MarkyMarkD

Here are a few good links for to help you get started:

It would be good if you said a little (not too much) about yourself on your user page. It is not a home page, but a page for the wiki. Perhaps, look at others users pages before you write on your own user page. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Chatham edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you have a thought about the issue I've raised on Talk:Chatham,_Medway#St_John.27s_church? I don't like the wording that is there but I don't know what the author/editor meant either! WPArgentarius (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the St John's section to make it clearer. SilkTork *^YES! 08:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Martin Lewis edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

The Reason I marked it dead and didn't replace it was because I didn't know where the actual link was. Also it is wikipedia policy to archive your talk page rather than to delete sections.

Regards Mbarrbarr (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

...

Having read your undo reversion I believe it is unfair. We should work on a consensus viewpoint. There are a number of points in your version which I believe seem to fit an agenda'd rather than consensual view point (I suspect as your name also appears in the site's forum) I am a regular user of MoneySavingExpert.com and my perspect of events differs; and came to this Wiki entry from there.

Given that my user page here states "I'm an active user of the website www.moneysavingexpert.com" and I use the same username there as here, my involvement with MSE is scarcely a secret I am trying to maintain! But knowledge of the issue as it arose on MSE is scarcely a reason to suggest I don't have NPOV or that I am trying to avoid consensus. I have never (to my knowledge) posted on this subject on MSE and it wasn't something that particularly exercised me, before I saw the edits on the subject develop. As I've said quite a few times, I don't have anything against ML and I don't think that much of the criticism is fair, although it IS fair to point out (but I haven't done so in the article) that MSE/ML have made what is probably a substantial amount of money from promoting Icelandic banks.

[edit] Wikipedia activity I am therefore going to write my explaination assuming you are a regular.

Here are just some points I feel worth considering.

1. Martin Lewis is involved in many controversies - bank charges, PPI reclaiming, government critiques, to focus this as the "controversy" seems unfairly negative. Hence changing it to "Icelandic Banks" as a topic name. It is questionable whether in the long term even this has any merit in a wiki entry.

OK, I buy that.

2. Unlike Icesave Kaupthing was a UK bank. It did not go into default or collapse and as noted in the article attached to my latest reversion there is a question over whether the act of moving it to ING was the cause of the problems. To lay this at Martin Lewis' door is rather bizarre, especially having watched the work in the Kaupthing Edge Chaps thread on the site, it seems MSE is the only mainstream site who's been working to help it.

I don't buy that. To believe that view is to believe that the UK government undertook an illegal act in confiscating Kaupthing's UK business and tranferring it to ING. I don't believe that Kaupthing Edge UK was any more insolvent that Bradford & Bingley or (arguably) Northern Rock, but they got nationalised/siezed/forcibly transferred too.

3. The number of comments on the forum that were negative were a small proportion of the positive number. I've been through the threads and done a count to substantiate this. Yet the only mention in your version is of the negative comments - which seems to reflect a deliberate negative spin.

I buy that.

4. The Channel 4 interview was in itself controversial. Yet the fact someone is asked questions does not indicate in itself there was a problem. To note this without the fact that Channel 4 then faced such a large response it dedicated a webpage to pubishing the almost entirely negative comments (about the interview) again seems to indicate a bias.

Absolutely, and I've said so all along, and also said in the article that it was considered unfair by viewers of the programme.

While I'm happy to accept a negative bias was not your intent. It is worth being aware your perception certainly isn't a universal one and therefore the copy you've written can be seen as unfairly biased. Yet lets take it from this point to reach a happy medium.

Can we work from my changes version which incorporates these issues and links to validate it.

Yes, although it's a pain to do so as yours is less well written than mine and will need more changes! ;)

Regards Helplineman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helplinechap (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

WPArgentarius (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE BY HELPLINE CHAP (Sorry if my format of feeding back isn't correct, I'm still learning wikipedia form).

I've been through the changes and tweaked slightly, much really just to prune down rather than change content. I think most of the edit is fair and thank you for co-operating; I think we're getting somewhere.

The only points you may object to are

1. I've slightly worked around the Icesave Kaupthing issue to simply explain each seperately ratehr than collectively (you'll see what I mean) 2. I've found no evidence for the fact that there was no reference to the protection issue when ever kaupthing & icesave were mentioned. In every current and archived version I've seen there seems to be a reference to savings safety, so I deleted that bit.

Glad we're getting somewhere.

The legal basis for the KSF transfer to ING was that the bank was in default of FSA requirements, as I originally said. I have now referenced in a link to the FSA's site which shows this. I think this provides balance against your Shropshire local paper view that it was illegal for the FSA to do what they did.

The evidence that the protection issue was not mentioned was in my original reference linked to that very sentence that you have removed. I have reinstated because the evidence is damning and obvious. You can argue, if you like, that people "should" have clicked through to the article on the site which may - or may not (I don't know) - at that time have incorporated warnings. But if so, the e-mail shouldn't have had AFFILIATE (or any other) links directly to Kaupthing's (and Icesave's) websites. A warning given in an article which lots of people won't have read is not an effective warning at all.

____________________________ Can I query your account? As there are two of you editing this page is it best I put my suggestions to you and if valid you incorporate them as I've no experience of editing Wiki pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourthestate (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Hello WPArgentarius,Reply

Do you think it's time to add something about how much Martin Lewis' company makes? fourthestate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourthestate (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Martin Lewis' CV has been updated. Is reference to moneysupermarket the best way to record how much his website is worth? I thought it was confusing. Why not link to this article which would suggest the site is worth about £250 million today (which fits with the valuation of moneysupermarket). http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2005/dec/17/moneysupplement3 (sorry if this is the wrong way to suggest a link). The reference to affiliates may also benefit from an edit. 'The website carries no advertisements' Questionable. The only revenue it has is from advertising, it's just that Martin Lewis claims affiliated links are not adverts. If you look at the affiliate programmes he uses to monetise the site - he mentions Tradedoubler, OMG and SmartQuotes - all the programmes offer 'adverts' to publishers. http://www.smart-quotes.com/ http://www.omguk.com/ The fact is, the companies using affliate networks are paying for ..... adverts. On cashback, the most recent edit says 'Lewis has also caused disquiet in Affiliate Martketing Circles for promoting cashback sites [10] where the consumer gets the money for affiliate payments for themselves. This is likely to have had a substantial impact on the revenue his own site makes too.' He does promote cashback but not when it impacts on his revenue. Look at the affiliate link he has for Alliance & Leicester current account, scroll down on this page http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/compare-best-bank-accounts. The link goes via moneysupermarket so the two sites are splitting the £50 commission which A&L pays for a referral. He is not promoting cashback by including a link to Quidco which would give the consumer the £50 commission. http://www.quidco.com/alliance-leicester-current-accounts/ Over to you Thefourthestate (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, regarding advice from Martin Lewis to cap energy tariffs I don't agree this was a campaign but given that it has been included is it accurate? Does the current entry meet Wikipedia's standards which I should say I'm not very familiar with? It's based on a press release that uSwitch sent out on 11th February 09 which makes no reference to Martin Lewis. Since it's a press release you have to assume it has carefully selected information to benefit uSwitch. It was designed to counter criticism that consumers were told in summer/autumn 2008 prices were going up and up again. See Martin Lewis on GMTV 29th July http://www.gm.tv/videos/money/36502-switching-your-energy-bills.html or answering questions in his NOTW column, 31st August 2008 read by 7 million people 'To set the scene, about a month ago I was yelling "cap now" on GMTV, as there were three cheap fixed rate tariffs left and all were about to (and subsequently did) end. By capping you lock-in at a set price and thus avoid price rises, and as massive hikes are currently predicted this is a good bet. Yet in that week 100,000s, I suspect including your daughter, did cap. And they will have save money. Of course you are right, in 18 months or so, when these caps ends, they will face a big hike. Yet if they hadn't capped, they'd still be paying that huge amount then anyway, but in the in between time would've also paid massively more.'

In fact consumers who capped onto the tariff recommended by Martin Lewis are currently trapped paying more for their energy than if they were on BG's standard tariff. He specifically recommended BG Price Guarantee December 2009 because it was the longest cap but it was also an expensive cap. If his advice did save millions of GMTV's viewers hundreds of pounds then you'd expect the TV station to be flooded with thanks in the comments on its 4th August 09 video which is not the case. The figure quoted in uSwitch's release refers to the situation in February which is kinda irrelevant today if you are an OAP sitting in the dark at night heading into winter paying more for your electric on a capped tariff with a penalty to switch. Quite frankly, anything can be proved given the complexity of energy prices and we will need the regulator to bring in simple pricing that consumers can compare for themselves. I can produce figures that show Martin Lewis' advice last July has not saved consumers and there is no argument that those who read his advice after July that 'massive hikes' were predicted and capped after prices had increased have lost money.Thefourthestate (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, an IP address registered to moneysavingexpert has edited the section on energy. Can we refer this to someone independent? The revision is to my mind not an accurate record of what he actually said on energy prices last year. It's an important subject. The account needs to record both the inaccuracy and the timings of his speculating about energy prices. For some reason it seems it is very important to him to try to rewrite what he said, and when last year. He is taking every opportunity in the media to disassociate himself with the commentary he gave post July 08 that massive hikes were still to come advice which led some people to switch to capped tariffs post July. I would imaine any change to the text to a more impartial record will be revised back by him.Thefourthestate (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. I don't find those edits persuasive at all. Perhaps the mystery user will persuade me with some incontovertible evidence? WPArgentarius (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your edit seems to be standing, that's quite an achievement to write a version that stands and avoids being edited back and forth. The use of talk pages seems to have helped.Thefourthestate (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Well, Wikipedia is meant to be about achieving concensus between users, and that should involve "Talk" before editing if there is doubtful evidence to support an edit. WPArgentarius (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bank charges update - 'However, in the following days he announced that in association with other consumer groups he had hired Ray Cox QC (a barrister with previous experience of banking cases[22]) to look into new legal arguments for account holders wishing to reclaim charges. These might possibly use regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms act as suggested by the Supreme Court Judgement.[23][24]' Do we know this is why he hired a QC? If it comes to nothing it could just as easily be a PR move of benefit primarily to Lewis. Seems a bit premature to record it on Wikipedia before knowing the substance.Thefourthestate (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I think that the engagement of QC is an attempt to grab a bit of credibility from Lewis' complete failure on this issue - encouraging probably tens of thousands of people to enter spurious court claims, at not an insignificant cost to themselves, on the basis that a refund was virtually guaranteed.

I don't think his supporters will allow your edit to stand. It is too early to introduce any mention of Raymond Cox in Lewis' bio in my view. It may come to nothing. A link to Raymond Cox's CV in his CV is stupid. By that measure hundreds of people that Lewis has engaged with during his career should be referenced. If his supporters want to retain this premature reference, then to make it impartial we could quote Radio 4 Money Box http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8382995.stm which put it to the campaigners that they had lost all credibility. I don't get the significance of Cox being experienced in banking law. Banking legal specialists have had four years to get a result for reclaimers. Cox was quoted as saying Jonathan Sumption was the person to win this case, and so it proved. Has he now changed his mind, taking this brief? The Radio 4 clip also reveals that it is Martin Lewis who has engaged Govan Law Centre. So this is a move by Lewis and my gut feeling is it is more about his PR, a strategy probably worked out with his PR advisor on how to manage the impact of the defeat on his reputation. Your quote on his saying the chance of success is 10% - 20% seems to support that the motive for doing it is not the chance of winning. As always, Lewis has put out so much misinformation, there are vastly different numbers quoted by different sources on this campaign. He oftens cites a care worker on benefits hit by charges as why he has taken up this campaign, never backing that up with any figures on exactly who this campaign represents, exactly who has had refunds and how much those refunds have been. This makes it difficult for Wikipedia to publish an accurate and fair account. Thefourthestate (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could not find you at first, you have a new user name. There has been a very significant ruling by the broadcasting regulator Ofcom that bars Lewis from promoting his commercial business under the guise of editorial. It may be relevant to Lewis' bio which I think still refers to him as a financial journalist. Thefourthestate (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't think it stops him being able to claim he is a financial journalist. His website isn't non-profit making - but we already knew that. And breaching OFCOM rules doesn't make him not a journalist - just not a disinterested one. I think he'd admit that he's interested in the links he promotes - but would say that this doesn't stop him only recommending the best value or whatever. WPArgentarius (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, It depends on what grounds you think someone can call themselves a financial journalist. What Ofcom's ruling stems from is that it has a statutory duty to separate editorial from advertising. It has looked at what Lewis claims is journalistic research on his website and ruled that it is not editorial content. If Ofcom had believed Lewis' site was editorial it would not have upheld the complaint. Lewis disagrees of course. His response published in the Daily Mail, 23rd March is that his site is information and it was legitimate therefore to include a link for viewers. GMTV said Lewis' site is commercial only in the way its own site is commercial in carrying banner adverts. But there is the rub. Ofcom can separate GMTV's advertising from editorial but when it came to Lewis' site it could not and it has decided the whole thing is a call to action because of the way it earns revenue from sales. A very bad ruling for Lewis in my view as it puts him in hot water if his site is judged to be financial promotions. He does not think so, on his forum he posted that the ruling is about GMTV not him. Interesting discussion, what do you think?.Thefourthestate (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is indeed an interesting debate. You are quite right that the line between editorial content and advertising is not there on the MSE site, and in newspapers it is somewhat clearer - indeed, there is no revenue earned specifically as a result of buying on the basis of a mention.

Editorial is content disseminated by journalists, TV & radio programme makers, not sure about websites. According to the Advertising Standards Authority which is in Lewis' language the enemy the advertisers, UK, European and international law very clearly considers that what constitutes an advertisement is materials disseminated by or on behalf of a commercial (trade or professional) interest. The FTC looks after this in the US. In most editorial businesses the part paid for by commercial interests is the advertising and this is regulated and clearly labelled. The part not paid for by commercial interests is the editorial. Editorial businesses might also have subscription income from people paying to buy their product. The BBC with the license fee is different and meant to be completely independent of commercial and political interest hence it is generally regarded around the world as the most trusted broadcaster. Lewis' business is odd because he calls it journalism but it is paid for by commercial interests. There are no adverts so commercial companies are not paying for ads, they are paying for what Lewis says is journalism but commercial interests can't pay for editorial otherwise we would have companies bringing us the news. Lewis' business might more accurately be called PR which is using editorial for the benefit of commercial interests. I don't think the mere fact of calling yourself an editor or a financial journalist means what you disseminate is editorial in the legal sense, otherwise every sales person would say they were a journalist or editor for the halo effect of associating their commercial product with an apparently independent endorsement. My view is that Martin Lewis is not a financial journalist however he has won several awards for journalism so perhaps he is. Thefourthestate (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, if you are still updating pages I noticed accounts had been filed for MSE Charity. The figures read as a lot less than the amounts claimed in Lewis' bio and on his website. Details on are the Charity Commission's website for charity number 1121320

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1121320&SubsidiaryNumber=0 Thefourthestate (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the notice, I must have looked at it incorrectly and thought the IP also wrote something. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Derbyshire BS edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mark, agree I could have added link to Derbyshire web site that you have done; 1. Apart from it does not verify claim on that link page (may be on another page ?). 2. I could spend time looking for the page, as I often do but if I do on every claim I see id only get through a few articles. 3. I could have deleted the entry as unverified (Quicker), but an option followed by some editors. 4. In my opinion it was a claim that wanted a citation but is not unreasonable so flag it up and the editor who added it may fix it or someone may have seen a press report and add a suitable one. 5. The {{tl:|fact}} tag is to prompt for citations, so I Choose to use it some of the time. This is in preference to just ignoring articles (I dont subscribe to the school of thought that they make articles untidy, but believe they are an useful tool to flag problems up) Maybe it should be a user option to display them or not? 6. I see that previously you followed a comment Suggestion for an addition I made on the either the talk page or in an edit summary.

Keep up the good work when Im too lazy (mainly when doing a quick scan of recent changes in the early hours)) to fix the problem my self at that time, as I do some of the time for others, and collectively the content will get better. If we were all perfect editors would wikipedia be as interesting ? - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

OFT v Abbey edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, didn't mean to tick you off, I just don't see how you added anything (except the words). But I'll leave it to you - can I ask just to please make it very concise? Think perhaps what a first year undergraduate with a short attention span would think - they just want simple information, with as few adjectives as possible. I'm very glad that people are so interested in this case though. Which way do you think it will go? Do you reckon these charges are unfair? Wik idea 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with concise; I didn't like the original wording because it was over-simplistic and therefore missed a lot of the point of the case as well as being slightly inaccurate in parts.

I'm very interested in the case - as my user page says, I work in financial services and have professional as well as personal interest in the case. I was surprised that the case thus far supported the argument that charges were not penalties for historical banking agreements - my view was that the older agreements very explicitly said "you must not" and therefore breaching that was a breach of contract and the charges were therefore penalties. But for more recent agreements, the wording has been amended so that the penalty argument doesn't apply and therefore I concur with the decision regarding that aspect.

As regards the overall unfairness issue, I don't particularly accept that the charges are unfair simply because they are high. There is no legal requirement for them to represent cost, or cost plus a certain margin. And I think the bank charging model for current accounts has worked pretty well, until the last few years.

I think that the conclusion will be that there is judged to be some element of unfairness, and there will likely be some movement towards a different charging structure, as some banks have already started to apply. But I also think that those campaigning against the charges are deluded in believing that the overall outcome will be lower bank charges in aggregate, simply because banks don't make the super-profits from current accounts that it is popularly claimed.

Yes, I agree. I just put up a case which I think could've helped the OFT say these are penalty clauses. My prediction is that these charges are certainly unfair. In the Regulations (if you're interested in looking!) there is a list of possibly unfair clauses in Schedule 2. First there's para 1(e), which says,

"requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation"

The question would be what an "obligation" is. Is an "obligation" the same as something that if you failed to fulfil would make a breach of contract? If so, then the same answer has to be given as for the common law on penalty clauses (so see Interfoto v Stiletto) and then the OFT may have to argue that Andrew Smith J was wrong (if you have to pay lots of money for going over your overdraft limit, is it not effectively an obligation to not exceed your overdraft - and a penalty clause in disguise?). The other part of this list is para 1(i), which says you cannot bind someone to terms with which you have "no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract." It doesn't seem that they have addressed this point yet - it's the same as common law rules, like the Interfoto case.

But the last thing is that we haven't been told what "good faith" might require yet. If you look at Lord Bingham's dicta, again in Interfoto and also the leading House of Lords case - Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc, he says it means open dealing and no unfair surprises. I think everyone is surprised when they get whacking great bills for exceeding their overdrafts.

So there you are. It all depends on whether there is a smart Court of Appeal though. I'm sure the banks will fight till the end! Wik idea 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whilst I don't have any great wisdom on the likely outcome, I disagree with you regarding the relevance of Interfoto.

The key differences, to my mind, of this case compared to that are that:

- the charges are made clear up-front, whereas in Interfoto they were never read by the defendant; and

- going overdrawn is an expected part of a banking relationship, and hence any concept that it is a breach (and can hence lead to disguised penalties for breach) is a nonsense.

You might believe that everyone is surprised when they get "whacking bills" for exceeding their overdrafts; but if those "whacking bills" are based entirely on the contractual terms which are made clear up front, IMHO that's hard luck. The law is not designed to defend the stupid. ;) WPArgentarius (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Haha, that's a shame because there are quite a few stupid people! We'll see I suppose. You may well be right about Interfoto, which is why none of the counsel brought it up. Happy new year! Wik idea 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re: Cheshunt Building Society edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought that list was meant to be inclusive, so when I spot an omission I fix it. I work on the principle that Wiki is a collective effort, so when I spot something I know to be wrong, I change it. Sometimes I forget to log in - sorry TiffaF (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Football League One edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Most likely because I'm an idiot :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Always good to hear from someone with shared interests. Unfortunately, though, I can't really help with venues for music of a folky persuasion in Kent as, although I was born a Man of Kent, I've actually lived in Birmingham since 1990. I'm sure my parents mentioned having been to a half-decent folk club in Faversham not too long ago...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Scally edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Crud, they must have taken the articles down :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Roll numbers edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Great save: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Building_society&diff=270527204&oldid=265805513 A complex issue distilled into a few clear words.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your user page edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry to point out an error on your own user page, but:

...

Para 2 "my youngest daughter, Zelie" clearly contradicts para 1. I presume it pre-dates the birth of Phocea Salome Rhona.

Hope that helps - and greetings from Walderslade!

WPArgentarius (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - yes, that does help! I'll update it now. And yes, the Skellig production did pre-date Phocea's birth. SilkTork *^YES! 09:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I read your user page and noticed you also have a concern with WP:OVERLINKing. User:Lightmouse made a useful script for dealing with date-linking and overlinking. Cut and paste the following into your monobook:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js')

The tools will appear in your toolbox on the left of the screen - there are various choices. It's a useful scripot - I use it almost every week - here's an example from yesterday - [1]. While Lightmouse has been banned for one year for some of the mass delinking and rude behaviour he was involved in during the years leading up to the decision to delink dates, the ban had nothing to do with this script. It is unfortunate that someone who had the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and who was instrumental in getting delinking dates accepted at MOS, should be banned, but he did get over-involved emotionally in the issue. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Test it on The La's (album). I'm looking at it now, and it has several date links. SilkTork *^YES! 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice one - excellent tool. WPArgentarius (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it good? I like the option to go for either the USA or the UK method. And that it can sort all the dates in an article so they conform to either method. Have fun! SilkTork *^YES! 08:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply