Bush", but "Mr. Blair", for example. &mdash;Wereon 19:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Title Controversy
Thanks for changing back the edit about the 10th Ann, RT. When I went back over the Pixley article (at timrollpickering's urging) I realized that I must have seen a different mag at the Chicago convention in '83. I appreciate the fact that doing entries here at wikipedia seems to increase learning about the subjects. Especially those we know something about! MarnetteD | Talk 23:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting The Doctor (Doctor Who)
Why did my changes require reversion? --Proteus71 28 Apr 2005
 * The serial titles were already linked before in the article. Also, they needed to be italicised. Sorry, should have noted it in edit summary. --khaosworks 21:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Proteus71 28 Apr 2005

Dalek
Hey. You've done some outstanding work on Dalek since it was put on FAC. Rarely do people address FAC objections that fast. I hope I didn't sound like a tyrant in objecting that the article become a FA at first. Anyway, outstanding work. It's people like you who make FA so great. Phils 19:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I wasn't sure that it was even near FA status when it was nominated (not by me) - just took it as an opportunity to get feedback and whip it into shape. Thanks for the kind words. --khaosworks 19:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re: John Kerry Silver Star
Moved from Talk:John Kerry Khaosworks, please don't just waltz in and inject the same edits that Neutrality did before quitting - there's an ongoing dialog on Talk page - please join it before slashing away. Thank you. Rex071404 22:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments to BruceJohnson
I replied to your comment to Bruce on his page. Wolfman 16:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Second SBVT ad

 * Would you mind taking a stab at the second ad, when you feel the time is right? I ask you, because there have lately been 3 main editors on the page: you, me, & Bruce.  It's fairly obvious that Bruce and I both have a personal POV on this issue.  Not that we are making biased edits, but it's still pretty easy to tell.  You have been consistently neutral and even-handed in the matter.  So, a first cut by you is likely to be accepted by all as a fairly balanced starting point for the inevitable editing. Just a thought, obviously it's not your obligation. Wolfman 19:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I wouldn't mind at all. I'll mull it over and pull something together when I have the time. Thanks for the kind words. -khaosworks 20:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments to Rex
You handled Rex very well. I should have followed your example. We have a history, and to put it mildly he really annoys me; so i lost my cool. He is banned from most John Kerry pages for disruptive editing. I'll make the remainder of the edits I agree to, provided you or others don't object. But, it's ridiculous for him to slap a tag on the page without ever previously expressing objections or making edits. I'm quite confident given my prior experience that he would have just let it sit there if we hadn't forced him to express actual objections. I found myself editing for him purely out of frustration, but I won't do his work for him in the future. Wolfman 03:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I find that nothing fazes a provacateur more than refusing to be baited. It not only doesn't give them a reason to strike back, but that inability drives them crazy since I'm not giving them what they really want - the satisfaction of biting back. I take my shots carefully, and in as subtle a manner as I can. -khaosworks 03:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll keep that in mind; I imagine you develop those skills quite well in the legal field. As an academic, I'm just not used to dealing with essentially irrational people.  I'm pretty sure this was Rex's little revenge for my last edit on George W. Bush today. Wolfman 03:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Universities and colleges in Singapore category
I have tried to rename it to junior colleges in Singapore, but wikipedia does not allow. So i created a new category (put in high schools) and empty out this one. What to do with this category now? (Huan086 13:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC))


 * If it's useless now, then set it for deletion, or orphan it (make sure nothing else links to it) and leave it alone. It'll be picked up eventually. -khaosworks 14:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sense and Sensibility
I'm illegitimate. Whats wrong with that? Can you explain the 'damage' to, say, my mothers reputation? Do you, with you peculiar world-view, see her as a whore or something? You seem to get your morals from a Victorian novel.--Xed 16:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've explained it in the Talk:John Kerry section. It's got nothing to do with you or your mother, or even my morals, so this kind of ad hominem attack is uncalled for. You cannot be seriously arguing that the claim that Kerry has an illegitimate, unacknowledged child is not damaging to his reputation as a public figure. If not, then what's the point of the claim? What's it for? Just because it may or may not be true is not sufficient justification. -khaosworks 17:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree your ad hominem attack was uncalled for. Do not attack my mother - I wouldn't dream of attacking yours.--Xed 17:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Silly rabbit. Tricks are for kids. -khaosworks 17:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i am returning to comment on the systemic bias page. i am not interested in commenting anymore on JFK, nor in taking part in a show trial.--Xed 12:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

UFO
Just in reply to your edit just now, in the episode "Survival", Straker says that racial predjudice was wiped out on Earth in the mid-1970s, so that's why I included it in the list of predictions. It wasn't a reference to the interracial elements of "Computer Affair" (which I felt worthy of note considering you had shows like The Avengers that included a "no blacks" policy right in its very concept (according to the Dave Rogers book on the series). 23skidoo 06:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just wanted to verify. --khaosworks 06:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ITV category
I just added the ITV category to a bunch of TV show articles (mostly those connected to Gerry Anderson) but I noticed your edit on UFO saying it was already a sub-category. I only added it because I noticed other applicable articles had the category as well. Should it not be used? I could go back and change the ones I did if that's the case. 23skidoo 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm questioning the duplication of ITV and British, since ITV is a subcat of British - that leads to a double listing in the same group of categories, which defeats one of the purposes of a subcat - to reduce clutter in the main category. I'd say keep the ITV category subcat and remove the British television shows category, since that's the superset. --khaosworks 19:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perfect (book)
You'll get a kick out of this. Michfreak, who is apparently JMWax, wrote on his user page that now he's getting hits from people reading his work, and now a publishing deal. Let's see if he can respond to my shot across the bow meant to scrutinize and debunk his claims.

His Claim: User:Michfreak

My Retort: User_talk:Michfreak

This has been one VfD I'll remember. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SGpedians' notice board
Our very own notice board is up! Do try to look through and contribute. ;)--Huaiwei 09:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship?
Khaosworks, I just wanted to drop a line and say how much your ongoing work on the Doctor Who pages is appreciated. I was just wondering, have you ever considered becoming an admin? I'm actually kind of shocked you aren't already, given that you seem to well exceed the qualifications.... – Seancdaug 21:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then I suppose my next question would be whether or not you would accept my nomination for such.... :-) – Seancdaug 21:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. I don't think you give yourself enough credit. Anyway, I've nominated you. Feel free to mosey on over to Requests for adminship/Khaosworks and state your acceptance, if you are so inclined. – Seancdaug 03:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fanon
I recently removed a section from Fanon that you reverted. You said you reverted it becuase it was undocumented. I posted a section of the talk part of fanon telling people I was planning on deleting that part of the article in a week if no one objected. I waited a week, saw that no one had objected yet, and removed that bit about Adromeda from the article. So before I ever make any decent changes to a Wikipedia article again I would like to ask you Khaosworks just what it take for something to be documented.

Congratulations, Terrence!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, and you're very welcome. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 07:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, and I think you have a good chance of proving that my opposing your adminship was indeed mistaken. Sjakkalle 07:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations too. I hope you didn't take my opposition to you personally. But as I stated in your RFA, my philosophy is that candidates should have some more janitorial experience than what you have now. That said, with all your work you have done here so far, I have no doubt you'll make a fine admin. Good luck. Zzyzx11 | Talk 08:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As the very first person I have ever nominated for adminship, I'm thrilled that consensus has borne me out. Congratulations and good luck! – Seancdaug 15:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Singapore edits
Khaosworks, it has been shocking for me to see you promulgating self-censorship and a ruthless brutality in censorship, despite the fact that you are no longer the Magistrate in Singapore. This is the Internet where creativity and free ideas are allowed to flow. It disgusts me that you abuse your experience as a Wikipedia user and an Administrator to censor the contributors from other users. Please refer to the regulations enclosed below and re-read the role and responsibility of an Administrator.

This is not a multiple choice examination. There is no correct or incorrect according to what you think or what you have been programmed into thinking.

With regards to your vandalism to the following text, deliberated written in an impersonal register but imbued with a repugnant sense of self-righteousness, please note the following facts:

British Crown directs to British monarchy. At the time of the founding of Singapore, it was not directly under the British monarchy but established by the East India Company which had the authority to establish such posts given it by the British govenment. The statement as it stands is accurate.

- It was the British Monarchy that controlled its colony and British Crown is the metonym for British colonial influence. East India Company was a commercial organization which sought political support from the Queen of England. Afterall, your odd stilted manner of written expression is called British Colonial English and not East Indian Company English. No one ever referred to Singapore as an East Indian Company colony.

Malaysia is also correct, as Singapore merged with the Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia and was subsequently expelled from that to become an independent republic. Hence, Singapore achieved independence from Malaysia, not the no-longest extant Federation of Malaya. "economically undeveloped to a first world nation" is not an improvement over the original "third world to first world". The original is correct. - Reiterating a senseless conclusion at the beginning and end of an illogical unfactual paragraph is not acceptable academic logic. There was never a Federation of Malaysia. It was the Federation of Malaya that became a geopolitical entity of "Malaysia". Please cite your sources.

"comparative lack of corruption compared to" is bad syntax. - Bad syntax? You abuse the English language to justify your prejudices. You are so annoying.

"gross domestic products" is grammatically correct. You can check Google (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&edition=us&q=%22gross+domestic+products%22&btnG=Search) to see this construction in use.

Usage does not mean it is "correct" if there is such a thing. Modern internet texts are unedited for errors are are fool of errors. Why don't you try, "I speak pidgin Engrish."

"Highest GDP in South-East Asia" is a statement that needs sourcing, not to mention periodisation, i.e. when this is the case. --khaosworks 13:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Periodisation? Please!

Established as a trading port by the British Crown in the early 19th century, Singapore became a centre of British colonial influence in Southeast Asia. Upon achieving independence from the then Federation of Malaya, Malaysia in 1965, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, now also known as Singapore's "Minister Mentor", was pivotal in Singapore changing from an economically undeveloped to a first world nation. Singapore is known for its comparative lack of corruption compared to most other Southeast Asian governments, and for being one of the East Asian Tigers. Singapore has one of the highest per capita GDP gross domestic product in the world, and the highest GDP in South-east Asia (ASEAN).

''Administrators are Wikipedians who have "sysop rights". Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Generally speaking, standards have become harder in practice. However, there are several administrators created every week.

Request assistance - Full list of Administrators "This should be no big deal," as Jimbo Wales has said.

Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. Some Wikipedians consider the terms "Sysop" and "Administrator" to be misnomers, as they just indicate Wikipedia users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on several features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely. However it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users. In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be nominated as full administrators by members of the community and more likely to be chosen when they are finally nominated.

The community does look to administrators to perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Votes for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles, keeping an eye on new and changed articles to swiftly delete obvious vandalism, and meeting user requests for help that require administrative access. Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information''

(The above was unsigned, but written by 194.206.179.4 at 10:54, 27 Apr 2005)

My RFA
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My edits
Please stop altering information I have added in to the listings for Marvel Comics' Avengers, as well as the X-Men and Fantastic Four. I felt it necessary to place the information that they had connections to the Marvel Comics Godzilla series in their individual sections in addition to my edit which became part of the actual Godzilla entry, yet you consistently have removed the information. Please stop doing this.

(I apologize in advance if I have somehow screwed up in this message. I'm new to using the 'talk' section.) -Warwolf

Movellan edit
Thanks for editing the Movellan article. I was working off a very limited amount of info.

Just to top it off, I found a pictorial detail of the sidearm (it's in blue and white, so I may need to colour it), which I might add to the article.

--Jb-adder 23:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Bak kut teh
You made this article a redirect to Bak Kut Teh, which was a redirect to this article.... Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I simply blanked Bak kut teh and redirected it to Bak Kut Teh as the former was a duplicate. --khaosworks 20:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing that I can think happened is that, when you went to Bak Kut Teh, i redirected you to Bak kut teh, and you didn't notice &mdash; so you thought that they were duplicates.
 * Incidentally, I changed "cruller" to "doughnut" because, whereas the former is U.S. English, and would be unlikely to be understood in the U.K., the latter is universal. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Hi. Sorry to be a pedant, but please use double quotes not italics to denote a story within a series, as per Manual of Style. And please don't edit existing articles to replace the double quotes with italics. (eg.  Thanks.     &mdash; P Ingerson  (talk)  10:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Iain K
On Doctor Who - I wanted to set up the basics for all the un-created episodes with a filled in Dr Who box, filled Header, filled Synopsis, Plot Stub, Notes Stub & Link to Project who. This so that they all link to one another, even if only the basics are given. I can see that you are following all my moves and hope that this can be done with your endorsement.

I understand that my grammar is not the best and that certain things may need to be changed as per your Project Who.

However one thing I would like to query is your amendment to my “The Massacre” page. The page already had an auto link from any previous links to The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve and with your precision of wanting things correct, the BBC does have in officially listed as “The Massacre”. For any casual fan of the series it would be a lot easier to follow than the alternative.

Many thanks for your time Iain k

Re: Avengers
Yes. I thought it best to fix the links before I moved the article. - SoM 23:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC) I just wanted to make sure a majority of links went to the new location before moving it, since it would become all the harder to revert that way :) - SoM 01:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you moving the Avengers page? Because right now your changes are causing redirects
 * Right. This is just my take on it, but if you had done it the other way around, I would have immediately seen what you were doing. As it was, it just looked weird for a sec. :)