Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + + + + + + + +
→Request for move: new section
::If this doesn't happen, I'm all for asking another sysop to review the case - perhaps one week after [[User:Ed Poor]]'s last edit on this subject...
::If this doesn't happen, I'm all for asking another sysop to review the case - perhaps one week after [[User:Ed Poor]]'s last edit on this subject...
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:23, 21 June 2012 (EDT)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:23, 21 June 2012 (EDT)
== Request for move ==
The article should be moved to [['s-Hertogenbosch]]. The reason for this move are stated above, and no valid counterargument has been made. Indeed, [[User:Ed Poor]], the only advocate for keeping the article at [[Den Bosch]] seemed to have conceded (''touché'') - until he didn't.
For me the whole thing has becoming at litmus-test for Conservapedia: I was ''put on probation'' over this non-issue, at least on other editor was blocked indefinitely. And this over a point which isn't debatable, '' 's-Hertogenbosch'' is the official name of the city, ''Den Bosch'' isn't. There is no conservative or liberal interpretation of this point (as it is the other way round for [[The Hague]]). Is [[User:Ed Poor]] not able to correct his mistake - or at least allow his mistake to be corrected? It's a week since his last edit to this talk-page, so I now ask other sysops to move the article.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:54, 22 June 2012 (EDT)