User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2012 - March 2015 inclusive[edit]

Previous Next


MoS (Japan-related) and embedding Japanese in English Wikipedia[edit]

  • I don't know who put it in the MoS, but the advice on embedding Japanese in English Wikipedia is wrong. Several kanji examples in this MoS page are also not properly tagged. (If you know anybody else who is interested in this topic, please either advise them or let me know their User name so that I can notify them before I make any changes to the MoS.)
  • When embedding multiple languages in a web page, it's advisable to use the lang tag as semantic markup (1) to indicate the correct language to the browser—the browser will then choose a font that includes the character set for that language to render the snippet of text that you marked with language tags. The other reason (2) for using such semantic markup is that Google is not forced to guess the language—sometimes, or even often, it guesses wrong for Chinese and Japanese. The reason is that some Unicode character code points are shared by Chinese and Japanese. In a Japanese font, a Unicode character can be displayed quite differently than the same Unicode character displayed in a Chinese font. There are some examples here. With many European languages one can often get away with not using the lang tag. But Japanese embedded in English text and not properly tagged is likely to be garbled if displayed on a Chinese PC—and vice versa. In Wikipedia, the mechanism for lang-tagging is Template:Lang and other related templates such as the Nihongo templates for explaining embedded Japanese (there are also Chinese templates for explaining Chinese). In Japanese web pages, for example, if English is not tagged as such then it is displayed using a Japanese font, and looks really ugly. FYI there's a Japanese web page tagged for English, Chinese, and Korean here. LittleBen (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The best approach to fixing this is to either change the MoS page or discuss it on the talk page. The user who added the advice may no longer be interested, or may have left. As far as the {{Lang}} template is concerned I am a big supporter, if more refinement is needed,please let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Belated thanks for your comments. LittleBen (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for for translating the Toon Dupuis article. Another red link disappeared on the Englisch Wikipedia.

Lotje (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Soft Kitty! Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC).

Do you know Dutch or is the translators good enough to work out the text? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Translator is good enough, for an article like that. In fact you can quickly learn a few words, and some are very similar to English anyway. The risk is false friends of course. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
I thought grammar maybe difficult. How about the reverse creating a foreign language article from the English one? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I tried that, got zapped. But I have created Swahili articles form scratch, by example, and with help. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

Template:Portal talk[edit]

Heyo. I'm looking at Portal talk:Contents/Portals where {{Portal talk}} is included, and wondering how to edit that template to: "remove the horizontal line between the list of Archives and the searchbox". The table code mixed with parser functions is hurting my brain; can you easily fix? If not, I'll nag someone else. Ta! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Like this?
Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
Ahh, nope, the horizontal rule under the words "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4", but now that I'm less distracted, I could see and have just removed the offending css... >.< Sorry, and thanks anyway! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six[edit]

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
  • Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
  • New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
  • Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

Please change your script to no longer remove spaces from section headers.[edit]

Whatever script you are using, it is still removing spaces from headers, e.g. [1][2][3][4]. These articles had before your edit a uniform system of section header spacing (with spaces between the "==" and the section title on both sides), but now have some section headers with spaces and some without. This violates the main section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". Please refrain from making these or similar changes. Fram (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see evidence of a script Fram. You are in error. If it were a script, then it would have removed the spaces in the "== Application of microcredit ==", "== History ==", "== Application of microcredit ==", "=== Struggling members program ==="...in fact EVERY section of Grameen Bank but the one you are complaining about that he changed. Can we please drop the whitespace arguments, drop the sticks, and walk away? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No. Can we please stop the whitespace changes instead? Do you really believe that Rich farmbrough is patiently (and pointlessly) removing all the spaces at the end of bulleted entries and paragraphs by hand[5][6]? It certainly gives the strong impression of being script-based. Fram (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Fram, I've already shown you how it is not a script, but your sure it is and are going after him for it...over whitespaces. This is absurd. Drop it. Drop the stick and walk away. If there really is a problem here worth the time, someone else will come along to address it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that theory has been used in the previous discussions a lot, even though it has been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Fram (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I have to be honest Fram, these edits don't really bother me. Frankly, what bothers me more is that where Rich formerly did thousands and thousands of edits per day between he and his bots, he now does 20 - 50 at most. Additionally, since none of the other bot operators want to do most of these tasks (such as the WikiProject Watchlists) it means they won't get done at all. So for me, even if he did do a few minor edits that you and a couple of other editors got him automation banned for, the pedia has been harmed far far more by his lack of edits and by your crusade against minor edits that it is by doing them. I personally wish you would just find something else to do. Continuously hounding an editor over a few minor edits is, IMO, really really bad conduct for an Admin. Personally I think its stupid and I find it also rather stupid that I can't be trusted with the admin bit but some admins like you are allowed to hound other editors without interferance over things that are of such insignificance that they are nearly meaningless. Kumioko (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Still, it is a bit absurd to have an editor (Rich) to remove whitespace within headers while bots add them (even in archives). This is an endless war with no winners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • To clarify: I am not against small edits as soon as we have a concrete where we want to go. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Kumioko, he was banned for the many errors in his edits (and a number of other issues e.g. about dealing with those errors), not for the minor edits as such. Any reason why he continues making the same edits that go against the guidelines now that he is only editing manually? If it is not caused by a script, then it isn't carelessness but repeated and deliberate editing against guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • @Fram, I was involved in that case and I am very familiar with what was said. Your right to a point but the vast majority of arguments and discussions were based on minor edits. I have seen no less than a dozen editors in the last week alone doing edits that are the same or worse than these and I didn't see your name on even one of their talk pages so it leads me to the belief that you are hounding. When its nearly always the same editor showing up on the same paeg complaining about what seems to be every edit an editor makes, it appears like hounding. Also, IMO, if he wants to use his time removing minor errors, spaces, etc. fine, its his time. I also don't think he is going against guidelines in doing these by the way. There are some rules and suggestions that automated tools not be used in this way but as far as I know very little about doing it manually. So your argument that he is violating guidelines isn't really accurate outside that you don't like it.
  • @Magioladitis, I understand what you are saying but here is my take on that. If the bots are adding them, then the bots should be changed to not add them. The bots should not be adding or removing these as doing either at this point in time, seems to be against general concensus. We should not be telling one editor that they are violating the policy by removing spaces when we allow or look the other way when a bot is adding them. That sort of wishy washiness is what gets people frustrated with the rules and causes people to leave.
  • @Both, We should not be enforcing the rules when we feel like it or when we agree with it and looking the other way when we don't. If the policy is there then we should be enforcing it evenly, not targetting certain editors because one or 2 editors has a bone to pick or wants to make a name for themselves. This is how I have always felt but yet many admins pick an extreme view and then try and railroad editors into their way of doing things. It happens a lot, I see it all the time. But we let them, because they are admins, they are "trusted" and the rest of us are just scummy regular editors and have no rights, trust, respect or say in what goes on. Then they take the productive editors rights away (like Rich), push them out and then run around wondering why the edit numbers are down and less people are editing when it was their fault they left because they are keeping the wrong people. Since January I have seen nearly 2 dozen productive editors get the boot or quite in frustration because if this kind of nonsense and its time it stops but I am powerless to do anything about it because I am just as hated because I want the ones in power to do the right thing and most of them it seems have their own agendas rather than building an encyclopedia. These days its more like Politipedia. Sorry that was a bit of a rant but I find it extremely frustrating that the community tells me I cannot be trusted and then they let admins go rogue like Fram, CBM and others and do whatever they want but I am the untrustworthy jerk. Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Kumioko, have you actually compared the MOS I linked above with the edits Rich Farmbrough makes? This has nothing to do with what is allowed manually but not by automation. This type of edits, i.e. adding or removing whitespace from (some) headers when another style was used in the article, isn't allowed at all. It is also utterly pointless. It is not difficult to stop making such edits. So can you give one good reason why he continued making them anyway? Fram (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Fram, can you give one good reason why you introduced a white space between section headers and content here and here when the formatting choices were consistent within the articles before you changed them? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • (inserting this between Hammersoft's question and Kumioko's poorly indented next post). Because these edits actually follow the MOS, instead of violating them like Rich Farmbrough's edits? Just read WP:MOSHEAD instead of giving the false impression that my edits are similar to his, please: "The heading must be typed on a separate line. Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)" Consistency comes only into play when multiple styles are acceptable (e.g. spaces inside section headers, or reflist vs. references). Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Fram I could offer several reasons why many of these edits are useful and in fact I have several times before. Since you failed to listen then, I see no reason why adding them yet again would change it and you would undoubtedly argue that the reasons weren't good enough so the debate is merely academic and futile. I do suggest as others have here and in the past that you disengage for a while and do some other tasks. If Rich is in such violation of policy as you say then others will bring it up. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't really like this discussion because it looks like a WP:BATTLE and Wikipedia is not (should not be) a battleground. I am one the supporters that small changes should be done but I made a lot of effort to satisfy those who disagree. Rich has been one of the pioneers in standardising things without checking it cost in number of edits and I admire this. Without Rich we wouldn't have standardise the WikiProjects for instance. Even worse, the names of many tags would have remained unreadable. On the other hand Fram has been always very good in finding bug mistakes in scripts, AWB, etc. Even better he does a very good use of AWB to make his life and our life easier. Conclusion: I like to cooperate with both of them and I don't like a discussion like this one. If we isolate the discussion on the section headers Rich is wrong, at least IMO. Mediawiki adds headers with spaces if someone presses "New section" on the top. If Rich wants us to move to the other direction (I have no strong feelings on either way) then he will have to change the way Mediawiki adds headers and ask the bot operator of the bot adding spaces in headers (I don't recall its name right now. Misabot?) to at least doing it. Many of us do small edits but these edits aim to a certain target: At some point 99.9% of the pages will have our style because there is a (clear) consensus for that. What Rich does with header spaces has no chance right now. OK, I know that some of you think that this is not the point of this discussion and the discussion but whatever. I don't agree with Rich ban and I have expressed that in many ways but on the other hand I can't just stay and see an endless edit war with no future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I agree with a lot of what you said Magio and my comments above were not directed at you so please don't feel they were. My point was only that its always the same 3 people complaining there is a problem with Rich's edits and having some experience in WP myself, I have learned that the real problems attract lots of people and comments so 3 editors with power saying someone is breaking a rule doesn't sit well with me. With that said I still think that bot, whatever it is, should be changed to leave whatever formatting is in the headers, spaces or not. Not applying its own standard with spaces. This is one of the sorts of things that Rich and others have gotten in trouble for so that bot should not be above reproach IMO. I also would like to note that although compromise is good, its not a one way street. Some of the minor edit police could learn to compromise a little too. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • @Magioladitis: The problem we have before us is that Fram has been asked by multiple people to leave Rich alone. Fram has been told that if the problem is that serious, someone else will raise the issue with Rich. Rich has asked, in fact begged [7] for Fram to leave him alone. Yet, we have Fram being intractable and refusing to disengage. Both editors have their strengths and weaknesses. That's a given. As a project, we don't have to accept the drama/disruption being caused when these two editors interact. I have asked both editors to voluntarily agree to an interaction ban. With the diff I note above, Rich seems willing. But, a voluntary interaction ban can not work without both parties agreeing, and Fram refuses. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Of course Rich agrees, he can continue his editing with one person less to indicate where he violates guidelines time and time again. Perhaps we can propose an interaction ban between Rich and anyone who sees a problem with an edit he makes? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
                • Just so we are crystal clear; Fram, a number of people (including at least one administrator) are asking you to disengage and you are refusing. Is this correct? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
                  • Just so we are crystal clear: Rich Farmbrough was restricted, blocked, desysopped, and nearly banned, but looking into his edits once every three months and noting problems with it is the actual problem here? As for "including at least one administrator", I love your hypocritical comments (again); I thought you believed that admins weren't that important, and that "The highest 'rank' on Wikipedia is 'editor'."? User talk:Kumioko#On being an admin. Having said that, the number of people are the usual suspects and Jenks24, who states that "this keeps popping up on my watchlist" despite the last post I made here before this thread being from 1 June 2012. An interaction ban was proposed by Rich farmbrough at the ArbCom case, but not imposed by ArbCom. What has happened since then to make things different now? A return after three months, while you (Hammersoft) have opposed my actions and comments multiple times in the meantime in different discussions? If there is any wikihounding happening, it is you who is wikihounding me. I don't mind you doing this, it tells more about you than that it causes problems for me, but it makes your current request for this interaction ban rather cynical. Fram (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
                    • If you believe I am wikihounding you, you are more than welcome to file a report to WP:AN/I. I am confident you can get me banned from the project. Now, to return to the point of this discussion rather than me; several editors have now asked you to disengage from Rich and walk away. Why is it impossible for you to do this? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban[edit]

Fram & Rich, I am asking you both to voluntarily agree to an interaction ban between the two of you. This means you stop posting to each other's talk pages, you stop following each other's edits, and you stop entering into discussions where you have no vested interest and the other party is involved. Please indicate your acceptance or refusal. If refusal, please indicate why. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I have asked for that multiple times in the past but Fram feels its his perosnal mission to be the minor edit police and refuses to drop the sticks and let it go. That's what makes me so angry about the whole situation is that here you have this Admin hounding another editor and no one can or will do anything about it. If it is such a major problem then why is it always the same 2 or 3 editors? If its a major problem with these edits he should have people lining up to complain. And we as editors and Wikipedians will complain if something bothers us. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No. If Rich doesn't want me posting here, he can just follow our policies and guidelines instead of continously ignoring and violating them, even after they have been pointed out and explained multiple times. If you two don't want me posting here, start mentoring Rich Farmbrough, try to get him to him follow our guidelines and policies, see to it that he edits like every editor is supposed to. And Kumioko, please drop the hyperbole. If it was such a major problem, we would be at ANI or at ArbCom enforcement. I am here because it is a real, recurring, but relatively minor problem, and because I am one of the editors who is aware that this is one established editor whose edits need scrutiny, though thanks to the restrictions less than it used to be. Closing my eyes and ignoring problems because I have noticed too many other similar problems in the past is not helping things. If I would have been consistenly (instead of occasionally) wrong in my remarks and in the errors, problems, or policy violations I pointed out, then there would be a case for an interaction ban. If I was opposing Rich Farmbrough at all kinds of discussions, just for the sake of it, then there would be a case for an interaction ban. But asking for an interaction ban just because I do what I am supposed to do, is not helpful in the least, and not very convincing coming from two heavily involved editors. Fram (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • If there is an editor who is heavily involved, it is you Fram. You are the #3 editor to this talk page. Look, you are not Rich's personal mentor. You are not an assigned police officer whose beat it is to follow Rich. You've been asked to drop the sticks and walk away, but apparently still feel it is your duty to police his actions. Why? Is there no other person on the project who can police his actions? Are you the sole person who has the time, tools, and willingness to police his actions? Why is it necessary that this falls to you? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I a not his mentor. But perhaps it would be better if one of you would be, instead of continuing with the same very tired defense. Like I said above, I would be more than happy if you (plural) took over and kept an eye on his contributions, and recognized the problems with it as well as the value. Perhaps you will have more success in getting him to change his habits without needing long discussions, blocks, ANI and ArbCom cases, restrictions, ... Continued shooting of the messenger has failed as a tactic every time until now, and hasn't helped Rich Farmbrough one bit. Trying something different instead might work, but I see very little willingness from either of you to try this. Fram (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Fram, I am not shooting you. Neither am I attempting some tired defense. Thank you. My point is you seem very focused on trying to change Rich, and unwilling to let go and walk away. If there is real damage occurring to the project, somebody else will step forward to address the issue. This does not require you. As Jenks24 notes below, it is time to disengage. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. I've tried not to comment here recently, but this keeps popping up on my watchlist. Fram, please disengage. You're doing more harm than good and there are literally thousands of other areas of the project where your time would be better spent. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Just as a point of order, I want to make sure everyone here is aware that a user talk page discussion like this cannot compel something like an interaction ban. One can certainly be suggested, and if the parties agree to it implemented (because if they both agree to lay off, no need to get community approval for it), but if the party or parties don't agree here, if you want to try to compel such a ban you'll need to take it to AN(I). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I offered this solution years ago, I have begged, implored, requested, cajoled, encouraged, even become slightly incivil in my attempts to persuade Fram to disengage. And he has been asked by numerous people, in this and at least one other of his long running series of disputes all with the same author. I don't think anything will persuade him which is why I have given up trying. If however, someone else thinks he will listen to reason, they are certainly welcome to try. And of course should he give such an undertaking he is a perfect liberty to break it at any time, it is not binding - even within Wikipedia we tend to elevate our "decisions" far beyond any reason, as if we were playing a gigantic game of gnomic. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
      • "Slightly incivil"? That's a mild understatement. "Numerous people" are those same three or so people turning a blind eye to problems that have seen one person banned and one de-adminned, restricted and nearly banned? Yep, I think I should really listen to their requests, they obviously defend our policies and guidelines in an impartial manner and represent community consensus. Or not. Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I come back to this page after several months of absence and it seems that there is a time-warp here. The same editor (um, admin) is still getting amazingly upset at Rich performing some very inconsequential edits. He objected, with some good reason, when Rich was making these changes in isolation. But now, it seems he's still complaining even though the inconsequential changes are now made in isolation of minor or significant edits. It seems clear to me now that there is something very personal and unhealthy about this interaction now. Both editors are amazingly good at what they do, except for their incessant feuding. I can understand how Rich feels like he's been continually hounded and harassed. Fram, please leave Rich alone. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Continually? Perhaps, if you come back after several months ofabsence, you should check first whether something has happened in your absence "continually", "occasionally", or "not at all". Secondly, I don't get "amazingly upset", I'm rather calm. I object to these edits no matter if they are made in isolation or not, they violate our MOS. While a number of interfering editors are making a fuss of this, Rich Farmbrough has changed his editing in this regard and is no longer changing the whitespace in headers, apart from a case where it was unbalanced (space at the front, not at the end) and where he was quite right to change it. The problem is that other people feel the need to turn this into a major thing, when if they would have left well alone, this would have been a very short and productive discussion; I remark on a problem in his edits, and he changes the way he edits. End of story. And considering this, I'll drop out of this totally unproductive meta-discussion, so that people's watchlist can cool off again. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Get it right. We are talking about edits nobody cares about one way or another, except you. We're not the ones climbing the Reichstag. "interfering editors are making a fuss". The hell it's not personal. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 09:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
            • @Fram; There would not be a "major" thing if you had dropped the stick and walked away, as a number of editors have asked you to do now. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Note[edit]

It has always seemed to me that there is a distinction between someone saying that something is a problem because it has caused them difficulties, and someone saying something is a problem because "it is". It has also seemed that there is a distinction in motivation between someone who happens across an edit and makes a query about it, compared with someone who inspects an editor's work looking for something to complain about, and then issues instructions. The fact that the complainant is wrong is really not too important. The basic problem is one of social ineptitude, in considering that it is either wise, useful or collegial to pursue this line.

While I am, for example, quite aware of what Fram is doing on Wikipedia, I deem it wise to let others deal with it at present, as they probably will in due course. This seems to me eminently sensible. Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Considering that ignoring your (and your bots) edits lead to hundreds of errors staying on Wikipedia for months, it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep a closer eye on your edits once I was aware that they regularly were problematic.

Anyway, I just checked, and before this section, my last post here was on June 1, i.e. over 3 months ago. Does put the problems of my "wikihounding" into perspective. On the other hand, between June 1st and now, Hammersoft has entered discussions after or because I was there, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#User:Fram refusing to stop mass category creation while RfC is going onWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:Alan Liefting again, and the Encyclopetey arbcom case. Practice what you preach? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Top ten albums for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top ten albums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top ten albums until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ext links as file names[edit]

Could you restart the process (or ask someone else to restart it, if applicable) that you used to whittle down the User:Rich Farmbrough/temp1000 list? A lot of the members of Category:Articles with missing files are "missing" them only because of coding that automatically supplies "File:", thus breaking links because the images aren't entitled "File:File:". I've fixed one as an example. Seems to me that a bot, regardless of who runs it (are you now allowed to again? It seemed so, from your comments at the BOTR section), could easily check pages in the category to see which images would work properly if "File:" were removed. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not allowed, once upon a time I would have assumed that, this being Wikipedia, no one would really care as long as I wasn't breaking anything. This seems to be an outdated social model (the waterhole is poisoned, or, if you prefer, the first mover advantage benefits the less desirable attitudes).
The issue you highlight is slightly confounded in that some templates may add File: and some may not, I haven't checked but I believe this is the case. Nonetheless it is worth producing a list and seeing how many items we get, then fixing them. Ideally the template code would handle both formats, come Lua that may be a realistic proposition.
I will let you know how this progresses.
Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
Beriev Be-30 is an example. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
Don't understand how the Beriev Be-30 is an example of this, since the only broken image was in freestanding code; I'm talking about situations such as the "fixed one" link that I gave. I'm just looking for situations in which the system supplies the "File:" prefix but in which someone nevertheless types it, causing improper duplication. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an example where "= File: " is actually correct. In this case
|image=File:Aeroflot Beriev Be-32.jpg
Rich Farmbrough, 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
  • I picked up 37 items, all should be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC).

AWB bot request for Guyana[edit]

Please advise me on what is likely to happen to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AWB bot request for Guyana.

I have been working with another editor, improving the coverage of Guyana in a variety of ways, and now I am looking for some automated help on the templates. Early on I added a somewhat inadequate template, and have realized that a better one should be used. If this request works out, then I will be going on to more complicated ones. I changed the {{photoreq|in=Guyana}} to {{photoreq|people of Guyana}} by hand, because there were so few of them. I never did run that setup you provided for doing that kind of change for Texas.

I am sure you are enjoying your Wikipedia Editor hat. I keep hoping that mine will allow me to recruit a new editor, but so far no luck. If I converse with someone about it and they decide not to go forward even though they admit that the use it frequently, I do suggest that they donate. User Smallbones and I may organize an event here in Philadelphia, but for my own part, not likely before November 7. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was of course delighted with the hat! As far as the bot request goes, they seem to be picked up in waves, and ignored in waves. It was indeed trying to clear this backlog that caused a little local difficulty. Nonetheless this is a simple request, and if someone does not pick it up before it archives, I suggest you simply re-submit it. Alternatively I could put together an AWB setting s file for you. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
Let's just wait a few days, and if I don't get a response, I will come back to you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AWB bot request for Guyana means that they archived my request without any response. It may be a simple request, so you can provide a settings file and whatever else I need to know to make it go on AWB. We can do it for Guyana, and then I will go on to Suriname and maybe elsewhere. I appreciate your help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rich: I would be extremely careful in proceeding with this. You know full well the lynch mob is waiting right outside your wikipedia-door ready to have you banned from the site for good. They previously sanctioned you because they thought two edits constituted automation. The extreme obtuseness demonstrated by this should be enough to convince you they will find a way to sanction you for creating an AWB settings file that someone else runs as a proxy for you. I would specifically, and directly, ask ArbCom permission to move forward on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rich, I am going to repeat my request officially. Thanks for your offer, but it is better that I pursue this with the official channels. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

Category:Occupy movement in Armenia[edit]

Category:Occupy movement in Armenia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

New dated category[edit]

Please see Category:Articles needing POV-check, which I created after a discussion on Template_talk:POV-check#Category_split_from_Disputed.3F. The structure might need some work to add the relevant monthly categories. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Pre-arbcom this would have been automatic of course. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

Differentiating reference syntax in the editing window[edit]

Hi Rich-- based on the village pump discussion on giving reference syntax a unique color to differentiate from other text while editing, I've opened up an RfC to expand the audience on the topic. You are welcome to participate anytime. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

cheers[edit]

Thanks for edits in my article, I appreciate that. I also made some minor changes, removed a words such "dr", "honorable" any that contradicts to be encyclopedic. Any more suggestions regarding that? Cheers, Sausa (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed there are three bare link references

for example. They can be improved, ideally (in my opinion) by using a cite template such as {{Cite web}}. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Sorry, a bit lost here. So, for example, this source: http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html do I need to put it in this way and leave it just like that?: http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html I am sorry if I misunderstand you, would appreciate very much if you explain me more. Cheers, Sausa (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, something like

{{Cite web|url=http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html|title=ქართველები უცხოეთში. მსოფლიო ტოპპიანისტების სიაში შესული ქართველი პიანისტი რომის პაპმა ვატიკანში მიიწვია |author= |date=2012-02-02|accessdate=2012-09-22}} {{In lang|ka}} which will show as
"ქართველები უცხოეთში. მსოფლიო ტოპპიანისტების სიაში შესული ქართველი პიანისტი რომის პაპმა ვატიკანში მიიწვია". 2012-02-02. Retrieved 2012-09-22. (in Georgian)

Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC).


Awesome!!! Will do. Thanks! Sausa (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Purple star for Helpful Pixie Bot[edit]

I gave you're Helpful Pixie Bot a Purple star. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The bot deserves it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

You've got mail[edit]

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Bots.
Message added 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rcsprinter (babble) @ 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)[edit]

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter
Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  • This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
  • It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
  • If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
  • The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
  • Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
  • Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
  • Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

...for taking care of that while I was off working. I do get the occasional malicious stalker. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Borderline username?[edit]

Since you're already working to defuse the drama, I was wondering -- is that username OK? I thought it might have been an coincidence until I saw the first entry on their block log. I realize that this isn't de.wikipedia which has much stronger rules on this, but still seems rather off-color. a13ean (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the fennec is a very popular animal to identify with. The choice of name is perhaps ill advised, but I don't think it is against policy. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC).
Ok, thanks. a13ean (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

Commons category[edit]

Hi, earlier this year you set up Category:Commons category template with no category set as a result of a discussion over problems with page moves. I was working through the articles in the category and a user has queried this indicating there was no consensus for routinely adding the article name (see here). Can you remember where the discussion was that started this? Thanks Keith D (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably Requests for Bot Work. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC).
Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC[edit]

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Energy resource facilities in the United States[edit]

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States to Category: Energy infrastructure in the United States Hugo999 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

AWB module for date format alignment[edit]

Rich,

I would like to incorporate code into dmy code and mdy code to insert '{{use dmy dates}}' to signal that the article has been processed. Can you help?

More generally, I would appreciate any advice you could give in updating same. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 05:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have some code for this. I'll try and dig it out. Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC).
FYI, code I used most recently is here. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I hereby award you an honorary degree (in Authoritarianism) in recognition for your long term contributions to Wikipedia,you are making a difference in the world by serving the world with information....Please continue the hard work ! User:Elianamwiha * Elianamwiha 08:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC).

Chicago article[edit]

I believe you put up a reference tag on the article for Chicago (band) in February, 2010. I cleaned it up some and perhaps you want to look in to see if the tag can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wemonk (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This is Exxolon. I suspect the other is someone else too. My bot merely dated the tags. However they can be removed at any editor's discretion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC).

Also reference tag for April 2008 appears to be yours as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wemonk (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ref web[edit]

Template:Ref web has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Digimon Fusion characters[edit]

Hi Rich; I fixed up all ten of the double redirects that you found - but in four cases I didn't use the section name that you requested, because it doesn't exist. Hopefully I picked the correct ones in replacement - if any were wrong, please reopen the request(s). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Really they should not be protected, then the bots would take care of it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

Maintenance counts[edit]

Hi, Rich! Hope you are doing fine.

Just wanted to let you know that there are over 1,500 articles in this category, yet this progress report starts from November, not October. I tried to fix it, but quickly got lost in the forest of template calls, so I'm passing this task into your capable hands :) (hoping you even care about this any more). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2012; 18:05 (UTC)

Yes, the progress box template goes back 6 years (extended from 5 years). Unfortunately, this template, like several hundred others I wrote, requires admin access to edit. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC).
 Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
Thank you, sir!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 16, 2012; 19:25 (UTC)

meta:Wikimedia Medicine[edit]

Thank you for your interest in meta:Wikimedia Medicine. We hope to create a non profit corporation to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we plan to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This will be done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on a number of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Message[edit]

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezhiki (talk • contribs) 19:25 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

An article you worked on has been nominated for deletion[edit]

MG Services has been nomiated for deletion. If you would like to comment on the discussion, it is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MG Services ColtsScore (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Albums category[edit]

Hi Rich. I noticed you recently edited Template:Albums category. If you have time, do you think you might be able to have a look at the "extra space" issue identified on the template's talk page? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC).
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talk • contribs) 16:19:23 October 2012 (UTC)

over/underlinking[edit]

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You seem to be one of the people with a "middle ground" view, and I'd appreciate any refinements to the proposal. If teh proposed draft replacement at the top of the page is something you'd support, I'd appreciate it if you could leave a note. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

An award from us (and the signpost :-) )[edit]

The Signpost Barnstar
This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us, Rich, with that achievement. We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. Gibraltarpedia.org is now showing the list of about 100 plaques - do take a look and see the languages we will be featuring.Victuallers (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Image use in WP[edit]

Hi Rich, I was wondering if you could help me. I've been running a couple of workshops in London for people who've given us money and are also willing to give us some time, and I think I've established that people are willing to donate an afternoon to WP, but not necessarily more. That might still be worthwhile if we can give them something where 5 minutes of setup can get them doing a couple of hours useful work. And for people who don't fancy adding referenced material the biggest and quickest wow is to add a picture to an article that doesn't have one. Every time I get a workshop to choose which image to use to illustrate an article everyone livens up and is happy to make a call.

But manually hunting for articles without images is time consuming. So I was wondering if you could create a list here or on Commons of wikipedia articles of English villages or anything with a UK geocode that don't have an image in the article, then we can search Commons and because of the Geograph more often than not add an image.

Alternatively a list on Commons of En Wiki articles that don't have an image but have an intrawiki link to an article in a different language that does have an image. ϢereSpielChequers 21:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Check random articles in Categories of Category:England geography stubs such as Great Smeaton, Kilby Bridge. Perhaps ask people attending which county they come from and then find a place and add the map based on it's coordinated. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, but many of them have images already. I'm looking to get lists of articles which lack images. ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm creating an ad-hoc list now. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
User:Rich Farmbrough/temp 110 Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
That's brilliant - I'll go and organise another workshop! Mind you there are only about 1500, and though that will certainly keep me going a while, I wonder if in future it will be possible to find more? For example Towns and villages in county etc without an image? ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes there's a deeper problem here, User:Dthomsen8 has been working on it, and got me involved at Wikimania. Unfortunately my hands are somewhat tied. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
Thanks for that, especially if that was a sufficiently useful list to get you close to dangerous territory. Yes I'll talk to Dthomsen, alternatively would you be able to produce such lists on Commons as opposed to here? There is some logic to that - for starters if we use the intrawiki route then this could be used to add images to whatever language people are comfortable with. I just need lists of Interwiki connected clusters where one or more articles have an image from commons and one or more has no images. ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

T'library[edit]

Hi Rich. I saw this and wondered if you knew about this. I stumbled over the latter by accident and, although it risks getting outdated, it is a phenomenal resource. (A couple of people have updated it but I don't think it gets actively tended.) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the resource available in total is huge. I have access to various "restricted" collections, and some little skill, I like to think, in finding public versions of other work. Nonetheless scientific research will be very much easier when the UK and EU open research priorities come into play. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC).

No inline citation tag[edit]

Can you peek at James W. Booth and Charles F. Tabor and Roswell A. Parmenter and Isaac V. Baker Jr. and help decide whether the {{no footnotes|date=October 2012}} tag should be in the article or not. I have been adding them, then removing them as I switch to in-line citations. The creator of the articles has been removing infoboxes and reverting the inline citations as in Alfred Wagstaff Jr. I remove the tag when I change the general references to inline citations so that each fact has a reference, but I need them so I know which ones to go back to later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that is tangential to any real issues between the two editors. You need to resolve these issues not worry about the {{No footnotes}} template. (Were it just the template I would say simply keep a list of the articles to enable productivity in place of strife.) There are a few issues that I would draw to your attention, though I expect you are both familiar with them:
  1. General references are good.
  2. There is no need to source every single fact if there is a clear attribution.
  3. Inline references are also good, and can be added to an article with general references.
  4. Wikipedia prefers articles to be based on multiple sources, where possible
Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC).

Merge discussion for Kuliglig [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kuliglig , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Image2012 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to do so. Image2012 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Cite_quick TfD result was Keep, in use[edit]

Unlike the prior TfD for Template:Fcite, the result for Template:Cite_quick, on 21 October was "Keep" with no restrictions (none of the keep-don't-use nonsense), and other users have put {cite_quick} in articles. I restored it into "Julian Assange" to reduce edit-preview from 39 to 8 seconds! If I had not studied the template-timing issues, I would not even believe it can reformat in 8 seconds now (slow templates using 32 seconds can drag to 39-60 on a busy server). I had to use {cite_quick} to rescue mega-article "Barack Obama" which crashed half-page, often as fatal timeout with wp:Wikimedia Foundation error, and that rescue had triggered the latest TfD now stopped. Other people saw the rapid speed, and refused deletion of {cite_quick}. Hostile opponent User:Br'er Rabbit (aka fictional "Jack Merridew") was blocked 48h for edit-war on {Civility}, then sock-puppet SP/I led to indef-block, and many editors imposed community ban. Lua script-writer, opponent User:Uncle_G (contribs) disappeared 11 September 2012, and I had to finish the Lua-based cite templates on test2.wiki, which are even faster than {cite_quick}. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good, I'm sure the Lua version will resolve many problems. I am not surprised at all at the efficiency gains. You should know, by the way, that Br'er rabbit is also a fictional character. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

Msg[edit]

Hi, I sent you a reply some days ago, please check you wiki-mail. Thank you! Elitre (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Rich,

Would you like to mosey over to DYK Right About Here and add to the conversation inspired by you? Personally, I'm getting a little sick of "...over on Jimbo Wales' page..." Bring it home to us, Rich. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Have done. :). Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at ToniSant's talk page.
Message added 09:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ToniSant (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Roblox rustman89 and rustman65 and rustman56[edit]

I note your comment on my talk page. With respect, I suggest that the other edits made at the same time by this editor suggest that your assessment of this edit is at least questionable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


Help to get a copy of Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012[edit]

Please help get at least the latest copy of this article before it was deleted: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 It was a lot of work. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at WP:REFUND. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 06:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crunkcore, Talk:Kesha/Archive 4, Talk:Kesha/Archive 2". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 22:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm TruPepitoM. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 4987 Flamsteed because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 23:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]


A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Thank u for your efforts vis-a-vis Penyulap! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

Thanks![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Dear Rich, well done for contributing over a million edits to the English language Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - and well spotted, I thought that day was still a way off. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

RfD: Matthew XX:XX -> Gospel of Matthew[edit]

Howdy chief. This RfD relates to a set of redirects you created in 2006. - TB (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Geography of the Palestinian territories[edit]

I just made an discovery about that redirect, that I posted to it's RFD, that answers your question about why nobody has written article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_1#Geography_of_the_Palestinian_territories.
Message added 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Note[edit]

Bish, Elen, Rich: I've been trying to work out in my head how to say this, hoping to formulate something especially enlightened, pithy, succinct or compelling. Having crossed paths with all of you all overs the years, I've developed appreciation and respect for your efforts here. Seeing this develop has been like watching the beginning of a car crash: you see it develop, you know it's going to be bad, and there doesn't seem like there's a damn thing you can do to stop it. The best I've come up with is:

You're all acting like idiots, please stop.

I don't see specific enumeration, or relative ranking of your recent missteps, as a useful exercise. Penyulap was blocked by Coren back in July, followin an ANI discussion, so the good or bad of the block is on him. Whether or not Penyulap's talk page access is enabled isn't really significant to Wikpedia - the Encyclopedia. It's not that important, and certainly not important enough for ya'll to be at each other's throats. You all are hereby banned by the Ent from interacting with each other for a week or so, or until your brains return to their usually rational state. This ban will not be enforced by blocks, threats or noticeboard dramas, but rather (hopefully) by their being enough sanity in your respective brains to see the wisdom in what a very old Ent is sayin. Nobody Ent 15:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hooom now. I was being rather un-hasty in trying to unwind the sanctions a little at a time. It took longer than I ever expected. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
It's been suggested by Bish & Elen that I'm not being helpful so I am redirecting my wiki-efforts elsewhere. Nobody Ent 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Tbullet}}[edit]

...is a great template. Thanks.

It's not important at all, but I thought I'd let you know that it's broken by {{u}} - I'd fix it but my templating skills aren't good enough to debug the problem.

Expected:

Actual:

Best, — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC).

 Fixed, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Great! (To both of you!) Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
Woo! Thanks Redrose64! :) — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enfiorcement[edit]

I have started a discussion about your apparent violation of your arbcom imposed restrictions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Note that the case also mentions that the alleged arbcom restriction violations are also clear violations of your indefinite Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well of course you have. Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Talkback 30 Oct[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at User talk:Titan602/monobook.js.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at User talk:Titan602/monobook.js.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at User talk:Titan602/monobook.js.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at User talk:Titan602/monobook.js.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Recruitment policy RFC[edit]

FYI: I replied to your comments on the recruitment policy RFC. --EpochFail(talk|work) 14:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Several articles[edit]

Heyo. You may wish to re-write your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Template:This template is used in several articles, as the template is not intended to ever be used in articles, but merely as an info/warning ombox in Template: namespace. It and its main alias ({{SA}}) are transcluded in 117 instances (as template-documentation). ;) —Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes...... your nomination said "all templates are in use on several articles"... maybe I need to work on my material. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

In re Penyulap[edit]

Copied and undented from Penyulap's talk page; that isn't the place for this. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you are prejudging the ombudsman complaint. But once the ombudsman complaint has been made, Courcelles should not be taking additional admin actions against the complainant. We have over 1,000 admins only a handful count as involved. And it would be bad enough if there was cause for the block, but clearly there isn't, which makes it look like a revenge block. That's why I describe it as a monumental gaffe. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

I'm not prejudging it; there is nothing to prejudge. The ombudsman commission handles very exactly one thing: violations of the privacy policy, and no violation of that policy has even been alleged. In fact, the "complaint" not only doesn't state what it's supposed to be about (except the block, which has nothing to do with the ombudsmen at all), it doesn't even name Courcelles!

I don't believe for a minute that you could be suggesting seriously that an administrator should be automatically considered WP:INVOLVED as soon as someone makes some vague complaint, regardless of merit or relevance. This isn't about propriety and involvement, it's about wanting to disqualify an administrator whose decision you find disagreeable; the putative email to the ombudsmen commission is just a pretext. — Coren (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not really vague, it has always been accepted that checkuser is not to be used gratuitously, as it is an invasion of privacy. This is just such a gratuitous use. The argument that it was slap-dash just makes it worse. The complaint is clearly not about the block, but the use of checkuser.
And yes certainly Courcelles is the only admin Penyulap has complained about and suddenly he is blocking? He should know better. There are other reasons Courcelles should be recusing himself from dealing with Penyulap, which he is aware of.
I'm not sure why people have it in for Pen, and I have not commented on your block, nor indeed examined the circumstances, but almost every other sanction I have looked at has been without reasonable foundation.
This constitutes in my eyes bullying and possibly discrimination too. And yes I certainly find that disagreeable. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
Allright; you appear sincere, so I want to understand what you mean. How exactly is a normal sock sweep an invasion of privacy? I mean, yes – it reveals some technical information to the checkuser that can lead to a geographical location if they care to look it up (which is by no means habitual) – but the point is just "what other accounts are operated by this user, if any?" This is hardly gratuitous or unusual in the case of someone who has operated alternate accounts in the past; and Penyulap actually claimed he would sock around the block (whether in earnest or as a jest is unclear). — Coren (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons we don't do sock sweeps. We have a process where someone has to present a prima facie case that socking is going on, before a CU will look use the CU function. Arbitrators (or other check-users) are not supposed to go on fishing expeditions, (but they do, as we have recently discovered). From information leaked by people "doing their Wiki duty" I could, if I wished, almost certainly identify a number of editors, so this is not merely a hypothetical.
But for the purposes of this exercise, all you need to be convinced of is that there is a reasonable chance that Pen is making a serious complaint. At that point the person he is complaining about needs to disengage from admin actions.
I do not necessarily expect that Pen will, even if given the chance, even if he asks for an unblock, return to editing. And of course it is possible that if that happens he will be re-blocked. Yet I still think it is important that we really attempt to observe the types of protocols that work well elsewhere for matters like conflict of interest, for situations where we are incurring legal and moral responsibilities, for actions that do not fall within BRD. (And this is not a bright line, a few years ago admins would reverse each other's blocks and neither think anything of it. Now people get sniffy if you undelete a page, without great discussion, and make claims of wheel warring and the like.) But having a reliable trustworthy regulatory apparatus allows the day to day operation to be faster, more dynamic and (apparently) risk taking - without risking anything that can't be simply fixed (except perhaps dented egos - which should be checked at the edit button anyway). Rich Farmbrough, 04:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
Sorry if I rambled a bit, but it's very late. Rich Farmbrough, 04:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

WP:AN discussion[edit]

I have started a discussion at WP:AN#Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction. Fram (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

barnstar[edit]

Purple Barnstar with Oak Leaf cluster
I award you the purple barnstar with oakleaf cluster, for equanimity, under continual hounding. You have proven by your conduct, too good for this toxic culture; may you bring productivity to whatever team you grace by your efforts. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't mind the hounding - that's only one and a half people, it is that so many people are so easily taken in by it that I find a disappointment. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

Block[edit]

The community has restricted you per the following: Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. [8] [9] is a clear violation of that restriction, as there is no prior approval. Accordingly, I have blocked you for two weeks, since you were already blocked for one week in September 2011 for violating this restriction. The rationale behind this restriction is the same rationale behind the automation restriction: complaints regarding mistakes such as inappropriate tagging, requiring users to check over your work.

For the record, [10] is highly inappropriate as a personal attack, and your battleground mentality at Courcelles' talk page is also worrisome (there is a difference between discussion and badgering). However, I did not factor either of those into the block. Also for the record, I haven't taken the time to figure out who Penyulap is, so I have no opinion in that matter. --Rschen7754 09:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So it took you four minutes to research this? Deliberative indeed. Including the time to type the, message it must have taken you maybe 30 seconds?
Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
I actually typed it up in a sticky note beforehand and copied and pasted it here after the block. --Rschen7754 10:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Before the ANI/I was posted? Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
Ah I beg your pardon. It was Fram that waited until the discussion was well underway before notifying me. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
  • Tough break, Rich. Once the pitchforks are out and flaming torches lit, they're never put away again. Personally I don't have a problem with adding WikiProject banners to the talk pages of relevant articles; and if the talk page needs to be created in so doing, then I don't hesitate. They're even sniffing around me now, claiming "the surprising rate (several edits on different articles per minute sometimes)" with no basis in fact (I've never done more than three edits in one minute, and rarely manage even two). So if I'm under scrutiny for my edit rate, what hope is there for any serious WP:GNOME? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree and unfortunately it was just a matter of time before someone found a reason, valid or otherwise to block you Rich. Its unfortunate to say but this is a large part of the reason I am not around anymore. I only wanted to comment here because of how stupendously stupid and petty the block was and I hope they (Fram, Rschen and Arbcom) are watching. Stupid blocks like this for petty reasons by people who do very little. Hundreds of thousands of edits a month now fail to be done because you and your bots are blocked and or restricted thanks to the "Wisdom" of Arbcom and a couple of their lackies. I hate to sound like a pessimist or a Redrose, they comment about anyone who does volume edits. Fram and a few others are systematically eliminating any editor who does volume edits for any reason they can find and its one of the many movements that is killing the pedia....systematically, deliberately and maliciously and no (Fram, Rschen and Arbcom) I am not going to "take it back" as an 8 year old would ask me to do (probably while puting and stomping their foot too I might add). I mean and believe what I said. Kumioko (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

<meh> If I was Rschen I would probably have thought I needed blocking. Rschen was doubtless biased by my calling out of Courcelles on his WP:INVOLVED block of Penyulap, but nonetheless can't be faulted for not knowing that Fram regularly attacks me using AN , AN/I, ARbcom and anything else he can. Nor could he be expected to know that the editing restriction is under dispute, and I had served notice that I was going to start addressing some of these historical anomalies.

It is certainly true that I won't be able to request administrator intervention in the case of Courcelles/Penyulap, so that is a shame. While Wikipedia is innovative, we have many of the characteristics of previous organisations, including documented cases of "bad eggs" in Arbcom, so why we think we should be free of people simply making wrong decisions based on prejudice and lack of application is a mystery.

I do think it is not a good idea to block an established editor who has only had 3 minutes notice of a discussion.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

I had originally posted a variant this on a user talk page, last spring, but I think it applies here and to some other long time users, so I've essified it. Please see Pioneers. Nobody Ent 13:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, except that is a perspective, and hence distorting. Every stage of development good stuff is introduced, but due to lack of systems thinking the total effect is always more regulation, and generally more scope for incompetence and corruption. Thus when Wikipedia as a community was almost entirely on-wiki, there were still outrageous behaviours, but "by their fruits" you could know them. This, for example, was why well-behaved socks of banned users were widely tolerated. Nonetheless there were cases where the community felt it needed a decision making body, and a reasonably good stab was the original arbcom - I was never particularly interested in sanctioning other users, so I didn't follow the development, and only a year or so ago discovered the horrors of the Mantemorland case (where Arbcom went to town on the good guy and let the socking COI guy carry on). This was exposed by detailed work by a number of users - and the Arbcom mailing list of the time later leaked, making them (with notable exceptions) look even worse. Had the bulk of this discussion taken place on-wiki (as it could have) there is a good chance this foolishness could have been averted, and, even if it had not, no one would have been able to say "it was obvious I would have told you" - moreover the unwise remarks made in the ostensible private mailing list would probably not have been made in public. This was the highest profile and highest level cock-up, but we also had some other biggies like essjay and rlevese (the latter which we totally failed as a community to handle in a human way). These matters are all different but they share commonality:
  • Process before people
  • Lack of openness
  • Jumping to conclusions
These are all things that have happened in pioneer societies, just less so. Hmm... just had a thought... I know that name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
AH yes, one of the twin gods of USRD. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
The whole situation makes me quite angry frankly. That two established editors and admins should know better than to do this sort of foolishness and be allowed to get away with it. Just more drama from USRD members. If a regular editor did this sort of crap they would be scolded and blocked but because they are admins they are allowed to do whatever they want and all people say are, well they are admins so they must be right. Hogwash. This is why I quite editing and retired. Good luck Rich, I wish I could do something to help but at this point this system is hopelessly degraded to the point where Arbcom and rogue admins like Fram and Rschen have gotten too much control and editors are just a nuisance that needs to be blocked so that the admins will have a little less work to do. Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep I wouldn't want to characterize Rschen as a bad guy, just over hasty. Block now ask questions later. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
There are days when I regret my decision to retire from editing. Today was not one of them! In fact it solidified in my mind that the decision was the right one. With the situation you now face and the attitude of other editors about your grievace crimes of performing edits, I have truly seen that this place is no longer a good place to spend my time. I still very much believe in the project, however the beauracracy and process before people (or rather in my opinion process over pedia) mentality is going to and is, destroying the site. Good luck to you. I am not going to keep commenting because no one cares and they seem to have it in their head to block you or ban you at all costs regardless of what other policies are broken by the admins with that goal. Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
In all the excitement, some of us may have been mislead. While we may disagree with Rschen's actions, I agree with Rich that it is Fram's behaviour that is most disturbing. Fram raised a case against Rich at WP:AE, and the case was rejected. Before that case was even closed, Fram opened a new case against Rich at WP:AN, and only notified him of it 3 minutes before he was blocked. (The excuse was that Fram "forgot" it was "separate", even when they opened the new section on the new noticeboard themselves.)
Fram's not just finished with Rich, though. At the same time, Fram was also opening a proposal on WT:DYK (later moved to WP:AN) to ban another prolific content contributor, Laura Hale, from her main activity and the area she was advised to concentrate on in her last editor review. This nasty and vindictive proposal did not gain community support.
It seems like, if Fram can't get one person blocked, Fram goes after that person another way. And anyway, Fram goes after multiple people all at the same time - throw enough mud, and some will stick!
Fram, are you prepared to ask for the community's confidence in your continuing to hold administrator privileges on this project?
If not, please would you explain your reasons for not doing so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm definitely involved in the LauraHale situation, but I thought that that discussion was ill-advised. --Rschen7754 01:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what further discussion would have done - it was a clear violation of the sanctions placed on you by the community. All that further discussion has done has given Kumioko another opportunity to further his vendetta against WP:USRD - which is neither here nor there, because USRD isn't connected to this block or the circumstances surrounding this block at all. I may be a prominent member, but I am not USRD, and USRD is not me, and none of the USRD prominent members (2/3 of which are non-admins by the way) are drama-generators as Kumioko claims. --Rschen7754 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think the language of the sanctions matches the old offenses. I do not think your interpretation of the sanctions language now matches the intention of the sanctions. I do not think that adding templates to (created) talk pages rises to the level of creating incorrect categories: extent of harm matters. I think fast manual editing should not be punished. And I think that error rate should be considered: IMHO, <2% is satisfactory. Jurisprudence, and that's what it is, requires more than the narrowest reading. That's what discussion would have brought to the table. I shall not pursue this further, but I wanted to make those few points clear, away from the clutter of the discussion elsewhere. --Lexein (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


Reply to Rschen[edit]

If we had had the discussion you might have benefitted from it, rather than making assumptions. Always "better jaw jaw than war war". For example it is not a community restriction it is arbitrarily imposed by one editor. And I doubt it was intended to apply to talk pages or welcoming new users. To assume that you know everything about long running disputes based on a few lines of biased text is a mistake.
And doubtless I shouldn't have raised USRD, but there is no doubt that many "fellow Americans"[Reply to Rshen 1] have treated Kumioko despicably, I am glad to hear that USRD members were not among their number.
I'm sure there will be no more drama-generating accusations of Kumioko having a "vendetta". And no more WP:OWNy approaches such as you made previously on my talk page. And no more WP:OWNy (and ABF)statements such as "I've seen instances where they try to claim our FAs but not our stubs, when they haven't even done any work on the FAs to begin with." Or decisions about banning users made within the USRD project.
But laying that aside (and I'm glad I reminded myself of these facts) there is certain irony in being blocked by an editor who may be WP:INVOLVED because he chose to intervene where I was calling another out on making a WP:INVOLVED block. And in the above section I mention why we need to be careful making blocks where WP:INVOLVED is an issue, firstly we must not be knowingly biased, secondly we must not be seen to be biased, and thirdly we must not be unconsciously biased. As I said in the other matter, there are over 1000 admins who are not involved. In future it would be wise to let one of them make the block instead of making it yourself.
Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
I'm sorry, but how was I involved? I have only been involved in either situation in the administrative role, which is permissible per WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh? So if you had not been an admin you wouldn't have commented? Your morals are predicated on your role? I take a different approach, however lofty Courcelles role, and however humble an editor I may be (and however much I find him likeable) I will not stand idly by while he makes a massive gaffe, that unfairly blocks another user. And leaping to the defence of a poor oppressed arbitrator, who is apparently cut to ribbons by my simply stating facts and offering advice may be all well and laudable, but to retroactively claim that you had your "admin hat" on (which again means you should think about what you are doing) is stretching a point.
I don't really mind that you blocked me, but you could at least take on board a little free advice for the future.
  1. Don't jump in to situations you have only the faintest idea about.
  2. Think about not just your doubtless pure intentions, but how it will seem to others.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
The issue isn't that you brought up a concern, the issue is that you were quite disruptive after it, posting section after section, post after post, without waiting for a reply. It was so bad that I was leaving a gentle note to begin with, which I would have escalated to a warning and then a block. Note that I haven't gone and blocked Bishonen, for example. There's plenty of people who are willing to take up your position in a more respectful manner; drop the stick and back away, please. The other issue is that it's obvious that you have an ax to grind against ArbCom; I've seen it on virtually all the drama boards. I don't believe in blindly endorsing all that ArbCom does (I have been sanctioned by ArbCom in the distant past) but this battleground mentality that you have is beyond the pale. --Rschen7754 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a battleground mentality - and is it not useful to ascribe one to me. Nor do I have an axe to grind against arbcom. I take issue with much of the way it is set up, partly for reasons of governance, one of which is the matter of checkuser privileges, which is open to abuse. I should point out that quite a number of previous members of arbcom have been shown to have feet of clay in very public fora, and if you look at the leaked arbcom mailing list with phrases like "any member of the committee, or ex-member that breaks ranks on this issue" showing how shot through with group-think it has been (see also the Mantemoreland affair). Of course we all hope that this bunch are better, certainly NewYorkBrad, Risker, Sir Fozzie, Roger Davies stand out as far as I can remember (probably others), and certainly Jclemens stands out as irredeemably bad (for example, boasting that, unlike other Arbs he does not deliberate). But statistically we can expect a bad egg from time to time, which is why these governance issues are so important. And, moreover, by not addressing them, a culture of abuse can proliferate, on the grounds that "hey we're the good guys, sure we're searching without a warrant, but no harm, no foul". These observations were not base on any interaction with Arbcom, they simply hit me in the face when I started to look at the rules governing arbcom (which I had to, since I was being persecuted there, and was expected to know and follow the rules, unlike the other participants, the clerk and the arbitrators ). Normally I take little or no interest in "the drama boards" and had just assumed that ArbCom was set up sensibly by the sage figures who founded it, up 'til Xeno's crazy motion on BetaCommand derailed community processes - even then I thought it was right process, wrong outcome, which happens.
My only other major issue with arbcom qua arbcom, did however come out of my case, when Roger Davies, I think it was, said after the case that most Arbs do not read the workshop. (Note, I had been advised by arbs or functionaries, I forget which, that I could make my refutations there, since the "case" is limited to 500 words.) The obvious result of this is that the committee largely goes with the drafting arb. For this reason I suggest that instead of the committee sitting en banc three or five arbitrators should hear a case - the workload being too great otherwise (and again leaked emails and general comments form arbitrators confirm this). I tried to gather information about this at Wikimania, while Riskier was forthcoming quoting figures around 40 hours a week, Courcelles and Kirill were vague.
So that's pretty much it. At some point I will have to spend time defusing the editing restrictions, then revisiting ArbCom, who I am sure did their best, but really I'd much rather get on with building the encyclopaedia, whatever you may think.
The only exception is, as I said, if I become aware of an abuse of power, or other malfeasance, whether through intent or error, I will try to have it corrected. And I am not apologetic about that.
Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
Have you considered the possibility that your actions in "try[ing] to have it corrected" have been viewed as abusive? And yes, I was among the people expressing disapproval at Jclemens, but when he said he wasn't going anywhere, I dropped it as elections are a month away and it's not worth making a big stink about it. --Rschen7754 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't follow the Malleus case - and I believe that apart from that unfortunate turn of phrase I might have sided with Jclemens, but I know little enough about it not to want to express a firm opinion.
And of course some of what you say is correct, I should have re-factored my comments rather than adding to them. But the more I looked at what Courcelles had written the more I was shocked. One of the questions he censored twice was why he had described a light hearted reference to archive bots choking on Penyulap's page as " admitting he is just wasting the project's resources". And of course C is in daily contact with Elen of the Roads, who it had taken me two months to convince (and even then I needed help) of the obvious fact that she should not have blocked Penyulap's talk page access in the first place. (I do not comment on Coren's original block, because I have not researched it, but every sanction I have seen applied against Pen, except one trivial one, has been groundless, and that one would have been better left undone.) And only at this point did I return to check the content of Pen's talk page and found that instead of just an unwise, hasty and unfortunate block, this was in the class that, were it left unfixed, might, in fact should, result in de-sysopping Courcelles. At that point it was immediately apparent that Courcelles needed to take urgent action, so I left a note, then emailed him. I still think he does not see the gravity of what he has done. He deleted the public record of complaint against him, then blocked the user on demonstrably spurious grounds. At this point he has a maximum of 24 hours to revert himself before it is a resigning matter, in my opinion. Just possibly if he does it before it hits the media (and it will if he does nothing - Wikipediocracy are always on the lookout for "good" material, though luckily they don't take much interest in my talk page as far as I know) he might be OK. And this is not a Wikipedia matter only, this stuff follows you around - which is why David Gerard insisted that ArbCom rescind the false impression they put out that he had leaked checkuser results. Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
For the record, [11]. But honestly, there's plenty of other people involved in the discussion that your pitchfork doesn't need to be there as well. --Rschen7754 03:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It's no a pitchfork. It's a wakeup call. And Courcelles is apparently a very deep sleeper. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ And others.

User talk:Jimbo Wales[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I have been following the conversation on Jimbo's page, and would be grateful if you could post the following there for me - under my own name of course, in the section Seriously, "deeply concerned ..." .

--begin--
This idea that Wikipedia is not "Real Life" is fallacious. I have had at lest two editors contacting me saying that they were suffering ill health because of abuse on Wikipedia, and two who have felt close to taking their own lives. In every case but one administrators (individuals, not as a cadre) were responsible.

You have to remember our editor demographic corresponds very closely to the suicide demographic. It is only a matter of time before "Wikipedia editor takes own life" is a headline, and I just hope that when that evil day happens none of us have anything to reproach ourselves with.

(Note: We have of course lost editors to suicide, but not due to Wikipedia a far as I know.)

Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
--end--
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

 Done Wifione Message 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

French communes[edit]

Hi Rich - really nice to meet you in Cambridge the other day. I see you've been involved at some point with WP:WikiProject French communes, and wondered if you knew any general context for a question I have about French communes. They've been relatively well-served by interwiki bot efforts: e.g. User:Rar's bot putting them up on uk.wiki in early 2010, with the result that the Ukrainian wiki has 30 times as many geotagged French articles as US articles. Do you have any idea why they should have been so widely ported across different wikis, compared to similar administrative units in other countries? Was the structured data for them fuller / available earlier / differently licensed / inherently more interesting than that for other countries? Any hypotheses or suggestions as to who might know welcome! Best wishes, Dsp13 (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I might modestly suggest when I had finished with them the infoboxes were all completely standardized on en: - they were presumably standardised on fr:, I can't really remember. They were also a hairsbreadth away from either being ported to {{Infobox settlement}} or having the infobox made into a wrapper, unfortunately they divereged.
The other nice feature is that they are dispersed across the world, and there are Commons maps for them all. Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration Committee[edit]

I have sent an email, followed by a short postscript to the arbitration committee. 24 hours later I have had no response from a functionary that it has been forwarded to the list (or declined). The same thing happened in May, and I never got a response. I am aware that I am not the only person that ArbCom has ignored, however it seems to me that it is a matter for the Committee, although even then I would expect them to send me a mail saying "we have decided to ignore you" rather than the mailing list moderators.

I would appreciate some clarification of what's happening here, this is a time sensitive issue, and I cannot for the sake of the encyclopaedia simply let this matter drop. I will be deciding my next steps, if necessary, when I return to my desk in about 5 hours.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Just sent you an acknowledgement. Not sure why this didn't happen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
OK thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC).


List of Net channels AFD[edit]

Hi, Rich. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

UTRS[edit]

The UTRS system is hosted on toolserver. Who has access to this data? Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC).


Deleted page[edit]

 Done ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone send me the text of Salmon Fishing, please? Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, that supports my contention, FWIW. Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

Sockpuppet template wording[edit]

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts."

Can someone change this to something that makes sense such as

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used an alternate account."

Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

No. The original is better. It is possible that the operator has only one account, but edits abusively using open proxies. More often the operator is a serial sockmaster with many accounts that have been used abusively. To speak of an 'alternate' account in such circumstances is unhelpful as the sockmaster was usually blocked ages ago, and is in no position to create 'alternate' accounts. Your repeated contention that a blocked user can legitimately create an alternate account does not alter the actual block policy, which says that they cannot. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"Your repeated contention that a blocked user can legitimately create an alternate account" I said this when? Oh you mean bittybattbotisnotabot? Completely different, and I have no problem with legitimate alternate accounts of blocked accounts being blocked (although in cases where it is clearly not necessary it is uncivil). And I never said that, because you never explained at the time it first came up, instead pointing to the Commons, you would have not looked so curmudgeonly if you had pointed to en: in the first place.
So laying aside the neat little dig that is so wide of the mark, (I am coming to know you better, I guess, Elen) lets look constructively at the phrasing.
The current phrasing is bad because it implies that abusing one account a.k.a. vandalism is quite possibly covered - and the way things are commonly worded "one or more" is often lawyer-speak for one. On the other hand you bring up three cases that potentially confuse the issue.
  1. Open proxies. I don't understand why you mention this. An open proxy is just another IP address, either an account is used or an IP. (IP addresses are of course a consideration in their own right.)
  2. Alternate is not a good word, I guess you are saying, though if the sockmaster is in no position to create alternate accounts, what is this thing we are blocking?
We have {{IP sock}}, so this should only be used on named accounts. If there is no other named account then this is the sockmaster, I would presume,and should be tagged as such.
We then can guarantee there is another named account involved (though we may, which is fine, just want to call them all sock puppets).
I would suggest then we can say clearly and without fear of contradiction:

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used more than one account."

(OK there are still problems when they haven't been abusive, but we have templates for that - sock of an indeffed user, sock of a blocked user, I am sure are wordings I have seen. I even saw one that told the future and said it was an account that was going to be used abusively, but that is a tangent.)

So are we getting somewhere better than where we were?
Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Certainly one to discuss wider. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please take to the appropriate talk page then. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

I came, I saw, I blocked[edit]

User:Dohardthings was warned for vandalism and (possible) socking, on 24 October. The user subsequently created a good faith article on the same day. On the 4th of November Elen of the Roads blocked this editor, for "abusive socking".

Can some uninvolved admin unblock, please.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

This was done with checkuser information (having seen the related SPI), so it's a checkuser block. --Rschen7754 19:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Please read my edit notice. I am well aware that I often think things are clear when they are obscure. While I make mistakes, and despite Elen saying the opposite, I am by no means an idiot. Also I tried to be a little subtle and just get the consequences of a mistake dealt with rather than brandishing my pitchfork.
  • Elen while casting her net wide on a different matter found that two accounts were editing using the same IP address, and one assumes the same version of the same browser. She blocked both as abusive socks.
  • This is wrong for so many reasons:
    • Zerothly it looks like the net was cast far to wide, constituting fishing
    • Firstly both accounts had already been left messages telling them about socking
    • Secondly the vandalism from both accounts had stopped and one account was making positive contributions - no need to block
    • Thirdly when new users make socks we only block the sock, and not the master, while we explain the socking policy
    • Fourthly the abuse of the accounts did not fall under socking restrictions
    • Fifthly these accounts are obviously children, or as I prefer to call them "Editors of Tomorrow!" so that User:Meters took exactly the right line with the {{Uw-agf-sock}} template "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia."
I would appreciate if, to help my communication skills improve, anyone could say which of the above reasons were not immediately apparent on a cursory glance at the evidence. Also where in my two line synopsis "User is bad, user is warned, user is henceforth good, user gets blocked" it is not obvious that this is a bad block? Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
I'll do you one better and give you an explanation. One of the reason blocks are marked {{checkuser}} is because the checkuser has more information available to make a decision than non-checkusers do. For instance, I double checked Elen's block to see if it was reasonable to unblock, and found that the editor is (a) clearly not a child, (b) sufficiently technically astute to attempt to dissimulate the socking (though not very well), (c) attempting said dissimulation before they were warned, and (d) flat out lying about it.

Your assumptions were incorrect, which is quite normal since you based them on incomplete information. Where you erred is that in your zeal to find fault With Elen, you simply presumed that the blocks were bad even though you knew you did not have enough information to make a judgement in the matter. — Coren (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust
Conversely I think your AGF is failing. I did not label the section "Elen makes another idiotic block", rather made light of it, and suggested that the user be unblocked, not that Elen be reprimanded. We already knew that these two accounts were closely linked - it is obvious to anyone with a grain of sense, no super powers possessed only by the immortal few are required. I am though, delighted that checkuser has been upgraded to include an "age" field, and that you can tell the difference between dissimulation and dissimilation, so to speak. I hope that you did not make any bad faith assumptions - while I, for example use almost exclusively Palemoon to edit, I have at least five other browsers (and different versions of those) installed on a good half dozen machines, not counting machines used by other people (and often shared), and other devices that give browsing capability. Moreover my IP address changes regularly. Were someone to see editing from these different devices (especially when some were using other browsers as default) they might conclude that I was "sufficiently technically astute to attempt to dissimulate the socking (though not very well)". We can, for example, construct perfectly normal hypotheses that two children in the same class (pace your Child Catcher MediaWiki extension) were working on the same book review, with their laptops at child A's house and one of them decided to vandalize Camel and did so twice suing both accounts, either on the same machine or on different ones. Or their is one child who made two accounts, one on his laptop and one on the family computer. Or this happened at school. Or they moved between home and school, or between Child A's house and Child B's house. These are all typical behaviours for children, as is thinking they can "get away" with vandalism, until found out.
Alternatively you want us to believe that an adult, with ill intent but "1337" skills created an article on Salmon Fishing, vandalised Camel in a painfully obvious and childish way (perhaps a perl hacker?) and when rebuked created a childish start article displaying his 1337 skills (the html "big" tag) again, then ceased editing for 11 days.
(For the avoidance of doubt I have set up several MediaWiki installations including one at home, and I am familiar with the CheckUser extension.)
I'm sorry but unless a Lower Merion School type enhancement to vector.js has been slipped it I find your response a "bald and unconvincing narrative."
Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
I guess it's a good thing you aren't a checkuser on enwp, then. — Coren (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I don't want you to believe anything; you are quite welcome to believe anything you please. I suppose the mistake was entirely mine to take a moment to look into a matter you raised. — Coren (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, you made a reasonable fist of explaining it. Except explaining how Checkuser gives you the age of an editor. Or why a block was necessary when (presumed) socking had ceased. Really I don't care if this is a 90 year old editor with technical skills of Larry Wall, the simple fact is - warned about bad behaviour, stopped it - end of story. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Ok, let's try this again without the snark. I suppose you can be earnest despite your needlessly combative tone. "Children" do not normally have a combination of six computers and browsers at home, generally do not take care to switch between them and back within a minute to create "alternate accounts", and do not make "productive edits" in good faith with a sock while vandalizing with others. They also do not create more accounts after being warned (but before being blocked) from yet another OS/browser. Funnily enough, pretending to be a child and making "childish" edits is a relatively common MO from a number of known trolls, and some editing patterns are quite recognizable to someone who has been looking an enwp logs for a while.
So, once more, checkusers make their determinations using information you are not aware of. That you find the conclusions unconvincing is, at best, uninformed musings. — Coren (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(Oh, an no – just in case there was a doubt – I don't believe for a minute that there was a nice testing lab involved containing an impressive diversity of older computers handy for the shenanigans. It's much easier to use the nice UA switching option of one's browser than to edit from a museum of computing). — Coren (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite pleased with my deductions over what you were seeing, though I am regretting disposing of my Microvax, my Prime, my 3 Fujuitsu disk drives as big as washing machines which together had a capacity of nearly a Gigabyte (but no way to access them), and will have to console myself with another visit to Bletchly Park.
To summarise, there were six UA strings shared between Informationbuddy1 and Dohardthings in an way you haven't described and at least a seventh that Informaationstation1 used. This could be for several reasons, even as simple as not being able to log off. And a lot of people do keep old hardware and software running for many years. Of course it could be that someone was futzing with the UA strings as you suggest, and if you were seeing something like "Gekko" instead of "Gecko" it's a near certainty. But I'm not sure that's a hanging offence in Wikiland, indeed I have often thought of building a proxy solely to conceal UA information from the dataminers and others (See https://panopticlick.eff.org/ ).
Now you are perfectly correct that Informationstation1 was not created until the following day, but the fact remains that after the final warning at 21:54 there was no vandalism from any of the three accounts. The standard procedure in this case is to tell the editor to "pick one" (assuming it is one person and not two or three).
So, of course, you may have yet more secret information, and it is still not clear whether the blocking admin knew of the third account.
Regardless blocking is supposed to be used to prevent damage and I see no indication that these accounts were (subsequent to Meters rather good handling of the matter) being used for that.
It is quite funny that I get accused of not AGFing when actually I am AGFing about our Canadian friend. You may think me naive and trusting, and doubtless I am, but it has always seemed to me that the sane voices on Wikipedia, apart form those jaded by too much time vandal-fighting, are those who support trust, openness, forgiveness, second chances, growth opportunities.
There is little in terms of what this sort of user can do to damage the encyclopaedia that cannot be fixed almost trivially and prevented from recurring. Conversely, in the long term, there may be a great deal to gain.
And really the response to my initial posting should have been "<meh> unblock one" - instead, once the dynamic IP changes, our guy is free to create a new account, we no longer know who he is, and if he goes down the black hat route, he has found out how to sock successfully instead of unsuccessfully.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

(←) You're missing the point. It's not about how many UA strings there were, or how likely each was individually plausible (I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure I saw one that claimed IE9 on NT4); it's about recognizing the "not a genuine child/newbie" pattern. I've often heard the "be nice to a vandal they may become a productive editor" meme, but I've never seen it actually occur. Newbies that behaved disruptively because they didn't know better? Sure. Users who started with "malice aforethought"? Never. (Or at least, if they do, it's by starting over; not by reforming the original troll accounts). — Coren (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm afraid we're falling into a a predictable pattern here, and not making any progress. You keep changing the reason for the block.
  • It started off "because they are socks". (Which we already pretty much knew, and head been dealt with by Meters.)
  • Then it was "we know better than you". (Which may be true, but remember this admin blocked a user she was in an arb case with, another for posting a cartoon and a third for making jokes and editing on another Wiki. Also said another user could "come back if he changed his ISP" which turned out to be misplaced humour. I'm sure zillions of her blocks are just peachy, and she does extremely clever checkuser work. )
  • Now it comes back to the vandalism. (Which we already pretty much knew, and head been dealt with by Meters.)
There are a bunch of points I'd like to make, and some of these are tangential, but they are relevant.
  • We currently have about 2% of the Internet blocked with range blocks, and probably a lot more by device count
  • We have a tag on the main page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
  • We have a toxic environment, anyone who does not keep their head down, and some who do, get dragged into conflict, and all except the incredibly patient and the sociopathic get burned out, kicked out or leave in disgust.
  • We have, apparently, a recruitment problem as well. (I say apparently because the studies I've seen need more work, and there are variables that are not factored in - it could actually be much worse, as well as maybe much better than the headlines.)
Given that and the principle of AGF Meters did exactly the right thing.
Overriding her final warning with "well we are gonna block you anyway because we are super-scientists and behavioural analysts" is in any case wrong - it is Wikipedia going back on its word. And while you have analysed this in some detail which might mitigate that a little the Checkuser at the time was working on another case, and was not even able to spare the time to tag the user pages (the talkpages still don't have a notice, which is maybe a good thing).
Given the block was at least dubious, and that I requested an unblock, the response should have been to unblock, not to argue the toss.
Please link these three accounts, unblock one and leave the appropriate templates. The cost of reblocking if they return to their camel persecuting ways is minimal, certainly far less effort than we have expended here.
Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Well, two distinct points:
  • First, you are correct about too many range blocks, most of them for too long and too wide. That's actually symptomatic of two distinct problems, neither of which is easy to fix: (a) understandable frustration at persistent vandals over large dynamic ranges, and (b) blockers who don't have enough knowledge to analyse topology and evaluate collateral damage. The latter is, thankfully, very rare from checkusers; but as long as admins get to do range blocks we'll keep running into that problem. That needs a fix in policy and thus community consensus.
  • Second, for the specific case, I simply don't agree. You requested an unblock, I looked into it with some attention, and see no reason to unblock. The reason if you insist on a simple statement, is "they are vandal socks whose editing pattern is indicative of a troll and nothing else." — Coren (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Rich, you know very well that administrators may not (ever) reverse a checkuser block without the consent of an editor who has checkuser access, so why have you repeatedly asked one to do so? AGK [•] 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually I had no idea, Rschen's reply makes sense in that context. Issues that this raises I will put in separate sectionsRich Farmbrough, 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Handy hint - do not run wikilinks together. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
(Explanation, made it look a if this was a Arbcom fiat.) RF
The second link was parenthesised, and therefore separate. AGK [•] 13:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I still think it is at the very least badly handled. Blocking these two accounts, correctly tagging them and informing User: Informationstation1 that they must stick to one account would have been fine (though more aggressive than I or User:Meters would have done).
The thing that concerns me is abandoning principle, already in short supply, you can call it AGF, you can call it kindness, you can call it common human decency.
When we do this it damages not only the recipient of bad faith and the environment and reputation of the project, but it damages us.
Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Range blocks[edit]

"(b) blockers who don't have enough knowledge to analyse topology and evaluate collateral damage. The latter is, thankfully, very rare from checkusers; but as long as admins get to do range blocks we'll keep running into that problem. That needs a fix in policy and thus community consensus."

More power to checkusers? When they don't even agree about blocks themselves? (Note, for example, Elen (the good guy in this scenario, please note) refused to block the /19 for fear of collateral damage, AGK just blocked an entire /16 - after all if people don't have an account they can't be pushed around by admins and arbs (yes I know that's not what AGK was thinking, but it's the effect, and it amounts to the same thing)). Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Rich, please leave this. You're making an ass of yourself, and I don't like to see it. What I said was that the tool isn't capable of returning detailed results for that particular /19. I'd already said I wasn't going to try any kind of a rangeblock when I checked the smaller range - it's one of the biggest cable providers in the area, lots of legit IP editors. On the other hand, blocking a /16 that has nothing but Chinese spambots on it is not a problem. You don't have access to the Checkuser wiki so you don't see a lot of the problems that get reported. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That's nice of you, but I don't mind making a fool of myself in a good cause. We're all friends here and learning from each other - well I'm learning anyway.
You were looking at the \19 68.149.160.0 and AGK blocked \16 68.149.0.0.
This is mostly or all Alberta, specifically including Edmonton. If Chinese spambots (tofubots?) are working through a cable company in Canada then I have learned something else. If not, perhaps I am not quite the ass you think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
OK, I apologise, I see what you are looking at now. You're right, there's no way I'd have done that just to stop Br'er Rabbit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
That's gracious of you, Wiki-apologies are few and far between. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
AGK here fell prey to (a), not (b). Yes, I agree this is too wide. It's interesting, however, how you manage to twist agreement that range blocks are too easily misused to be widely available into some sort of power grab. One might think you have an agenda that's more about bashing checkusers than genuine care for the poor beleaguered blocked editors. — Coren (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually I would have less issue with limiting it to checkusers if arbitrators did not have the checkuser power, but I suspect the real problem is philosophical, we have already removed a mass of rights from IPs (see the mountain of articles languishing at new article creation for a fraction of the loss we have sustained by this policy) and removing more is a perennial proposal. I also think we could find alternative solutions, for example reviewing range blocks, providing better tools for mask generation, educationwick. Similarly we could relatively easily make much checkuser activity public and reduce the amount of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There is definitely an elitist attitude, not just because of people's "hats" but because people are used to knowing best in their everyday circle.
And it's worth pointing out that I didn't say they should be less widely available, that concept was entirely introduced by you. As was the idea "everyone except us checkusers is an idiot", though you didn't phrase it like that. We should make another 20 checkusers, separate powers, create 500 new admins now and another 50 every month and make decent training available.
That would be far more use than abrogating yet more power to a small clique who, however hard they may try not to, are bound to suffer common viewpoints and misperceptions, and by all accounts are overworked, yet unable to take suggestions to reduce the workload, instead insisting they must also work at OTRS, Checkuser and who-knows-where else.
Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
I didn't say that non-checkusers were idiots; it's a matter of it being difficult to assess the impact of a rangeblock when you can't actually see the usage of the range. Checkusers are just as fallible as any random editor; but they have considerably more data to base decisions on. — Coren (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
But they can see what they need to make the range blocks they need to make. I.E. open proxy, hosting, school, congress, that sort of thing. And of course they can also see the anon IP usage of that range, which should give a good idea. They can't see the serial sock IPs, so they can't make those blocks in the first place of course, except when the IP's are sufficiently leaked. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
  • You are discussing my actions, so I wish to draw your attention to the following facts. (1) Account creation and anonymous editing from the /16 was blocked by me for 1 week. I calculated that this would obstruct the editing experience of only a few tens of people (who in any event were clearly directed to the account creation interface). This was most regrettable, but we must sometimes do these things. (2) This particular ISP assigns dynamic IP addresses to users across a /15 range, not a /19; the earlier block of a /19 was therefore useless. (3) You would be mistaken to imply or suggest that I blindly blocked this range, without giving serious thought to the collateral damage caused. As Coren says, we have enough data to assess the impact of range blocks, and (gasp!) we do actually use that data. AGK [•] 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Retired[edit]

I was going to head this section "Wiki-break" because I would love to come back to editing, whether it's bot-running, turtles, viruses, templates, vandal fighting or hosting at tea-house.

Unfortunately when I look at the options open to me, I find I am hemmed in at every turn by the hasty actions of one administrator a couple of years ago that have gradually made editing a misery instead of a pleasure.

The option of a clean start is denied to me, the only way I can make the contributions I want to on Wikipedia is either if I fight to get the editing restrictions removed (they run 'til the end of time) and the arbcom decision overturned, or if the community were to offer me an amnesty. I do not have the energy for the former, and I can virtually write the script if someone were to request the latter.

While I enjoy a robust discussion, the conversations I have been having with (doubtless well meaning) arbitrators are such that they never give ground to mere reason, only (and then reluctantly, and not always) to incontrovertible fact. It also pains me that in order to get a tiny concession from an administrator it took two months of work and she was "quite upset" (which in British English means "very upset") at the end of it. I am not here to upset people, I am here to make knowledge available.

From 2007, following multiple bereavements I was suffering for a long time from clinical depression, a fact which I shared with no-one for at least three years. I am proud to have made it through this tough time, and working on Wikipedia, and the camaraderie helped. But starting September 2010, a particularly nasty AN/I thread was kicked off and from there on in things have been downhill. I have no intention of returning to those dark days, and having had occasion recently to review the AN/I threads and the Arbcom case I have been reminded how awful they were.

I happened to notice, this morning, that {{Wikify}} has been deprecated. I would have liked to have been on the discussion, as I have been very involved with that template - I took a brief look at the edit history, and saw that my last edit (in 2011) had been reverted by Fram. It brought it home just how much he is there at every turn, backed up by CBM and people who make their mind up before they know the facts, and then are not prepared to change it.

So as of now I will be doing the following:

  • Logging out of en:Wikipedia
  • Once my block has expired I will only fix articles I am reading, and that as an IP.
  • I will pursue the current wrongful talk-page block of Penyulap, the abuses involved in that, and possibly his initial block
  • I will consider helping with template coding if I receive email requests
  • I will consider doing bot runs, if I receive an email request, but the requester will have to deal with ArbCom
  • I may tinker with my user-space pages to prepare an appeal to ArbCom, but it is unlikely
  • I may check my talk page from time to time, deal with archiving, and respond there.

To all other intents and purposes on en:Wikipedia, for the time being at least, this editor is:


RETIRED


All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

Goodbye[edit]

All the best Rich. I have hopes that Wikipedia will improve. It may not be now, but it will be in the future. I hope to see you come back when that happens. Don't let yourself get identified as you when you're editing as an IP.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich, EN Wikipedia is currently in a bizarre state and after the way you've been treated I can see the logic in leaving. Personally I'm now spending most of my Wiki time on Commons rather than Wikipedia, and I must say that I'd recommend it. No Arbcom, much gnomish stuff to be done and it is easier to be productive. Hopefully we'll see more of you there. ϢereSpielChequers 17:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sad to see you go[edit]

I understand how you feel Rich. Lord knows I have made my opinions about the situation known and I am sorry if I caused you any additional discomfort in that. I just couldn't sit by and watch the things that were going on. I basically retired from editing myself and only came back to comment on the block. Since you haev decided to Retire as well, I see no resaon to continue to fight an admittedly lost cause.

I truly do wish you the best and I hope this all turns out for the best. I will likely not be editing again after this either. I think this will be marked as one of the saddest days of Wikipedia. Good luck my friend. Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Farewell[edit]

There are some real bastards around here.
You are not one of those.
The other languages of WP are a lot less vexing. Varlaam (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boo, hiss![edit]

The Bastards! I was been wondering when it would come to this. This is a sad day for Wikipedia. The Bastards will be jolly proud of themselves. Whilst one might read the preceding phrase with a touch of irony, I'm actually sure the Bastards are actually proud of themselves for having eliminated "an enemy". But for me, I'm just gutted that one of my first ports of call just been hounded out of wiki-existence. <sniff, sob, blows nose on hankie> -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

C'est la vie[edit]

Thanks It's been a pleasure getting to know you here and in real life as well, Rich. I hope that the time comes when you change your mind, but if not, I hope that you'll find some other venue for helping to give free knowledge to others. I don't know all of the ins and outs of all of your disputes, but I do know that you've been nothing but a gentleman to me and the world could use a few more of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go[edit]

It is a real shame to see the second most prolific editor retire from Wikipedia. I too have had editing restrictions placed on me as a result of Frams actions. In both case the wiki-punishment does not suit the perceived "wiki-crime" IMO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 14:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And for years, the single most prolific, for any newcomers reading this.
Varlaam (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Fram should be the one retiring intsead of Rich IMO. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It is
The Reader
that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.
Even though Fram has reduced my enjoyment of Wikipedia editing and is responsible for my editing restriction I would not want her/him to retire. However she/he should be concious of the fact that we are here to create an encyclopedia that is useful for The Reader. Hounding prolific editors who may make occasional mistakes or may ignore policy/guidelines/sanctions for the greater good should not be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps that was a bit harsh of me. It does seem to me though that the cost to the pedia from Fram's shenanigans and blocks is more of a harm than the good work that he does do. Perhaps if he doesn't pursue blocking every editor as though its his personal mission to see them banned for the most trivial of offenses, then I might feel differently. Perhaps if he starts using his admin tools as more of a tool than a weapon then that might help me to change my pessimistic and skeptical attitude about his actions. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Another experienced contributor lost[edit]

I am very sorry to see you go. It is disgusting to see how some long-term contributors are being treated lately. Wikipedia has a serious problem for sure. I wish you all the best. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I included you in the list on my userpage. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

Should you wish any assistance, feel free to write to me[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

Merge discussion for Beryllium poisoning [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beryllium poisoning , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Damnation[edit]

All I have to say. Sorry to see you go; I really hope you reconsider. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Andra albums[edit]

Category:Andra albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:The Answer albums[edit]

Category:The Answer albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Faze video albums[edit]

Category:Faze video albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Two Requests[edit]

Hi Rich Farmbrough, this is Colton Cosmic. I noticed where you understood my position at Jimbo Wales' talk page. I am asking you to consider posting the following for me at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations (there's a "request" button halfway down the page).

Brace yourself for a lot of words. I am requesting a sockpuppet investigation on myself. The reason is that I was indefinitely blocked without discussion by "Timotheus Canens" on his sockpuppeting charges, which are not true. I view these charges as a slur on my integrity and I don't want them to sit on my user page for the next 500 years as if they were true. I have come to realize that that I need an admin ally for this. If that's you, I promise to adhere better to WP:CIV. I saw a wikihounding bully going at someone else,[12][13] and I saw a policy or guideline for admin behavior (I later found it was only "essay")[14][15] premised on a suicide metaphor and I responded too sharply to both of those.
Now, if you look at my talk page, there's a bunch of longwinded quarreling there. I regret that you have to read any of it to make a determination. I can tell you I didn't want to read it either, or respond to it. Where do they come from, I don't know. An editor MastCell I don't know from Adam pops up at my talkpage to interrogate me about prior accounts, without explanation, [16] and finishes by calling me a liar[17]. There's plenty more catcalling there from the peanut gallery, I don't think I should be blamed for that, or having to respond to it. I don't want you to have to read it.
The only stuff you need to look for, the pertinent matter in my view, is evidence of sockpuppeting or "abuse of multiple accounts," this is what I was purportedly blocked for. I never sockpuppeted. I never had "multiple accounts." I had a single previous account that I abandoned because of an outing, and moved on to the current. This is WP:CLEANSTART. I am not required to disclose the name of the previous account. That would defeat a major purpose of WP:CLEANSTART. In my view it would violate WP:FAITH as well. As a note, this seems to be the core motivation of those acted against me, from "Timotheus Canens" to BWilkins to ArbCom: they sniff and sniff for the prior account.
Now. CheckUser. I do *not* request a CheckUser on me. I do request to know if a CheckUser *has* been done on me. I am interested to know this, because I do suspect it, and there was never a basis for it.
Last, I never want to write longwinded detail, but the problem is I've found that admins rely on the allegations and arguments of others and find against me. So I have to address, I guess, the particulars of those that I suppose might work against me. Briefly: BWilkins never made me an offer, unless "give me $50 and I may give you my bicycle is an offer."[18] Nomoskedacity's accusation of 3RR violation does not stand up to scrutiny, I reverted twice, just look at it. [19][20] Beeblebrox' statement against me relies repeatedly on conflation and confusion,[21] it's sleight of hand, it's not straightforward at all, I never said I didn't block evade and she or he knows it, but at least she or he didn't call me sockpuppet. Last, ArbCom did not block me, it only declined without explanation to unblock me.[22] Any admin can unblock me. You're not going to risk the ire of ArbCom, you may find yourself at odds with "Timotheus Canens." You need more answers, unblock my page, and we'll go from there.
Thank you for your consideration, please do me an SPI and post the results at the top of my user page. Colton Cosmic.

Mr. Farmbrough, I understand if you choose not to do this. If that is the case, would you at least post at my user page that I maintain as of 25 Nov. 2012 that I did not sockpuppet or abuse multiple accounts. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.191 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins "offer" was well meant, but fails in that transferring restrictions would invalidate the cleanstart, moreover if there were editing restrictions a cleanstart is not permitted (See my retirement statement above.)
My take on this scenario is not that you should not be blocked or banned, but that there is no clear case made, where it can be reviewed in the best wiki-traditions of openness. Moreover this seems to be a fairly endemic situation, ranging across the gamut from marginal value beginning editors, through established editors, to the very illuminati of the community (one previous arb was treated very shabbily by the community).
And, moreover, we get into convoluted situations where the original "offence" becomes irrelevant, but we are blocking or banning because of the way the editor responded to the initial sanction, regardless of it's merits.
Now as to your request, the checkuser audit subcommittee are the people to ask whether a checkuser has been done on you. If you feel that this has been abused then your only on-wiki resort, apart form Arbcom which essentially comprises the people who appoint checkusers, most of whom sit or sat on arbcom, or are arbcom clerks, is an Ombudsman. The Ombudsmen are listed on Meta.
Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Eagle and Swastika, since you contributed to the article. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


Nomination for deletion of Template:Apple models[edit]

Template:Apple models has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Blockages[edit]

This is Colton Cosmic. Rich, well thank you for responding. I tried to see what you were hassled about too, but it got into a universe of tools and automated or scripted edits that I understand little. I've done plenty of edits but all of a simple hand-made variety. I saw where you had the week-long block on automated editing, I suppose it was that made indefinite at some point, as you still seem to be able to edit articles by hand. We both seem to have had troubles based on our response to blocks, which is held by some to be separable from the validity or abusiveness of the block itself. I see it in metaphor of a wrongly-convicted person escaping from prison. There is no moral failure in doing so. Of course I'm not so wrapped up in my own case that I don't recognize reality is generally more muddled than the metaphor.

I'll accept that BWilkins "offer" was not deliberately deceptive, but not that it was well meant. "You do X and I *may* do Y" is not an offer, unless stretching it as an offer of *consideration* in return for an action. "You do X and, if A, B, and C apply, I *will* do Y" is an offer. Anyhow the real motive was the confessed "talkpage stalker's" desire to sniff around my pre-clean start account. His or her subsequent attemptedly intimidating comment confirms there was little in the way of good intentions.

I would indeed like to know if a check-user was done on me, but right now I've got to get unblocked. Perhaps it was silly of me to ponder requesting an SPI on myself for vindication of whatever-his-name-was's uncommented, undiffed, policy-free block of me. I just need to find an admin willing to evaluate the evidence (none has ever been offered) and willing to separate my admittedly defiant response to the block from the circumstances of the block itself. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.135 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

Coordinate errors affecting multiple infoboxes[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Coordinate errors affecting multiple infoboxes. Your assistance would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Update small[edit]

You recently moved {{Update small}} to {{Update inline}}. I used the former name to avoid confusion with {{Update-inline}}, which is a different template. Your move ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we had a conversation about this in April. AnomieBot was still breaking things so I've fixed them. Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC).

Nomination of Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mitchumch (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion page.
In regards to your suggestion for merging the content to the infobox, could you check this edit on 00:44, 9 December 2012 for Abraham Lincoln to see if that would satisfy you concern. It was reverted by one of the notified users for this discussion. I haven't received any communication with user Alanscottwalker, but I think I can address the white space issue brought up by the user. Thanks again.
Mitchumch (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably you can negotiate that no problem, the best thing to do, though, is to wait for the TfD to conclude. Folk get upset, sometimes, if a template is orphaned before the TfD is finished. Rich Farmbrough, 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

Categorization[edit]

Rich,

Do you know of any way of adding all Talk: pages that are in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains and Category:WikiProject British and Irish hills to a new category I created, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains in the United Kingdom. I was thinking AWB, but I am unsure on how to implement it and going through the whole category by hand is taking far too long. Thanks--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you cracked this, but if not, use the list maker from the tools menu of AWB - the way it works will be obvious once you open it. I would suggest that the next step is to change the template that is creating the "requested photographs" category to create the sub-category by using a suitable parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC).
With some help from the bot requests desk yes, but thanks. Are you referring to the {{reqphoto}} template? Do you mean I should edit that to allow adding a parameter to that so it adds it to the category automatically? Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes but I think it already has all you need. {{Image requested|of mountains in the United Kingdom}} should do the job. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

IPExchange[edit]

I saw your you listed on the iBridge entry. How about stating an entry for IPExchange? Steven McIntire ALLEN 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned[edit]

[23]. I see Sandy.Georgia hasn't had the courtesy to tell you. I'm sure you'll have an opinion you want to offer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

And people wonder why I don't like Arbcom (the process not the members individually)[edit]

This and the conversations occurring on the Arbcom talk pages these days pretty much sum it up. Welcome back. Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I was pleased to see that Risker understood what I have been going through for the past two years. Unfortunately it seems that while if it were part of her in-group, it would be legitimate suffering and grounds for complaint, if it is part of her out-group, then that's just peachy. This is not uncommon where people see those of other groups as, not necessarily less than human, but certainly "tainted". I could cite the widow of an Irish terrorist who thought it was awful that her husband had been killed in front of his children, but just fine that he had killed terrorists on the other side, in front of their children. I could cite the lady experiencing prejudice, who, when Isaac Asimov suggested helping another discriminated against group, said "We need to take care of our own first" and could not see the contradiction. But it was ever thus, and saving a small proportion who have the moral guts to say to themselves "There but for the grace of God go I" probably ever will be. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
Generals in modern warfare are seldom injured as they are rarely ever in a position of danger. It is the soldiers, those on the front lines who are most often injured or killed who ensure those generals stay safe and protected, far from danger. It is those same soldiers who are then deemed by those generals to be expendable and the losses acceptable as long as the cause is justified. The generals themselves not needing to worry about the status of things in the trenches, on the front lines. In many respects this is akin to how the Arbcom and many in the admin corps view us normal editors. We are merely expendable and can be cast off when necessary or when deemed desireable by those in positions of power because in this caste system we are weak and without power. We are helpless. Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
Maybe waxing a little dramatic, but it is a good verse. I do think, though, that the key issue is culture. In fact I'd go as far as to say it is the only issue. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

FYI[edit]

[24]. Compare further discussion on Elen's talk. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks to you both for your input. @Rich: Less verbose, please. It helps others to think. – SJ + 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well, useful advice. I'm commonly accused of being too laconic. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Season's tidings![edit]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you go? How was it? The Transhumanist 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Happy children want you to be happy too!

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry, this is more or less the best holiday greeting ever :) Rich, happy holidays from me too! – SJ + 02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Transcend[edit]

My suggestion is to ignore the drama and contribute in ways nobody expects.

You could transcend all the bullshit and contribute, using your expert programming skills, in ways that will blow everyone's mind.

You could apply programs to articles off-line, and then upload the finished results one article at a time. (I'm not referring to typo-fixing or spell-checking here).

Do you have Wikipedia installed offline yet?

I'd say this may be the time for you to take Wikipedia's technology to the next level.

Make Wikipedia more intelligent. If anyone can do it, it's you.

Think about it. Look deep. Right now, experience a flash of genius. The Transhumanist 21:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.
It is frustrating because the work I was doing was really only very small parts of getting Wikipedia ready for adulthood. The lack of vision of some portion of the community took me by surprise, because those of us from "way back when" had to have vision in order to consider it worthwhile contributing to WP as is was all those years ago (and more so in earlier years, perhaps). Nonetheless there is a great deal that I can contribute, even with these ridiculous sanctions in place, however I prefer not to discuss it because I know that there are folk who would attempt to sabotage it (much as I find it hard to believe emotionally, evidence cannot be forever denied). Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

(Incidentally I am banned form using external programs to edit Wikipedia articles, and from using cut and paste. Of course the restrictions are so ludicrous that I am forced to break them with every edit, some folk said that is why they were passed, I lean to believing in incompetence rather than conspiracy.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

First of all, they can't ban you from editing a fork of Wikipedia that resides on your own computer. Because that's not this Wikipedia. They can't override the GFDL. Anyone can fork Wikipedia. A fork is the best place to test new tools anyways.
Speaking of forks, none of the documentation I could find on installing Wikipedia locally were of much help. WikiTaxi was easy to understand and install, but it doesn't support copy and paste and therefore is almost useless. I'd like a copy of Wikipedia on my own computer that looks, feels, and operates exactly like the one I access online with respect to browsing and editing, and that I can practice using WP:AWB on.
Do you have a copy of Wikipedia installed locally? If so, please explain step-by-step how you did it, so the rest of us can do so too without going bald from pulling all of our hair out! If not, please install it, and record how you did it as you go. Then tell us so that we can all benefit from having a Wikipedia clone to experiment on and use as a backup system.
Many editors would install Wikipedia locally if someone like you made it easy for them to do so. And I would be the first in line! The Transhumanist 02:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem with doing that is that editing a fork has limited value. Should I make the fork publicly available maybe a little more, there are sites for such forks. Eventually the content needs to be synchronised, though, sense is to make the edits here and let them flow out. There are a number of fork-bases already existing, some of which I may work on/with. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC).
Limited value, yes. A huge sandbox! I want one. I'm stuck. Please help. The Transhumanist 02:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Assistance request on the ACICS "talk" page[edit]

Rich Farmbrough wrote on my "talk" page:

I would appreciate your sage advice on Talk:Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, in response to some areas of general ignorance of mine. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

To which I responded:

Okeedokie. I'll head over and see what you're talking about. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've now written a quite long section over there. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

Back[edit]

I know we don't see eye to eye on most things, but I just wanted to say I'm glad to see you back editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's nice of you. But I'm by no means back. I consider writing some kind of Arbcom appeal, fro time to time, but very likely it would be a complete waste of time. Moreover every time I look at the idiocy that happened it makes me feel ill. And of course it continues. Jclemens will probably fail to get in, but for the wrong reasons. YOu may well fail to get elected, also for the wrong reasons. Penyualp has had no response from the Ombudsman. I have had no response from Arbcom. Courcelles appears to be unaware he has done anything wrong. Carl continues to edit war and vandalize and get away with it. Fram is probably still creating thousands of useless categories, and if no longer persecuting Alan Leitfing will have found a new victim. And I certainly see the usual suspects causing trouble and casting unwarranted aspersions on the community/WMF/Jimbo, when there are actually plenty of real problems to deal with. Meanwhile little or no energy is left to deal pro-actively with tricky situations like caste in India, let alone creating new articles (we have abysmal coverage of viruses, very little on genetic codes, thousands of missing articles on notable people, most of our other language editions are a joke and we still block new editors rather than welcome them). Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC).
Here, here. Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You should reset the drama free days counter above back to zero. The Transhumanist 02:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Derwick Associates[edit]

Hello Rich, I am reaching out after seeing your comment on the Derwick Associates page. It seems like you noticed a lot of NPOV and Undue weight, and I was hoping you might be able to lend an eye once again when you are free. Can you take a look at the Talk:Derwick Associates#Specific concerns section? I posted it on the talk page with the hopes of opening a dialogue, but FinanceReferee hasn't commented. What are your thoughts on the matter? They receive a lot of media attention in Venezuela from the non-state-run media for corruption, so it seems strange to me that it isn't included. Should I pursue the incident on AN/I? Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is only for situations requiring administrative intervention. The best places to get extra eyes are WikiProjects.aybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business or Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy. I haven't the language skills to pursue the Venezualan media reports, unfortunately. Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC).

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI[edit]

Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Keφr 17:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

I just reviewed the ArbCom remedies and amendments...[edit]

It appears to primarily restrict automated contributions of any type, including meatbot activity.

That's not so bad. It just means you are a human editor again, and not a cyborg.  :)

It appears you can still edit offline, but that you can't post anything generated in an automated fashion. Therefore, words from your own fingertips can be cut and pasted as per normal. They apparently want your edits to come from you and not a program. Period.

That's not so bad.

You have all of the privileges of an editor except automation. It appears that they want you to learn to be human again. Like you lost touch with your humanity.

It's starting to sound like we're in an Isaac Asimov novel.

My recommendations are to become a more close-knit member of the community, as follows:

  • Write and edit articles. Contribute facts, not just wikignome edits.
  • Participate in policy and forum discussions
  • Join in a WikiProject or two, and a help desk.
  • Participate in bot department discussions
  • Help other users to design and create bots - Share your expertise
  • Help enforce the bot rules
  • Become an admin again

You need to shrug off your reputations of being a lone wolf and loose cannon.

You can do that by getting more personally involved with the community. Become our teacher. Trust will build quickly.

Besides, you will have much greater impact when you start enabling others in the use of the tools you are so expert with. That is a great resource to Wikipedia, but it is of limited use when only in the hands of a single individual.

Please consider it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 06:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I do (or did) all of the above, pretty much. I was probably one of the most frequent contributors to Bot discussions who has not been in BAG, I am (was?) a TeahouseHost, I answered many questions on WP talk:AWB (and logged many bugs), I have published more AWB settings files than anyone else, I have written custom AWB files for people, and I have loaned hardware to others to run their bots. As for enforcing bot rules, the only current violator I am aware of got me a trout slap, last time I pointed out that he was bullying another editor at AN/I. The matter of policy and process I am working on. It's an uphill struggle these days, because we have an establishment, which reacts to any attempt at improving things as an attack on the status quo.
Lets look though at one example of sharing - just to see where it got me.
I share the code to resolve specific redirects. That is used by AnomieBot (and AWB) to duplicate a part of HPB's functionality - I encouraged the duplication, just as I did with LegoBot and others.
AnomieBot then is tuned to operate slightly faster than HPB, in hidden code (Anomie says the bot code is published, but obviously this is selective, and probably, since Anomie produces such great code, controlled by a pragma or something). Net result, Anomie undermines the other good fixes that HPB was doing not merely by being a backup in case HPB fails, but by running constantly, and at a lesser time delay.
I get hung drawn and quartered, reservations that what I do will be lost are assuaged by the presence of AnomieBot.
Meanwhile the lack of the HPB fixes causes many problems on Wiki, six months to a year of my life are wasted, Anomie gets a job with WMF.
Basically one cannot write content without using cut and paste - suggesting that I type out my references and quotes in full is ludicrous. The fact is that to be a good arbitrator requires integrity, time, and an understanding of technical matters, process matters, content matters and people. Very few folk can tick all these boxes, and very few arbs can either. Total fail is not uncommon "Most of us have legal training" remarked one arb - which means "One or two of us have been to law school, and most of the rest have been sent on a day course about employment law at some time." It is very difficult to deal with people who will make statements like this on a public forum and think it acceptable.
As for becoming an admin again I think an RFA would be a blood bath. I hope I am wrong. I think also that Arbcom knew that, which makes the desysopping particularly disingenuous.
Well we have a number of new arbitrators now (soon), I tried a non-confrontational approach, asking to be allowed to archive my talk page at least, instead they banned me from making amendment requests for six months. It might be worth seeing if the current arbcom thinks that saying "Tosh" constitutes gratuitous incivility.
Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

I've been browsing the messages above. There's so much anxiety on this talk page. It doesn't matter whose fault it was. Accepting that is the first step in your recovery. You understand how to repair relationships. You have to swallow something. It starts with two words. You know what they are.

Concerning your loss, just accept it. You should forget about using automation for awhile. It may feel like your right arm has been amputated, but it's only your cyborg arms that have been removed. Don't try to get your automation tools back. Not until you after you've been an admin again for at least six months. Rebuild the community's trust in your use of tools one stage at a time, starting with the only tools ArbCom has left you to work with: your fingertips on the bare keys.

RFA is also a ways off. At least a year. The community will respond to your nomination based upon the degree of your cordial community involvement, enthusiastic contributions, and positive influence. You must have a change of heart. You can't fake that. All residual indignation must be washed away for good. You must lose the attitude.

You've gotten so tangled up in an emotional thicket that you need to start over. They're basically requiring you to start over. So do exactly that.

Stop. From now on, avoid spreading negativity like the plague. Stop feeling injured, and griping, complaining, and maneuvering ArbCom amendments.

Then start up again with a fresh approach. Relax. Continuously use non-confrontational ways to promote progress and improve this encyclopedia. For every obstacle in this wiki, there are a dozen ways to creatively and peacefully transcend it. Find them.

Act swiftly, but be patient – there are many other things to work on here while you are waiting. Impatience breeds frustration, rashness, and editcountitis. Patience changes you. Gives you time to see things you would have otherwise missed. Provides opportunity to find diplomatic alternatives.

Focus on improving the encyclopedia and its community on-line, one word at a time. Diplomatically. You are limited to completely manual edits, that is, to human communication.

The point seems to be that they wish for you to forget about your rank on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits and concentrate on personal involvement with other editors. And to get over your difficulty in dealing with the people around here, regardless of how difficult they may be.

Therefore...

Be at peace.

Be nice.

Be effective, in the broadest sense of the word: by enabling and inspiring others to build.

See this as an opportunity to rise above all expectations. Including your own. How?

Lead, by teaching others how to build and assisting them in their efforts to do so. This isn't about you or me or ArbCom. It's about the Wikipedia community, and making knowledge freely available to all the people of the World.

That's worth swallowing one's pride for.

Wikipedia is on the cutting edge, as a presentation platform and also as a social experiment. It needs experts with vision. We are waiting for you to step forward.

Help show us the way. Not to fight, but to build. Build teamwork. Build pages. Build tools. Build departments. Build the best encyclopedia the World has never dreamed of.

Join the party. Mix and mingle. Start interesting conversations. Be the spark of the community's creativity.

You mentioned "getting Wikipedia ready for adulthood". That sounds like a good place to begin. What did you mean by "adulthood"? What features and tools would that require? What would a grown up Wikipedia be like? The Transhumanist 02:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort and intentions behind these posts.
None of the little effort I expend on en:WP these days is related to amending my Arb case, although I may attempt to try and fix that in the new year. I am trying to alert Wikipedians in a gentle way to serious threats.
In particular you may have seen the post I made at Village Pump. Editors' details are being subpoenaed wholesale - maybe because I couched this in slightly humorous language I have received no feedback from the community. I, however, feel that the right to edit anonymously, provided no laws are broken, is worth fighting for. Of course I choose not to edit pseudonymously myself. But the vast majority of the community do, they seem however uninterested in this attack on their rights to privacy and the chilling effect this could have on free speech.
I have also been working on editor retention. (There are only three ways we can affect the amount achieved on Wikipedia: Automation and efficiency, editor numbers and editor time.}
I have also been helping editors who have been the subject of dubious sanctions, so far the items I have been working on this month have been successful.
I continued editing for a long time after the arb case. I didn't flounce out. An editor who tries to forment disputes went to considerable trouble to get me blocked. It's cool, it is just part of the Wiki-landscape. But effectively my hands are tied vis-a-vis editing content, and my reputation, such as it was, is tarnished. It is not unknown for Arbcom to reverse a decision, and it is merely an unfortunate series of events that led to the case ending how it did. The vast majority of Arbcom are well meaning, intelligent people. The biggest problem was the change of drafting arbitrator in the middle of the case (and that no-one was notified). Leaking my first email to the other parties in the case wasn't exactly brilliant either...

.

Anyway, I tire of the case, and as I say, talking about it achieves nothing. I intend to persue a few of other key issues I outlined above, and I may potter or tinker. But until things change there is little content-wise I can achieve on en:WP. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC).
Then you are back! Cool.
By the way, talking about your community involvement has proved both revealing and interesting. That's a worthwhile achievement in my opinion, and a necessary step to earning back your revoked account privileges.
I'm still concerned about your attitude with respect to ArbCom's findings of fact. Your replies so far seem to imply denial of any rule breaking. If and when you accept a nomination for adminship, the community will go over your and your bots' editing records with a fine-toothed comb. So before then you will need to own up to any rule-breaking you did, however emotionally painful that might be to you. Trust is based on honesty, and honesty includes taking responsibility for past transgressions. To start over with a clean slate, you must first come clean.
Your current opinion on the types of situation that ArbCom expressed concern about, will also be extremely important. That is, how would you approach such situations that you might come across in the future? For example...
  • If you were given the admin tools again, what would you do if you encountered a bot-running admin who unblocked his own bot after another admin had blocked it?
  • How would you handle an editor you found to be editing non-rendered white space?
  • Someone asks you what to do about a bot account running high-speed tasks. What would your answer be?
  • What's the difference between high-speed tasks that are allowed and those that are disallowed?
  • What is the proper procedure when you notice a run of high-speed edits on a personal account, with no AWB or other semi-automated tool tagline in the edit summaries?
  • What is an unapproved bot task?
  • What can legitimately be done with a bot on-the-fly?
And your views on other issues would also be examined. I'm guessing that due to the intensity of your ArbCom proceeding, some of the questions will be cutting or even wild...
  • How have you ruffled feathers in past discussions? How would you handle those discussion if you got to do them over?
  • Who are you more like, Teddy Roosevelt or Gandhi?
The community will want to know what your attitudes are, and that you do not feel that you are above or beyond the reach of the rules. They will also want to know that you are a people person and not a virtual cyborg gone rogue.
Repairing your reputation is going to take some self-searching on your part. But I have faith in you. My guess is that most of the Wikipedia community does too.
By the way, welcome home. The Transhumanist 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: I look forward to your answers to the above questions. I expect they will be most revealing. The Transhumanist 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed you a brief example of why the FoF are an epic fail. The suggestion that (1984-like) I should admit to stuff I haven't done is not useful. As for the questions above, you will have to wait for any RfA for answers

It seems I always come across apposite quotes, in relation to the suggestion that we should here is one from Craig Murray:

On the question of style, of course I agree that the objective of being an Ambassador is to maximise my influence. But you don't gain influence by being a pushover. You don't gain influence by never saying anything interesting, by sticking to the crowd. You gain influence by being more informed. Intelligent, articulate and outspoken. You gain influence by being formidable, by being a factor that must be taken into account.

While I don't equate the hierarchy on Wikipedia with the people Murray had to deal with, there are non-trivial matters at stake here.

  1. The quality of the encyclopaedia, with all that rests on that. Wikipedia per se may not be around in 100 or even 10 years, but it is very important at the moment.
  2. Discrimination. We know the effects this can have.
  3. Data protection and privacy. This in turn can be life threatening in certain regimes.
  4. Defamation of character. this can affect the livelihoods of people, and more.
  5. Destruction of the community, alienation of contributors.

And it is important to remember while we look at our august administrators, arbitrators and other functionaries, that historically the roster includes sock-puppeteers, copyright violators and fraudsters. That is why process is important, we have literally life-and-death matters in the hands of the committee, who leak private information and make other egregious mistakes almost with every case. I should perhaps compile a dossier of these matters, there is at least one book in preparation on the seamy side of Wikipedia, but it will cherry-pick the "meaty" items, stalkers, mantemorland, essjay, Sigenthaler and so on. The truth is, appalling as these incidents were, if they were all there was it would not be a problem, the real problem is the ongoing low level abuse of the system as a tool of conflict, partly due to the abusers, partly due to the system, but mainly due to those of us that allow the abuse to continue.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC).


Clean start[edit]

Look at the contributions of He to Hecuba. I'd do that again. I have psychological issues with editing from an account I've fucked up with. --Claritas § 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well then, it seems that ArbCom are not able to rule in this matter. It appears to me that you will be under the same sort of restriction under CLEANSTART, i.e. to avoid XfD (and any other problem areas) like the plague, as you are editing under Claritas. If you were to follow CLEANSTART, there are only four things that can happen:
  1. You go back to your conflicts and get outed, and sanctioned
  2. You go back to your conflicts and no-one notices (unlikely)
  3. You edit productively and no-one notices
  4. You edit productively and get outed nonetheless - there is then a fight over whether this is CLEANSTART or abusive socking - but if no abuse has taken place, it is hard to make the case for abusive socking.
If you are not concerned about being outed, I can see little downside in CLEANSTART. As Carrite mentions, though, you may wish to simply consider switching accounts, in a transparent way.
Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC).
Its truly unfortunate how the rules work with regard to clean start. Its a catch 22 if you ask me. If you tell someone then its not really a clean start, yet if you don't let someone know then its possible they'll come after you for socking. The rules are simply not very allowable to those who just want to start new and most editors aren't very good unfortunately at assuming good faith. The only way an editor can really have a clean start is by being somewhat good at deception. The other possibility is to go work on one of the sister projects for a while such as Simple, Wiktionary, WikiSpecies, etc. Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A good suggestion. I hope Claritas gets the new name they want, but if not that is another possibility. Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Keadle[edit]

Since you approved it at AfC , you may want to comment. We don't have an established practice of notifying here, but I think we should. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Your amendment request[edit]

Hi;

Might it not be easier if you consolidate all your likely amendment requests into one? That is, if you have anything else you'd like the committee to look at, ask now? It can then be dealt with either as an omnibus motion or as a series of motions.  Roger Davies talk 18:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


I don't know. While I respect that Arbitrators will not have the knowledge and memory of the case that I have (and I have forgotten most of it) so I do not take issue with those who are unsure of the meanings behind the wordings, and the processes that were followed, I would have thought this is a very simple amendment and I certainly did not expect to be on the receiving end of at least three ad hominem attacks from arbitrators over it. Given that it is unlikely that I can expect agreement over some of the more tricky matters, I would really have to evaluate whether it is worth while trying to demonstrate to the Committee that I am not, and never have been "gratuitously incivil" and that I was not an "unresponsive bot operator". And without achieving that certainly some of the more complex arguments, which will probably require empathy, analytic skills and unclouded judgement will be completely wasted.
By taking baby steps we can, I hope, eventually come to agreement on each point either that I need to repent and recant or whatever it is, or that the finding is wrong.
Even if I were convinced that the committee was receptive to an omnibus motion and that they would consider it on it's merits, rather than with a jaundiced view, which I have to say does not seem to be the universal case, there are still four problems.
  1. The work involved in putting it all together is huge. Arbs may complain about the time spent on this amendment, but it has cost me probably 75 hours so far. And this is possibly the second simplest to create (and the easiest to judge).
  2. The stress is also enormous, multiplying that up 10 fold is not an attractive proposition.
  3. An Omnibus motion will go off in all directions at once. While that is fine for normal Wiki discussions, in this case it will be difficult to contain and I will get hit with not having time to respond - just as happened in the original case.
  4. An Omnibus motion will attract more trolls.
Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
Thanks for the response. I see where you're coming from but I disagree with the approach. Just out of curiosity, how did it take you 75 hours to put the current amendment together?  Roger Davies talk 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
For what little my opinion on the matter is worth I agree with Rich, although I see your point also Roger. I think breaking it into pieces would be much more managable and practical. Creating a giant omnibus as you put it would just create another big drama fest and I agree with Rich that some members of Arbcom are going to be much less likely to accept a large change. Multiple smaller changes are much more likely to be fairly judged and considered. Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I fear I was being over optimistic anyway. It will probably take me a couple of days to believe some of the responses. "The amendment request pretty clearly indicates that Rich has not taken on board the issues that brought him to arbitration in the first place" is this not the ultimate Catch 22? If you request an amendment you don't "deserve" it. On the plus side AGK has said there is a miscarriage of justice, and so with him on board, maybe something good will happen after all. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
It didn't, that is a rough estimate of the total time spent on it. Actual drafting and pasting the right diffs and so forth, of the amendment as posted, my first save was at 22:51 on my local wiki, the final draft was posted at about 5:54, a relatively "mere" 7 hours. Add to that the investigation, deciding what action to take, technical work on the local wiki and so forth, together with the time spent since, 75 hours is a reasonable estimate. You could even say I have spent the last six months on it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Barnstar[edit]

That's very sweet of you, Rich. What came across as cool was probably just trying to keep interventions short and get on with real life! Anyway, thanks and keep up the good work. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Fair use logo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Fair use logo. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Fair use logo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have always viewed FA as a nice club that helps editors to improve articles, but not something that is of much interest to me - I want to see all articles improved. But you have made me more interested in the FA?GA processes, I will try to find some time to spend if/when I return to proper editing. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Keep on[edit]

You gotta keep on and come back to Wikipedia my friend. Dudes like you are the reason dudes like me are still fighting. Ramwithaxe talk 09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I estimate it will take a month or so to sort out the Courcelles affair, then I need to examine some of the previous actions in regard to Penyulap. Then I will need to unwind the arbitration case which will probably take a year or longer. Then the editing restrictions. Then I will need an RFA... at which all the previous items will be re-hashed. It would be an attractive result if it could be achieve, but the work and grief to achieve it are enormous. Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC).
Getting older, I am realizing sometimes the pencil-pushers win, but ultimately all lose. If you are unable to find your way through that maze of red tape and remain lost to the website, your eloquence and clear-minded presence as a Wikipedian will be missed. Ramwithaxe (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

James Clemens[edit]

Thanks. That is what I wanted to do, but could not find out such a page (somehow I could not find "cwt" anywhere around...) - Nabla (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motions[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has proposed, and is voting on, motions that would affect you. You may comment on these motions in your statement. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Polandball[edit]

I like this one. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @114  ·  01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this
Wooot! Party on my talk page! Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC).
Well that's a start right...I think? But unless I missed something, Arbcom took away your admin tools right, so how does this even apply? Isn't this sorta pointless? Kumioko (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No not really. If I were to re-apply for admin tools, with a finding saying I abused them, it would be a very hard task. Also it shows that Arbcom can make the right decision, they are not totally immovable. Thirdly it removes an untruth about me, which is good. The amendment was draining, however. The next step (if I take it) will probably be much more so. We shall see. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI[edit]

I've closed the discussion as userfy. The page has been moved to your userspace at User:Rich Farmbrough/QWIKI-NOWIKI. bibliomaniac15 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Fur all teh epic lulz...[edit]

A reliable source for being 2th

might wanna see this. Buggie111 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you teh lulz are always epic. Of course I am indeed 2th, so A7 does not apply. I guess BLP-prod next.. lets see. Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC).
Weh? Yu iz fur shizzilz? My bad, bro. Buggie111 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Justin was kind enough to mention my name in an interview I believe, so there is a RS somewhere. Back when I was 1th there were also a couple of articles, one by Richard Knight I think, and one in Britain's oldest newspaper. I also get a rather flattering mentch in A Wikipedia Readerin the article about bots. Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC).
Lol, and it's gone... Bbb23 who is extremely ubiquitous right now. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC).
Searches related to Rich Farmbrough - how do i set up a wikipedia page - wikipedia bots - boni - you are now a google autocomplete after only "rich fa"! Surely that has to count for something :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool 7 characters of auto complete... one's Google number. Telegraph article where it is mentioned that I am 2th. Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Oddly it was (as I predicted) BLP-prdded but still A7'd. (out of process) a minute later. Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

Hi, Rich Farmbrough. Thank you for cleaning-up the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't leave tests hanging around[edit]

If you need to test things outside of userspace or sandboxes, then at least remove the test again afterwards. Things like this shouldn't be left around. Fram (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • No offence to you, Fram, but... I don't know how Rich feels about this, but your continued presence around his talk page could give the erroneous impression that your are continuing to hound him. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 08:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I was checking empty maintenance categories to delete, like I have done often recently (e.g. yesterday as well), and noticed some strange things with one of them. Keeping quiet just because the editor that caused this was Rich Farmbrough doesn't seem helpful. You may note that I e.g. didn't comment on his Arbcom motion, despite his repeated incorrect statements about some of my actions there. Fram (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
      • What stands out is the regularity with which you seem to crop up at places where Rich does. Then you meet back at his talk page... I won't comment any more. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 12:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Manifestly I am unable to look at this as viewing deleted pages is denied me (thanks Fram!), of course I used to delete test pages myself but that also is denied me (thanks Fram!), however without being able to look I would say that this would have had a speedy notice on it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
Having an automatically added delete tag is hardly a reason to leave things like {{Cleanup/sandbox|date=January 2013|reason=nfkjnr}} {{NAMESPACE}} in it, which added it to maintenance categories for no good reason at all. Your current lack of admin tools doesn't prevent an undo of your changes, does it? Fram (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, if that's what you mean then you are certainly correct. I would have thought it is no big deal though. And at the risk of an arb case for "responding inappropriately" I might suggest that

Hi Rich, you left a sandboxed template in a cleanup category last night, thought you would like to know! Love from the land of Poirot.

would have been a better approach. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
Spreading insincere love is not one of my habits. Fram (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Well that part was a joke. But again I should have known better. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
I'll try to use a more friendly tone next time I see something I think you should know. Of course, having negative comments by you about me at the top of this page hardly encourages me to do this, and finding that you felt the need to add some more here on 15 December doesn't make it any better. I can understand a wish to get things going again with a slightly more friendly and positive note, but leading by example would have perhaps been better than first posting a cynical "thanks Fram!" and then asking that I change my approach. Anyway, enough about that, like I said, if I do come across more things I believe should be noted here (whether positive, neutral, or negative in content), I'll try to bring it in a less negative register. Fram (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, at the very least it can no no harm. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

--

Category:Project-Class Editor Retention articles[edit]

Category:Project-Class Editor Retention articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For your list[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough, I have noticed your "Things that stayed too long" list on your user page, and thought you may like to add [25] to it. However, it stayed on WP just five days, which may not be such a long time for inclusion in your list. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes 5 days isn't so long (but still too long). A little amusing though. Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #40[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at John F. Lewis's talk page.
Message added 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Confused too. Mind explaining as your message was sort of, out of the blue. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Saw your response, all is good. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

--

Handbook of Texas bot[edit]

Hi Rich,

This slipped my mind - and maybe yours too. This Bot Request page also slipped off my Watchlist, so I forgot. You offered on here to take care of this if you could. I'm in no hurry. But if you know for sure you cannot do it, is there a way to pull this request out of the archives and put it back out there. I don't know what your permission status is on these things. Thanks for offering, whether you can do it or not. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I started on this Christmas morning when I was on Santa detail. Looks like it is actually a bigger job than I thought, some 1570 pages (I had assumed I think that "MM" was always the first part.) It's a two minute job with AWB or day or so by hand. I am "allowed" to request the ability to make automated edits from the day after tomorrow, however there seems to be an impasse which I need to get my head around. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC).
Yeah, I was kind of surprised with your original estimate of 120 pages. I have no idea what it would really be, but the Texas project itself has almost 30,000 pages with the project banner. You must feel like you've had a foot holding your neck to the ground for the last few months. It's probably more notable who manages to get around having this happen to them. The longer I'm on planet Wikipedia, the more I'm amazed. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your tireless work. Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Well thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 04:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

IMDb task[edit]

Hi Rich, Merry Xmas and all that. I just saw at the top of your talkpage you say about emails possibly being filtered off as spam; I was wondering if this might have happened to my emails reminding you of that IMDb correction bot task. If so, how are you getting on with it? If not, I'd like an update anyway please. Thanks Rich. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I did something preliminary on this. I'll download the Simple dump overnight and see if I can achieve something tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
How did it go? Rcsprinter (chat) @ 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have AWB privs on Simple (thought I did) I have requested them, lets see what happens. Rich Farmbrough, 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

Category backlog, project backlogs?[edit]

Greetings! Thank you for your contributions here. I am active with WikiProject Medicine, and I contacted Alvin Seville to thank them for their edits to Category:Wikipedia backlog. I also expressed my interest in getting a page like that established for content tagged as being under WikiProject Medicine. In an ideal world, I think bots would keep project-specific backlog pages like that maintained indefinitely. I'm sorry to hear a related bot of yours was blocked. Do you think you could help me get a bot like this going? Maybe a former bot of yours could be fairly easily tweaked and then it could get community consensus to run on WikiProject backlog pages. Unfortunately, I don't have any programming skills, but I think it would be cool if I could write my own bots eventually. Biosthmors (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I tired to introduce an optional subject based classification of backlogs, it was, however, scuppered by Wikilawyers, and to my shame, not particularly good ones. It would be relatively easy to set something up for WikiProject Medicine, if I could get User:FemtoBot allowed to operate then it could do that. Alternatively there may be another way to provide a solution, I'll think on it. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).
Thanks for thinking about this. We know at WP:MED we have a mess on our hands. And we know that this and this are horribly inadequate at describing that mess. I'm bet that if you have a good workable idea that I could drum up support for you at WP:MED/WT:MED to get it going. Biosthmors (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Any ideas? Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks so much for all the work you do Kipsizoo (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do what I can, thanks for the barnstar. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #41[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

|}

AE clerking[edit]

You did the right thing by not moving Fram's comment to their section. Uninvolved admins clerking a case is one thing, but you were correct in thinking that you placing that in their section might have been construed as you editing someone else's section, the very error Fram made. Good call on that one. I post this here rather than the case to avoid going off on side topics there. KillerChihuahua 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this stuff does tend to get dragged into the mix. I commented point by point inside someone's comment on AN/I once (a common method of reply in the old days) and got accused of vandalism and edit warring. Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Edit that appears to be automated[edit]

Instead of immediately starting an WP:AE section, I thought it better to first get your input on some edits that concern me. Over the last few months, you have made many edits that appear to be at least partially automated, with e.g. whitespace removals all over articles, the replacement of all parameters in the persondata template (from uppercase to lowercase, something which was discussed a few times already and which I thought you had said you would stop doing), repeated exact same minor errors, and so on. None of these caused serious problems though, so I left it alone.

An edit from yesterday[26] insert much more serious problems though, and the only expanation for these errors that I can reasonably think of is that you ran a script across a number of sources, and dumped the result in the article. While this is only one page, it is still using automated editing, and a return to the problems that caused the restriction in the first place.

  • The entries for Assam are completely wrong, probably because the pdf used ([27]) starts at 1, goes to 24, and then starts again at 1 (which are details of number 24), to continue after 96 again with 25. A human wouldn't have much problems with this, but a script or bot can't handle this and creates lists like the one we have gotten here.
  • The entries for Chattisgarh are botched at entry 26, which has a subset in the original pdf [28], which causes the script to go all haywire here.

Less serious contentwise, but typical of the use (and lack of control) of a script are the following issues:

  • When there are multiple entries (column one) or multiple designations (column three), a "return" is only addad after the first one, not noticing that more than two entries are possible. See e.g. Andra Pradesh 1 or 26 for examples of the first, and Andra Pradesh 15, 23 or 26 for examples of the second (layout problem)
  • Strange entries in column 2. See e.g. the first entry for Assam (with the thrice repeated " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh "), or the wrong ordering of Bihar, where 124 b and 124 a are placed before 1 - 2 - 3..., or the first entry for Chattisgarh; again something a script botches but a human hasn't any problem with.

I have stopped checking in detail after Chattisgarh, skimming the rest of the very long page seems to show similar errors all the way down.

Basically, it looks as if by using a script to generate this long page, you produced something that at first glance seems a nice piece of work, but that on closer inspection is seriously deficient, with a whole lot of entries simply missing and a lot of other, smaller errors. I'ld be glad to hear another explanation for this, which would save us the hassle of another acrimnious AE debate. Like I said, I don't see what that explanation could be, but I have been proven wrong before... Fram (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The problem with the tea workers is one I thought I had dealt with when creating the entries. The order within state is more-or-less arbitrary, I considered a column for entry number, but this is actually very minor (I could have used page number, possibly to better effect). I was also thinking when I created this part of the table that we might want to break it down even further by caste name, but the quality of the data does not seem to be good enough to justify doing that.
  • Again the Chattisgarh problem is a result of separating out Islamic castes in the source, and not knowing til I go to the end the exact layout I was going to use.
Obviously I have been limited in the tools I can use over the last month, working on this table, and reluctant to post my results. However there comes a point where the list is better where other people can see it than sitting on my infrastructure.
Most of these problems are due to sorting the table, which was necessary because the data was loaded by hand. An automated load would of course have not needed a sort.
And of course sorting is automation, but anyone who thinks that sorting 2,500 entries by hand is a 21st century option probably still uses file cards.
As to the carriage returns, it would be easy enough to put them in automatically, however for the names in particular the sources layout is relevant, distinguishing in some cases between synonyms and different castes. Were we to break down the names to one per line, we might as well follow the plan of one table entry per name. But this is a bad idea, because the exact disposition of qualifications such as "excluding those who have converted to Christianity" would then need to be resolved. However if the article regulars think this is useful I'm sure it could be accomplished.
In summary thanks for pointing out the limitations and errors, as I remarked on the talk page this is very much a "first cut" and subject to improvement. I will address the issues you raise and I'm sure there are more which the article regulars will bring to light, or I will find myself. This is however an important list, and it needs to be present and being worked on.
All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC).
So by doing it by hand, you have produced errors which appear to be only possible when this had been created by some script or similar automated tool? And you get the same errors with every individual source you use? I think this'll have to go to WP:AE, as nothing you claim here is in the least convincing (and you are incorrect as well, in cases where the source has multiple lines, you always reduce them to two lines, one for the first entry and one for all the others; you claim that for this "the sources layout is relevant", but you don't follow that layout but impose and arbitrary (or, more realistically, badly coded) one.Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you are missing the fact that mediawiki tables respect the first line break, but the rest of the text is treated as standard wiktext, therefore single line breaks are treated the same way as spaces. I would be interested in where you still see the two-line scenario you discuss, as I spent over two hours yesterday resolving these issues. Rich Farmbrough, 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC).
I am not discussing the cleanup you did after I found the problems and raised the issue here. I am discussing your initial edit only. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I would note that there is absolutely no way Fram could have found this list without going through Rich's edits looking for something. Its obvious that Fram is just trying to look for things to get Rich banned from the project so I have commented as such in the enforcement. This is the conduct I have come to expect from many in the community these days though. Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
He has already admitted a much, several times. After all if Fram doesn't control me looks like no one else will, right? Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC).
I continue to be hopeful that at some point the Arbcom will think for a few seconds on why it always seems to be the same 2 charachters submitting claims against you. Unfortunately I don't have much faith in the committee after the last couple years. Maybe the new one will change my mind but being that all of the people on the committee where already part of it to some degree either as a member or a clerk, I don't have much faith that they will look at this for what it is, a joke. I cannot believe that someone other than me hasn't noticed that CBM and Fram always seem to be the ones submitting these cases, not just on you, but in general. Fram has spent more time at Arbcom than some of the members. I cannot say how disgusted I am with the pedia, the Arbcom and the culture that we are fostering in this place these days. Its becoming more and more like the American Congress. MOre politcs, more beauracracy, more fingerpointing and less work. I don't know how much longer I can continue editing here. The entire community should be ashamed. Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, I have submitted cases on one editor only, Rich Farmbrough, and have participated in only one other case, Betacommand (and even then not in all incarnations of that case). I may be forgetting something here, but it looks to me as if you are (again) imagining things here. I don't care that your opinion of me is quite low, but that doesn't mean that you should just start making things up, like you seem to do time and again when you are discussing me. Remember my supposed involvement with the US roads project? Fram (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck[edit]

Well I wanted to be the first one to wish you good luck. I have done everything I can to stop this stupidity but unfortunately they keep letting Fram do whatever he wants. I expect to be blocked myself soon because I told him what I thought of him on the discussion so I think its only a matter of time before someone blocks me for personal attacks. Of course they'll leave him be to continue his crusade against some other editor. Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for violating the restriction requiring you to edit Wikipedia only completely manually – that is, by typing text into the edit window – as explained and agreed to by you here. Please refer to the enforcement request for further details.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

And who does that help? (Actually it seems that I am not "welcome to make useful contributions" - perhaps the template needs changing?) Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Rich, I'm sorry to see you treated so disgracefully. I wish I knew of a solution for this aspect of Wikipedia's disfunctionality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm unsatisfied by Sandstein's assertion of a violation as of 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC). There's no link to a diff showing any such violation. Sandstein? A bit trigger-happy here, IMHO, unless you can show what edit was the problem. --Lexein (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    Did you read the AE page linked from the "enforcement request" phrase above? -- Scray (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    I have read this; and other writings. I don't have the energy to search where I read this but I did read something to the effect that RF could not edit in any manner differently than a new editor would do after pressing the edit button. I disagree with any assertion that suggests copy-pasting is an advanced function that a new editor would inherently never employ. --My76Strat (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    @Scray - yes, thanks, I read it, but I see that I was unfortunately unclear in my statement. I mean the diff proves only that a single large edit was done, not that automated edits were done. The complaint asserts further that Rich made errors in that and other edits, but I dismiss that because I make errors, and sometimes it takes me a year to notice and fix it, if somebody else doesn't first. It's not deliberate, and it's personally embarrassing, but so far, none of my article edits, and as far as I can see, none of Rich's edits, damage the project. Now, note that I generally dislike massive article edits because diffs are hard to follow and vet (and I've reverted three such big edits as too much at once), but obvious spreadsheet additions such as this one aren't too bad. So I'll stand by my point that there's no diff illustrating an actual violation of the no-automation ruling. To rephrase, composing tables in a spreadsheet constitutes no vio of the ruling or agreement. There just an allegation, and what I believe was an overzealous, opportunistic, bad-for-the-project block, which I'd like to see reverted or severely shortened by some sturdy, tree-like pro-editor administrator. --Lexein (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The block may be overturned by community at WP:AN/I--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If this is true, we should let people know. And if not... then let's not do things that way. Does the veneration of ArbCom's august authority completely override all consideration of whether an edit improved the encyclopedia or not? Wnt (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that this was a bad decision based on a bad call. If someone wants to take this to ANI for review I would also support it. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'm trying to shoot the messenger by suggesting that User:Fram ought to be subject to a total ban against any interaction with Rich Farmbrough. He has been asked nicely before, and has declined, merely promising to be more civil. Yet seems to come back with constant stream of examples of big and small perceived problems with Rich's work. It seems pretty clear to me now, that Fram has an enormous bee in his bonnet wrt Rich, and has been demonstrably stalking Rich and subjecting him to incessant harassment. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So have I got this right? Rich is banned because of one edit to improve an article on a suspicion of using a method of automation that is not explicitly banned in the sanctions against him? Do those who are hounding Rich not understand things like rationality, cost benefit analysis and turning a blind eye in order to advance any improvements to Wikipedia? Blocking should be a protection measure and a punishment for disruptive editing. It should not be readily used on editors who make huge improvements to Wikipedia. And it seem Rich does make a lot of improvements to Wikipedia. Oh, BTW Rich, a few more edit summaries would be nice. If you are doing a lot of the same edits it typing one character should make the past edit summary come up. Well Firefox does that for me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty much it except he's not banned, he's just blocked for 2 months. Several of us fought the issue because a one year block was absurd. I also agree Fram needs to step away, I even started an ANI discussion but of course it was closed almost immediately. This unfortunately is the sort of thing I have come to expect from the admin community these days though. Block first, possibly ask a couple questions. Ignore any advice from those who are not admins then continue on. I do not have a very good attitude about the state of things these days. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The wrong types of human behaviour are unfortunately making it past the keyboard and in to WP discussions. Two types of human behaviour is the desire for power and the desire to punish. I think this is yet another case where these wrong types of human behaviour by admins has trumped rational decision making. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think that's part of the reason that we are losing editors and admins at an incremental rate. People generally edit because its enjoyable and it feels like they are contributing to something meaningful. But if its not enjoyable there are other ways to spend ones time. This is going to sound really bad but I don't intend it to be. I think part of our problem is that Wikipedia generally attract a certain type of individual. These are intelligent folks who tend to have trouble interacting socially. Intraverts if you will. So that manifests itself on wiki because generally people who are antisocial in real life are probably going to be at least the same if not worse on here. Kumioko (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting premise about the introversion. Could it be that introverts are able to be online extroverts? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I imagine that happens as well. Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a lot to be said about that theory. If people had to post in their real names (i.e. if they had something personal at stake when making a comment), they might behave quite differently – more like their 'nornal' personae. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • On doing a bit more reading it seems that the accuracy of the edits by Rich is a contentious matter. And rightly so. Accuracy is paramount in an encyclopedia. Also, there is enough bad faith edits without the regular editors making mistakes. An occasional mistake is acceptable (we all make them) but regularly making errors is unacceptable. So is insufficient care being taken by Rich? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a basic building block of Wiki that perfection is not required. The pillars says "Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes." Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Exactly, What happened to Rich is just one of many examples of how some members of the community who think they know more than the rest of us and think we need to listen to them, are eroding the pillars and making editors leave. Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, perfection is not required but as an encyclopedia relied on by millions of people accuracy is very important. We demand it of bio articles and we should apply the same standard to the rest of WP. How long will it be until someone is hurt or even dies as a result of information gleaned from WP? Not a likely scenario I admit but worthy of consideration. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually the precise problem is that the rules keep shifting. One time it's about errors, another time errors are acceptable, but I "refuse" to correct them, another time it's a technical breach of rules (blocked for a month for correcting two spelling mistakes). Similarly some arbs have stated publicly that it is thought crime my "Mindset" or "Failure to internalise"!
        • I asked in the Arb case if there were any known errors that I hadn't corrected, and a resounding silence ensued.
        • Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

MfD nomination of User:Rich Farmbrough/blog[edit]

User:Rich Farmbrough/blog, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rich Farmbrough/blog and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rich Farmbrough/blog during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it would have been easier just to ask RIch if he would request its speedy deletion, or move it so it's not called a "blog". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The timing is also incredibly poor since Rich is currently blocked and cannot participate in the discussion or edit anything outside this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Went and had a look at the mfd, and closed it as snowball keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It just got snowed as keep.—cyberpower ChatOnline 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosh won't let it lie, and has DRV'ed it. I imagine a similar outcome will conclude there. Waste of community time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And got trouted for this.Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

Proposed interaction ban between Fram and Rich Farmbrough[edit]

This message is to notify you that I have started a discussion at ANI for an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough. I know that you cannot participate in that discussion but I believe you can still edit here. Kumioko (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, its closed. Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
For the benefit of context, and Rich being able to read it upon his return, the proposal was here [29]. —Sladen (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #42[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Updated demo system
    • Improved design of sites code in core
    • Fixed SQLite compatibility
    • Worked on implementing references handling in statements user interface
    • Useful error messages will be shown in statements user interface in case of data value mismatches
    • Switched the demo system to Labs’ puppet
    • Selenium tests for length constraint, claim edit-conflicts
    • Setting up dispatcher script on internal test machine
    • More work on wikibase.getEntities() function for Scribunto/Lua-Templates
    • AbuseFilter is now working with Wikibase
    • The change dispatcher script is now ready for use on the WMF cluster
    • Initial implementation of {{#property}} parser function for the client
    • Created a widget for the client to connect a page to a Wikidata item and add interwiki language links to a page
    • Preparing a page to list unconnected pages on the clients
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note reply[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Curb Chain (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. I tried to avoid getting entangled in CSS (or indeed many large areas of Wikipedia) to focus on the content end, with a little bit of policy and welcoming work. And it is probably only there that I have succeeded. You may want to go and ask one of the CSS specialists. Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers ‎[edit]

The reverted section by User:Highlander should be reinstated but read "Van Heflin was helpful.... " and be cited to Let's Face It: 90 Years of Living, Loving, and Learning, Kirk Douglas, p21. (Stanwyck, apparently, ignored him for two weeks). The second sentence should not be included as it is too ephemeral. A nice note should be left for the user. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
--

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
Well done, you're the second highest contributor on Wikipedia! KEEP IT UP!

Rich Farmbrough, we moved your Teahouse host profile[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: this HostBot feature is currently operating under trial mode. See this bot request and this discussion for more information.

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]


Wikidata weekly summary #43[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployment on the Hebrew and Italian Wikipedia ([30] [31] [32])
    • Switched the Wikipedias over to a new, more scalable dispatching changes script for propagating changes from the repository to the clients
    • Fixing various deeply buried bugs and a few minor bugs reported after deployment
    • Preparations for next deployment on wikidata.org
    • Working on property parser function for the client
    • Implemented robust serialization of changes for dispatching
    • Resumed work on linked data interface
    • References can now be created, edited and removed on existing statements
    • Several minor user interface fixes
    • Styling of the user interface for statements
    • Selenium tests for references
    • Selenium tests for non-JS SpecialPages
    • Worked on puppet
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
    • Test statements on the [demo system before the roll-out to wikidata.org on February 4
    • Hack on one of these
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #44[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployment of the first parts of phase 2 (infoboxes/statements) on wikidata.org done - see it live for example here, here and here
    • Diffs for statement edits can now be shown
    • Started work on query definitions
    • Edit links are now disabled in the interface when the user does not have the rights to edit
    • Edit links are now hidden when viewing old revision
    • Worked on search field for WikibaseSolr
    • More work on Lua templates for Wikibase entities
    • Worked on bugfixes in the statement user interface
    • New features in the statement user interface (references counter/heading)
    • JavaScript editing for table showing labels and description of the same item in different languages
    • Repaired and updated the demo system
    • Resumed work on Linked Data interface
    • Support for enhanced recent changes format in client
    • There are automatic comments for statement edits as well in the history now
    • Special page for unconnected pages, that is pages on the client that are not connected to items on the repository
    • Added permission checks for statements, so a user that can not edit will not be able to edit or that only a group can be allowed to do some changes like creating statements
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • FOSDEM
    • upcoming: office hour (English; German later)
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven[edit]

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

  • And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:


Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ISBN questions[edit]

Hi Rich - I hope you are well. I have been working on Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs (we can already see G on the first page!), and have a couple questions that you may be able to help with. Do you know if ISBNs were/are applied retroactively to books published pre-1970? (e.g. should the invalid ISBN on Albert, King of Sweden, for a book published in 1953 just be removed?) Additionally, a number of the nontrivial ISBN issues seem to involve ISBNs with prefixes that contain a bunch of 9s. Mostly, these seem like they might be private print runs/vanity publications that may not have applied for ISBNs - the numbers given as ISBNs might be internal ID numbers given either by booksellers or the publishers - is this possible? Do you have any suggestions what to do in this case? --Storkk (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC) To stalkers: yes, I know Rich is blocked for the time being... I was planning to avoid that unpleasantness as much as possible

In theory ISBNs can be applied for retroactively, but I am not aware of the details of this process, nor whether it would be accepted before the start of the scheme. I would be inclined to doubt any such numbers from before the start of the SBN scheme, without very strong supporting evidence.
The problem with the leading 999's if I remember correctly is that they are being dished out to very small territories (in terms of publishing size) even as we speak. None of the examples currently on your problems page seem likely candidates, and indeed when I made the last run (as a precaution in case of a bad decision by Arbcom) I updated the tables to the very last version to cope with these.
I would be inclined to think that people will do, on very rare occasions, the sort of strange actions you suggest, and so would be reasonably happy to remove a small handful of numbers like this, where diligent research has yielded no information.
I must say I am pleased that you are working on this, it is one of two areas where I haven't left a system I have set up in as good a state as I would like - the other is really unimportant.
Of course there are lots of things that are simply unfinished, that is the nature of the Wiki.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC).
Thanks, Rich - that's pretty much exactly what I suspected. As you know, the vast majority of incorrect ISBNs are trivially solvable - transposed/deleted/inserted digits or adding a 978 to an ISBN10 without checking the checksum. I'm inclined to largely work through these first, to get a more concise list of problem ISBNs that need attention. That said, some are more easily solved than others, although it's becoming increasingly clear that some of these are just internal IDs that have been translated into an ISBN-like format. For the vast majority of these, I think I'll just replace them with whatever identifier is available (e.g. for the Blood in the Water reference on Dave Beck, I'll replace "ISBN 9990014981" with LOC ID 88071822), with a link if it's to a reasonably authoritative and permanent site, otherwise just remove them (like the Bolton Paul Defiant one). Ones that don't fit this mold (e.g. the CafePress one on my list though I suspect that may be the same issue - just replacing 9 with 0 for an internal ID that was never an ISBN), I'll just leave for someone with a Eureka moment. Eventually, when I've worked out what I thnk is the best way of doing this, I'll probably move my "issues" list to WP-space (or maybe a subpage of the Category Talk), but right now it needs more thought on how to format it. Anyway, I'm getting far too verbose. Best regards, and looking forward to when you are back... Storkk (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Kirby (professor)[edit]

The article David Kirby (professor) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Businesslink redesigned their website. I know. We had links to another part of it and they all went dead. I've added the pdf as a reference and removed the notability tag. Since I removed the prod, another editor has added another sentence. It wasn't eligible for a BLP PROD anyway - you can only put that on new articles, and this one had been around for a while. I don't like to see stuff that might be relevant to someone deleted for no reason - it's not as if it's a 'my mate Zac plays the drums in his dad's shed' article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

Comment needed[edit]

I made this Feature Request: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Don.27t_replace_underscores_from_certain_wikilinks. Please write us your opinion about it. Due to your recent block, please comment here and I'll copy it to AWB's page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that needs to be addressed to avoid either giving the impression that "bots are stupid" or having pages protected against AWB, in perpetuity, or both. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #45[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployment to English Wikipedia
    • Fix various minor bugs in client, including watchlist toggle with preference to default to always show Wikidata edits
    • Added the new Baso Minangkabau Wikipedia (min)
    • Fixed wrong revision of statements being shown in diff and old revision view
    • Diff visualization for claims (simple version for main snak)
    • Diff visualization for claims (extended version for references, qualifiers, ranks)
    • Tooltip that notifies about the license your contributions will be covered by while editing (can be disabled by each user)
    • Started with valueview refactoring
    • Started with user interface handling of deleted properties
    • Started with refactoring of local partial entity lookup
    • Started with refactoring of toolbar usage in jQuery.wikibase view widgets
    • Finished improvement on jQuery.wikibase.claimview’s edit mode handling
    • Improved search by using entity selector in search field instead of normal MediaWiki search field
    • More work on Lua-based templates for entities
    • Specified the capabilities of the query language we need
    • Created query object
    • Proper bot-flagging of edits (bugzilla:44857)
    • Use of ID to directly address an item or property
    • Search should give more of the complete matches now
    • Special:ItemByTitle should work for canonical namespaces and later on for local namespaces
    • More robust format for notifications of changes on the repository to the client
    • Started work on refactoring API and autocomments code
    • Started to maintain documentation of configuration options in git
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • Upcoming: Wikipedia Day NYC
    • Upcoming: office hour in English tomorrow
    • Note: changed day of next German office hour to March 8
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • We have a time scheduled when Wikidata will be read-only for a database migration. The window for that is Feb 20 19:00 to Feb 21 2:00 UTC.
    • New features and bugfixes on Wikidata are planned to be deployed on Monday (Feb 18). This should among other things include:
      • Showing useful diffs for edits of claims (they’re currently empty)
      • Automatic comments for editing of claims (there are currently none)
      • Ability to add items to claims by their ID
      • Better handling of deleted properties
      • More results in the entity selector (that’s the thing that lets you select properties, items and so on) so you can add everything and not just the first few matches that are shown
    • We’re still working on the issue that sometimes editing of certain parts of items or properties isn’t possible. If you’re running into it try to reload the page and/or change the URL to the www. version or the non-www. version respectively.
    • Deployment on all other Wikipedias is currently planned for March 6 (a note to the Village Pumps of all affected projects will follow soon)
    • Check out a well-done item
  • Open Tasks for You
  • Help expand en:Wikipedia:Wikidata
  • Help expand and translate Wikidata/Deployment Questions
  • Hack on one these
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #46[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall do so. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

Possible copyvio[edit]

This appears to be a copyvio of Tribal heritage: a study of the Santals by W. J. Culshaw. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

Jinge Temple[edit]

This is vague "highest" what? Buddhist temple? Buddhist temple in China? In the province? Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

Ombudsman Commission stuff[edit]

Hi Rich. Hope you are doing well. I expect you've already seen this, but just in case. There's a notice at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Community consultation: Remit of the Ombudsman Commission asking for input. You voiced some concerns over at meta:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals, so I thought you might be interested in this. I can copy a comment over there if you would like me to. Kind regards. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a quick look later. Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC).


The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)[edit]

A celebratory cupcake from the Teahouse Birthday Badge

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Metric Control group Teahouse group Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) 5.02 weeks 8.57 weeks 1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited 58.7 articles 116.9 edits 2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits 36.5 edits 85.6 edits 2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits 129.6 edits 360.4 edits 2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces) 182.1 edits 532.4 edits 2.9x total edits

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

The Teahouse Turns One![edit]

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!


Teahouse First Birthday Badge Teahouse First Birthday Badge
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!

To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are a Teahouse Founder![edit]

From the first months, through its first birthday, you have stuck with the Teahouse, nurtured its community, learned and helped, shared and improved. Simply put, the Teahouse would not be what it is without you. Stick around, because we need your lovely attitudes, sincere dedication, sharp minds, crafty design, caring reform, technical wits, and good humor. Display this delicious badge with honor, for you are a Teahouse Founder.


Teahouse Founders Birthday Badge Teahouse Founders Birthday Badge
Awarded to editors who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first months and are still participating a year later.

To celebrate the editors who have been with Teahouse from the beginning through its first year, we've made you this extra special birthday badge! Teahouse continues to be awesome because you are still here all these months later, so thank you. You are the Foundation of this awesome project.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
With the utmost cheer and appreciation,
--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 23:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]


Wikidata weekly summary #47[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Extended diff view to include references now
    • Fixed bug where incorrect statements revision was shown in diff view
    • Added first version of Linked Data interface (RDF/XML); will be accessible from Special:EntityData
    • Updated the demo system
    • More work towards using Solr for our search
    • More investigation and fixes of search issues
    • Fixed several bugs in the entity selector and improved its behavior
    • Worked on refactoring of how our widgets use the toolbar
    • Worked on implementation of missing data model components in JavaScript
    • A lot of bug fixing
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Rollout of phase 1 (language links) on all remaining Wikipedias is still planned for March 6
    • Next update on wikidata.org is also planned for March 6. This will have bugfixes and if all goes well string as a new available data type.
    • Proposal was made to the Hungarian, Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias to be the first batch to use phase 2 of Wikidata (infoboxes). Scheduled timeframe for this is end of March
    • d:Wikidata:Database reports has some useful reports like the list of most used properties
    • The interwiki shortcut :d was changed to always use www in the resulting link (to prevent editing issues on other URLs).
    • The list of available properties is growing and a whole bunch of new ones are being discussed
    • Reasonator gives you a nice adapted view of an item about a person
    • Items by cat helps you find missing items in a certain Wikipedia category
    • A few more additions to d:Wikidata:Tools that you should have a look at if you’re editing statements
    • We now have more than 2600 active users on Wikidata. Thanks for being awesome. <3
  • Open Tasks for You

Oxford Meetup 4[edit]

Thank you for attending the third Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. Thank you also for creating the page about the fourth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is London, 10 March 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles to be redirected[edit]

Richard, you are listed as the creator of Category:Articles to be redirected. What is the purpose of this category, exactly? There are zero entries (which odd enough appears as a backlog) and I have no idea if there's a tag that puts it here or what. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an ancillary to the currently unused {{Stub redirect}} at least. It is perfectly OK (in fact splendid) for these categories to be empty. As to the reason it appears in in Category:Wikipedia backlog, that is due to {{Backlog subcategories}} which could be made smarter if that is seen as useful. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC).

Moon landings were faked listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor hasI have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moon landings were faked. Since you created had some involvement with the Moon landings were faked redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Ryan Vesey 07:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This redirect is bringing a small trickle of hits to the target page, and is therefore useful. There is no NPOV, the redirect term is a sensible phrase to enter in the search bar. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

Delete/block[edit]

MfD/speedy

Block

These are likely socks of a banned user. Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

User:Kevin[edit]

If anyone wishes they can copy this to the motion page as "Comments by uninvolved..."

While I would normally say "restore his tools" - this was no only a one-off, but a one-off that involved unblocking, which is far less harmful than a wrongful block, I am very concerned that at Signpost comments Kevin requests that the outing which started this whole thing be repeated. This, for me, casts severe doubt on his judgement. Privacy is a principle that most Wikimedians, and, increasingly, society at large, take very seriously. Aside from that I would wholeheartedly support restoration of the admin bit. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #48[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Gagging[edit]

Talk page stalkers may be interested that there is an attempt to gag those accused at Arbitration Enforcement by limiting their responses to 500 words, and to limit community involvement in the process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC).

New quote for the day[edit]

...please remember that we are all volunteers working towards the same purpose, and while disagreements may arise, there is always time to stand back and attempt to understand one another. from Hersfold's resignation. Shame he didn't discover this earlier. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC).

Test[edit]

Country Overall name of legislature Name of house House level Term (years) Voting system Seats Population per seat[1] GDP per seat ($Milion)[2][3]
 Afghanistan National Assembly[4] House of the People (ولسي جرګه Wolesi Jirga) Lower 5 Single non-transferable vote 249 122,168 119
House of Elders (مشرانوجرګه Meshrano Jirga) Upper 3, 4 and 5 majority and appointed by the president 102 298,234 291
 Albania dummy Assembly of Albania (Kuvendi i Shqipërisë) Unicameral 4 proportional closed list 140 20,226 177
 Algeria Parliament[4] People's National Assembly (al-Majlis al-Sha'abi al-Watani) Lower 6 proportional open list 462 61,833 439
Council of the Nation (al-Majlis al-Umma) Upper 5 indirect vote and appointed by the president 144 257,638 1,830
 Andorra dummy General Council of the Valleys (Consell General de les Valls) Unicameral 4 proportional closed list 28 2,789 161
 Angola dummy National Assembly (Assembleia Nacional) Unicameral 4 proportional party list 220 84,081 525

Dummy date 07:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference en.wikipedia.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Native name not available

Test 2[edit]

Extended content
  • test
  • test
  • test
  • test
  • test
  • test
  • test

Dummy date 07:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #49[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
    • Development
    • Design improvements to the SetClaim API module
    • More work on implementing the simple inclusion syntax that will be 1 way to access Wikidata data on Wikipedia
    • More work on Lua (the second way to access Wikidata data on Wikipedia)
    • Added parser page property to hold entity id in client. This fixes:
      • bugzilla:45037 - don’t show edit link if noexternallanglinks has suppressed all Wikidata links
      • bugzilla:44536 - have the edit link go directly to the Q### pages, instead of Special:ItemByTitle which shall make the link be more reliable and work for all namespaces
    • Selenium tests for deleted-property-handling
    • Selenium tests for multiline references
    • Selenium tests for add-sitelinks-from-client
    • Selenium tests for Entity-Selector-as-Searchbox
    • Selenium tests for language-table
    • Implemented in-process caching for entities
    • Lua support to access the repo data and implement getEntity (so you can use stuff like entity = mw.wikibase.getEntity("Q1459") in Lua modules)
    • rebuildTermSearchKey is now ready for production (this still needs to be run but once done it will make search case-insensitive)
    • Improved error reports from the API
    • Ground work for better edit summaries from the API
    • Added a table of content to item pages
    • Added debug functionality to be able to investigate why it takes longer than it should for Wikidata changes to show up on recent changes and watchlists on Wikipedia
    • Finished implementation of References-UI
    • Implemented GUID generator in JavaScript
    • Worked on fixing a bug related to deleted properties where the UI would display wrong information
    • Minor fixes/additions to the JS datamodel implementation
    • Minor bugfixes in Statements-UI
    • More work on RDF export
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
    • If you add a Babel box to your user page Wikidata will show you items and descriptions in other languages you speak as well without you having to switch the language
    • Want to know which items use a certain property? Try the “what links here” link on a property page
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 18:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Globalizing Cricket[edit]

In the 1755 laws, provision was made to allow an injured batter to retire and to resume his/her innings at a later time (a further indication that such injuries were relatively common), but not to be replaced or substituted. Presumably due to the suspicion that such a regulation would be flouted (and the ramifications this would have for bets placed on matches), an additional law decreed that the umpires were to be judges ‘of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended’ (Rait Kerr 1950: 97–98). Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity, Dominic Malcolm

So the volume does not make the claim that this appeared in the 1927 agreement. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC).
--

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nowikify[edit]

Template:Nowikify has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And my comment is "Undelete, subst, and delete. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC).

--

Glad to see you back[edit]

Glad to see you back! --Orlady (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

References[edit]

FYI, references need only be given a name if they are used more than once in an article. A reference name needs only be in "quotes" if it contains more than one word separated by a blank space. Thus the quotes in <ref name="Threat"> are unnecessary. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am actually aware of both these facts. Rich Farmbrough, 07:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Kumioko[edit]

You can read some of the story here and here, also here, here, here, here, here, here, and here   LittleBen (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I have seen most of that, but of course more abuse by Fram had to be part of the picture. Thanks for the update. Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
FYI, it was Kumioko who added that, not me. I certainly have no objections to you removing it, but he may put it back. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I realised, subsequently. And if he reinstates it I will leave it there, I understand the message he was sending, even if I question the efficacy of it. Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
  • I was disappointed to see your personal attack on Sandstein here. Maybe you didn't read this or this (including my submission here)? LittleBen (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sandstein wishes to cut down the discussion on Arb Enforcement, so that he can block more people, faster and for longer. That seems to be his modus operandi. The good of the project is secondary to thoughtlessly implementing dictats he doesn't understand. He has made that clear at least. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Right after SMC was cautioned for wall-of-text wikilawyering threats, and personal attacks, he launched into an attack on Fyunck (you didn't read my submission). SMC didn't get blocked as a result, he just got a one-month topic ban.
Er.. and what entitles Sandstein to do that? Notice also he imposed on Fyunck his proposed limit of 500 words. Looks like Sandstein is making up the rules as he goes along and implementing them. Always a bad sign. The point is not whether SMC was a naughty boy (which is not unlikely as tempers get heated at MoS) but abuse of process by an admin on Arbitration matters. I have not looked at this in detail, but that is what it looks like, and it conforms to the impression that I get that Sandstein enjoys telling people what to do, and dispensing "sanctions". Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
  • You can see SMcCandlish, as well as Hans Adler, threatening Sanstein in the SMcCandlish archive above. It takes a lot of courage for an admin. to stand up to such threats and intimidation.
  • On the sports field, players who repeatedly foul or attack other players are sure to get a yellow or red flag. Players (or spectator cronies of players) who threaten the referee to try to get a penalty reversed are likely to be removed from games for the whole season. The excuse that a player is "important"　and "has a clean slate" and so should not be penalized for repeated fouls and attacks on other players is laughable. LittleBen (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I hadn't seen it. But it seems to me a problem that SMCandsish (a hugely prolific editor by the way) withdraws his request at 06:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC), and subsequently a day or so later, Sandstein sanctions him for making a frivolous request. I have not interacted much with Sandstein as far as I can remember, prior to his absurd block of me, but he does seem to be very much desirous of exercising power. I have also seen him closing misplaced AE request with threats to block. Hardly collegial. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Can you give me diffs to the threats? Rich Farmbrough, 10:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

  • The link to the threat in context is in my submission, and I also cite the threat. You can see the story about how a mob to lynch Fyunck was canvassed here. Also see this. The 500-word limit is currently being discussed, but it was applied to both sides. In the end, SMC went over his 500 words by a factor of about six or seven. LittleBen (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Whoa you were talking about threats to Sandstein during the AE request, not something that happened back in Novemeber last year! Rich Farmbrough, 10:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
  • The November threats were echoed in SMC's filing the complaint, i.e. repeating the threat even after being cautioned against such behaviour. The other threats by SMC amount to "he and his army would have Sandstein removed as an admin. if he persevered with this". That's surely no different from threatening the referee on a sports field.
      • And on point 2 - how can Sandstein apply a rule that is still being discussed (and rejected)? Like I said it looks like he's just doing whatever he wants. Rich Farmbrough, 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Admins are human and unpaid and have lives outside Wikipedia. It is unfair to force them to read 6,000 words from one side when the other gets only 500 words. I agree that third-party submissions can be a problem. I've bumped into one abusive person who spends all his time on WP passing judgement on other people at ANI (pushing for blocks or bans, even though he has no experience in the topic areas), and contributes virtually nothing to WP content. LittleBen (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes I was one. But believe me it takes far longer to write 6000 words than read them. And the subject (it is usually the subject) is forced (on pain of being sanctioned unheard) to write and spend vast amounts of time on these venues. I have (little or) no objection to someone announcing "TLDR" on a normal talk page, or even on ANI, but at Arbitration level, the stakes are pretty high. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

OK I found Hans Alders section. These are not threats. Hans Alder sees Sandstein as being on a "Power trip" and needing reining in. This is pretty much the same conclusion I have come to independently. Hans does not even suggest launching an RFC/U on Sandstein. I understand that diacritics are a vexed question, and I have no opinion on the behaviour of the parties in the dispute, since I don't know about it, but even assuming that SMC is behaving badly it does not give Sandstein carte blanche to write the rules for AE, let alone impose apparently unilateral sanctions not recognised by policy or usage. Rich Farmbrough, 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

  • He is deciding the word limit by discussion with others, not unilaterally. The idea is that when the average user can make his case in say 500 words, the other side should not get six times that for wall-of-text threats and wikilawyering. LittleBen (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes and this is a bad idea. In my arb case I had about 5 people making allegations at 500 words each and only 500 words to respond. I was done up brown, as a result. (I was also in dispute with the drafting arb, but that's another story.)
There is no reason to think that the number of words allows threats, and as for wiki-lawyering, that is clear when it is being done, and usually it is those making the accusations of wiki-lawyering that are doing it, in my experience.
All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 10:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
Sandstein's delay in responding was a result of his listening to others who were urging him to reduce the proposed topic ban to one month—and he was asking for another admin to close the discussion, but apparently nobody else had the courage to take the flack. SMC's withdrawing the complaint was apparently just (as Sandstein says) an attempt to avoid sanctions. All the best. LittleBen (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe no-one else thought it was a good idea. Just saying. Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Kumioko reply[edit]

I posted this in one other place, 28bytes talk page. That is all I intend to do but I wanted to respond here as well. Greetings all, I saw a lot of traffic with my name on it today so I just wanted to make a couple passing comments. First, thanks Rich for the kind words in the various venues. I appreciate it but there's no need to spend time defending my actions. This place isn't worth it to me anymore. If they would prefer to give the tools to users like Sandstein, Fram, Sarek and others that want to block everyone and open up months long Arbcom cases against every editor they don't agree with, then manipulate policy so they are even more powerful and can do even more they don't need contributors like me who want to build an encyclopedia. 28bytes is right, I am fed up with this place, the toxic culture, the us and them admin to editor attitudes and with the politics of it all. I wanted to contribute but the power elite just want to insult and bully so I don't have time for that crap.

Next I want to clarify a couple other things. Clean start is an ineffective crap policy and should be deleted since the culture here doesn't support it. You can't do a clean start without being dishonest and you certainly can't do it with the same user name. Eventually someone will call you out for socking. People edit what they are interested in so the only way to make a "clean start" is to edit stuff outside your interests (because presumably you were editing within your interests prior) and that's unrealistic. Most of the time you have to say on your page I used to be X and now I am Y. That's not a clean start, that's a name change and is pointless. Its a hypocritical nonsense policy.

I also want to clarify that I did not suggest Sarek be desysopped, Arbcom did that, I just supported it and I still do. Sarek used to be a great admin, over the years he has become callous and no longer listens to the story. He levees severe blocks without hesitation. That is not the type of Admin we need here. Sandstein is a powermonger and Fram is an idiot and there are plenty more bad ones out there as well just like these three. If we get rid of some of these bad admins maybe some of the 640+ others will start participating if some of the jerks are moved out of the way. Right now there isn't any room to get past the big ego's. Anyway, I expect this to be deleted as atacks or whatever. It doesn't matter, I just wanted to explain some things and set the record straight. Not that I beleive for a second anyone cares. As you can see I am still a little pissed off. Kumioko138.162.0.44 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I pretty much agree with most of what you say, and I shan't peruse your unblock any further right now, unless I hear form you. I am, however, pleased to have put a maker in the sand, making it clear that (whatever else was going on) the block summary is wrong. I shall also follow up on the abuse of checkuser rights, as this is the second time in a few months that I have seen this happen, and it is inimical to the community, and demonstrably wrong (unlike some other matters which it might be claimed are subjective). Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Message[edit]

Left you a message on Meta-Wiki. πr2 (t • c) 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Another. πr2 (t • c) 23:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Great Answer[edit]

Large:


Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Thanks for the answer.U2_Girl! (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olympic results index[edit]

I was interested to see the first edit from someone else to this page. I have tried to get some feedback from others about the article and most people seem to think there is no need for it; that perhaps it should be made into a template. I would be like to hear if you had any views on that? If it were to be a template there would be the laborious task of putting it into all the necessary articles and I don't have a clue how to create a template. Jodosma (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be too large for a navbox, in my opinion. However it could be a set of navboxen, though similar ones probably exist. Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 5. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

HIV project[edit]

I hope that you have been well, Rich.

At the last Wikimania you showed me an outline for an HIV project on Wikipedia. Could you point me to that again? Someone else has another project and was discussing it at meta:Talk:Wiki_Project_Med#Interested.3F_HIV.2FAIDS_in_.28sub-Saharan.29_African_languages and I was thinking to make a connection between that and whatever precedent exists. We are starting to have several pieces to connect. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind me interjecting, our English articles on HIV could use a good update as well. Articles like AIDS in Africa are relying on 4 year old data, and the situation has changed significantly in many cases due to effective wide scale epidemic reduction programs. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. And that's part of the reason the project got stuck. I wanted to make sure we had good data to translate. I also wanted to make sure the right (most important) stuff for public health purposes was present. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
Would you like to discuss it on the aforementioned page? Apparently there's a local enwiki initiative to translate medical articles too. Can we coordinate? πr2 (t • c) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
For helping me with an old, annoying problem. Spitfire19 T/C 06:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Love my barnstars! Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #50[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Rolled out new code on wikidata.org. The new stuff you probably care about is:
      • Improved references. They can now have multiple lines. This should make references much more useful. You can now have one reference with for example values for each of the properties "book", "author", "page" to describe one source.
      • Fixed the prev/next links in diff view (bugzilla:45821)
      • d:Special:EntitiesWithoutLabel now lets you filter by language and entity type
    • Widget to add language links on the Wikipedias directly: added setting to enable/disable it per wiki and made it available for logged-in users only
    • Widget to add language links on the Wikipedias directly: improved layout / size
    • Made it so that the “edit links” link on Wikipedia is also shown when the corresponding item only has a link to this one language and no other languages
    • Submitted improved Apache config patch to make wikidata.org always redirect to www.wikidata.org, which is awaiting code review and deployment.
    • Improved the script that is responsible for taking Wikidata changes to the Wikipedias
    • Added a few ways to better debug the script responsible for taking Wikidata changes to the Wikipedias. This should help with investigating why some changes take way to long to show up on the Wikipedias.
    • Started work on automatically adding edited items to the user’s watchlist (according to preferences)
    • Finished script for rebuilding search keys, so we can finally get case insensitive matches in a lot of places
    • Support for multi-line references in diff view
    • Selenium tests for inclusion syntax
    • Improved parser function (that will be used to access Wikidata data on the Wikipedias) to accept property ID or label
    • Increased isolation of data model component to increase clarity and visibility of bad dependencies
    • Worked on schema access in the SQLStore (of the query component)
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • 3rd Media Web Symposium 2013
    • Wikidata trifft Archäologie
    • SMWCon Spring NYC
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
    • When you edit a statement there is a little wheel in front of the text field. This lets you choose between “custom value”, “unknown value” and “no value”. “No value” means that we know that the given property has no value, e.g. Elizabeth I of England had no spouse. “Unknown value” means that the property has a value, but it is unknown which one -- e.g. Pope Linus most certainly had a year of birth, but it is unknown to us.
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 00:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Friendly note[edit]

Please, please, please do not use AN/I to report edits that require oversight/revdel. As the massive red pagenotice that pops up every time you post to AN/I says, in bold, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here." Follow the instructions at WP:RFO instead or contact a recently active sysop via email. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I emailed Oversight on Wednesday- nothing happened. I spoke to an oversighter on IRC on Thursday and was told it would be resolved soon. Nothing happened. I spoke to another overnighter on Friday and was told it's being discussed and discussion is normally very fast. Nothing happened. Seems oversight is broken, so I decided to give it a kick. Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
ROTFL. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Which seems to have worked! But.. it shouldn't have been needed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
Hallelujah! -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I strenuously object to you sullying my name at AN/I without the required courtesy of a notification. Don't ever let it happen again. Carrite (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you are being too touchy. I never mentioned your name, and took steps to avoid ANI. I also made it clear that the outing was inadvertent, a far as the Wikipedia side of things goes. Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Concerns about recent edits at Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

I've left one of them here petrarchan47tc 05:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement[edit]

I have started a section regarding your edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fram (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

wikilove[edit]

User:Slowking4 has given you a Gerard Langbaine award! By your becoming a target of the "malignant assiduity" of those who level charges of errors.

They read wikipedia "only to detect plagiarisms." [37]

Spread the goodness of Gerard Langbaine awards by adding Gerard Langbaine, award to someone's talk page with a friendly message! slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 00:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

hi[edit]

I was just looking at[38]

I don't know if it matters but the 3 sources I see are the same url. If you like I can update them. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks: the second should be 533431126 and the third 533580322 . It might be best to ask a clerk to make the changes. It is interesting that no-one else noticed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC).

"Buggy script" woes?[edit]

You're not the only one. [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.67.164.188 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban him! Funnily enough there was a bug in Horsefeld's ArbBot while "my" case was being hears. He gave me a lot of grief for mentioning it! (Lese majesty again?) Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC).

March 2013[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the editing restrictions that apply to you as described in the arbitration enforcement request mentioned above,
you have been blocked from editing for 1 year. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  23:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

You were in a rush, was there consensus at AE? Did you not want your question answered? Do you think one Arbitrator represents the whole committee? Do you think it right to wreck an Arbitration process by you desire to be a part of a Milgram experiment? Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
When you blocked me previously you said "You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires." Why did you say that if you are going to block me for making useful contributions? Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Aside from Sandstein, who else rendered this decision? I am not well versed in the arbcom case, so I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I always thought AE cases usually had 3 or more administrators chiming in.--MONGO 02:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


WP:IAR.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Using "rule" semi-loosely as standard (somewhat inflexible) arbcom procedure, this is ridiculous. I fail to see how this block does anything but prevent the improvement or maintainence of wikipedia. I'm really tempted to post this on Sandstein's talk page too, but alas, discresion is the better part of valor. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rich, the ice has been thin for many moons, I'm not sure if you understood quite how microscopically thin it has been over the last year. I guess you eventually fell through—although as always it was likely not your intention, just a consequence of stepping heavily. I have been hoping it would not be the case. Lets try again in a year; you already managed to get a year more out of it than I expected. —Sladen (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, Sladen, that stepping heavily is not needed. The restriction I am under states "anything that appears to be automation" - to Sandstein this edit appears to be automation. If changing a single character is automation, I am effectively banned from editing anyway. I was ridiculed by Coren for saying this. I was ridiculed by Risker for saying that I shared her distaste for having to constantly look over my shoulder. Can anyone say there is not dysfunction here? Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Tazedadog, IAR works, when if tested, the consensus of the community or those making difficult judgements agree with the decision to IAR. So, IAR is about ignoring red tape, not about ignoring the will of many. In this case, IAR doesn't really help Rich, and neither does the arguing/attacking of Sandstein above. Rich can try, but based on past experience I can make an educated guess about the outcome. —Sladen (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A whole year? That's too severe. GoodDay (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • According to the notice above, this can be amended or overturned, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page". Already three people have posted here supporting Rich. Surely nobody is perfect; admins. are human and so sometimes make errors. LittleBen (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that a one year block is what Sandstein wanted to impose when Fram submitted the AE last time but was talked down by community uproar. The fact it was a year this time can be attributed to the short time frame (only 13 hours) which limited the amount of dialogue from the community. Virtually everyone who watches AE knows that Sandstein favors the extreme end of the spectrum and rarely takes comments into consideration. Its also well known that he is pretty much the only one who participates in AE making it a one man show. It goes without saying that this decision is too severe, it goes without saying that it was going to happen because no matter what Rich did, Fram was going to watch until Rich did something that would justify a block. He's been trying for years to get Rich banned from the project and its unfortunate that the Arbcom and AE fell for this rope a dope. Rich, a lot of us do not agree with this, that much is obvious. My suggestion would be to show ENWP their loss and do what you do best on the other wikis. Simple always needs help as does commons and Wiktionary. There is a lot of work to be done at Wikidata and Wikivoyage too. Good luck and I hope someone with a level head sees how truly stupid and punitive this block is. There is absolutely nothing preventative about a one year block of a longn time user for frivilous edits. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
What an appalling block. Having just been through his contributions, I see no edits even close to vandalism or even automated. The fact that a block has been imposed on the basis of one edit is just WP:BOLLOCKS as far as I'm concerned. Rich Farmbrough is a very useful editor here and for some editor to unilaterally impose a site ban on him for editing using external tools (what exactly is wrong with that, by the way? When I used to edit Wikia, copying and pasting sections into Microsoft Word and making numerous replacements via the "Find and Replace" function was a common task!) is absolutely outrageous. This is not the Wikipedia I used to edit four years ago.--Launchballer 22:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Milgram experiment[edit]

Hi, Rich. Your point about a Milgram experiment was well found and striking. I have featured it as "wikiquote of the week" on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

I would have felt a little unkind mentioning, but Sandstein admits that he doesn't understand why he's making blocks, and is just a tool of authority. (He also suggests that I can appeal the restriction, but blocks me for a year when I try to do so.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC).
<redacted what might appear to be a personal attack, but less so than the statement you made above.> Sandstein says doesn't understand why the original restriction was made, but he blocked you for violating it. That's different than saying he doesn't understand why he's making blocks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course, that was exactly my point. "I'm electrocuting you because the man in the white coat said so." The Milgram experiment has been reconstructed over the decades, in different countries and in different demographic groups. Consistently a significant portion will follow the instructions. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC).
Actually 'understand' is probably the wrong word here. They simply said they didn't know. What they do know as they expressed is there is a process which we can presume they trust leading up to the restriction and which allows the restriction to be lifted. It's far more similar then a law enforcement officer enforcing an arrest warrant then the Milgram experiment. In many cases, the details they know about the case are limited and often they will have no desire to engage in discussion with the person they are arresting about the alleged unfairness of the case. Nil Einne (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly the point of the Milgram experiment. People obey authority, including (and especially) those in positions of lesser authority, despite their moral qualms, if any. And they don't examine the reason behind those orders, they don't even ask what the reason is. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC).
It worked out pretty well so far for the lemmings! Oh wait! KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt anyone pressured Sandstein to block you. Sandstein has a more legalistic approach to Wikipedia DR than I personally agree with, but he goes about it in a thoughtful way and he reaches his decisions independently of what other people tell him to do. And, I doubt he has any moral qualms about the block. So the Milgram experiment isn't a good analogy. You might be thinking of the Zimbardo experiment, which describes an awful lot of Wikipedia these days. I wouldn't single out any particular editors. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

Dafuq?[edit]

You are actually still blocked? I give up, I thought I had seen everything. Anyway, a drive-by note in the unlikely event you had not spotted it, the delightful Giovanni di Stefano is spending much of the next 14 years as a guest of Her Majesty. I'm sure he would want us to represent it as such, rather than the coarser terms "banged up" or "jailed". Made my week. Guy (Help!) 01:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a shame, he is undoubtedly a very capable man, and could have made significant contributions to society had he chosen to. Moreover, though I am relieved he will not be able to threaten or harass people for some time, his bolt was shot as a fraudster. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

Script advice[edit]

Rich, After some extensive testing of my sources script, I'm still slightly concerned about how slow it runs. Occasionally I get a windows error message when the script seems to stall, I click to continue and it invariably finishes the job without a problem. So long as I know there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the mechanics or programming I'm OK, but it's annoying nonetheless to have that popup on long articles.

I was wondering how I can make it run more efficiently, and eliminate the stalling. I had some advice on this script, but my programming skills are limited so I don't know how to even implement it. Any other help or suggestions would be appreciated. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at User:Ohconfucius/test/Sources_subscript2.js, (1) Avoid compiling the Regex more than once. (2) Consolidate the regexes to avoid compiling variants, so that you end up with (Ukrainian Independent Information Agency|United Press International|Xinhua News Agency). —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm afraid I need to explain that I didn't actually write the code myself. I borrowed the backbone and plugged my regexes into it mechanically. Aside from applying a bit of layman's logic, I don't really understand where it may be compiling twice, for example. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
new Regexp() is the compliation, which is saved into re, and then executed once with regex(). The for(;;i++)for(;;j++); loops are causing several hundred compilations. The regexs are similiar that they can probably be combined, thus causing only a total of three compilations and executions. —Sladen (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So you mean I should start by making my regex more efficient, like what I have just done, or that I can simplify the loops further. or perhaps both? -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This edit increases the complexity of the regex, but with the advantage of compiling a fewer number of regexes overall. My suggestion (see two paragraphs above) is go further and to concatenate all of the strings into a single (very complex) regex, and then to have less iterations of the loop (which is the expensive part). You could use a loop to the concatenation, then compile the resulting lengthy regex at the end of the loop. Ideally you'd go even further into compiling each regex once, then cacheing the compiled form and then executing them against multiple pages. That said, please ensure that if it is made to run faster, there is still time to adequately review each change before saving. —Sladen (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The speed of the compilation and running are effectively independent of review time. Go => wait => diff => review => save or not - the machine parts run in series with the human parts not in parallel. RF
You will (should) get a modest speed-up by expanding stuff like (Fox (?:News(?: Channel|)|Business Network|Broadcasting Company)) - this is because bayer-moore-horsepool is faster with longer strings. You can also get a speed gain by listing the elements of the match in decreasing probability of matching. Having said that there are two other factors, one is that we are searching the entire article (as far as I can see), in many cases, rather than just the text in the citation template, say - this could get you a factor of between 10 and 100. Another matter is that the "bits" server which serves the .js scripts and other "bits" (I suppose) seems to have been struggling for about a year - this seems to have caused problems for me from time to time, that manifest as you describe. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #51[edit]

Extended content
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The first 11 Wikipedias can now include data from Wikidata in their articles (If you want to see it in action see the infobox at it:Torino)
    • Worked on automatic summaries for statements
    • Worked on making properties accessible from the client using their label so you can use {{#property:executive director}} instead of {{#property:p169}} for example
    • Made qualifiers ready for the next deployment (Please test. See details further down.)
    • Selenium tests for qualifiers
    • Fixed some issues related to QUnit testing
    • Worked on improved handling and code design of multiple snak lists in the UI (qualifiers, references)
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • Newline 2013
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • We’re currently carefully monitoring performance after the deployment of phase 2 on the first 11 Wikipedias. There seem to be a few small issues. As soon as they are resolved we'll deploy on English Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are planned to follow very soon after that.
    • Bye and a big thank you to Anja, Silke, Jens and John who are leaving the development team at the end of the month and will work on other cool things. You’ll be missed!
    • Ever had any doubt about the possibilities of Wikidata? Talk to Wiri!
    • We worked on reducing the time it takes for Wikidata edits to show up in the Wikipedias and made some progress. Daniel posted an analysis
    • We started running a script on the database in order to make search on Wikidata case-insensitive. This should be finished in a few days and then search should be more useful.
    • In addition to the above we have rolled out a new search box that suggests items. This should also make finding things on Wikidata a lot easier for you.
    • We’re making some progress with Internet Explorer 8 support but there are a lot of issues with it (some outside our control). It’s unclear at the moment how much we can improve it still without spending an unjustified amount of time on it. You can follow the progress at bugzilla:44228
    • Edits are now auto-confirmed for users with more than 50 edits and account age 4 days: bugzilla:46461
    • Do you need old-style interwiki links for a sister project for example? This is for you
    • The Wikimedia Foundation applied as a mentoring organisation for Google Summer of Code again. We have proposed some Wikidata projects for students to take up if the Foundation is accepted again. At least 2 other organisations that applied also propose Wikidata ideas. More details on that once we know which organisations are accepted.
    • Denny hacked together a tree of life based on data from Wikidata
    • Wikidata was added to wikipulse
    • A template to retrieve data from Wikidata if no local value is set
  • Did you know?
  • Open Tasks for You
    • See note at the end of this weekly summary
    • Help test qualifiers (m:Wikidata/Notes/Data model primer#Qualifiers - see also example statements there) on the test wiki so we can roll it out with the next release
    • Did you file a bug report for Wikidata or did someone else do it for you? Please take a minute to check if it is still valid. (Thanks for filing it btw!)
    • Add some missing descriptions to those items with the same label?
    • Hack on one of these

Could I have 2 mins of your time? As I’ll be working on some other projects for Wikimedia Germany as well from now on the time I can spend on Wikidata will be reduced. This means I’ll have to figure out what is useful to spend time on. If you’re reading this could you let me know for example on this discussion page? Also if you have ideas how to improve the weekly summaries please post them. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk)

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Sorry to hear that you were blocked again. Makecat 13:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Barnstars cheer me up in these dark days. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

Error needs fixing[edit]

An accidental deletion of some text by a new user. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

Fixed, thank you, Rich. An error made over a year ago..! I guess it's not one of our most intently-watched articles. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

Notification regarding you at 28bytes.[edit]

Hi. I feel as if you were treated unfairly by 28bytes when you questioned his motives. I have engaged him in combat. Please peruse his talk page for recourse efforts. Greetings. Mr. barbers773 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I really have no issues around 28bytes motives. I merely feel the block was wrong. Note that 28 bytes made a reasonable offer to unblock, and Kumioko is now commenting from a different account. The only outstanding matter is the abuse of checkuser.
On the English Wikipedia, CheckUsers asked to run a check must ask for (and be given) clear evidence that a check is appropriate and necessary.
This seems to be endemic, in that I have run across two clear examples without looking for them. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

Here's a beer to go with that kitten![edit]

I saw that you got a kitten to play with while you are in exile for the next year so here is a beer to help as well. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! ("I can haz beer?" Drunk kitten is drunk... ) Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

A kitten for you![edit]

I can't believe you were blocked for something so minor. Have a kitten to cheer you up.

Revolution1221 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Kittens are fluffy and cheerful and one can never have too many (though I did once get reverted with the edit summary "...too many cute kittens..."). Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

CC-BY-SA3 and Wikipedia graphs please add[edit]

I have been interested in getting some of the community's graphical products released under free licenses. There are issues, of course, there always are. But they may be resolvable. Here is a list of graphs and their status - please feel free to add. Note that WMF data is released under a free license.

Item URL Current license Free license requested
Page views https://www.stats.grok.se None stated 1 April 2013 RF - by email
Server stats nagios "probably free" 2103 RF on Meta
Ganglia [=db33 Example] RRDtool is open source. Data is released

Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

Addendum:

17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Not a copyvio[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/William Joseph Hammer was probably not a copyvio, it was taken from text written by an employee of the Smithsonian Institution as part of his job, and is therefore almost certainly probably {{PD-USGov}}. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

Hi, Rich. I saw link to this comment elsewhere and just wanted to let you know that SI claims copyright, as an independent trust instrumentality. :) publicdomainsherpa.com explains a bit more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's actually a little more subtle than that. Except for the bit about SI giving the impression that everything is copyright. That is why I said "probably" (I have changed the second part of my statement to match). I was aware of the trust, and I will attempt to find the reference I was using, as it has relevance from the point of view of content. From the point of view of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) it should be considered at the very least not an indictment that he used this source. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC).
I'll look forward to seeing your source. According to Fishman's Public Domain, the only works of SI that are PD gov are those that are produced by staff paid directly by the U.S. Government; content by staff paid by the SI itself and outside contractors is copryighted to SI.(Fishman, Stephen (16 April 2010). The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More. Nolo. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4133-1512-7.) I didn't actually follow the ArbCom hearing here - did Richard claim somewhere that he believed the copyright tag on that source was fraudulent? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
(Just to add - I have been trying to find any information to confirm the employment status of the author of that work, but so far no luck. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC))
Indeed, that is the distinction (though whether it has been tested in court I don't know), the work of "Federal Employees" is PD-US-Gov and the work of "Instrumentality Employees" is (effectively) cc-by-nc. Misra v. Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory indicates that the SI is considered Federal regardless of the source of funds (citing Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters. v. Smithsonian Inst.). I can't find the source, but the distinction between Federal and Instrumentality funds is the key, so it would add little. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

A kitten for you![edit]

Sorry about the confusion about my semi-protection of Five Ws. I never meant to take sides in your dispute, nor impune anybody. See my comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#As_to_my_motives.

Bearian (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So he's not blocked then after all? Cool. Basket Feudalist 14:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sadly that's not what Bearian is referring to. Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC).
It's not a problem, I am not in dispute over the article and wasn't even aware of the page protection - or the revert - until they were brought up elsewhere. Thanks fo the kitten Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

-kittens--

Nomination of UUA (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UUA (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UUA (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed Keep. Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC).

Thanks to Sjö[edit]

This "short story" is very reminiscent of what can happen on Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC).

Look further afield?[edit]

Without automation, you were wasting your potential here anyways.

Based on your skill set, you have options others do not...

  • Build, make available, and maintain tools at toolserver
  • Join Round Two of the Individual Engagement Grants. It begins August 13, 2013.
  • Or help the Round One grant recipients who submitted software development proposals:
  • Fork Wikipedia, or a subject from it of your choice.
  • Build the next generation wiki platform
  • Expand the wiki-paradigm
  • Build wiki-tools
  • Increase wiki-automation
  • Extend Firefox's wiki-functionality by creating new add-ons
  • Run for the Wikimedia foundation board of directors
  • Develop a Jarvis-like browser (ala Tony Stark, aka Iron Man)
  • Create a mindmap program for site map creation and viewing
  • Make a script or program that creates tag cloud views of a subject or webpage content
  • Automated web-page design

You've outgrown Wikipedia. Now would be a good time to transcend it.

In a project of your own, you can make the rules. The Transhumanist 01:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

i agree. i would add:
  • an upload wizard or tool for texts to wikisource. i recently got some feedback from an archivist, that they are swamped with handwritten texts that they would love to upload, but are deterred by the opaque process. anything would be an improvement.
let the incompetent have their small pond, there's work to be done. slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me chime in and concur as well. Meanwhile we shall continue to tell them at every opportunity how truly stupid the decision was to invoke a 1 year block over something so minor. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
And there have got to be better ways to access or view the material on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia has grown so extensive that its navigation systems cannot keep up.
Which reminds me, the sister projects also provide relevant information, but it is not well integrated with Wikipedia. If you want to survey them all, you've got to click 20 or 30 times just to get to and from each of them. A program to view the treatment of a subject by all the Wikimedia projects would be a very useful viewer. Something as simple as entering a subject name, and then the program loads the matching entry from each into a separate tab. That would be much faster than following links to each one.
Rich, based upon your ability in building bots, you should be able to blow minds in the overall wiki-arena, relevant to Wikipedia and the rest of the wiki-community. It certainly would be a way to make time pass more quickly during your block. The Transhumanist 06:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
How about creating an app or extension that allows us to create a global watchlist? Or maybe just have some way (through wikidata or elsewhere) to have a centralized userpage without having to create/update one on each project individually? Maybe even update the new pages app with some improvements. There are countless things that can/need to be done. Although personally I think I would use my time off wiki but you should try and remember that although there are a few powerful editors that are controlling your block, they are not the only editors here and there are a lot of us that wish you were here editing. Kumioko (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
i believe that's the idea behind the liquid threads [40] flow [41] work. but there's lots to supplement, tool requests that users need. slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 18:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some great ideas here, the universal user page would have been achievable with Mirror Bot. Another area I am interested in is redesigning Checkuser to be more public in its logs: at the very least showing who preformed each checkuser action, and under what category (here on en:wp that would currently be WMF/SPI/Own initiative/private request/checkuser abuse), and in some cases more detail. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

H'm! Nice ideas indeed. Lots of human processes lacking better automation and transparency. – SJ + 17:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just stumbled onto Wikipedia:Editor engagement/Echo. I guess my Watchlist suggestion is being worked on already. Kumioko (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A random calendar for you![edit]

A random calendar for you!
365 days is a bit too drastic... Nevertheless, I still trust that you can knock Koavf off the top! Stay strong ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks: maybe I'll be using the Newgate Calender for a while... Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Template talk:Fix.
Message added 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Quinn (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this change is a WP:SNOWBALL obvious improvement. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:DoD detainees ARB[edit]

Template:DoD detainees ARB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom B (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone could kindly add to the discussion on my behalf:
Keep helps guard against link-rot, see this update for example. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

 Done. Nice template – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #52[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The first year is over. Thank you everyone for being amazing and helping to build Wikidata and making it more than we could possibly have hoped for already. <3
    • Put a lot of work into improved support for Internet Explorer 8
    • Worked on improving recent changes code in client
    • Finished valueview refactoring. Created new extension “ValueView”
    • Implemented string formatter
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • upcoming: GLAM-Wiki 2013
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Deployment of phase 2 on English Wikipedia is currently planned for April 8. The remaining Wikipedias are scheduled for April 10. As usual this might change if we run into problems along the way.
    • There is now a page showing the current lag for changes propagating to the Wikipedias so they can show up in watchlists and recent changes for example. This should ideally be in the range of a few minutes. Right now it is higher because of some abnormally high bot activity but decreasing. Should be down to a few minutes soon.
    • There’s now a badge you can add to Wikipedia articles to indicate there is data about it on Wikidata
    • We hit Q10000000
    • A Wikidata item in the wild ;-)
  • Did you know?
  • Open Tasks for You

Based on feedback for last week’s call for comments we will continue this newsletter. However more community help will be needed. From now on they’ll be drafted at d:Wikidata:Status updates/Next and your help is very welcome.

Mail[edit]

You have mail. —Neotarf (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, we moved your Teahouse host profile[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cowboy halls of fame inductees[edit]

Category:Cowboy halls of fame inductees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

Arbitration amendment request[edit]

Hi Rich, this is a coutesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has declined the amendement request you submitted. You can view the archived request here, or the orginal version here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This makes me very sad. The comments from arbitrators seem to say "block him, we're not going to change the sanction" (T. Canens) and "we're not going to change the sanction because he's blocked" (Cacheroth and Risker). This is on a par with previous decisions, but I had hoped for better. Moreover, as usual, any discussion has been held in secret. Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC).
Hi Rich, well I feel bad for your decline, unfortunately it was kept in secret, because people like to hide stuff here... Either way I should be quiet now, because I was under a gun.--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This is typical. I wish you were here too Rich, now Fram has turned his attentions on me.:-( I am not nearly the gentlemen you were though. I am getting to the point I don't even care if I get blocked anymore. The community wants to keep bullies and miscreants but wants to block the ones doing all the work. And the WMF wonders why spending $4 million anually (roughly 10% of their annual budget) to recruit new users doesn't seem to help. Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What, you are blocked too? Either way, I heartly agree with the fact that they do keep bullies in, look at the Russian Wikipedia for example. In other words, Wikipedia is buroucratic dictatorship (thats as far as I can tell from your point of view)! Its funny how no one realiases that Wikipedia have become a center for breakaway Wiki projects, which most Wikipedia users hate (again, Russian example). Further more, I think Jimbo Wales will turn in his grave one day, when he will realise that his dream of "perfect society" have failed!:) I don't want to insult the founder, but even Hitler had a dream of "perfect society", and then look what happened to that guy.:( I do appreciate him for creating a site though, what I sometimes don't appreciate is that people need to donate money to a site that hires bullies most of the time! Question: Does any of you donate this project even a cent or pence?--Mishae (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikikids[edit]

Hi Rich Farmbrough, you droped your name on m:Wikikids#People interested in 2012. I've been updating and expanding the proposal (which runs in French and Dutch right now), are you still interested in it ? Bye ! Astirmays (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

question about time bot uses[edit]

Hi, I noticed this edit to the article Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department from March 2010 back when the bot was still named Smackbot. The revision time of that edit was "23:22, 31 March 2010" but the bot was dating templates as "date=April 2010". This is probably because the bot was using local time instead of UTC time. It ought to use UTC time and for this particular edit caused the month itself to be different than the actual month of the tag. Anyway, I'm not sure if this bug still exists in the present form of the bot but it's the kind of thing that can go unnoticed for a long time so I thought I'd mention it. Does it still exist? Do you agree with me that it's a bug? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex question which contains a bit of bot history to answer fully, but the three key points are:
  • Revision as of 03:22, 1 April 2010 - you are using local time, not the bot.
  • It would be a bug but not a significant one, I.E. I would fix it, but I wouldn't worry if someone else's bot was doing it, the important thing is to a) Allow careful evaluation of which tagged problems are unlikely to be fixed b) Support workflow and prevent (ideally) problems remaining unfixed in perpetuity c) Provide management information that shows the scale of the backlogs. Note that a good portion of this has been thrown away with the deletion of Expand and Wikify and others. If a few articles move across a bucket boundary it is not important. (Arguably this belongs in March because that's when the tag was added - we've discussed this at length and in some cases retroactive dating was used when a tag became categorised by date for the first time, in other cases not - again, in general, it's not ciritcal.)
  • The bot has used various dating mechanisms, a plaintext date, {{CURRENTMONTH}}, a recompile of the AWB settings, and now (having moved from AWB in 2010) the internal UTC time.
Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #53[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Got some external professional review of our code and architecture and started working on their feedback
    • Worked on reducing the dispatch lag (the time it takes for changes on Wikidata to be sent to the Wikipedias for display in watchlist, recent changes and to purge affected pages)
    • Worked on using Redis for job queue to improve the lag situation even further
    • Created new Wikibase Query extension for phase 3 functionality
    • Autocomments & Autosummaries for SetClaim module
    • Worked on the GeoCoordinate parser
  • Events/Press
    • right now: GLAM-WIKI 2013
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Deployment of phase 2 on the remaining Wikipedias was delayed because of a high lag of changes being propagated to the Wikipedias. The lag has been reduced considerably now and is going down even more. The new date for deployment will not be next week because there are other large changes on Wikimedia infrastructure scheduled that we do not want to interfere with. It will hopefully happen very soon after that though.
    • Next code update on wikidata.org is planned for Wednesday. This should include qualifiers and bugfixes.
    • There will probably be a short outage/read-only for wikidata.org on Tuesday (database is being switched to MariaDB)
    • If you're a student and interested in coding on Wikidata consider applying for Google Summer of Code.
    • There is a new user right: property creators
    • There is now a page to request deletion of a property
    • We now have Bureaucrats
    • Reasonator was improved and extended (1 2)
  • Open Tasks for You

Based on feedback for last week’s call for comments we will continue this newsletter. However more community help will be needed. From now on they’ll be drafted at d:Wikidata:Status updates/Next and your help is very welcome.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Come to Commons[edit]

Hi Rich, I see that you have foolishly been all but declared persona non grata on this project. Why don't you come across to Commons where I am sure that we would be able to utilise your bot skills to our benefit, and you won't have to worry about being bound by a ridiculous decision as you are here on this project. If you want some suggestions on how we could benefit from you on Commons, feel free to get in touch. Russavia (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich, I do not think going to commons is a good idea. See, on commons admin russavia is as abusive as admin sandstein here, maybe even more. Better forget about wikipedia, go out and have some fresh air. Let risker to write articles. Maybe then he would think twice before marking your request as "moot".199.241.30.239 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Delta function (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Delta function (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Delta function (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). RockMagnetist (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Speedily kept as it should be. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot: ISBN[edit]

Helpful Pixie Bot is adding {{Please check ISBN}} to the 'isbn' field of citation templates. This function is no longer needed as the Citation Style 1 templates now test the ISBN and will show an error. Placing the template in the 'isbn' field corrupts the display and always has:

{{cite compare | mode=book |no-tracking=true |last=Trager |first=James |year=2005 |title=The People's Chronology: A Year-by-Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present |edition=3 |location=Detroit |publisher=Gale |isbn= 1-4144-0140-9 [[Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs]]}}

--  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hasn't run for a year.
  • Good.
  • I know and no it hasn't always. The over-linked ISBN is a relatively new bug.
Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC).
You may care to fix
  • Patterson, Lyman Ray (1968). Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 0-8265-1373-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
on the Copyright page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #54[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Dispatch lag is now down to 0 so changes should show up very quickly on the Wikipedias in watchlists and recent changes
    • wikidata.org now always redirects to www.wikidata.org. This should among other things solve the issue where people were not able to edit when on wikidata.org (bugzilla:45005)
    • Fixed weird blocked-user/protected-page handling in UI (bugzilla:45140)
    • Final meetings for the external professional review of our code and architecture. They were quite happy with the quality of the codebase and gave useful tips for improvements
    • Worked on automatic summaries for editing claims
    • Investigation of different JavaScript frameworks dealing with date and time
    • Worked on using Redis and the job queue for change notifications to clients
    • Work on the storage code for answering queries
  • Events/Press
    • GLAM-WIKI 2013
    • upcoming: office hour on IRC about sources
    • upcoming: Opensource Treffen
    • upcoming: intro to Wikidata at the British Library
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #55[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Imperial Roman senators[edit]

Category:Imperial Roman senators, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 12:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #56[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I OrangesRyellow hereby award thee this barnstar in recognition of your massive improvement to the List of Other Backward Classes article. Although I am late in doing so, I could not stop myself .... OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2013[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #57[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #58[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Notice[edit]

We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymani (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you truly represent Neumont University you will be aware that I have some months ago, pursuant to your previous legal shenanigans, contacted both you and your legal representatives, pointing out where you may have been in violation of US law, and advising you to take a more constructive approach. You might consider other Law too: Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
... and one more, to emphasize the point that just one is nowhere near being enough ... OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

cleanup total[edit]

Per this discussion: How do I get the 'total' to update correctly in Template:EngvarB progress? the counter seems to be stuck at zero. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The category "All Wikipedia articles written in EngvarB" exists, but is empty. Simply delete the category and all will be well. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #59[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Press
    • Linked Data in Business
    • currently: Hackathon in Amsterdam
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
    • Newest properties: catalog code (P528), runway (P529), diplomatic relation (P530), diplomatic mission sent (P531), diplomatic mission sent (P531), port of registry (P532), target (P533), streak color (P534), Find a Grave (P535), ATP id (P536), twinning (P537), fracturing (P538), Museofile (P539)
    • Newest task forces: Ship task force
    • d:Template:Constraint:Item allows to check if items using a given property also have other properties. To find items to fix, it links to one of Magnus' tools and to a daily report. Sample: items with property mother should also have main type (GND) with value person.
  • Development
    • A lot of discussions and hacking at the MediaWiki hackathon on Amsterdam
    • Worked on content negotiation for the RDF export
    • Bugfixing for editing of time datatype
    • Added validation in the api for claim guids. This also resolves bug 48473, an exception being thrown in production, whenever a bot or api user requested a claim with an invalid claim guid
    • Improved error message popup bubbles to show HTML and parse the links correctly
    • Fixed bug 48679, to hide the view source tab for item and property pages
    • Testing on Diff extension and SQLstore
  • Open Tasks for You

Oxford Meetup 5[edit]

Thank you for attending the fourth Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. We have decided to hold the next Oxford meetup in one month's time, rather than two, so that it falls within Oxford term-time. A page has been created about the fifth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: Glasgow; London; and Nottingham, all on 12 May 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm concerned about the low level of support for the fifth Oxford Meetup. Are you unable to attend, or is it that you haven't seen the geonotice? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

A beer for you![edit]

I am sorry to see that you have been forced on vacation. It's the community loss, clear and simple, when such an active editor as yourself is forced to retire. I hope you'll find a more welcoming home on one of our sister projects. My hat is off to you, Mr. 2nd To Have Reached 1 Million Edits on English Wikipedia. This project is poorer without you. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #60[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.


ISBN 0-596-00027-8 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ISBN 0-596-00027-8. Since you had some involvement with the ISBN 0-596-00027-8 redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 1#ISBN 0-596-00027-8|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). 108.56.232.165 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Undo button[edit]

Greetings Rich, you need to be more careful with your edits. I noticed you used the undo button, some editors may constitute that as "using automation". :-) Seriously though, I hope things are going well for you these days. Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Coming from anyone else, like some of Rich's 'friends' watching this page and every move Rich makes, the above comment could be construed as either a warning as a prelude to ANI or taking the piss. Of course I know you better than that. Personal computers have changed the world by allowing things to be done much, much faster than purely by the human hand. I guess one might call that invention "automation" in itself, never mind what humans use it for afterwards. ;-) Have a good one! -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I was of course meaning my comment to be joking sarcasm. :-)Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Anybody who imposes sanctions on Rich for this undo should themselves be sanctioned, because it is not a crime to revert your own edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a crime to do a lot of things around here. But I have seen some pretty outlandish decisions by Arbcom, AE and even individual editors that somehow don't get overturned. The vagueness of the sanction against Rich is where the crime lies where anything in the judgement of the admin can be construed as automation. Excel, cut and paste, twinkle, etc. have all been identified as automation. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbcom was very specific in what types of edits Rich was forbidden to engage in, including cutting and pasting. There are many sad things about this situation. Rich's prolificity is lost to us for a year. But hopefully we can tap his expertise. After all, he still has this talk page. The Transhumanist 08:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Rich, remind me again, was one of the problems that you were mass-creating Category talk: pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #61[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

A barnstar[edit]

The Purple Barnstar
Normally, I'm not a fan on giving out barnstars for "nothing much", but feel the description of this fits the case - "The Purple Barnstar is awarded to those who have endured undue hardship on Wikipedia but still remain resolute in their commitment to the project and its ideals." Mdann52 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I personally feel jellous, wish I can get one of those, considering purple colour is my favourite!--Mishae (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Guidance for people terrified of block[edit]

So, at this point, we need to know where to respond to an appeal against the one-year block, or is it some technical loophole to be overturned within a few hours of review? News of this "one-year block" is likely to terrify many other editors. I am an uninvolved editor who is willing to review this case. Meanwhile, I wanted to ask Rich his advice about methods to apply Lua script to massive improvements of Wikipedia, now that the system-wide feasibility of Lua-based templates been demonstrated. Rich's ideas have been instrumental in creating fast-cite markup templates which rival the speed of Lua script, but without the complexity. Anyway, long story short, we need to include Rich in discussions about writing Lua script modules to solve massive quality problems in Wikipedia data. This is not the time to block him, even for 48 hours. So, where do we respond to overturn this block decision? I suggest people repeat the "Hawthorne experiment" for improved productivity, rather than the Milgram experiment. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

  • My message above points out that—according to the block notice—this block be amended or overturned, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page". Already several people have posted here supporting Rich. (A discussion has also started here). Surely nobody is perfect; admins. are human and so sometimes make errors. Maybe WP needs a paid full-time Ombudsman/lady who has the power to review overly-hasty admin. or community decisions and send them back for review. LittleBen (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I have spoken with several users who are afraid to even start a bot for fear of being banned. Some don't even want to edit right now. That's part of the reason I came back. A flurry of editors I talk to off wiki that don't like how this and other things are playing out. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikid77, Rich effectively got his indef enwiki site-ban a year ago. The deal agreed was that Rich could instead make pure-manual edits. Because it is effectively a suspended (delayed) sentence, I think it is likely to be harder to overturn. —Sladen (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
And indeed I should have fought that, but I was mortified by the two mis-clicks that caused it. Looking back I should have been far more robust in my own defence - this was really a very human error, which I would never have censured another editor for. Maybe you feel that two mis-clicks out of several hundreds was too many. Maybe you feel that ArbCom has (as they seemed to suggest) control over the reading as well as writing of Wikipedia. Currently this block is somewhat irrelevant while that restriction stands. Sandstein characterised insertion of a single character as automated - on that basis any editing is forbidden me. Somewhat strange that T.Canens should encourage blocking of an editor who has made an appeal to ArbCom, though. Perhaps he hadn't thought it through, or perhaps that will be the new modus operandi. Would you do that? I wouldn't. Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC).
Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Wikipedia - The Encyclopedia anyone we like can edit as long as they only post what we tell them too, how we tell them too and when we tell them too!KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, per WP:CIVIL, I do not think this is appropriate. —Sladen (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot more uncivil things in Wikipedia every day done by admins and other editors than that comment. Like blocking an editor for a year for simple non automated edits, refusing to follow policies like Harassment, Article ownership, blocking editors due to COI, etc. If that comment seems uncivil then something needs to be done to fix the culture that embodies that comment rather than call me uncivil because it hurts some feelings. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Rich, I do not think you should have fought it—I do not think it would have helped. It is the fighting that loses credibility. I regret to say, but I don't think it was merely two clicks. A few months after the automation ban was in place, and before things reared up again, I saw an edit involving removal of trailing whitespace (sequences of "\x20*\n"), but not the removal of trailing whitespace which was a mixture of tabs and spaces ("[\x20\t]*\n"). These are indistinguishable inside the browser textarea editor. I drew my conclusions at that point, and also kept quiet. Time took its course anyway. —Sladen (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering that I am Rich's friend, I should mention that I agree with user Kumioko CleanStart on his comment about it being Socialist Republic, I should add that its actually worse than that, its actually Fascist Republic to be exact, pardon my French. I will fight for you Rich!!!!!!!!--23:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Another thing to mention, and please don't take it the wrong way any of you, I heard somewhere that Wikipedia was founded by liberals, which are socialists, to push their liberal ideas. Now, I am not saying it as either good or bad thing, just trying to get the point across.--Mishae (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

Merger proposal[edit]

Merge discussion for Martini: A Memoir[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Martini: A Memoir, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rangasyd (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #62[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Oxford Meetup 6[edit]

Thank you for attending the fifth Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. I intended to send this message on Monday, but I've been a bit busy, sorry.

Several of us would like to continue with the monthly plan, since trying to make a two-monthly cycle fit into the University terms doesn't work very well. A page has been created about the sixth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: London, 16 June; Manchester, 22 June; and Coventry, 7 July. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it was pointed out to me that 7 July 2013 collides with Coventry 8, who have a prior claim to the date. Since nobody has (yet) claimed 14 July for any UK meetups, I have decided that Oxford 6 should be held on 14 July 2013, and not 7 July as previously advertised. In this way, those who wish to attend both may do so. I hope the revised Oxford date is convenient for you; and if it isn't, why not give Coventry a try? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #64[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.


Correction required[edit]

In Robert Motherwell we say "extensive reading of symbolist literature, especially Mallarmé, James Joyce, Edgar Allan Poe and Octavio Paz." Of these four, Poe is pre-symbolist, Joyce is post symbolist and Paɀ I don't believe is categoriɀed as symbolist, though maybe this is arguable, he is probably better categoriɀed, like Joyce, as influenced by the symbolists (especially Mallarmé) about whom he wrote. Rich Farmbrough, 09:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

Undo button[edit]

Greetings Rich, you need to be more careful with your edits. I noticed you used the undo button, some editors may constitute that as "using automation". :-) Seriously though, I hope things are going well for you these days. Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Coming from anyone else, like some of Rich's 'friends' watching this page and every move Rich makes, the above comment could be construed as either a warning as a prelude to ANI or taking the piss. Of course I know you better than that. Personal computers have changed the world by allowing things to be done much, much faster than purely by the human hand. I guess one might call that invention "automation" in itself, never mind what humans use it for afterwards. ;-) Have a good one! -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I was of course meaning my comment to be joking sarcasm. :-)Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Anybody who imposes sanctions on Rich for this undo should themselves be sanctioned, because it is not a crime to revert your own edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a crime to do a lot of things around here. But I have seen some pretty outlandish decisions by Arbcom, AE and even individual editors that somehow don't get overturned. The vagueness of the sanction against Rich is where the crime lies where anything in the judgement of the admin can be construed as automation. Excel, cut and paste, twinkle, etc. have all been identified as automation. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbcom was very specific in what types of edits Rich was forbidden to engage in, including cutting and pasting. There are many sad things about this situation. Rich's prolificity is lost to us for a year. But hopefully we can tap his expertise. After all, he still has this talk page. The Transhumanist 08:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Rich, remind me again, was one of the problems that you were mass-creating Category talk: pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it was so alleged, it was even alleged that they were automated, though this was given short shrift. Those creations are of course sanctioned by consensus, in the sense that they are established procedure. However since I was only given 3 minutes to respond to that particular allegation, before an involved admin blocked me for a month, it was never discussed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]


Wikidata weekly summary #65[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #66[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users[edit]

Start Snuggle

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail(talk • work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #67[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
When I saw your page, I just got amazed. Wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. Keep editing!! BenisonPBaby 12:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #68[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.


The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #69[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Proposed deletion of 574.7[edit]

The article 574.7 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

coincidence of no scientific or historical notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BHBrunt (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You can G7 this. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC).
Done. Dpmuk (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bat-signal[edit]

Your thoughts on the problem represented by, for example, (5796) 1978 VK5 ? Chrisrus (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chrisus, I remain willing to complete this work once I am permitted to do so again.
It does not really constitute a "problem" as such, asteroids are not like people where there are some billions we actively don't want articles on, for legal reasons not least. Asteroid stubs are harmless and verifiable.
My main concern is that, given consensus to replace the stubs with redirects (rightly or wrongly) we do a good clean job, without loosing information, and without prejudicing re-creation of individual articles as circumstances change.
Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC).
I understand. Please, if you would, put Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO on your watchlist and comment or act as you may/would. Chrisrus (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, you might want to see this first: Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Bot_needed_to_make_a_list Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought I created an on-wikilist, of course that might be outdated now. The job could be substantially finished reasonably quickly, were I permitted to do it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

Correction required - Barbie[edit]

Barbie includes the sentence "At 5'9" tall and weighing 110 lbs, Barbie would have a BMI of 16.24 and fit the weight criteria for anorexia." Firstly the wiki-link to anorexia is to the wrong article, and the correct article is linked earlier in the paragraph. Secondly BMI is not a "criteria" for anorexia nervosa unless relatd to other symptoms as I understand it, though unsurprisingly correlations exist. I would suggest the whole sentence is removed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

Note that the figure of 17.5 is described (in our BMI article as well as other places) as having a relationship (we say "informal criterion", without a cite), other places say "People with anorexia generally have a BMI below 17.5. " to a plain wrong " Adults with anorexia have a BMI below 17.5." Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC).
We should possibly have an article on SEED.Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #70[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

Iraqi Swiss dinar[edit]


s/envoys/convoys/

The

massive movements of currency around the country went off well, although two

currency convoys were unsuccessfully attacked in an intense firefight near Samarra in late November 2003

Rich Farmbrough, 23:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC).

No editing by proxy, please. Huon (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #71[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Press/Blogs
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Wikivoyage is scheduled to get access to Wikidata data (aka phase 2) on August 26th.
    • Listen to and watch beautiful Wikidata edits
    • To support the inclusion of geographical coordinates in Wikidata, just about two months a new data type came available and d:Property:P625 "coordinate location" was created. Already 565,000 pairs of coordinates are now available on WikiData. Compare this to 870,000 coordinates on English Wikipedia or 1,500,000 items with d:Property:P17 "country", likely to have coordinates. Have a look at them on a map.
  • Did you know?
    • Newest properties: approved by (P790), ISIL ID (P791), chapter (P792), Key event (P793), as (P794), distance along (P795), geo datum (P796), executing authority (P797), mission design series designation (P798), air ministry specification (P799), work (P800), notable work (P801), student (P802), professorship (P803), GNIS Antarctica ID (P804), subject of (P805). Italian cadastre code (P806) In Addition new properties to describe mushrooms were created: hymenium type (P783), mushroom cap shape (P784), hymenium attachment (P785), stipe character (P786), spore print color (P787), mushroom ecological type (P789), edibility (P789). These will allow to build the data for a mushroom infobox (as w:Template:Mycomorphbox).
    • Newest task forces: Physics task force
    • Wikidata helped remove 240,000,000 language links from Wikipedia's wiki text.
  • Development
    • Want to get an overview of what Pragun, our Google Summer of Code student working on Wikidata for mobile, is doing? Check here
    • Worked on simple special page to make a query (bugzilla:52385)
    • Worked on ability to move qualifiers
    • Started improving API and Special Page tests
    • Fixed links to Special:SetSiteLink in non-JavaScript interface (bugzilla:51914)
    • ChangeOps, custom summaries and autocomments for SetStatementRank API module
    • Fixed displaying “0” as label/description in autocomments
    • Some minor fixes for rare crashes of editing UI
    • Worked on moving Selenium tests to Cucumber
  • Open Tasks for You
    • See if you can connect some of these Wikivoyage pages to their item on Wikidata.
    • Check if some of the items on this and this list can be merged. But be careful to only merge if they are really about the same topic! Help about merging is at d:Help:Merge.
    • Update, expand and translate d:Wikidata:Introduction to make it easier for newcomers to understand what Wikidata is all about.
    • Hack on one of these.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 22:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

New user feedback[edit]

User:AnnFran Morris has uploaded a lot of PD pictures by the artist Bill Lewis and got OTRS approval for them. Her talk page, however, consists mostly of huge warning templates from before the OTRS was obtained, and a block warning. It would be nice if someone were to leave her a personal thank-you note for getting the OTRS permission, and for uploading the images. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

 Done - see User talk:AnnFran Morris#Thank You!, and thank you for the heads up! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Your article submission Hoërskool Voortrekker[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Hoërskool Voortrekker.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hoërskool Voortrekker}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, or otherwise, this article, for which I can claim less than 0.1% of the credit, has been live in mainspace for over a year. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
I am curious as to how long a notice we consider appropriate for the type of user who would have submitted an article and not touched it for six months. I can see no reason to rush, AFC responses themselves, when I last looked, took a good few weeks. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
It was discussed to death at WT:CSD, over many threads; it got so tedious that I unwatched the page. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48#Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts et seq. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems the general idea is promulgated by the fuss-budgets of the community, rather than those concerned with specific and somewhat relevant concerns. The matter would be simply resolved by dealing with AFC properly, but there seems to be a lack of resource for that - it was on my list of things to do. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #72[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Press/Blogs
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Average edits per page is nearly 5 now.
    • Wikivoyage is still scheduled to get access to data on Wikidata (aka phase 2) on August 26.
    • Developers are working hard to also make the URL datatype available by August 26 but there are factors that are not in their hands so it might have to be delayed until the next deployment in 2 weeks. URL as a datatype will soon be available on test.wikidata.org. Please give it some thorough testing and report bugs.
    • Outsch! (Help collect and fix paper cuts.)
  • Did you know?
    • 20 undescribed monsters
    • Newest properties: separated from (P807), code Bien de Interés Cultural (P808), WPDA id (P809), academic minor (P811), academic major (P812), date retrieved (P813), IUCN protected areas category (P814), ITIS TSN (P815), decays to (P816), decay mode (P817)
  • Development
    • Prepared deployment of phase 2 on Wikivoyage
    • Worked on ability to sort qualifiers and references inside a statement
    • Started work on an api module to merge items
    • Worked on special page to query for items with one specific property and value
    • Cleaned up code for handling recent change entries from Wikidata in the clients (Wikipedia/Wikivoyage)
    • Worked on generic script for populating sites table and better integration with WMF process for creating new wikis
    • Setup new git repo for WikibaseMobile skin and extension
    • Fixed SetClaim api module to properly mark bot edits in recent changes and advised pywikipedia maintainers about adding support for the module. SetClaim can be used to create claims with references in a single edit.
    • Reviewed code for Google Summer of Code students
    • Updated doxygen documentation
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]


Drum magazine[edit]

s/without making it too big to be impractical to carry./without making it so large it is impractical to carry./

Inadvertent double negative. Could also wiki-link AK-47.

Thanks Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC).

What an awkwardly worded sentence that was. Fixed it and added the wikilink. Howicus (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #73[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Press/Blogs
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
    • Newest properties: interchange station (P833), public holiday (P832), parent club (P831), Encyclopedia of Life (P830), OEIS ID (P829), possible causes (P828), BBC programme identifier (P827), tonality (P826), dedicated to (P825), Meteoritical Bulletin Database ID (P824)
    • Newest task forces: Wikidata:País Valencià task force
  • Development
    • Work on allowing API module editentities to edit claims
    • Work on entity / item redirects
    • Work on support for moving qualifiers in API and Frontend
    • Adding coordinates to diff display and improving diff display code
    • Allowing site groups for language links on clients to be configurable (needed for commons)
    • EntityId changes, we are now working on 0.5!
    • Show snaktype in summary for novalue and somevalue snaks
    • Further work on merge module for the API
    • Wrote missing tests for various jQuery widgets
    • Work on value formatters
    • Continue on moving tests to cucumber
    • Bug fixes for coordinates following the latest deployment
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]


Another Barnstar for You![edit]

The Rosetta Barnstar
Thanks for all of your work in translating articles! Ensignricky Talk 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It is my pleasure! Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for naming Yemen villages. Khmansour1 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You are most welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for naming Yemen villages. Khmansour1 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You are most welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC).


The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #74[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #75[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Press/Blogs
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
    • Newest properties: Saskatchewan Register of Heritage Property identifier (P845), Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID (P846), United States Navy aircraft designation (P847), Japanese military aircraft designation (P849), World Register of Marine Species identifier (P850), ESRB rating (P852), CERO rating (P853), URL (P854), Sandbox-URL (P855), official website (P856), CNKI (P857), ESPN SCRUM ID (P858), sponsor (P859), e-archiv.li ID (P860), premiershiprugby.com ID (P861), Operational Requirement of the UK Air Ministry (P862), InPhO identifier (P863), ACM Digital Library author identifier (P864), BMLO (P865), Perlentaucher (P866), ROME Occupation Code (P867), foods traditionally associated (P868), instrumentation (P870), printed by (P872), phase point (P873), UN class (P874), UN code classification (P875), UN packaging group (P876), NFPA Other (P877), avionics (P878), pennant number (P879), CPU (P880), Variable type (P881), FIPS 6-4 (US counties) (P882), FIPS 5-2 (code for US states) (P883), State Water Register Code (Russia) (P884), origin of the watercourse (P885), LIR (P886), based on heuristic (P887), JSTOR (P888), Mathematical Reviews identifier (P889), Request for Comments number (IETF) (P892), Social Science Research Network (P893)
    • Newest task forces: Occupations and professions task force
  • Development
    • Breaking change to the API in the last deployment
    • Started work on number data type
    • Worked on simple query special page
    • Worked more on moving (ordering) of qualifiers
    • Worked on JSON dumps
    • Continued working on allowing editentities API module to allow editing of claims
    • Continued work on the merge items API module
    • Worked on fixing the way Claim GUIDs are used throughout the code
    • Worked on TableDefinitionReaders for Database component
    • Unified and improved rendering of property values in summaries, diffs, wiki-pages, etc.
    • Continued moving to new browsertests framework
    • Bugfixes on autosummaries
    • Worked with GSoC student on mobile skin
    • Worked on refactoring of how we serialize and provide data about used entities on a page (e.g. entity pages or certain special pages) to the frontend
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Please msaada with Kigezo:Tupac Shakur ![edit]

Salaam. I have just updated the above mentioned kigezo at SWWP. Pity, I can't find out where did I miss. It doesn't work at all - please be a pal and have sometime to crosscheck it! We need you there. Best!--Mwanaharakati(Longa) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #77[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


David Iberri's template filler to Wikimedia Tool Labs[edit]

David Iberri's perl template filler tool is down, he asks

If some kind soul would like to install WWW::Wikipedia::TemplateFiller from CPAN on a more stable site, or if they have the time and experience to maintain something on the toolserver, I'd be forever grateful. In the meantime, I'll keep trying. --David Iberri (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered about Wikimedia Tool Labs but am not proficient with LAMP stacks, if they're available there. Are you permitted to help? Able to do so?

Thanks for all your work. RDBrown (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Boghog is going to try. Unsure if multiple people can collaborate easily on labs, but if so help may still be useful. Thanks. RDBrown (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #80[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rail[edit]

Hi Rich. I am intending on a more descriptive, less misleading classification for Britain's railways. Please give your thoughts as to how we can improve the current classification at the railways template where you have been a contributor. Adam37 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this request at the time, but was unable to comment there anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Please check your SWWP talk page[edit]

Salaam. I have left a message on your ! Please advise accordingly..--Mwanaharakati(Longa) 12:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, replied there at the time. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Error[edit]

SS Empire Celia departed on the 30th December in convoy JW63. This is supported by the cite, though this several others need to be converted to archived versions. Anyone fixing this might also like to separate "SS" and "Empire" with a space in the first line of the article.

(In other news it's good to see that eventually Mr Cartman was ousted from Mr Pitt's dressing room! Well done Corvoe! I'd give you a barnstar were I allowed!)

Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

  • I've done the latter point (now struck), but don't understand the first point to action. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! The article says

Between 23 and 26 December Empire Celia embarked a cargo including thirteen Spitfire LF Mk IX's.[14][15] She then sailed as a member of Convoy JW 63, which departed Loch Ewe on 20 December and arrived at the Kola Inlet on 8 January 1945.[16]

Clearly the Spitfires could not be loaded after the departure of the ship! Since the two ports are about a week's sailing at 20 knots I suspected a typo for "30 December" - the source backs this up. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Request to take part in a survey[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
 DoneRich Farmbrough, 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Request for Review[edit]

Hello there

I am the contributor for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditi_Technologies page.

I have cleaned up all the issues and have aligned the content to Wikipedia guidelines. Can you please review the page and help me to get away from the status message - "This article has multiple issues.

I am open for feedback.

Many Thanks Ashwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinckm1983 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't help at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC).


Proposed deletion of Shabeg Singh[edit]

The article Shabeg Singh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Most of the article is a verbatim copy from http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/personalities/military/shabeg.html. This is a biography of a notable person. However copyrighted material needs to come out.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sumanch (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-written. Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
OK this has been done (by reverting to a pre-vio versions), but work is still required. Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Marjan Jugovic[edit]

Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

If you want to appeal your block, I expect you know how to do so. This is an inappropriate use of your talk page while blocked. Huon (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly I am not entitled to appeal this block.

It is however totally appropriate use of my talk page (unlike the block which is contrary to blocking policy, being clearly punitive).

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive...

Thank you for making productive edits to improve the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

I added a comment to the AfC draft to let the author know about the main-space article. —rybec 03:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Belated thanks Rybec. Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Oxford Meetup 9[edit]

Hi, I've created m:Meetup/Oxford/9 with no date, would October 13 or October 20 be most convenient for you? There's a discussion page at m:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/9 so that a date may be agreed. Please comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:EngvarB[edit]

Template:EngvarB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — LlywelynII 06:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This was presumably closed, "Keep". Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 113.22.129.101[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 113.22.129.101, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.170.16.14[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.170.16.14, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.172.99.234[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.172.99.234, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 119.95.55.46[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 119.95.55.46, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 17:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk Archive[edit]

Hi Rich! I hope you are keeping well. With any luck, by the time your block expires ArbCom won't exist anymore. Anyway...

I saw this edit of yours. I thought of two things. One, you might consider doing a setup similar to the way I handle my talk page 'archives'. See the "old content" bar on the top of my talk page. I've personally never liked the idea of having a talk page archive of any kind, and have eschewed creating them. Some people criticized me for that in the past. So sad for them. This system has worked well for me. Two, if you'd like I'd be happy to create the necessary talk page archives for you and move appropriate content to them at your direction. I realize that makes me a proxy editor for you, but I can't see there being any objection to me doing so within your own talk space.

The software should allow a blocked editor to create and maintain subpages within their own userspace. We already have the ability to block someone such that they can not edit their own talk page. Perhaps that needs to be modified to not permit own userspace editing. This would mean that without that block we would allow editors to edit as much as they like in their own userspace.

Let me know if you'd like me to assist you with the latter suggestion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a kind offer. If Mr. Farmbrough would instead like a bot to do the archiving, I'd be happy to set that up—or if he'd like to be unsubscribed from any newsletter. —rybec 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I may take you up on these offers. The first problem with my existing talk page/archive is that I moved the talk page to the early archives (which is not a bad idea for some reasons, but no longer suits the case). A hist-merge back would be a great start to sorting the archiving issues, if any admin feels up to the task. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Wow, you have joined the million club (or perhaps that should be 'The Million duo?), congratulations! Matty.007 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! Yes, this happened some time last year I think. If you like statistics, counting about 3 million bot edits, I was responsible for about 1% of the edits on the English Wikipedia. It's nice to still be acknowledged from time to time, though I rarely sign in, due to the offensive messages the system spews at me when I do. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
I wasn't sure if you'd got there recently or not, but none the less this is admirable! How long did it take to work out what percent of edits you were responsible for? Thanks, Matty.007 16:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I would suspect that Rich took his own personal edit count, added in those of his bots, multiplied the total by 100 and divided that figure by the number of edits that have been made to Wikipedia; which at the time of the most recent edit to this page, stood at -. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Simples!. Matty.007 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Template:...[edit]

Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Template:..., about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of this template. Knowing your circumstances, you may comment here and I can copy to the talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #82[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

Medicine/Recent changes[edit]

Hi Rich. I don't think we've ever interacted. I do a bit of editing on medical pages. Until about a year ago I used to begin my day by clicking on your Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes and spend the next hour or fifteen reviewing all the changes since I last looked. Doc James and several others in various time zones used your tool too, and we managed to keep a high degree of scrutiny on en.WP's medical content.

I want to resume patrolling but your tool isn't working any more! just listing recent changes to articles beginning with "A". I will fully understand if you're not interested (and thank you for making and maintaining it for as long as you did) but if you are interested, and are permitted to by whatever this block was about, can you tell me what to do to get it working again, please?

Is there any chance the WMF would take over or replicate and maintain this tool? Would that be a good thing? (I've raised this at VPT, Bot requests and on Boghog's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Useful tool. Would like to see it working again aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Articles to be expanded with sources[edit]

Hi, should Template:Articles to be expanded with sources progress be nominated for deletion as an unused template? --Eleassar my talk 22:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it seems so, Eleassar, as should the following categories:
All derive from the now (sadly, and perhaps wrongly, certainly ham-fistedly) deleted {{Expand further}} (or it's poorly named alias {{Expand article}}). Unless another template uses these apparatus they serves no purpose any more. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
Thank you. I've nominated for deletion the template;[42] for the rest, I'll leave it to others, because I'm not sure what may and what may not be deleted. --Eleassar my talk 08:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #83[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #84[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #85[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Wikidata weekly summary #88[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #91[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

Category:Kaleidoscope albums[edit]

Category:Kaleidoscope albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please check references for 2 pages Family of Duchess of Cambridge and Gibside THanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In popular culture[edit]

Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of -ismist Recordings[edit]

The article -ismist Recordings has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

24.158.167.119 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Belmont (1899)[edit]

This edit appears to be a copyvio from the source here. Deeper checking would be good, of course. Should anyone wish to re-write and expand the article, additional information can be found in a near contemporary letter here, and I'm sure in many other places.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC).

I have rewritten the article. Huon (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

Vandalism[edit]

This edit. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

Normal text?[edit]

Just wondering what you meant by "normal text" in this 2006 edit.

There's some confusion in a discussion at the mixed martial arts Wikiproject regarding whether this applies to fight result tables. Clarification would be appreciated. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is written for an international audience, many of whom are not likely to be familiar with what are, after all, postal abbreviations (worse AL is also the international code for Albania, for example). So any abbreviations that are region specific are best avoided wherever possible. I am always wary of making rules, which is why I appended the, perhaps imprecise, caveat "normal text", clearly quotations and template parameters are exceptions. As to tables that is a grey area, I would be reluctant to censure - indeed I would never censure - someone for attempting to make table columns narrower, or rows consistently short, although I might disagree with the method. However things are not as simple as we would sometimes like them to be, which in this case is a good thing.
For example the table at [43] displays with single line rows on my main monitor. And indeed there are other options than using state abbreviations to compactify the table, certainly there is no need to spell out "United States" - if, in this case, it is needed at all, US may be used (the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, preferred in Wikipedia), or in certain sports articles associated with FIFA or the IOC "USA" where three letter abbreviations are used throughout the table for countries (though one may question this general usage since, almost invariably, it is seen necessary to add flag icons).
In some cases it may be better to decide a column not to be wrapped, or to encourage or force wrapping in a column, the use of "small" text is not to be encouraged - most users will have the default text at a comfortable size, either they must peer at our "small" text, or zoom in, which makes the table wrapping problems worse than when we started. And in this case {{MMA record start}} already sets "font-size: 85%;".
In the example below we have full state names (though arguably not all are necessary), US for United stated, I have removed BC for Vancover, and replaced England with UK (though simply "London" would probably be OK). The longest row is "São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil", so in this example it is possible to have one's cake and eat it.
Res. Record Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes
Loss 16–3 Cain Velasquez TKO (slam and punch) UFC 166 Oct 19, 2013 5 3:09 Houston, Texas, US For the UFC Heavyweight Championship.
Win 16–2 Mark Hunt KO (spinning hook kick) UFC 160 May 25, 2013 3 4:18 Las Vegas, Nevada, US Fight of the Night.
Loss 15–2 Cain Velasquez Decision (unanimous) UFC 155 Dec 29, 2012 5 5:00 Las Vegas, Nevada, US Lost the UFC Heavyweight Championship.
Win 15–1 Frank Mir TKO (punches) UFC 146 May 26, 2012 2 3:04 Las Vegas, Nevada, US Defended the UFC Heavyweight Championship.
Win 14–1 Cain Velasquez KO (punches) UFC on Fox 1 Nov 12, 2011 1 1:04 Anaheim, California, US Won the UFC Heavyweight Championship; Knockout of the Night.
Win 13–1 Shane Carwin Decision (unanimous) UFC 131 Jun 11, 2011 3 5:00 Vancouver, Canada UFC Heavyweight title eliminator.
Win 12–1 Roy Nelson Decision (unanimous) UFC 117 Aug 7, 2010 3 5:00 Oakland, California, US
Win 11–1 Gabriel Gonzaga KO (punches) UFC Live: Vera vs. Jones Mar 21, 2010 1 3:53 Broomfield, Colorado, US Knockout of the Night.
Win 10–1 Gilbert Yvel TKO (punches) UFC 108 Jan 2, 2010 1 2:07 Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Win 9–1 Mirko Filipović TKO (eye injury) UFC 103 Sep 19, 2009 3 2:00 Dallas, Texas, US
Win 8–1 Stefan Struve TKO (punches) UFC 95 Feb 21, 2009 1 0:54 London, UK
Win 7–1 Fabricio Werdum KO (punches) UFC 90 Oct 25, 2008 1 1:20 Rosemont, Illinois, US Knockout of the Night.
Win 6–1 Geronimo dos Santos TKO (doctor stoppage) Demo Fight 3 May 24, 2008 1 0:44 Salvador, Brazil
Loss 5–1 Joaquim Ferreira Submission (armbar) MTL: Final Nov 10, 2007 1 1:11 São Paulo, Brazil
Win 5–0 Jair Goncalves TKO (punches) Mo Team League 2 Sep 29, 2007 1 2:52 São Paulo, Brazil
Win 4–0 Joaquim Ferreira TKO (retirement) XFC: Brazil Apr 29, 2007 1 5:20 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Win 3–0 Edson Ramos TKO (doctor stoppage) XFC: Brazil Apr 29, 2007 1 8:45 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Win 2–0 Eduardo Maiorino Submission (guillotine choke) Minotauro Fights 5 Dec 9, 2006 1 0:50 São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
Win 1–0 Jailson Silva Santos KO (soccer kick) Demo Fight 1 Jul 16, 2006 1 2:58 Salvador, Brazil
Here I have inserted three forced breaks to narrow the table:
Res. Record Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes
Loss 16–3 Cain Velasquez TKO (slam and punch) UFC 166 Oct 19, 2013 5 3:09 Houston, Texas, US For the UFC Heavyweight Championship.
Win 16–2 Mark Hunt KO (spinning hook kick) UFC 160 May 25, 2013 3 4:18 Las Vegas, Nevada, US Fight of the Night.
Loss 15–2 Cain Velasquez Decision (unanimous) UFC 155 Dec 29, 2012 5 5:00 Las Vegas, Nevada, US Lost the UFC Heavyweight Championship.
Win 15–1 Frank Mir TKO (punches) UFC 146 May 26, 2012 2 3:04 Las Vegas, Nevada, US Defended the UFC Heavyweight Championship.
Win 14–1 Cain Velasquez KO (punches) UFC on Fox 1 Nov 12, 2011 1 1:04 Anaheim, California, US Won the UFC Heavyweight Championship;
Knockout of the Night.
Win 13–1 Shane Carwin Decision (unanimous) UFC 131 Jun 11, 2011 3 5:00 Vancouver, Canada UFC Heavyweight title eliminator.
Win 12–1 Roy Nelson Decision (unanimous) UFC 117 Aug 7, 2010 3 5:00 Oakland, California, US
Win 11–1 Gabriel Gonzaga KO (punches) UFC Live: Vera vs. Jones Mar 21, 2010 1 3:53 Broomfield, Colorado, US Knockout of the Night.
Win 10–1 Gilbert Yvel TKO (punches) UFC 108 Jan 2, 2010 1 2:07 Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Win 9–1 Mirko Filipović TKO (eye injury) UFC 103 Sep 19, 2009 3 2:00 Dallas, Texas, US
Win 8–1 Stefan Struve TKO (punches) UFC 95 Feb 21, 2009 1 0:54 London, UK
Win 7–1 Fabricio Werdum KO (punches) UFC 90 Oct 25, 2008 1 1:20 Rosemont, Illinois, US Knockout of the Night.
Win 6–1 Geronimo dos Santos TKO (doctor stoppage) Demo Fight 3 May 24, 2008 1 0:44 Salvador, Brazil
Loss 5–1 Joaquim Ferreira Submission (armbar) MTL: Final Nov 10, 2007 1 1:11 São Paulo, Brazil
Win 5–0 Jair Goncalves TKO (punches) Mo Team League 2 Sep 29, 2007 1 2:52 São Paulo, Brazil
Win 4–0 Joaquim Ferreira TKO (retirement) XFC: Brazil Apr 29, 2007 1 5:20 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Win 3–0 Edson Ramos TKO (doctor stoppage) XFC: Brazil Apr 29, 2007 1 8:45 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Win 2–0 Eduardo Maiorino Submission
(guillotine choke) 		Minotauro Fights 5 Dec 9, 2006 1 0:50 São Bernardo do Campo,
Brazil
Win 1–0 Jailson Silva Santos KO (soccer kick) Demo Fight 1 Jul 16, 2006 1 2:58 Salvador, Brazil
I hope that is useful.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC).
Thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your assistance. It seems that we are focusing (in this discussion) unnecessary attention on the states, when they are listed in the column mainly to distinguish the location of the city. In fact, it got so pedantic that at one stage, some editors insisted on standardising the City, State, Country template, resulting in e.g. "Saitama, Saitama, Japan", where "Saitama, Japan" is perfectly understandable and acceptable. In fact during this current discussion somebody even suggested removing the Location column. It's just a waste of space to bloat the column by spelling out the longer states, e.g. "California" (repeatedly), "Massachusetts", etc. when the state itself contributes little value to the purpose of the table.
Also, I do not agree with "London, UK" - the country is England. It sounds ok for London, because London is also the capital of the UK, therefore we often come across reference to "London, UK", however this familiarity does not extend to, e.g. "Birmingham, UK", which should be "Birmingham, England".
Finally, forced line breaks in the content to improve column display are elegant, but will never last. We would have to insert a comment stating the intention, and also argue forever to defend it. In the HW c'ship history I replaced a line break (with explanation) before "Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira" (below "14. Brock Lesnar") 3-4 times before I lost interest. 110.32.169.30 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that provided the meaning is clear, it is not necessary to use the "first level administrative distinct", or even the country. My preference would be that London, (or, were they in the table, New York, Tokyo, Paris) could be left unadorned. Of course there are other Londons (and at least one other Paris), but the meaning is clear. Similarly, Las Vagas, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Dallas and Houston are all well-known cities, Anaheim and one or two others less so. It is, however, common in American journalism to state US places with their state names, it must be an editorial decision whether to omit them in a table, and is probably unwise to have a ruling on this - even for a specific project such as MMA.
In more detail on the tangential point, while "London, England" was a very common Americanism, spawned no doubt by the confusion of terminology (while British Isles, United Kingdom, Great Britain, Britain, England all now have reasonably well defined meanings they have not always been so clear - indeed "England" as a synonym for "Great Britain" has relatively recent currency), the trend for Birmingham is to disambiguate (if at all which is rare) with "UK"[44]
Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

Technical query[edit]

Script: http://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.coreEvents.httpsSupport%7Cext.eventLogging%2CnavigationTiming%2Cthanks%7Cext.gadget.BugStatusUpdate%2CDRN-wizard%2CNoAnimations%2CNoSmallFonts%2CReferenceTooltips%2CTwinkle%2Ccharinsert%2Cedittop%2Cexlinks%2CmySandbox%2Cpurgetab%2Cteahouse%7Cext.gettingstarted.logging%2CopenTask%7Cjquery.autoEllipsis%2CcheckboxShiftClick%2Chidpi%2ChighlightText%2CmakeCollapsible%2Cmw-jump%2Cplaceholder%2Csuggestions%7Cmediawiki.action.view.postEdit%2CrightClickEdit%7Cmediawiki.api.watch%7Cmediawiki.cldr%2Chidpi%2CjqueryMsg%2Clanguage%2CsearchSuggest%2Cui%7Cmediawiki.language.data%2Cinit%7Cmediawiki.page.ready%7Cmediawiki.page.watch.ajax%7Cmobile.desktop%7Cmw.MwEmbedSupport.style%7Cmw.PopUpMediaTransform%7Cschema.Echo%2CEchoInteraction%2CEchoMail%2CEdit%2CGettingStartedNavbar%2CNavigationTiming&skin=monobook&version=20130817T213130Z&*:553

is giving timeouts - any idea why? The script url is enough to give me timeouts and wonder if something is fundamentally wrong here. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

The script is 626 kBytes. For a site where 64 kByte of content generates a "long page" warning this seems an unacceptable overhead. Can someone please copy this to VP:T. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
Many thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
Per the discussion I removed almost all gadgets, I still get timeouts. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

Another copyvio[edit]

(The edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endoscopy&diff=next&oldid=577655609) Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

Info settlement sw[edit]

Hi Richard, are you available for some help on sw again? One issue with the present template on Infobox Settlement is that it gives a line

Idadi ya wakazi
- Mji

and this "-Mji" should be out - makes no sense (most places are not "mji"). OK, I cancelled the two mentions og mji - kinmdly have a look if it is ok

Other questions; are you familiar with bots? We have most of these settlements inTanzania with the figures from the 2002 census. By now the figures for 2012 census are available. We need a way to adapt these figures. Do you have an idea for that? Kipala (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Interwiki if redlink[edit]

Hi Rich

I've just discovered the existence of Template:Interwiki if redlink which you created in 2010. However there is no documentation associated with it to explain what it does, and the what links here shows only two transclusions neither of which are elucidatory regarding its purpose.

Please could you give a brief overview of what it does and indicate whether it is still needed. (please ping me when you reply) Cheers, Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Suppose we have an entity which is covered on an another Wikipedia, and which should have an article on en:. We want to provide the reader with a link to the article, and a red-link to encourage creation of the en: article. Once the en:article is created the link to the other Wikipedia can be suppressed (it will be available as an inter-wiki from the English article of course).
The parameters are
{{Interwiki if redlink|<local article name>|<(pseudo) ISO 639 language code of other Wikipedia>|<article name on other Wikipedia>}}
The code could be improved to categorise pages where the redlink has turned blue, for removal by a bot, but at the moment that would be a little bit of overkill.
The template is needed for the page on which it is used, whether it could be usefully employed elsewhere is left as an exercise for the reader.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC).


Hi Rich[edit]

Hi Rich. Been a while. Miss you as a friend Admin and your help. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC).

Category:Tribe of Heaven albums[edit]

Category:Tribe of Heaven albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree on first blush, that now the album page is a redirect, this should go. However it might be useful as a sub-category of Category:Dave Matthews albums. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC).

Search error[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=Some+Half-Remembered+Thing+&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns10=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced

Appears to be reproducible. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot Edit[edit]

Hi Rich. You might want to take a look at this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potnia_Theron&diff=491528266&oldid=461258860

The bot didn't do exactly what was intended, i.e. the {{Please check ISBN}} template did not add the article to Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. Best regards, (sdsds - talk) 08:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It did add the page to Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs but to see that at the bottom of the page, you need to make sure that "Show hidden categories" is enabled at Preferences → Appearance. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Suez Crisis[edit]

s/24 Labour PMs/24 Labour MPs/

This typo has been present for over a year, illustrating the difficulties of curation vs creation.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC).
 Done Thsnk you. —rybec 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #86[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

Apparent vandalism[edit]

This edit should be reverted. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC).

Done, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Skin Cancer#Epidemiology[edit]

The article currently says:

Combined with Australians favoring an outdoor life-style, when temperatures are warmer, under high levels of UV, the associated risk of skin cancer will increase.[sk 1]
  1. ^ Green, Adèle (2012-09-01). "Skin Cancer Prevention: Recent Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials". Current Dermatology Reports. 1 (3): 123–130. doi:10.1007/s13671-012-0015-9.

I have not been able to find support for this statement in reference (except for the broad relation between UV and skin cancer - which would be better cited to its source F El Ghissassi, R Baan , et al. A review of human carcinogens–part D: radiation. Lancet Oncololgy 2009;10:751–2) in the source. I think this should be re-written.

Combined with Australians favoring an outdoor life-style, when temperatures are warmer,[citation needed] under high levels of UV, the associated risk of skin cancer will increase.[sk1 1]
  1. ^ F El Ghissassi, R Baan; et al. (August 2009). "A review of human carcinogens–part D: radiation". Lancet Oncololgy. 10 (8): 751–2. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70213-X. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

The first part could be completely removed. I think there is danger also of original synthesis here.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC).
Thank you; I've changed it. [45] —rybec 02:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC).

Strawberry Swing#background not in citation[edit]

"Coldplay sparked an interest at Hispanic influences after having recorded in churches and in Spanish-speaking countries such as in Mexico in America and Spain in Europe, adding an African-sounding influence to the song."

The source cited merely says recorded in, and inspired by, Spanish churches and paintings and other artsy atmospheric stuff (though how one records in a painting remains a mystery). No reference to Mexico or Africa. Moreover Viva la Vida indicates the recording locations of:

  • The Bakery, London;
  • The Magic Shop, New York City;
  • The Nunnery, Barcelona;
  • A church, Barcelona


I suggest the sentence be recast:

"Coldplay sparked an interest at Hispanic influences[citation needed] after having recorded in churches in Spanish-speaking locations, Mexico[citation needed] and Spain[ss 1] (Barcelona), adding an African-sounding influence[citation needed] to the song."

  1. ^ Tyrangiel, Josh (2008-06-09). "Coldplay, Viva la Vida". 171 (67). Time: 23. Retrieved 2013-12-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

and the uncited parts be raised on the talk page. (It does seem that any African influence comes from family or musical background, rather than the location of the recording.)

(Note: I am assuming the on-line and print version are not substantially different.)

Also worth noting, there is an interview with Shynola at http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=448 which may be a useful external link or even reference.

Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 09:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC).

Mixtape#History[edit]

As well as being completely unsourced (and a little dubious) this section repeats itself and could do with a quick re-write. (Also the lead might mention "mix tape" which seems to have been a very common spelling.)

Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #87[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Winchmore Hill Station.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Winchmore Hill Station.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tiffany Page[edit]

The article Tiffany Page has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Progress template wrong?[edit]

Why did I have to make these edits to make Template:Articles with too many wikilinks progress show the correct total?

It used to show 1 dated, 1 undated, and 2 total, but since the one entry in the undated category is the "All" category, it should have shown 1 dated , 1 undated, and 1 total, as it does now, after my edits.

According to the documentation of Template:Progress box, the progress box should have been able to do this automatically, since the undated category is simply "All"+the dated category. The documentation says: Where there is no "All" category specified and one is not found by prepending "All" to the undated category name, the total is calculated by adding the component categories.

Do you have an explanation? Debresser (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's this bit of code:

| align="right"|'''{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{3|}}}|{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>PAGESINCATEGORY:{{{3|All {{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}|

It should read

| align="right"|'''{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>#ifexist:{{{3|All {{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}}}}|{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>PAGESINCATEGORY:{{{3|All {{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}|

(Alternatively, and maybe better, a /core template could be used - or indeed Lua though I'm not sure how well that supports the safesubst: - which incidentally allows (should allow?) one to take a snapshot of the category set, to track progress with individual months.)
Further you can improve the call in the specific progress box thus

{{Progress box|Articles with too many wikilinks|factor=1}}

Articles with too many wikilinks
(refresh)
Subtotals
April 20242
Undated articles0
All articles
2
Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 08:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC).

Also, why does Category:Articles with too many wikilinks say there is a backlog, if there is only one article? What is the trigger for showing the backlog parameter in this case? Debresser (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The {{Parent monthly clean up category}} template was not cut from whole cloth, but made to reflect current usage, as such it calls the {{Backlog subcategories}} which reflected the then usage (except it used text for sub-cats) - but takes no parameters, presumably because no reliable mechanism for counting entries in sub categories then existed (I am guessing that with Lua all things are possible). It is not clear, of course, what constitutes a backlog, arguably one article does - and mathematicians would doubtless appeal to the empty backlog.
The purpose (or part of the purpose) of the "Safesubst" version of the template was to enable record-keeping to define what constitutes a "backlog" - under the definition "significantly more work-in-progress than normal" (the other part, of course, to see where there is no "normal" but simply an ever increasing pile of issues).
If you think this problem (the presence of the message box) is worth attention there are six quick solutions that spring to mind:
  1. Get rid of the message box, it is redundant
  2. Make it supressable by parameter "backlog=no" to {{Parent monthly clean up category}} - pragmatically most (I dare not say all, though I suspect it) categories are either backlogged permanently, or never (like uncategorized), for some value of "backlogged".
  3. Drive it from the "All blah" category size
  4. Drive it from the existence of a "one month ago" or "two months ago" category
  5. Drive it from the corresponding Category:Monthly clean up category (<blah>) counter.
  6. Use the counting code from {{progress box}}.
Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC).


Why do you say in solution 1 that the backlog template is redundant? I think I may agree, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. I do understand correctly that you mean it is redundant in the {{Parent monthly clean up category}} template, right? Debresser (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do mean that. Either there is a backlog or the sub-cats are empty - which is plain to see, and pretty unusual. Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC).

I made the change to {{Progress box}}, and now we are back to counting the "All" category in all cases, regardless of whatever the third parameter is. I thought the idea was to exclude the "All" category from the total, no? Debresser (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to use the "all" category if it exists, because that is far more efficient than 72 calls to {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}. The explicit naming is just for when the obvious naming convention is not followed (and, for example, names like "All Wikipedia pages needing...." where the template would assume "All wikipedia pages needing...." was the name of the "All" category). As you know I consider the "All..." categories pretty useless anyway, but they do at least allow that small benefit. Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC).
Thanks for your replies. It was nice speaking with you again. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

Mersey Tunnels Police[edit]

The navbox at the bottom is redlinked: it should be {{UK private and military police forces}}, not services. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 07:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC).

 Done, see here. Shall we be seeing you on Sunday? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I do hope so. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 04:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC).

Uranus (mythology)[edit]

The image (shown to the right) included in the infobox on this article describes the main figure as "Aion-Uranus". Aion (the Anatolian one at least) is more commonly identified with Kronos (a son/grandson of Uranus) or possibly according to Eurpides a son of Kronos. Indeed, although much confusion is engendered by other uses and associations (and the strong distinction between Aion and Chronos, the latter often conflated with Kronos), I am not aware of any serious identification of Aion with Uranus, though I am no expert, and my Greek mythology reference books are mostly not accessible right now. I would suggest that this matter be raised on the talk page, with a view to replacing the image.

Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 06:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC).

Template:AD listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:AD. Since you had some involvement with the Template:AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). WOSlinker (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:MI listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:MI. Since you had some involvement with the Template:MI redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). WOSlinker (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

Merge partner[edit]

Hi.

How do you like this edit to Template:Merge sections? I understand there is no difference between "y" and "yes", but I think the addition of the parameters target and discuss, which are after all used in {{Merge}} as well, was a good idea.

By the way, I added a target parameter to the code of {{Merge to}}, just like we have it in {{Merge}}. I find it confusing that the same parameter we are allowed to use in Merge for indicating the target can not be used in Merge to. I hope you agree that is a good idea?

I wanted to ask you the following. In Merge and Merge to, {{Merge partner}} passes on only the parameter {{{1|}}}. I think that in Merge to this could also be the target parameter. Do you agree? In that case, should the code be {{{1|target}}}? I agree that the word partner was initially meant to mean two articles merging together, but in the case of Merge to, the partner is the target (or the target is the partner, perhaps), wouldn't you say? Debresser (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's {{{1|{{{target}}}}}}. I agree with your sentiments I think. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC).
Thanks for the fix. Done. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, do you see a way of removing Merge sections, Merge sections to and Merge sections from, from Category:Articles for merging with no partner, Category:Items to be merged and in the case of Merge sections also Category:Pages with misplaced templates other than copying the whole codes of Merge, Merge to and Merge from into them (with the necessary adjustments for the fact that section=yes, of course)? And I do not mean wrapping the whole template in includeonly tags, because I think that showing the template in action is a good idea. I have no idea how Merge, Merge to and Merge from do it. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You can do this by wrapping the category in {{Merge to}} in a suitable namespace conditional. As to self-documenting by display on the template page I agree in principle. It can make better sense to do this in the {{Documentation}} though. Many many templates (specifically infoboxes) have the overhead of making parameter-free stuff look good on the template page, which is carried to every invocation. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC).
Wrapping the category in a conditional that would remove template namespace would remove the functionality for template altogether, and that is not what we want. If I put them on the documentation, won't the documentation and the template page be categorized? Debresser (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it would, however the instructions make it clear that {{Merge to}} should not be used on templates.
  • Yes you are quite right, I was suggesting that as a solution to templates containing special code to "rig" their display on one or two pages. E.G. instead of providing a default value that is only displayed on the template page itself the documentation instantiation can include sensible dummy values, that cost (almost) nothing on every other transclusion (depending how smart the Mediawiki software is).
Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC).

Another small question. Is there any difference between #default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}}, and #default={{DMC|Items to be merged}}?

But these merge templates are still sometimes used in template namespace. That is the problem we have to deal with: how to still detect the merge proposal, but exclude those 3 merge sections templates. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Functionally, no. Semantically yes. It's like constructing a sentence with an empty subject, no verb and an object that is a full sentence - its a valid sentence, but funny way to go about it. Or saying "We have a car design where the front offside wheel is replaced by a traditional car, and all the other components are rendered obsolete." Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC).
I see. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And a less small question. If I want to sort template namespace with an additional parameter, like in Template:Broken ref which uses an ω, how would I do that with DMC? Debresser (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You would need to change DMC so that the category calls look like this:
[[Category:{{{4}}}|{{Namespace Greek}}{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]
Of course this behaviour might not be wanted by all callees, if so it would either need a switch or a fork. A fork is more efficient (probably) but people will likely complain of a "maintenance nightmare" even though this template has only had one substantive edit in 3 years. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC).
Is there any reason that code would be problematic in any other cases? I could suggest it on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well it seems basically a Good Thing to me. See the documentation for {{Namespace Greek}}, and note that new namespace needs adding to the template. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC).

Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood [edit]

Could you please check all the references for "Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood" page and also the page for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.27.142 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ Clear, Royal Children, p. 78
  2. ^ The Times, 29 March 1965
  3. ^ Yvonne's Royalty Home Page — Royal Christenings
  4. ^ Leodis, Leodis - Leeds city Archives UK. "Leeds UK Government". Leodis Archives. Leeds City Council UK Gov. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
  5. ^ "Royal babies 1920-1929". Country Life.
  6. ^ Bradford, Sarah (1989). King George VI. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 424. ISBN 0-297-79667-4.
  7. ^ Royal Styles and Titles – 1898 Letters Patent
  8. ^ After the accession of her father, George V, she became the child of a Sovereign, and therefore her title changed to The Princess Mary
  9. ^ Heraldica – British Royal Cadency
  1. Needs more details : Celia Clear (1981). Royal children, 1840-1980: from Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II. Stein and Day. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-8128-2826-9. (if indeed it is the 1981 edition, not the 1984 or other) - in the text it seems odd to say "paternal great-grandmother" without explaining "paternal great-grandmother - Queen Victoria" the first time it is mentioned. (Of course there are two paternal great grandmothers, making the wording even more infelicitous.)
  2. This is not available to me right now, but the Times is considered a paper of record.
  3. This does not look like a reliable source - it seems to be someone's hobby page (which is not to say it isn't well done, and properly researched, it simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's preferred standards). It does however list wealth of useful published sources.
  4. Splitting this up into:
    1. http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=201069_170837 and
    2. http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=20041110_49352664
    would probably be better. Better still to find a source about the subject, rather than about postcards.
  5. Similarly, this supports the fact, but it may not be the best (or most stable) way of doing it.
  6. Can't refer to this book, but it seems a good source on the face of it.
  7. This is a reasonably good citation since it is a straight copy of the document. Again better to refer to the National Archives original, linking to Heraldica if no better on-line repository is available. London Gazette is a good place for things like this.
  8. A citation to support this would be nice. I would format it ... changed to "The Princess Mary"
  9. This supports only the cadency, but suffers like #3 from possibly not qualifying as a WP:RS. There are heraldic directories in most public libraries which might help here.
Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Track length needed[edit]

Template:Track length needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding a category would be trivial (you can use "what links here" instead). Low usage of a maintenance template is not necessarily a sign of non-utility, it can be a sign of the very opposite - {{Uncategorized}} for example. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC).
reposted at TfD —rybec 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #89[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 13:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #90[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

Deprecated template[edit]

In these edits I made the template do what it was supposed to be doing. That is, as I understand the idea of all those parameters based on their functionality and the documentation.

By the way, I reworked the documentation as well.

After all that is done, I am left with the feeling that parameters 4 and 5 should be completely removed in favor of |old= and |new=. That will simplify the coding, and the documentation accordingly. If somebody is smart enough to use 4 parameters (|1=, |2=, |4= and |5=), then he can certainly use 2 (|old= and |new=).

What do you say? Debresser (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, well I have sympathy with what you say. I suspect that this construction was not ab initio but based on some perceived need at the time, for example allowing passing of parameters from other templates. However these components could be easily enough re-added if they are required in the future (and are not currently in use).
By the way ise vs ize...
Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC).
Then I'll try and make some time for this simplification later this week. Why did you remind me of ise vs ize? Debresser (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Here you change the spelling of "categorises". Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC).
These edits removed the parameters 4 and 5. These edits removed a repetition that I never understood why it was necessary. Debresser (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

I am considering to replace [[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]] by {{#ifeq:{{{old|}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}||[[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]]}}, to avoid categorization there of non-template pages that are themselves tagged (like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote e.g.). Will that work? Without side-effects?

Also, will it be correct to say |{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}} in the code excludes not only transclusions on /doc pages, but also /sandbox or /testcases pages? Debresser (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This assumes that {old} is fully qualified.
Yes I believe so.
Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC).
Done, and works. Thank you. Can you please help with my (hopefully last) question below? Debresser (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Guess this was sometime in December : ): Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC).


The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

Help needed[edit]

There is one case where my new code of Template:Deprecated template doesn't work: if there are a parameter 2 and 3. In that case the template is not linked, as you can see on the documentation page. I tried to fix this, but unsuccessfully. If I comment out the parameter, the link returns. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Might I ask why you are experimenting in the live template and not in its sandbox? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a behind-the-scenes template anyway, so I wouldn't worry about that. Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
The reason is that this is the intended behaviour. If we want people to use a piped link, we really need to display the syntax - we assume they understand it, or at least can cut-and-paste it (assuming they are allowed cut-and-paste). Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
But it used to work, and even studying the old and new codes, I don't see why. Can you tell me how to make it work again? Debresser (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #92[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 09:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the roadsters! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Problem[edit]

There seems to be an issue with {{Infobox person}}, see Lauren Booth where it displays as: 

 
{{{name}}}

Data 1 	{{{data 1}}}
Data 2 	{{{data 2}}}
Data 3 	{{{data 3}}}
Data 4 	{{{data 4}}}

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Purging seems to have fixed? Chris857 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Infobox_horseracing_personality_broken may be related. GoingBatty (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and see WP:STOCKS#Kaldari for the "Just testing" award. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Good, glad it's fixed. Suspected that it was (as other pages were OK - and also that it was in {{Infobox}} as {{Infobox person}} hadn't been edited for a while) and would have done a null edit, but wasn't sure if I'm allowed to do null edits when blocked. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #93[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

Question about AWB page[edit]

Hi Rich! You created Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/distict back in 2010. Was this a temporary page that can now be deleted, or is there something here that should be retained? Thanks, and Happy Holidays! GoingBatty (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rich! Since you didn't respond, I've requested that the page be deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G2. If this is incorrect, please remove the tag and let me know. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:OfferHelp listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:OfferHelp. Since you had some involvement with the Template:OfferHelp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: you may not be aware, but Rich Farmbrough is currently blocked and unable to participate in wp:RfDs xOttawahitech (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not concerned about this particular RfD which will be a virtual snow keep, and would hardly matter if it passed, but thanks, Rezonansowy, for the notification, and Ottawahitech for the clarification to Rezonansowy of my status. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #94[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

Elliott Roosevelt[edit]

We say:

"At an alcohol-drenched dinner during the Tehran Conference, Elliott Roosevelt applauded Joseph Stalin's proposal for large-scale executions of German POWs, which earned him Churchill's vocal and lasting hostility but Stalin's cheers."

- and cite this sentence to Stalin: The Court Of The Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. In fact, the book does not describe the dinner as 'alcohol drenched' - indeed commenting two pages later that after this "Stalin began to drink again", though it does describe Elliott as "jumping tipsily to his feet".

Nor does it describe Stalin's "cheers" merely a toast - "To your health Elliott."

Moreover "Churchill's vocal and lasting hostility" is also "not in source" though it is certain (from other sources) he is not impressed with Elliot's memoirs.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Category:Deadly Avenger albums[edit]

Category:Deadly Avenger albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mjs1991 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #95[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff[edit]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, sometime, 20 January 2014 (UTC).


The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #96[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • See the office hours logs at meta
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • See the FOSDEM slides
    • Thiemo joins the Wikidata development team
  • Development
    • More work on badges by Bene*
    • Lots of Lua improvements by hoo (separate announcement with details soon)
    • Created backend Time parsers (yet another necessary step towards doing more in the backend instead of in Java Script in the frontend)
    • Automatic builds created, tested and deployed to beta labs every day!
    • Investigate Elastic Search as possible backend for queries
    • Made Wikibase Query work with our new component structure
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

Administrative subcategories populated automatically[edit]

October 2009 you created the page Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories, for a subcategory of Wikipedia soft redirected categories. Do you know how such a category is established--that is, how its automatic population is arranged? If not, do you know where to go to read about it?

Today at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Container categories, I mentioned the possibility for Category:Wikipedia non-empty container categories and observed that I don't know where one should go for assistance. I don't know that we want such an administrative subcategory of Container categories to be established; that would be premature now.

--P64 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories have {{Category redirect}} at the top, and that template contains the following code outside of the {{cmbox}} and {{category other}}:
{{category handler
|all = {{#ifexpr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:{{PAGENAME}}|R}}
 |[[Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories]]
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories]]</includeonly>
|nocat={{{nocat|}}}
}}
Something similar would need to be added to {{Container category}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #97[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Reasonator
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Wrote performance tests so we can track performance improvements better
    • Did a code review of all gadgets that are enabled by default in Wikidata. Found and fixed a performance bottleneck.
    • Work on making the interface more responsive, e. g. live preview when editing labels and updating the watchlist star when saving.
    • Started refactoring and fixing issues with automatically created summaries that are, for example, created by bots via API calls.
    • Fixed an issue with OAuth on Wikidata because of permissions
    • Started code review of the code the student team is working on for suggestions
    • Discussed updates to the data model document to be able to update it to the actual implementation
    • Did a technical debt analysis and design review of Wikibase.git, with initial focus on WikibaseLib
    • Got (backend) EntityStore on the way, so we can test API modules without touching the database
    • Further work on TimeParsers move to the backend
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 13:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bolognia 2[edit]

Template:Bolognia 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • This template provided full references to the seminal work on dermatology by the provision of a simple page number.
  • It was created to assist the Dermatology Task Force with a massive updating of the dermatology coverage of Wikipedia.
  • "References should not use templates." is simply wrong.
  • "Not used" is also a poor argument, though one we regularly invoke.
  • I would be grateful if someone could userify this template.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC).
 Done, now at User:Rich Farmbrough/Template:Bolognia 2 and User:Rich Farmbrough/Template:Bolognia 2/doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, can you please also do the sub-templates listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Plastikspork&offset=20140211150002&limit=5&type=&user=Plastikspork ? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC).
Sorry, didn't know about those... checking for subpages only finds non-deleted pages, and finding the /doc first time was an educated guess.  Done see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Rich Farmbrough/Template:Bolognia 2. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Smashing, thanks. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC).

User:IWPCHI[edit]

Someone should kindly point out to this account (The Independent Workers Party of Chicago) that per WP:ISU they should create individual personal accounts. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

Hello[edit]

Just wanted to say hi. We haven't always seen eye to eye on everything on WP but that's neither here nor there. It's all good. I was just floating around on WP and (re-)discovered that you got tossed for year, for what exactly? That was sadistic. Anyway just wanted to say hello and hope you aren't totally discouraged by that. Your good works are appreciated at WP. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Centred gallery[edit]

Template:Centred gallery has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #98[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction required[edit]

The entry on Hugh Macdonald, the New Zealand filmmaker, has his name as Hugh MacDonald. This should be corrected if possible. Eltosso (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Eltosso: Although the article was created by Rich Farmbrough, he has not edited it since then. Please note that this user talk page is not the best venue; I suggest that you raise the matter on the talk page for the article itself, i.e. at Talk:Hugh MacDonald (filmmaker). Per WP:BLP, you will need to provide reliable sources to support your point. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject naming conventions[edit]

OK, this is one that is unlikely to be resolved, but here are my thoughts for what they are worth. I agree that the template names should follow the project names, as you know. The project names should be consistent with each other, and ideally with WP naming conventions. (Personally I don't like "WikiProject" we shouldn't use camel case, attempting to change this would be a forlorn hope.)

As to the projects' names there are maybe four reasonable ways to look at them, which would give three different standards.

  1. WikiProject is part of the name and the name is a proper noun.
  2. WikiProject is not part of the name and the name is a proper noun.
  3. WikiProject is part of the name and the name is not a proper noun.
  4. WikiProject is not part of the name and the name is not a proper noun.

Of course any embedded proper noun will be capitalised - Canadian, Arena Football League, etc..

1 and 2 produce the same up-style 3 and 4 are different down-styles. 3 seems to fit with usage better, though a full comparison would be more convincing the following sample picked off one of the project pages supports this.

This table shows which of the names is consistent with each of the style

Name Style 1
and 2		 Style 3 Style 4
WikiProject American football ☒N checkY checkY
WikiProject Sports checkY checkY ☒N
WikiProject National Football League checkY checkY checkY
WikiProject Canadian football ☒N checkY checkY
WikiProject Arena Football League checkY checkY checkY
WikiProject College Basketball checkY ☒N ☒N
WikiProject College baseball ☒N checkY ☒N
WikiProject Football (soccer) ☒N checkY checkY
WikiProject Rugby union ☒N checkY ☒N
WikiProject Rugby league ☒N checkY ☒N
WikiProject Australian rules football ☒N checkY checkY
WikiProject Marching band ☒N checkY checkY
WikiProject Universities checkY checkY ☒N

Thus we see that Style 3 is consistent with all 13 apart from College Basketball, and (again apart from College Basketball) the other standards may be considered to apply only by happenstance - that is it is impossible to infer that standard 1/2 or standard 4 was intended.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

Water consumption[edit]

We discuss the level of human water consumption at

Our coverage is not clear, somewhat contradictory, and the referencing should ideally be to the level of WP:MEDRS.

We have been quoted by the "Wikipedia Shop" - According to Wikipedia, the average human needs at least 2-3 liters of water per day to stay healthy. it is a shame that clarity and as far as possible correctness cannot be our stock in trade in this matter as it is in most others.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]


Wikidata weekly summary #99[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Pithovirus sibericum[edit]

Needs to go in to List of viruses. (Talk:List of viruses Crisp list is 404.)

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Thanks to User:RDBrown for adding this. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #100[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

Makambako#Education[edit]

Needs a (very) little copyediting. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #101[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

AJS[edit]

Model Year Notes Type Photograph
AJS Stormer 1968–1974 Villiers Starmaker-derived 2-stroke engine. (Y4)250, 370 & 410 Scrambler
FB-AJS 1974–1982 Villiers Starmaker-derived 2-stroke engine. 250, 370 & 410 Moto-X & Trail
Photograph
Cotton Cobra Replica 1991–2000 Villiers Starmaker-derived 2-stroke engine. 250 Scrambler
Photograph
Cotton Telstar Replica 1992–1998 Villiers Starmaker-derived 2-stroke engine. 250 Classic Racer
Cotton Triumph Replica 1992–2000 Triumph 500 unit twin Pre-65 Moto-X
Photograph
AJS YX-R 125 2006–2008 4-stroke, air & oil-cooled single-cylinder, 4 valves Trail
AJS CR3-125 2006–2008 4-stroke, air-cooled single-cylinder Sports
AJS Regal Raptor DD50E 2002–current 50 cc, 4-stroke, air-cooled single-cylinder Custom
AJS Regal Raptor DD125E since 2005 125 cc, 4-stroke, air-cooled twin-cylinder Custom
AJS Regal Raptor DD125E-8 Silverhawk 2007–2008 125 cc, 4-stroke, water-cooled twin-cylinder Custom
AJS Regal Raptor Eos 125 since 2007 125 cc, 4-stroke, water-cooled twin-cylinder Custom
AJS Regal Raptor Eos 250 since 2008 250 cc, 4-stroke, water-cooled twin-cylinder Custom
AJS Regal Raptor DD250E-9B 2006–2008 250 cc, 4-stroke, water-cooled twin-cylinder Custom
AJS NAC12 Since 2010 125 cc, 4-stroke, liquid-cooled, twin-cylinder Naked
AJS Regal Raptor Daytona 125 since 2010 125 cc, 4-stroke, water-cooled twin-cylinder Custom
AJS Regal Raptor Bobber 125 since 2010 125 cc, 4-stroke, water-cooled twin-cylinder Old Skool Custom
AJS Eco1 (JS125-E) 2007–2008 125 cc, 4-stroke, air-cooled, single, OHC, with Balance Shaft Roadster
AJS Eco2 (JS125-E) since 2009 125 cc, 4-stroke, air-cooled, single, OHC, with Balance Shaft Roadster
AJS JSM 125 since 2009 125 cc, 4-stroke, air-cooled, single, OHC, with Balance Shaft Super Motard or Trail versions

This version corrects some formatting issues with the one in the article. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC).
((Done))

Wikidata weekly summary #102[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Continued making the UI faster
    • Fixed Wikidata changes not showing up in the watchlist on the client (Wikipedia, etc.) (bugzilla:62149)
    • Decided to turn off the inoperable wikidata.org language subdomains for now to reduce confusion
    • Created initial version of Wikibase Internal Serialization component
    • wbEntity and wbUsedEntities JavaScript variables are now cached in the parser cache
    • Ongoing refactoring to get rid of the previously used numeric ID numbers in favor of prefixed IDs
    • Made wbsearchentities aware of previously unquoted percent characters
    • Put some time into fixing longstanding oddities that made the developers cry from time to time
    • Worked on reducing internal usage of EntityContent, in preparation for redirect support
    • Worked on performance issues with JSON dump generation (hopefully we can start generating dumps soon)
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #103[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes[edit]

Once you've caught up(!), you might like to note Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and teh 'appendix', User:Underlying lk/Misc infoboxes. See also the last three or four weeks or so of TfD pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Тотал listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Тотал. Since you had some involvement with the Тотал redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gorobay (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm MCaecilius. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kumao Imoto, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. M. Caecilius (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement[edit]

I have filed a request for enforcement concerning edits you made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. RF 15:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CAKE for all my talk-page stalkers[edit]

To all my Wiki-Colleagues - Have some Wiki-Birthday Cake! I shall be sharing my Real LIfe™ Walnut and coffee cake, while I share this virtual cake here.

Please invite your friends, there is plenty to go round. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

Redrose64 has eaten a slice of your cake! The cake made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again! --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Hi Rich, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
I don't really know the background, but if there's some excuse this isn't a complete overreaction, then the nominator and everybody else who's commented there in support must've forgotten to mention what that is. — lfdder 15:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #105[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 20:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough[edit]

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

London Gazette index[edit]

Rich, I randomly tried a few links from the 1918 index and it looks like the Gazette's move to it's new url and pagination has screwed things up as I got a 100% error rate. For example the 1 January issue url you have in the index is http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30453/pages/1 this is now https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30453/page/113 and the first supplement which was http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30454/supplements/1 is now https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30454/supplement/225 All in a bit of a pain in the backside. Nthep (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a nice document by Tim Berners-Lee explaining why people shouldn't break the Internet like this. We are used to it, though, on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I am prohibited from fixing anything by means other than "typing in the edit box". I will make an appeal in various places for someone to fix the index. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Advice please[edit]

Can you perhaps advise me how to improve my sources script? You probably know I don't have any programming skills and wouldn't know how to define a loop even if my life depended on it. The script has been cobbled together based on an earlier version of my Engvar script that someone else helped me with. However, the "dictionary" in this script, split into three separate subscripts, is very large and involves very heavy processing. I'd like to ask you to help me optimise it so that it doesn't stall in operation as is frequently the case. Explanations in layman's terms of how it works and how it could be improved would be most welcome; ditto for suggestions as to code modifications. Cheers, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well one thing I notice (not having looked at the sub-scripts yet) is that there is a speed up to be had in rules like
  • (\[\[)/s*Public Broadcast Service\*\|\s*(PBS\]\]) => $1$2
  • (?:\[\[)/s*Public Broadcast Service\*\|\s*(?:PBS\]\]) => [[PBS]]

will be faster, since it won't create (and destroy) the two variables $1 and $2. Over the whole thing this may help. I'll look more later. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

  • If I made greater use of lookaheads instead of the variable registers, like this, would the regexes run more efficiently? -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I really can't say - I don't thinks so, but I am somewhat distracted. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

OK another big thing is that we are doing these reg-exes on the whole document. If instead we extract the citation templates, and process them in a smart way we will get maybe 2-3 orders of magnitude speed up. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Your Arbcom case[edit]

Hey Rich hows it going. I just wanted to let you know I commented in your defence on your case. Personally I think they are going to keep gunning for you. The sanction is written so poorly it will be impossible to meet it. They are going to find a reason to ban you I'm afraid. Its only a matter of time. They are targetting all the top editors one at a time. Anyway, the children of Arbcom will probably delete my statement since I was banned so I would quite commenting about the failures of Arbcom and the abusive admins on this site. But I wanted to add it anyway so its on record. Good luck and like I said before your always welcome at Wikia. We may not have as many articles, editors or drama of Wikipedia, but we do have cookies. In fact we have entire Wiki's about cookies.! ake care bro. K u m i o k o (the editor who shall not be named)172.56.3.8 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I know who will keep gunning for me, there's not much that can be done about that. The reasonable people who have fallen for the propaganda, might be swayed in time, and there are those who see this for what it is. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
Hi, re this it's {{U|Beeblebrox}} not {{U:Beeblebrox}}. I can't fix it because of the rules there. You might like to use {{replyto|Beeblebrox}} though. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, you put {{U|Beebelbrox}} now - "l" and third "e" exchanged. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't I just put {{Zaphod}} ? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
Redrose64 -- you could've fix it -- they're bureaucratic, but they're not that bureaucratic. NE Ent 02:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: The whole ArbCom thing seems to use the (undeniable) premise that there are two parties in dispute as an excuse to keep the whole process on a confrontational basis. When this thread was first posted, I followed the link - and looked at the rest of the page to see what sort of things might happen. I found a big pink box at the top of WP:AE full of warnings of dire consequences, which left me with the impression of "if you even think about posting here to disagree, you'll be desysopped and banned for life. This is our patch: keep out". ArbCom pages aren't like talk pages - you can't reply by posting into the thread that you're replying to, which makes it difficult to track a "conversation". I have certainly seen people sanctioned for amending somebody else's post; at the top of WP:ARCA the pink box says "Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are [an arb or clerk]". They don't even like you amending your own post, as evidenced by the instruction "this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive". --Redrose64 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves. The more like dicks arb-com act, the better the chances better things will come....maybe. — lfdder 12:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with bot that adds references to articles[edit]

Hi! I'm writing a bot task (see User talk:PotatoBot#PotatoBot for Glottolog codes?) that will add a parameter to {{Infobox language}}. Trouble is, this parameter (glotto=) creates a ref, and not all articles have a <references />, {{reflist}} or something equivalent. Is there some bot that could follow after mine, or code that I could use, or some other solution? Your help would be appreciated! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I am currently not allowed to. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
Pity. Thanks anyway. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything has changed![edit]

In a major reversal Rich has walked away from an article with four identical errors, after only correcting one of them! Talk Page interviewed the well known rapscallion at an address "somewhere in the East Midlands"

Talk Page: So we understand that you have finally broken your addiction.

Rich: <shuffling> Yes, that's right.

Talk Page: What happened?

Rich: "Well I was just reading Battle of Caporetto order of battle, trying to find out about the seventh infantry division, and putting a red-link in for it, when I noticed the section heading was wrongly capitalised - as were four others on the same page.

 Talk Page: So you corrected it?

Rich: Well I corrected half of it.

Talk Page: Only half?

Rich: I had to go back and fix the second half. I was getting the shakes. You don't know what it's like....

Talk Page: But you walked away form the other three errors?

Rich: Yeah... It was hard, but I did it. Don't want people thinking I'm <spits> automated...

Talk Page: Well, congratulations! That just shows this compulsive urge to "not act like a human" can be overcome! And now, back to the studio...

11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • That seems more like fighting one's anal obsession, or deliberately trying to make a point that is the utter reverse of those who habitually violate that guideline. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's simply an illustration, diluted 100,000 times of the effect that this absurd situation has. I am demotivated from improving stuff that someone can easily fix with a bot. bare references, cite errors, typos, vandalism, pov errors, copyvios, paid editing. <meh> There's plenty more that needs doing, not necessarily here... All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Nothing's changed[edit]

Re your comments "I did not expect that anyone would take exception to straight-forward editing" -- did you think Fram had retired or something? In any event, since a) your sense of wiki politics isn't the best (assuming that, long term, you still want to continue editing) and b) thus far, there's not much evidence Arbcom '14 is any more reasonable than Arbcom '12, you should just let them have the last word at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and stop quibbling over the little stuff on the clarification page. NE Ent 02:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is some evidence of '14 being more reasonable. I figured it would take a year to sort out the arb case, but I gave up after a bit. I guess we will make progress in time. They key thing seems to be to only deal with one thing at a time, or the issue gets muddied. Certain arbs (bless them) seem to want to "reform" me, which is fine, if they can establish what that means, apart from "internalising my guilt". All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC).
It's always read to me like some simply want to site ban you but couldn't get the votes. NE Ent 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and that is why it is important to have a dialogue. Presumably they have reasons for wanting that, and only by disposing of the spurious reasons, do we stand a chance of addressing anything else. Of course some people enjoy blocking and ABFing, they should by no means be Administrators,, let alone Arbitrators. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC).
Note from Kumioko redacted see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARich_Farmbrough&diff=604782136&oldid=604774354 (Sadly the redaction, which is optional, was by an involved editor. i would strongly counsel involved editors against implementing or requesting such procedural steps.)

  • As to editors who prefer to make difficulties for their own ends, the evidence is there for all to see.

  • I don't agree that this is "Worst. Arbcom. Ever." Certainly some people wear their prejudice on their sleeve, but that is probably a good place as any to wear it. Most that I have had contact with, who were not members of 2012, are simply assuming that the 2012 findings were correct, and haven't investigated them. Why would they?

  • The "type in the box" sanction was written in haste and anger, there can be no doubt about it. The complaint at the time, trivial though it was, was dealt with by existing remedies.

  • As to ineptitude vs malice, it is, I think, a capital error to confuse outcomes that are due to mistake, even compounding of many mistakes, with ineptitude. Certainly there are grounds for ascribing malice, ineptitude or both, to certain steps in the process - see the grudging recension of Finding 8 (and its modifying motion) due to "procedural errors". It's a shame that the then committee didn't have the integrity to strike it as factually wrong as was demonstrated, and chose to put a one-sided disclaimer in, but one can't have everything.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Histmerge[edit]

Could some brave admin histmerge User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 8 to User talk:Rich Farmbrough, please? The contents of User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 8 should be kept there, by cut and paste as needed. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration evidence query[edit]

You said at AE that this edit is not taken from this document, §35. In that case, where was it taken from? Thanks, AGK [•] 06:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Total registration document for 2013, which is the document lodged with the French authorities, pursuant to French company law. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
Thank you. However, I can't seem to find that, and its contents are important to a point of fact that arose in the last AE. Could you provide me a link to (or copy of) the document in question? AGK [•] 11:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a copy on my laptop I believe. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
http://total.com/en/Registration-document-2013 - linked from any of the first three Google hits for "Registration document 2013" Total. It's 2.89Mb pdf, containing significant information about P&E of LPG and LNG, and, for those that have eyes to see, the Realpolitik of various regions. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
I have glanced over at the arb pages, I notice a third motion has been proposed. I'm not sure if this has a bearing on your request. I was inclined to wonder, if someone would download and compare a long list from an off-wiki document (and the wrong one at that) in sufficient detail in the first place to identify minuscule differences with the on-wiki list - and then bring them up, whether this could be considered "normal behaviour" and "assuming good faith", let alone displaying it. By the same token I do hope that requesting this source was simply to establish beyond doubt that the sub-par research supporting the fallacious conclusions was absolutely wrong, rather than an ungentlemanly lack of faith in my veracity.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #106[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified[edit]

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration committee decision regarding Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has declined to support an amendment requested by Rich Farmbrough.

Archived request

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon England by Stenton ...[edit]

Which edition were you using for that reference? There are three different editions, with three different paginations. And, as a courtesy, could you try to format the references as much like the rest of the citations - which are formatted like "Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1974. 6" - if you'd included a date, I wouldn't have to ask about which edition was being used. Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Third (posthumous) I believe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Great answer[edit]

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Very helpful answer, as I needed that information as well!
///EuroCarGT 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

This survived 2 weeks[edit]

heavy vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised this didn't trigger an abuse filter. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
It has something to do with ClueBot unable to check more than x pages per minute. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be fairly easy to run an additional process to check for this sort of thing - alas it won't be me running it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

3 years, marquee and all. I spent years in Canterbury, and I've never even heard of Herne Common before today, so I think it might be excusable. — lfdder 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

Desktop survey[edit]

In /Desktop Survey, Re: "I have excluded the book that raises my monitor to optium viewing height." Hahaha! What title? I'm currently using The Macmillan Encyclopedia... I've tried to find a cheap single volume of the Britannica (Ideally a "W" volume), but no luck so far. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Enyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics Vol II F-N. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of P—— P——[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A tag has been placed on P—— P——, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Totally unrelated redirect.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of P- P-[edit]

A tag has been placed on P- P-, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Totally unrelated redirect.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of P—— P——[edit]

A tag has been placed on P—— P——, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it is an uncommon and unnecessary redirect

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eyesnore (pc) 10:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Beetstra for pointing out this nom-de-plume is mentioned in the article, and removing the speedy. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

--

Speedy deletion nomination of P- P-[edit]

A tag has been placed on P- P-, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it is an uncommon and unnecessary redirect

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eyesnore (pc) 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See above. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

--

Blacklist[edit]

after the heading "Old logs" please add
* [[/Full_list/]] (Large but useful when you have no idea of the date.)

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

I fixed the {{edit protected}} so that this page isn't mislisted at PERTable - you're a little out of touch. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but not to worry I am quite imPERTable. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
Not done: Sorry, but could you request this over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? We should probably leave a chance for people to discuss this if they want to. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a simple link, but yes, sure. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Queen's Award for Enterprise...[edit]

I think I got them all. Let me know if I missed any, and tread lightly if you're thinking about moving any of them back to mainspace. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You did, and thanks again! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Warwick Davis may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Also in 2013 he founded [[The Reduced Height Theatre Company[[, which stages theatrical productions cast exclusively with short actors and using reduced height

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Poundland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Update|section|date=April 2014}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC) --

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back, my dear friend. It's good to see you editing again, and it's amazing how fast 365 days went in my face without even noticing. This will be a better place now :) → Call me Hahc21 22:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

Small sig date stamp: How?[edit]

A question: What markup are you using in your signature to get the date stamp small? (Wikipedia:Signatures doesn't help.) I tried to add <small>{{#time:H:i, j F Y (T)}}</small> to mine and that produces a small datestamp alright but then the system treats it as if there wasn't a datestamp and adds a second one in normal font size. Like this: —WinTakeAll💬 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rich signs with three tildes, not four. This suppresses the system-generated timestamp. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #104[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Candidates 7 April[edit]

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Candidates 8 April[edit]

  1. Queen's Royal College
  2. TT Pro League
  3. List of Parliaments of Trinidad and Tobago
  4. Geneva Protocol
  5. International Monetary Fund
  6. Search and rescue
  7. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
  8. Horace Byatt
  9. Pearce Robinson
  10. David "Happy" Williams
  11. Joseph Lennox Pawan
  12. Stokely Carmichael
  13. Mohammed Faisal Rahman
  14. Bahá'í Faith in Trinidad and Tobago
  15. Caribbean Court of Justice

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
--

Candidates 9 April[edit]

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Candidates 10 April[edit]

  • Brian Lara's 400 not out

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

RfArb Clarification Request[edit]

Per your post on the Bot Request page, I have asked ArbCom to clarify if the actions you request extend too far into the realm of Automation. Please weigh in at [47]. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
Where's this bloomin' archive bot then? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

User:Dummy 21 April 2014

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trading turret may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com/doc/2589219/bankers-guide-trading-turrets-quantification A Bankers Guide to Trading Turrets]], Peter Redshaw , 12 September 2013. Gartner.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Wikidata weekly summary #107[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification (Rich Farmbrough bot issue)[edit]

An arbitration clarification request(Rich Farmbrough bot issue), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived, because the bot request has been withdrawn.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that makes (reasonable) clarification unworthy, especially since some seem to be saying I can't request bots. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
A copy of what I left for the Arbcom on their noticeboard under your clarification request which will almost certainly be deleted. ::I tried to stay out of this because I didn't want my comments reflecting back at Rich but I think its important to say a couple things here because the Arbcom seems intent for some reason to embellish the situation and make it sound worse than it is. The statement above that he made more bad edits than good is not only incorrect, but it reflects how little attention this Arbcom paid to the old one. Rich did over 5 million edits including his bots. Some editors got irritated about some easily fixable mistakes, some minor edits and full watchlists. So they desysopped Rich and sanctioned him. The sanction was so poorly written however that no two people who read it interpreted it the same way. As for the "clarification" that didn't clarify anything. Rich's arbitration and sanction are just as poorly written now as they were before. The only difference is that now we have a new Arbcom that failed to clarify what the old Arbcom failed to write clearly. They are setting Rich up for failure either intentionally or through their incompetence by not "clarifying" the sanction. By allowing anyone to use their own discretion to determine if he is editing automatically they know as well as everyone else we'll be right back here next month. Then they include things as automation that no sane person would just to ensure that that have an excuse to say see, we gave him a chance and he failed. No, you set him up and you and everyone else knows it. The Arbcom's incompetence and failure to dismiss a few whiners cost this project a good admin, editor and botop. Thousands of useful edits a month aren't being done because of the extremely poor decision of a few here. Kumi172.56.2.234 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Well there is some truth in that. But I'm sure good sense will prevail in the end. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Compared to you, and your contemporaries, I am new to wikipedia. I really don't know that what happened with you. I've mostly seen you on lists, including the list of most active editors. If any of my automation is revoked, I wouldn't be editing as much as I can do now. Like ohconfucius had written, that almost everything is automated on comp. But still there is a specific definition of 'automation'. It is great that you are not banned/blocked, and you defended yourself very nicely. Best of luck with your editing. OccultZone (Talk) 10:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! I certainly feel like I am new to Wikipedia most of the time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC).
You are always welcome, I was about to decrease the double post, this connection is running pretty slow. Yes you were faster! Who knows, and who has guaranteed? Maybe there will be a day when same people will allow you to have the bots, or even nominate you for adminship. Never give up your hopes! OccultZone (Talk) 10:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope your comment about good sense turns out to be true. Obviously I am not so sure good sense will prevail here on this site anymore. Lol, they keep trying to make it so my name cannot even be spoken on this site. How much they hate me now will eventually be ten fold. I am not going away. K.U.M.I. 172.56.3.46 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to use an edit filer to prevent your name from being spoken. But I have been wrong before. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC).
I can't speak Kumioko?!? Oh wait, I just did.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't prove anything. Have a read of the edit filter documentation.
Now let me expound, if expound I must, on why it would be stupid.
  1. It would manifestly fail unless written by someone with the intelligence not to write it in the first place.
  2. It would impose a quite unnecessary server load - increasingly so as futile attempts were made to refine it.
  3. It would goad the blocked party into trying harder, and if they were not honourable possibly push them into actual damage rather than posting messages which can simply be ignored.
  4. In this case the user is one of the good guys, whatever we might think about his posting habits
  5. This reason is soooo stupid that I'm not going to post it here. If anyone wants to email me, I will tell them if I think it appropriate.
More important, much more important though is this reason
  • The anti-socking policy is specifically and mainly designed with two ends in mind. Primarily preventing misrepresentation. Such an edit filter (if anyone stupid enough to think it was a good idea, and smart enough to write it could be found in our fairly small group) would actually be encouraging misrepresentation. For all that Jclemens once observed "It's not about fairness and justice", when we dispense with fairness and justice, we rapidly move to exactly the type of despotic regime Kumioko describes.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC).

seraphim.com blacklist entry[edit]

Just letting you know, I modified the regex to fix the false positive you reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#st-seraphim.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

Welcome back[edit]

toasting with champagne
Cheers!
Put your feet up in Victorian lounge in Bishzilla's pocket!
  1. Time flies when you're enjoying yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. You have just over two-and-a-half hours to extend your block....! Looking forward to seeing Rich Farmbrough without the struck through text! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. I've seen you around the wiki in various places, like removing that old Erik9bot category. Good luck and I hope there won't be so much trouble down the road! Altamel (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Hey, maybe we'll get stuff done around here now. (No, wait, that's why you were banned. Never mind.)
    As a welcome-back gift, I left you hundreds of missing reference sections. Just so you know we care. — kwami (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. 365 Drama Free days! Lets hope that number continues to grow, so happy editing! —Sladen (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. A year is awfully long in wiki-time. I'm normally logged into the Commons IRC channel, pm me if you ever would like a different viewpoint on something. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  8. Welcome back! ϢereSpielChequers 18:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  9. Will you be at Coventry this Sunday, or shall you be too busy with your Wiki-backlog? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  10. Welcome back! I 've noticed you are already on business. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  11. Best wishes, happy times -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  12. I forget why you're on my watchlist, or where we met. Ah yes, November 14, 1905. Back when text was normal. Welcome back! I'll take you off the list, but it's nothing personal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  13. Nice to see little user back. Welcome in newly refurbished pocket, good place to celebrate. (Cake-eating on Saturdays, beer every day!) bishzilla ROARR!! 17:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
  14. Wish you all the best on your return! Thanks, Matty.007 17:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  15. Not before time, after an over-long and punitive block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  16. Cheers! See you at WikiMania 2014.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  17. Finally! Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  18. I was stunned to see "Rich Farmbrough" pop up in the edit-history of one the articles on my tiny watch-list. One of Wikipedia's finest editors and a true class-act! An "over-long and punitive block" indeed. Great to see you back to work! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  19. All Sentiments Dittoed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  20. Can't believe my favorite (most helpful and civil) editor was blocked...but glad it's over. --Beth Wellington (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

For all your good wishes! Lets get this show on the road! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Question on Editing references[edit]

I noted a broken link and found the replacement, but am at a loss at when to make the correction. Can you help me out? American_Enterprise_Institute Reference 11 currently:

Ornstein, Norman J. (September 10). "My Neocon Problem". The New Republic (2007). Retrieved 2009-06-17. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/my-neocon-problem --Beth Wellington (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just replace the old URL with the new one, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks RR. Shame we cannot fix more of these automatically. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC).


A cupcake for you![edit]

Thanks for creating the new Walnut and coffee cake article, improving English Wikipedia's coverage of cake-related topics. NorthAmerica1000 06:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Mmm delicious! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lychee Mini Fruity Gels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87820</ref> The product is made by AP Frozen Foods Ltd, Thailand.<<ref name="nih" />
  • The foodstuff has been banned in the US (by the FDA<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/health/mary-roach-on-studying-food-and-how-humans-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

10 years today[edit]

And still learning. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Well done! I reach 5 years on 5 May. Still way behind on edit count - I should reach 98000 today - this edit is no. 97999. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It is plenty to get your "Senior Editor III" (or "Labutnum of the Encyclopaedia") title! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Deleting My Comment[edit]

Is there a reason you deleted my comment here [48] ? 50.45.159.56 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think I was editing from Risker's version for some reason. Comment restored, sorry abut that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Lok Sabha[edit]

Hi Rich, what was all this about? It was scarcely a copyedit, since you missed a whole bunch of obvious things (which I'll fix shortly). You've introduced pretty much as many problems as you resolved, eg: for some reason you changed "Lok Sabha" to "Lok sabha". I do hope that this is not an indication of some sort of automation again. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Er, he changed "Lok sabha" (small s) to "Lok Sabha", capital S. It was you that lowercased the S with the next edit to the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
And what are the other "problems"? — lfdder 15:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
checkY Answered on user's talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
Yes, you're right, sorry. But I still think it was pretty pathetic and have replied on my talk. It looks like you're searching for terms and making really very little difference because of it. Still, it is a good way to rack up an edit count, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
checkY Answered on user's talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #108[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jiao Zhe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ((Use DMY dates}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Private Detective may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Redirect [[St George Henry Rathborne]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Demetrius of Apamea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Demetrius of Apamea''' {''[[Floruit|fl]]''. late-third to early-first century BC) was a Hellenistic physiologist of the [[Herophilos|Herophilean]] school.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]

I've started another discussion about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Quality of article creations. Fram (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the Quote of the Day at the top of this page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC).
I think that claims of misconduct (i.e. your very sloppy attitude to editing, fact checking, ...) have been raised, by me and others, often enough before this episode. This is just a new incarnation of an old problem, showing that the restrictions have reduced the problems in quantity, but haven't erased the basic problem. Fram (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You created just now the redirect Olga Kireef de Novikoff, with the edit summary "As named by Percy Sinnett in "Incidents"". All I can find is page 277 of "Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky", where he writes "(Signed) Olga Novikoff, née Kiréef". Can you please indicate where the form "Olga Kireef de Novikoff" comes from? If it is used elsewhere in the book, then it may well be a justified redirect, but otherwise it seems rather pointless. Fram (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Justified and ancient. «Escuchad», al propio tiempo que levantaba la mano, y todos oímos distintamente la última estrofa compuesta de cinco notas, que resonaba en medio de nosotros.
Por supuesto, que no tengo el más mínimo intento de dar una explicación; pero los hechos fueron tales como los relato. -Olga Kireef de Novikoff».
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
Some Spanish (or Portuguese?) web-only translation of that work? ... Right, what's the relevance of that for the English Wikipedia article on a Russian lady? Do we really need to reproduce the errors others have made as well? And using that as the justification for this seems totally over the top, a one-off remote source shouldn't be used as if it was somehow the definitive source on her name. Fram (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you here since your edit appears to be incorrect. All source I have found indicate that Josias was the great-grandson of Johann and the grandson of Paul, a brother of Heinrich. Could you please provide sources when you add or change information, it would make it a lot easier to see why you made an edit, and would prevent removal of correct information (e.g. here, perhaps there was a good source supporting your claim, in which case I shouldn't have reverted it but discussed). And, assuming you were incorrect here, could you please be a lot more careful in your editing, your edits contain way too much factual errors. 14:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to revert. Be aware that Mediawiki now tells me when you do, unlike in the old days when you could revert without me being aware. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
If I didn't want you to be aware for some reason, I could easily manually revert such edits. But I see no reason to hide my edits (there are probably many things you feel you can blame me for, but that shouldn't be on the list). Fram (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
1337 hax0r! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Hello and thanks![edit]

Hi there Rich i would like to thank you for thanking me regarding my recent article the Orenburg gas field. I'm glad to see an experienced editor like yourself appreciates my work. Thanks for supporting little guys like me. Cheers and all the best. BineMai 20:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

From recent experience on Wikipedia most of our editors (and hence, probably, most of our readers) seem to be unaware of just how important (and vast) the Eurasian fossil fuel industry is. I was therefore delighted to see something addressing gaps in our coverage. Good work! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox event[edit]

Template:Infobox event has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox civilian attack. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess maybe Infobox event is the target? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

John Russell (1838-1956) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Russell (1838-1956). Since you had some involvement with the John Russell (1838-1956) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Olga de Kireef Novikoff listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Olga de Kireef Novikoff. Since you had some involvement with the Olga de Kireef Novikoff redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Olga Kireef de Novikoff listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Olga Kireef de Novikoff. Since you had some involvement with the Olga Kireef de Novikoff redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso. Since you had some involvement with the P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Eithe genoimen listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eithe genoimen. Since you had some involvement with the Eithe genoimen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jendre listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jendre. Since you had some involvement with the Jendre redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bournw identity listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bournw identity. Since you had some involvement with the Bournw identity redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. MIchael Angelo Titmarsh listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mr. MIchael Angelo Titmarsh. Since you had some involvement with the Mr. MIchael Angelo Titmarsh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Intercaluary day listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intercaluary day. Since you had some involvement with the Intercaluary day redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

CCC Erfa Ulm listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CCC Erfa Ulm. Since you had some involvement with the CCC Erfa Ulm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Natinal Geallery listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Natinal Geallery. Since you had some involvement with the Natinal Geallery redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement). Since you had some involvement with the Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

O'Higgins Circunscription listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect O'Higgins Circunscription. Since you had some involvement with the O'Higgins Circunscription redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

Changing subtitles on the Massacre at Hue page[edit]

I noticed you removed the capitalization from all but the first word in each subsection. Is that because it's the standard for Wikipedia? (I ask because I'm new at some of this. I've been making small edits for years, but nothing on the scale of this page.) --Txantimedia (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: Yes, Wikipedia has a very "down" style (as I am told it is called). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

Meet up with us[edit]

Happy May!

There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:

  • On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
  • Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
  • You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.

Come one, come all!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #109[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding a Category page that you edited long ago[edit]

This is what you had done and this is what I've done. Do you think my edit is according to the wiki guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishidigital1055 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The intention is fine. There are two issues:
  • You need to use {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} to give "May 2024" rather than "02:30, Friday, May 3, 2024 (UTC)".
  • Then is it better for people to go to the extra effort of dating tags, (and, surprisingly often, getting it wrong),or juts to let the bots do it?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Yadav Pandit[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Yadav Pandit. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yadav Pandit[edit]

The article Yadav Pandit has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. j⚛e deckertalk 04:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #110[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Predicting the future[edit]

Like many others I have noticed your commentary regarding admin abuse and cluelessness over an extended period, and I saw your comments at WP:AN3. Do you have any idea why sanctions were placed on your account? On multiple occasions? Many of us saw the slow degeneration and chose not to comment because we were able to predict what would happen. Now you are pushing into new areas and the future is again entirely predictable. A useful response would be to put a message on your user page that you are correct and everyone else is wrong—OK, that's fine. But going on about it over multiple pages is disruptive and will have an inevitable conclusion once the bickering and boredome factors exceed onlooker's patience. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I can think of no cases of admin abuse I have drawn attention to - though there may have been some. Certainly there have been bad blocks, bad deletion closures, bad CSDs and so forth - none of those I recall were abusive, we all make mistakes after all. I have drawn attention to two cases of checkuser misuse - when the misusers refused to acknowledge or correct the error it became abuse as far as I am concerned. As far as I know the abusers have not repeated the abuse, though I have not checked up on them. In ten years of editing I have reported a grand total of one established editor to AN/I, that I remember, and raised a grand total of one other noticeboard report (again as far as I remember). Possibly I may have raised an issue or two at BON. As an admin I may have blocked an established user, but I'm pretty certain all my blocks were short duration of new vandals - the logs are there if you want to look.
However you are certainly not the only person that believes I have been blocked are for other than the stated purpose.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks...[edit]

..for deleting the hate mail from my talk page. BMK (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You are welcome. I have just posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kumioko/Archive re the page blanking. You may wish to:
  1. Respond there
  2. Revert the blanking.
  3. Do nothing.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC).
You clearly need to review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor -- in this case AKG -- the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is what you did and is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted AGK's bold (and unique) blanking. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
No, the blanking was in place for over a month, and no other editor chose to revert it, so it became the page's status quo. Yours is then clearly the Bold edit. BMK (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, blanking per WP:DENY is hardly "unique". BMK (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I reverted AGK's bold (and unique) blanking I then discussed - see the talk page, WP:SPI talk and even your own talk page, which appeared to be an unproductive forum.
Please restore the status quo ante. I gave you a couple of days to do this last time, in good faith, and was disappointed.
And yes, the blanking is unique. Please read the discussion referred to in my edit summary.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

McKinsey & Company[edit]

Hi Rich. I've seen your name around a few times here and there and I've been trying to find someone to take a look at some edits I have suggested on an article where I have a COI here. It is regarding some contentious material cited only to an op-ed, a promotional list of notable alumni, and other misc. I was wondering if you were up for that sort of thing (collaborating with COIs) or if it wasn't your cup of tea. CorporateM (Talk) 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

Kakwani index[edit]

As requested, I've expanded the article on the Kakwani index. Please let me know if you need anything more done with it. Best, LK (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That is great! Many thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

Lolcats[edit]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Rich Farmbrough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rich Farmbrugh". The reason given for Rich Farmbrugh's block is: " Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username does not meet our username policy. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing. A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by: Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ".

Accept reason: Hah! Naughty doppelganger! --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Got auto-blocked by my doppleganger! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Vandalism fixed after 5 years[edit]

Vandalism occurred 5 years ago and I just fixed it. PS @Bgwhite:! -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And just another one that happened 4 years ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good examples!

Yet another one that occurred in 2010!. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #110[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 16:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Hi I had submitted an afc called National centre For Excellence but for the past 2 consecutive attempts the problem was " Not reliable sources ". I have surfed the net for reliable source for my afc and i have listed all of the ones I got. Help please. link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Centre_For_Excellence Thank you, Sincerely, Rahul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have given our new friend an answer and advice on my own talk page, advice you may like to see, even disagree with. I've also left a comment on the draft article. The organisation feels as if it ought to be notable, but I can find nothing so far to verify my gut reaction. Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll comment on your page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

Interested in creating a new portal?[edit]

You are interested in creating a new portal for a particular and popular subject? Ping me. OccultZone (Talk) 23:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I could give it a go. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC).
Eh, I got no ping.. It has happened few times before. I have added your page to watchlist. OccultZone (Talk) 11:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Portal:Years. OccultZone (Talk) 11:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to tell that I had liked this edit[49], maybe same type of summary(2nd nomination can be found here) can be added to all those Afd, that had 2nd one, or more. OccultZone (Talk) 13:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
If you can persuade ArbCom to let me.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC).
I think you are allowed to edit every page and everything, just no automation.. Correct me if that's incorrect. OccultZone (Talk) 13:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It is, basically. But any large task like that is crazy to do manually. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

I've manually done more than 5k edits in about 4-5 days to topics like "1812 in Ireland", "1505 in India", "1300 in Wales". No one objected at all. It was good, you feel that you are always busy and doing something interesting. Just saying, that it is all good. OccultZone (Talk) 13:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, I tagged about 3,000 maps GFDL, using a standard browser, many yeas ago. And that was fine. But to do that now and waste maybe 8 hours when I can do it with AWB in an hour, or with a bot in 2-3 minutes would be folly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

Washington, DC meetups in June[edit]

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

  • On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
  • Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
  • The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
  • Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
  • Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #111[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boys Union Club may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [http://www.goalnepal.com/team-id-3.html The team page at Goal Nepal]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Boys Union Club of Nepal.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Boys Union Club of Nepal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiLGBT[edit]

Hi! I want to give you an update about Wikimedia LGBT At WikiConference USA, we held a Un-conference session discussing the future of WikiLGBT and made plans to create a list of founding members and begin the process of applying for Usergroup status. We have already had more than the 3 person minimum to form a usergroup, but would also welcome your support were you interested in helping form this Usergroup. meta:Talk:Wikimedia LGBT/Portal#Sign on to be a Founding Member of a WikiLGBT Usergroup Thanks! OR drohowa (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive catch up is complete[edit]

And a ton of completely unnecessary work, but I guess it made someone somewhere happy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

Reference Errors on 4 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Interview Request on Wikimedia Privacy Policy Changes[edit]

Hi Rich,

My name's Anthony, and I'm Social Media Editor for IBTMedia. I'm doing a story about the big announcement re: Privacy Policy changes that are rolling out tomorrow, and I'd love to talk to you. Would you email me at a.smith[at]ibtimes.com? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.114.182 (talk • contribs) c. 15:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Navaho language[edit]

The section "Language status" has a disputed note on it that dates back to January 2013. It refers one to the talk page, which I'm guessing is referring to the section "Is the language in decline, or incline?" The discussion is only two comments, a question by an ip address and a response by Ish ishwar who is still active on Wikipedia. The latter appears to me to settle the "dispute" by providing an adequate clarification. Additionally, it would appear the introduction has been edited to delete the contradiction. Is there any way to resolve this and delete the tag? It seems to me that leaving the tag for so long on the article undermines not only its integrity but the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers! (glad the # of drama free days is approaching 2 months) --Beth Wellington (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, boldly remove it. I have done so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prayer of Saint Francis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {Use DMY dates}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #112[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ammonellipsitinae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * {{Cite web|url=http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl|title=The Paleobiology Database] accessdate=8 June 2014}}.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Integers tagging[edit]

I appreciate the work, but weren't you "topic"-banned from making bot-like edits? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm "topic-banned" from making automated edits, or using any "automation tool". To be extra nasty anything that looks automated counts. People (well one person - guess who?) has tried to make out that multiple manual edits are automated, and got laughed out of court, fortunately. Fixing those integers would have taken maybe 8-10 minutes with AWB rather than 3 hours and 4 minutes. But I suffer willingly for my beliefs. Actually I might not have started, had I realised how many needed fixing, but there were only two out of order,so it looked almost trivial, and I like to finish a job once I've started. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at TheChampionMan1234's talk page.
Message added 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheChampionMan1234 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Miss Multiverse page deleted[edit]

Greetings Rich, you have a very nice wikipedia page and profile... congrats!!!

I have a frustrating issue here... I have created the page Miss Multiverse, it was deleted once before about a year ago, i don´t understand why if it has all the right references, no use of promotion, just facts, there are even winners of miss universe that have participated in Miss Multiverse whom have profiles on wikipedia... and its still deleted as if this beauty pageant does not exist.

There are many smaller beauty pageants listed on wikipedia, we are just not able to comprehend why this is happening, it almost feels as if enthusiasts or supporters of other pageants are deleting this one, it takes time to learn how to use wikipedia and frustrating to see someone just come and delete it.

I will appreciate your help enormously, if you would kindly take a look and figure out a solution.

Best regards,

Jose Cuello (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The references need to be independent. Since most of them are fairly recent it may be that Miss Multiverse has become notable since the last deletion. If the pageant is covered in Elissa Stein (2006). Beauty Queen: Here She Comes. Chronicle Books. ISBN 978-0-8118-4864-0. that may help. Remember there are an estimated 700,000 pageants every year, we only expect to cover the notable ones. See WP:NOTABLE for more information. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
Oh, I wonder if it should be at Miss & Mrs Multiverse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

After two years...[edit]

This happened two years ago! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh those Indian villages! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gudlavalleru&diff=next&oldid=313799413 ... 5 years... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC).
Everyone has their own style for thanking others. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #113[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Daily Fail[edit]

I appreciate the content you added to the 2014 FIFA World Cup Group D page, but can you please avoid using the Daily Mail Fail as a source in future. That "newspaper" is the worst kind of rag imaginable, and when there are plenty of other options available, I think we should use them. – PeeJay 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: It is a reliable source if you are talking about some event. It shall be avoided for writing biographies but not more when you have got additional references. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I symapthiɀe with your concerns, we can, however, very well rely on the Mail as a source for this item. Were the story political or even crime I might have misgivings. To avoid the Mail for sport stories because we are concerned with the quality of their reporting on "serious" issues, or their editorial stance would be to fall into a different kind of trap. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Template:US Census geography[edit]

Hi Rich, I found Template:US Census geography of yours. Was this ever used? Do you think it should be deleted? I've looking over the census website and while I don't think there's some of rhyme or reason there, I wonder if we work out Template:USCensus-2010CA into something usable (maybe Template:USCensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ricky. The template was built when I thought that I would be working on the US 2010 Census. The idea was to use it to set up articles, and allow people to fuss over the exact wording for a few months, then subst: it out. Since various obstacles were strewn in my path, this didn't happen at the time. The template still has some applicability for translation of articles, though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

Duplicate article[edit]

Re your RM, thanks. Talk:A.A.N.M & V.V.R.S.R Polytechnic and Talk:Gudlavalleru Engineering College is the same place yes? Shouldn't it be merged into the older article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. "It was established in 1981 by the late Adusumilli Aswardha Narayana Murthy and Valluripalli Venkata Rama Seshadri Rao who also established Gudlavalleru Engineering College." - Gudlavalleru also treats the two as distinct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
Unfortunately I just added that line before I questioned whether they were the same place... I'm not a reliable source. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, then I guess we need to find a list. India is hard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
I ofund a list, and added links. Seems like they are distinct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

Great thanks[edit]

The Handyman Award
For once again fixing a problem at WP:CP that was flummoxing me. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, it's not necessarily a sign of great skill to fix a problem that is flummoxing me. I'm a bit of a technological wizard for my demo, but alas that doesn't mean much in the world of people who actually know such stuff. :) However, I still stand in admiration of your skill. :D And I'm just very grateful that you take the time to help out. Thanks much for knowing how to do things and being willing to do them for other people. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Telugu films of 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | ''[[Legend (2014 film)|Legend]]'' || [[14 Reels Entertainment]]> Vaarahi Chalana Chitram || [[Boyapati Srinu]] || [[Nandamuri Balakrishna]], [[Jagapathi Babu]], [
  • Nandeeshwar Goud]], [[Jayapradha]], [[JayaLakshmi]], [[Surender Goud]], [[PadmaJayanthi]], [Mukesh]], [[Rizwan]], [[Dharmender]] || Action || Asha Ram Creations ||<ref>[http://www.thehansindia.com/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abdelouahed Idrissi Chorfi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Idrissi Chorfi''' (born 1 January 1969) is a [[Morocco|Moroccan]] [[judo]]ka. He competed at the [[Morocco_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics#Judo|1996 Olympics] as an extra-lightweight, coming

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steamboats of the upper Columbia and Kootenay Rivers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#Category:Philatelic journals[edit]

Hi Rich, I'm surprised by your close here. Despite your conclusion that there is a broad consensus to rename, you closed "no consensus", meaning that the current situation, which is against consensus, will be maintained. There are clear, separate, category trees for academic journals and magazines, both of which are subordinate to Category:Periodicals. The latter is a "top" category, only containing categories by type (audio periodicals, newspapers, almanacs, etc), not by interest, so "Philatelic periodicals" is obviously an incorrect rename target. I would appreciate if you could have a second look at this discussion, because the current situation is highly undesirable. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have had a second, and even a third look. I think this was a difficult close, as evidenced by the fact that the discussion remained open for so long.
I understand your argument that journals and magazines are two different types of periodical, and indeed the distinction drawn in academia (this is something I have looked at previously). Nonetheless all three terms "periodical", "magazine" and "journal" can be used correctly to describe the members of the category. The only terms relevant to the discussion that cannot are compound terms such as "trade magazine", "professional magazine" and "academic journal". While these were used to attempt to draw the strands of serial publications apart, terms like "trade journal" and the many examples of the use of the word "journal" by non-academic serials, and indeed the existence of grey areas - law reports, proceedings, Hansard and so forth, not to mention predatory journals, and the distinction between external reviewers and board review, entangles the plait once again.
There is no reader-facing consensus that I am aware of on Wikipedia on the term "journal" without "academic" prefixed being interpreted as to mean peer reviewed. Indeed {{Infobox journal}} has a default link name of "Journal homepage" - used for example on the Chemical Abstracts page.
The question of existing category structures has some force, but not much where these can't be shown to have arisen from consensus - effectively it is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of argument.
In summary I would make three points:
  • Cogent but not compelling arguments were made for two possible alternative names.
  • The current situation might be described as "not perfect" or "slightly irritating" but to describe it as "highly undesirable" seems a stretch, no harm from this naming has been demonstrated.
  • I am satisfied with my close. There is no prejudice against re-listing, but it would probably be useful to establish a wider consensus on the vocabulary first. For example "Serials" is a more appropriate top level category from a library science perspective.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #114[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 13:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

User:J.Steinbock Thank You!

J.Steinbock

You are welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #115[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 11:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

AB[edit]

Can you filter a abusive edit summary? I will link here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look, better to email me though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Sent. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Historic Ferris Houses (in Mariemont, OH)[edit]

I just spent 2-3 hours researching and changing the entries for these two structures:

I found added a couple of sources for them (which is where I first learned of the two buildings). You were the last person to take an interest in these pages, so I wanted to both alert you to my recent edits and ask a key question.

Question: I am dying to know how you found this link from the Library of Congress: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/oh/oh0300/oh0340/data/oh0340data.pdf

There is more information in the parent directory, and many photos, including of the interior. I am too tired to link all the photos in or even refer to them. It was hard enough dealing with the varying build dates I found for the first building. I should go visit the building!

I am hoping there is a similar entry for the second building. Somewhere I got the date 1807 for the second building. I see that date comes up here:

http://aeqai.com/main/2014/03/the-eisele-gallery-of-fine-art-a-cincinnati-tradition/

I don't know if the National Register is incorrect. I was about to mention that it is now the Antique restoration business of Mr. Eisele, but like I said, I'm exhausted from the edits I already made...

Incidentally, the reason I was looking this all up is because I was dismayed that the Wikipedia Village of Mariemont has no history section at all! The Cincinnati page is horrible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cincinnati. But the History of Cleveland is not too bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cleveland. I would love to help get the Cincinnati page up to speed, but don't even know where to begin. You'd think some historian from the area would take charge!

David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, I forget how I found that document, but search gives this similar directory for Joseph Ferris House. I was looking at a guy called Richard Henry Dana III that day, who was a classmate of James Russell Lowell. It is a shame more local historians don't get involved in Wikipedia, and, from the US, Civil War enthusiasts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
  • [50] may be useful if you are anywhere near Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library. For the "Historic Spots in Greater Cincinnati" article series. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
    14:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the quick response. I'll take a look. I did notice your talk entry on the 1st house saying:
It is not clear if this was Richard Henry Dana III, or another of a similar name. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC).
I may try to resolve this question if I do more research on the two buildings and find anything conclusive. I wasn't sure where you found information that made this uncertain. Because they both have similar names, right? And both lived in Mariemont during the time of the additional work on the building?David Tornheim (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If Richard the Third lived in Mariemont and he is a good candidate for the role, we have first name, last name and initial, location, date. Unfortunately we also have his son Richard Henry Dana IV, Richard Henry Dana V was born in 1912 so can probably be discounted. For a family tree see http://www.nps.gov/long/historyculture/upload/EED%20Finding%20Aid.pdf pages 20-23. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for the updates on the Joseph Ferris house and adding the Historic Survey card like you did for the other Ferris building. I noticed that like the first building the Joseph Ferris house has different erection dates. The date on the card you supplied is 1820, as I believe was the date from NPS. However, the article I showed above says:
He chose an historic building in Fairfax built by Joseph Ferris in 1807 as his headquarters. Taking ten years to build it, Ferris chose the Greek and Federal revival architectural styles which remain today.
It's hard for me to tell which information is more reliable. The card sites as its source "an article of Frank Y. Grayson 'Historic Spots in Greater Cincinnati', which was published in the Cincinnati Times Star in 1933." I'm not sure whether it is better to give the competing sources like I did for the Eliphalet Ferris House, or trust that the professional surveyor did his work correctly and that new information has not been uncovered that gives a better date. Also, I'm not sure if the traditional erection date is the date building started or ended. If it is the date it was completed, the 1820 seems basically consistent. I'm on the fence about whether to add the other date to the main text, but I do plan to add the article which does talk about the building. David Tornheim (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July[edit]

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Census templates[edit]

Joy. I guess we need a single one for the 2010 version. I do mean there's about 37k articles where someone needs to manually review and update the stats. The references aren't so much obsolete as out of date (an old 'as of' essentially). I have no idea how to even begin although it does seem like the 2010 data can be parsed out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's important that we keep the 2000 census data, which is now historic. Ideally we would cover the demographics as far back as records are kept. The 2000 census data was uploaded by bot (Rambot), then a few years later I went through and improved the text substantially, though I was never completely satisfied. The 2010 data came out in about 2011/12 and I have had no involvement with that, so I'm not sure if has been used systematically, though I think not. It really needs automation, and unfortunately I am not currently allowed to edit using any tool other than "typing in the box," whatever that means. I can however do various scans and other jobs, though I have to present the results off-wiki. Meanwhile I chill and watch bits of the wiki fall apart.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
fyi, we had a hackathon at the Sunlight foundation, where some census people participated.[51] tried to work through an API > wikidata > infobox process. i hand added some information at http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1391, scraped from factfinder. [52]; if a motivated bot operator wanted to populate fields in wikidata, then we could link there, and not have to run bot in english (hint, hint). cheers, hope to see you at wikimania. 198.24.31.114 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sensory loss may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [{Category:Physiology]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Listas[edit]

Now trying to clear "biograhies without listas parameter backlog", [53] is correct? It gets pretty tricky whenever article is about a music band. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "Air Lane Trio". Remember this is the "listas" for all the WikiProjects. As far as I can remember, and I did a fair few bands, they pretty much all go with the title even things like "Jack Dorsey and his Orchestra". There may be some beginning with "The" which you want to send to the end. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, "The Rolling Stones" is listed as "Rolling Stones, The", so you are correct. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Language with name[edit]

Any thoughts on Template talk:Language with name#Suggestion: An optional literal translation? Yaris678 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Answered there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #116[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Norman Joseph Wisden listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Norman Joseph Wisden. Since you had some involvement with the Norman Joseph Wisden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death[edit]

Please be more careful when adding dates of births and deaths in articles. I have had to correct multiple ones over the last few days. When you don't know the date or year of death, like with Herbert Hamblen, then don't add a guess; your "c. 1920" turned out to be 1908. Please take care to use appropriate categories instead of placeholder ones as well, like you did in that same article. Fram (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Fram. Rich, you really used {{Footnotes}}? I had seen that code, almost one year ago when I had registered. It is outdated now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not "nice work" to assume bad faith.
  • "Reflist" is gobbledegook. I wanted to re-purpose {{References}} for that template, but unfortunately the unwise actions of certain editors has made that difficult. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
"assume bad faith"? Your source didn't include c. 1920, no sources I found included it either, and I did find one that had the correct date. But apparently "c. 1920" wasn't a guess but something else? Just like your 1838 birth date for George Ranken, the previous article you created, was not a mistake but a typo you repeated in the article, the persondata and the category, without noticing that this would have made him only 18 years old at the time of his death? Right... Fram (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready for update: USA mountains, lakes etc.[edit]

Hi Rich. I have gone through the list you supplied at the bot request page. Could you please update it for me? Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I will endeavour to do so. For my reference the original request is at this archive page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC).
This time there are 40,843 articles to consider, that's some 200 new articles. I'll let you know when I have the final list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC).
There were only 75 pages that met my criteria, I suspect most of them may be false positives. I have put the list in the same place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
Got it. Thank you very much Rich. Question: Do you think AWB could help me identify unneeded flag icons in physical geographic infoboxes? I am thinking about installing it anyway. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #117[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Isothiocyanate[edit]

I meant to undo your recent edit, which would allow me to explain this action. About.com is not a credible source, in my view. And the other sources also seem to fail the rather lofty standards for WP:MEDRS. I realize that the intentions are good and I am not a medical person. But as a scientist there is no way I would trust about.com for anything. Thanks and let me know if you feel I am out of line. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

About.com is a resource that has to be treated carefully. The reliability is related to the author, rather than the site as a whole. Having said that I am perfectly at ease with the removal of these sources, which were only meant to illustrate the sentence "The goitrogenic effect of Brassicaceae vegetables, interfering with iodine uptake, is also a concern at elevated doses." While this seems true, and easily supported, the question of whether it should be a concern, and at what levels seems far more interesting, and reference to a suitable recent review article would be ideal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
Please consider, in re: Smokefoot's point: If the evaluation of a source must be reduced to the evaluation of the credentials of the contributors of individual articles to that source, then we have answered our question. We are doing the work of an editor of the site itself, about.com (as, for instance, is done at Encyclopaedia Britannica, as they choose the editors that write their articles). That is, if we are reviewing article authors, we are tacitly declaring that the source, per se, is not generally reliable. Realize, that while a person with the right training and credentials can be expected to evaluate, article by article, the validity of the scientific material it contains, we not only do not expect this of WP editors, we specifically decline to allow it. Via WP:OR, WP:INDY, WP:SPS it is clear that the expertise required for editors to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable material from primary sources is not presumed, and so, e.g., as policy, the OR required to determine primacy of discovery based only on primary sources or self published sources like patents is not allowed; instead, we have to report what scholarly secondary sources report. The extension of this line of thought to declaring some but not all content of a source acceptable is clear; to whit, about.com, as a source, cannot be considered an acceptable source. If a reliable author presents information there, it must also be available somewhere else in the verifiable scientific literature.
While there can be some wiggle room in the secondary sources dictum—e.g., a first total chemical synthesis of a natural product, or the first detection of a long-sought fundamental particle, etc., discoveries likely to go years before review and being accompanied by a torrent of high quality scientific news reporting (Science, Nature, etc.)—I cannot see how this qualification can be extended to picking and choosing for allowable articles within a particular source. (If there is independent confirmation of a posting there, from another high quality source, the about.com posting is not needed.) Simply put, doing author evaluations to determine article reliability is OR; if one has to do this, the source is not reliable, and a further source of the same material must be sought. One editor's opinion, but if you do not find this persuasive, consider moving the matter to a higher level place for adjudication. This is a fundamental matter, and there is no sense in people editing at cross-purposes, because the matter is not a settled one. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no dispute here, see the following section.
Secondly, your words are focussed on science, where systematisation (at least in some fields, and over a recent time-scale varying form field to field) allows us the luxury, where paywalls do not intervene, of access to research papers, reviews, letters, summaries, abstracts and all the other published apparatus of academic discourse. The same is not true, in the extreme case, of current affairs, and to a lesser extent in many fields, whether they are the subject of academic or private study or not.
Thirdly, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is fluid, to say the least.
Fourthly, while there is concern over interpretation of more primary sources by Wikipedians, and improper OR and SYNTH, this is a matter of degree not kind. For example it is allowable to assume that two biographies of Edward Elgar refer to the same person, and correspondingly, though some would frown upon it as being a primary source, it would be absurd to disqualify his death certificate as being a good source.
Fifthly, it is widely accepted that nothing is simply a "reliable source" or "not a reliable source" - the question has to be asked "a reliable source for what?" I would have little compunction about accepting The Sun as a reliable source for football scores that were not in dispute, but a lot for details of educational policy of the current government.
Sixthly it is a capital mistake, of the kind made by the early detractors of Wikipedia, to assume that the gatekeepers of establishment knowledge are infallible, or on some cases, even that good.
Seventhly, when we draw on older documents, we have no "impact factor" to fall back upon, and we have to make the assumption that editors, and to an extent readers, of general articles can distinguish the nature of sources, and the likely causes of bias. In certain cases we can expound these clearly, in others where there is no appropriate meta commentary we can merely present opposing commentaries.
Eighthly, it behooves us to remember that part of the reason for the introduction of some policies was to protect against crack-pottery. While they generally serve us well in other circumstances in some cases they are over-strict, and in others insufficient (which is why, for example, we have WP:MEDRS).
Ninthly, WP:SPS is a little strict in that there are some fields (even today) where the authority operates outside the establishment and self-publishes. Certainly I had the pleasure some years ago of meeting a collector of East Anglian pennies who's group had self published and self printed the authoritative work on the subject, and Leigh Rayment is the go to source for the titled people from Britain (though we tag all our cites with "better source needed").
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

About.com, etc[edit]

Hi again. Thanks for the non-threatened response above. I always fret about backlash for a revert, etc. In any case. I am v interested your comment on the reliability vs authorship for About.com (and Answers.com, I guess). I recently revealed by skepticism for these sources at User talk:BullRangifer, who also concurred. But just because he and I agree doesn't mean that much, so I am wondering if there is a "higher power" who would pass judgement on his reliability issue. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If in future you want advice about a specific about.com page, then the folk at WP:RS are very helpful. In this case, although the author has written extensively about thyroid, I would be reluctant to re-introduce the cite, because diet and health is so often fringe, especially where personal experience is concerned, and, as you remarked above, MEDRS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
About.com usually publishes that has been already published. It is often easy to find the original source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

How might I request[edit]

…that a particular article be removed from the oversight/review currently in place? I am a semiretired professor, and have had problems at the Jack Andraka article called to my attention. I also was, very early in life, similarly, and ISEF participant and award winner. I am about ready to begin a scholarly, careful, section-by-section edit of the article, and if those edits are each time faced by long approval delays, it will make it very difficult to get this project finished, and to have Talk discussion properly focused on the overarching matters of the article. (Edits are easiest to add one section at a time, but because some edits involve moving text between sections, discussion is best after all edits actress sections are in place.) How can I have lifted, even temporarily, the reviews that lead to these delays? RSVP here, thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the article knowing nothing about the subject, and I gathered from it one salient fact: the process designed and developed by the subject has not, at the time of writing, gathered any independent scientific support. Indeed significant doubt has be cast upon its usefulness. (Of course I understand, as do you, doubtless, that this itself doesn't reflect badly upon the inventor, and that there will probably be more work, and that something very useful may or may not come out of it all at the end.)
As to removing the current restriction, once you are "auto-confirmed" it will not affect you, (basically that is a few days and a few edits after creating your account). If you wish, though, you can ask the person who imposed it, though he seems to be on an extended WikiBreak, or ask any admin (I am not one) or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
Obviously concur on the main point of you first paragraph, hence the professorial attention. In re: alternative ways forward, perfect, thanks. By the way, I enjoyed the "Things that stayed too long" section on your User page. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGM-Pathé Communications[edit]

You are cordially invited to revisit the article and the AFD. I also showed that "Pathé Communications" and "Pathé" are not the same entity and why. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for swinging back by. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Harold Hunter Armstrong[edit]

I see that you have created redirects Henry G. Aikman and Harold H. Armstrong, but they currently link to Harold Hunter Armstrong, a nonexistant article! Is this an accident? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very observant! But, no it's not an accident. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC).
Oh, you just created Harold Hunter Armstrong. I thought that you made a silly typographical error! Happy editing. Piguy101 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Tupolev Tu-98 article[edit]

Hi there, I've added some new references for the Tupolev Tu-98 article and I was wondering if you could check it out to see if the citations needed template can be removed now ? Your bots edit is the only one that corresponds to the same edit date for that template so I hope I'm not asking the wrong person! ☭Soviet☭ (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Good work! I took off the {{Unreferenced}} tag. Would be nice to have a source for the specifications - I added a tag there. You (anyone) can remove a tag if it has been dealt with. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

Vandalism since 2010 just reverted[edit]

[54]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Patricia Ainsworth[edit]

The article Patricia Ainsworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable per WP:AUTHOR. A real author but not notable; all works have vanished into obscurity.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: I've added a better source for now, can you check? This author has authored over 50 books. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The first source? That's only two sentences, an entry in a prose list, from a 200+ page book. As for 50 books I could find only the eight at the second source. There's an American MD with the same name who's written a number of books, but it's not the same person.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ainsworth's books were translated, re-issues in the 8-s and had large print editions. What wouldbe useful would be access to London Review of Books, and similar works. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #118[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Patricia Ainsworth for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Ainsworth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ainsworth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Patricia Ainsworth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [{Category:Australian women novelists‎]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Talk:Conventional_PCI.
Message added 20:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon![edit]

Greetings!

Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

Homewarming gift[edit]


A red rose for someone dear to my heart.
Love, moluɐɯ 00:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall treasure it always. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
Oh ya. I've been meaning to tell you that I enjoyed reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia has more... moluɐɯ 12:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #119[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark project defunct?[edit]

Rich Farmbrough, I see that you have been a contributor to WikiProject Citizendium Porting. I am inclined to mark it as defunct, as there has been no work on it in a couple of years and it seems unlikely that Citizendium will be a useful source of content for Wikipedia articles in the future. Is that o.k. with you? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest we merge it to the missing articles project. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
But all of the relevant articles exist already, except where the subject has been marked as "likely not notable". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. This project addresses missing content which is more subtle, and would mean expanding the scope of the "missing articles" project, so it would be a true merge, not just a subsumption. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
Just to clarify - my understanding of merging a Wikiproject comes from these instructions, where a project is converted to a taskforce. But a taskforce still must be managed by someone. No one has ported content from Citizendium since 2010; do you have any reason to think they will start doing so? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Citizendium has a list of articles, which shows that many are missing. I think this is worth taking to Missing Articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
So by "merge" do you mean add this list to the links in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles#Links and then mark the project as defunct, or should more be done? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough: In this 75th year of the congressional founding of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, I am trying to thank every editor who has had a hand in crafting the Wikipedia article about founder Malcolm Stuart Boylan. Thank you very much for your efforts through the years! May you have fair winds and following seas all your days. Taram (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to T7 phage may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • test the utility of the system ''[[in vivo]]'' tumor ablation, a T7 cancer gene therapy [[plasmid]]] vector, pT7T7/T7TK, was constructed. This nonviral vector contains a T7 autogene, T7T7, and a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your warm welcome. You're very kind. :)TuffGongster (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Those Were the Days!(film) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Those Were the Days!(film). Since you had some involvement with the Those Were the Days!(film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dreaming (band) – USA listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Dreaming (band) – USA. Since you had some involvement with the The Dreaming (band) – USA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Lee Curran, listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Lee Curran,. Since you had some involvement with the Michael Lee Curran, redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #120[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Created CLI script to import entities into the QueryEngine store (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Querycli.jpg)
    • More work on redirects (should be good to deploy on August 19th)
    • More work on the monolingual datatype
    • Started work on rewriting the sitelinks part of the user interface (that’s the first coding steps of getting us a new user interface design)
    • Final touches on badges (should be good to deploy on August 19th)
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles without listas parameter[edit]

Hello: Some time ago you commented about how Smackbot was clearing up the backlog. (Category talk:Biography articles without listas parameter#A little progress) I see the number is back up to 60k. How bots work is quite a mystery to me – they seem like incantations. So I surmise that Smackbot takes the defaultsort data on the article page and converts it to listas data on the talk page WikiProject Biography banner. If this is the case, how can Smackbot be reactivated to perform the task. (I'm also asking Jim Cubb to help.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the easy way. The bot also knew a bit about names, effectively it was a mini-expert system. However I need to get my friends at ArbCom to revoke their sanctions on me doing useful stuff before I can help much. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for the quick response. Alas, if the easy way can't be used then the listing will only expand. Sorry to hear about sanctions. – S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/US[edit]

Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/US has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Common era[edit]

Hi Rich, I notice you have changed BCE to BC. I realise this is to some extent a matter of taste (see Common Era). My reasoning for BCE is that the usage of the BCE/CE notation in textbooks and by academics is growing; it seems to be widely used in Wikipedia; and it respects the use of the Christian calendar by non-Christians. I dont have time to change all the BCEs in my various articles to BC and nor would I wish to. It would be a nice gesture, as I am the major author of this article, if you would respect my original wishes. Thanks.Granitethighs 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I will look at this again after Wikimania, if that's OK. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Polandball[edit]

Hi, I have recently expanded and rewritten the Polandball article at Draft:Polandball. I have also requested undeletion of the original article (that should never have been deleted in the first place) at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_6. I am leaving you this message as you seem like a nice bloke, plus I've noticed your comic on Commons :) 185.49.15.25 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it is an article that should never have been deleted in my opinion. Unfortunately some folk (not Poles as far as I can tell) believe that it falls under Rabbie Burns categorization of things that even to mention would be unlawfu'. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
Hey Rich, you might like to look at this. Cheers mate. 80.109.48.204 (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Initial speed reading/ brain-state-dump[edit]

Hi, I'm still in london, and need to sort out, among other things, how on *earth* I'm going to get all my wikimania swag across the channel.

So I am speed-reading. Please imagine I used my [citation needed] stamp all across the below, since I still need to check *everything*, and one small detail might send me down another branch of the tree.

Braindumping the current graph_in_my_head to text:

State of the universe:

  • you are "correctly" sanctioned for violating applicable policy
  • the applicable policy is possibly insane. (what else is new).
    • It may be inevitable to get into trouble if you approach the policy from an IAR stance
    • It may be impractical to approach the policy from a strict adherence stance.

proposed course of action:

  • You would like to go back to automated editing on wikipedia
  • The arbcom can only make decisions based on policy
  • current policy may be insane
  • It may be impossible for the arbcom to give you a remedy within their remit.


first conclusions:

Ergo: Petitioning arbcom is not a valid first move. :-/

What would be a valid move might be to get bot editing policies re-examined.

However, modifying policy post ~2010 can be very hard. I have not examined current policy yet.

So that's my current brain-state-dump; I may reload it later and modify it to more accurately and precisely reflect reality.


--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The thinking about remits might give me a possible avenue (wrt BAG) , but I'd need to do a bunch of reading first. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kim, I started drafting a possibly useful response in another tag, but got caught up in some editing and (re)reading some research papers on WP. I'll try and finish that response fairly quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC).
I lost that tab, it's quicker to retype the first bit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC).
Thanks again Kim, here are some comments:
Firstly I too am having to re-read everything to remind myself what is what.
If indeed I had broken policy, specifically bot policy, I would have been able to grovel, and promise not to do it again, and everything would probably have been over by now. Indeed it is and was tempting to to do that anyway. Trouble is this stuff goes on record and you become "mad bad and dangerous to know" as one off-wiki site describes me. (I think it's probably a compliment in that context, but it's hard to tell.)
So there are two findings that appear to relate to bot policy (if we ignore struck finding which made up its own bot policy)

Nub[edit]

Finding 5, which is a perfectly reasonable finding on its face, but ignores the fact that there is no policy compelling editors to identify publicly which software they are using to edit. Indeed to so compel would probably be contrary to the privacy policy and the terms of use.
Finding 4 on the other hand cites "letter and spirit of bot policy" (without, of course, quoting the policy) and gives four alleged examples, apparently supported by links.
  1. running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([55]),
  2. running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([56])
  3. running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([57]),
  4. running unapproved bot tasks ([58]).
Taking these in order:
  1. There is no bot policy that says that high speed manual tasks need approval. In fact current WP:BOTPOL specifically says Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.
  2. There is no bot policy that says that high volume manual tasks need approval. That would be absurd.
  3. It is not the case that a task that is permitted automatically is prohibited manually. CBM has often stated that this is policy, but I have never seen this piece of folklore anywhere else than in this case and in comments by CBM.
  4. It is a generally accepted principle that bots using AWB may perform "general fixes" at the same time. One admin took exception to one of these fixes against consensus, and repeatedly blocked the bot.
More on item 4
This benefits the wiki by getting the fixes in earlier, reducing the number of edits, saving time for editors doing general fixing (either with AWB, or any other means). Clearly this requires that AWB general fixes are non-contentious, and so they are. Moreover the extremely hard-working AWB maintainers are very responsive to the community, and helpful to users of the tool in ensuring that this remains the case.
The change that CBM objected to were the fixing of out-of-order references. He claimed, contrary to consensus, that this constituted a change in "referencing style" against WP:CITESYLE. CBM repeatedly insisted that I should get the source code of AWB and edit it to remove the fix he didn't like - it is patently obvious that he should have addressed his issue to the developers of AWB (who would probably have turned him down) rather than fixing one instance of many people and bots running AWB. I remarked at the end of a long thread on this subject, "Actually I have started a conversation on getting a split of approved and non-approved GF's at WP:AWB. I simply don't think that maintaining my own version of AWB is the way to go, even if I had the C# experience and the desire and time. It also happens that I find the particular change in question a strange sticking point. Anyway with a little luck that is behind us now. "
Subsequent events proved this assessment correct.
Eventually the pressure was such that I did create a fork, and of course version control issues emerged which resulted in regressions. Hence the repeated blocks, none of which were necessary as SmackBot was responsive to talk page messages!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC).
Retain a bit longer Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #121[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 23:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

It was good to catch up over dinner during Wikimania. I am unsure whether I feel better or worse about the culture on the English Wikipedia, but it was enjoyable bouncing ideas around. Fæ (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of the on-line en:WP community gets along just fine. Most of the rest of the problems are attributable to communication difficulty and lack of trust (also known as WP:AGF). Post every Wikimania, these problems should be reduced fora while, so I feel better. I am irritated that one ABF I came across appears to be entranced and unresolvable on a personal level, even if it is on a process level, but it's good to know these things.
My cultural concerns at the moment are:
  1. Community-Foundation relationship
  2. The apparent inconsistency and (for some definite) lack of trust exhibited by the admin corps, as exposed by SalimJah's research
  3. Issues around Wikipedia folklore - matters that are received wisdom and are simply not so (or are unknown).
  4. Whether we (movement/community/foundation) can supply training in soft skills to staff, functionaries and editors, notably in:
    1. Online communication
    2. Ethics
    3. Facilitation, mediation and arbitration
I would also like to see more work developing metrics for good actor/bad actor identification. I was convinced before Wikimania that this is possible, and am more convinced now that this is possible. It would help to establish whether and when "good content, annoying editor" is a criteria for community action, and inform the community better about how disruptive certain actions are, or indeed are not.

Thanks for the coffee! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

Hi Rich. Just wanted to say hello too. We briefly met on the Saturday evening and had a discussion about tractors and old British car companies. Nice to meet some Wikipedians in the flesh. Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was an interesting chat. The Pick Motor Company was the one I referred to, I have not contributed to the article yet! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Archive.is RfC[edit]

Rich, you may want to have a look at this - it looks indeed like you !voted twice in the section, #33 and #42 (but I may be mistaken). Best --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep! The sections are so long I thought I hadn't !voted on that one. Incidentally there is a tool that counts votes and detects duplicates, someone mentioned it at Wikimania. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Template:Weather box[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough,

I've been trying to use Template:Weather box in an article but I need help with calculations for the monthly "Record High" and "Record Low". Will appreciate if you could assist me. Thanks. Stanleytux (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stanleytux! What data do you have? as the template documentation says

Note that record temperatures should be used sparingly in main city articles, and should only be used when the data period is of the greatest length possible.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for the response, I found out that the page where the data I was working on has been moved. It took sometime but I finally found where it was moved to, the data can now be viewed here. I'd like to obtain the monthly "Record High" and "Record Low" from that data given there. If you can help, will really appreciate it. Stanleytux (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, the record high and record low aren't present there, and they cannot be worked out. The best thing is to leave these fields out unless more data can be sourced.
  • This page shows that the data exists, but I can't find it online.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Roll out of template[edit]

Hi Rich, Any thoughts on Template talk:Language with name#Roll out? Yaris678 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Commented there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #122[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Finished a large number of new features and got them ready for roll-out. More in this email.
    • Wikibase made a big step forward to finally switch to DataModel 1.0.
    • Improved support for entity IDs bigger than 2 billion (32 bit integer).
    • We had to adapt Wikibase to some major changes (more major than usual, partly caused by discussions at Wikimania) in MediaWiki core: The default Vector skin became it’s own component and the ResourceLoader got some small but important updates.
    • Continued work on refactoring code of the user interface to make it ready for new design
    • Wrote a script to get number of users having wikidata in their recent changes/watchlist from the database
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
    • Help develop the next summary here
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 13:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

John Bunnnion listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Bunnnion. Since you had some involvement with the John Bunnnion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"B-Double-O-T-Y listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "B-Double-O-T-Y. Since you had some involvement with the "B-Double-O-T-Y redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #123[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 20:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse v CfD[edit]

Would you find the teahouse to be more useful than the Wikipedia:CFD forum? And please call me by my first name Kristine. I will respond much quicker this way. Venustar84 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes Kristine, it is more useful for getting explanations. But sometimes experience is useful. Similarly we can explain how AfD is supposed to work, but looking at a few AfDs is probably a good idea to understand what actually happens. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Listas question[edit]

There are over 100 of pages with the title like "List of.."(example List of people from Saint John, New Brunswick, List of people from St. Catharines} Main problem is that they have got biography wikiproject added to their talk pages. So what will be the correct listas parameter for them? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice question! I would say " {{PAGENAME}}" - the leading space should top-sort them, which is what we usually do with lists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
Hm... that may be right, but they will also be top-sorted in other categories. And they include many list categories. Have to think a little more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
You can top-sort with ! (as I have done for List of people from Saint John, New Brunswick, temporarily) but the standard is to sort "listas=Alchemists, List of". Not sure this is optimum, but it works for all the list-class categories. It might be worth changing the WikiProject Biography banner to sort List Class articles by "!Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 5 in Category:Biography articles of living people only. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
Absolutely and I have a doubt if any of these list articles really require a biography wikiproject. Most of the articles on wikipedia includes the name of a person, doesn't means that each of them would require a biography wikiproject. There is some doubt, I will update you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two reasons that spring to mind: BLP issues "List of terrorists" and biographical detail like birth and death dates. But really it is up to the WikiProject. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment started[edit]

I have started Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I enjoyed having a catch-up dinner with you at Wikimania, you viewpoint is always intelligent and illuminating.

I am thinking of writing a short statement against any sanction in the above clarification request, on the basis that Arbcom members would find it much more productive and enlightening to take time to have a 5 minute chat with you on a Google hangout about perceived problems with automation, or the assertions of an (apparent) form of meat-puppetry, rather than making a weeks long time-wasting legal case out of it. I really don't see at this point how years of sanctions, bans, and endless negativity are in the least bit helpful for the community, or in any way harness your talent and creativity for this project.

Drop me an email if you would like to discuss it before I commit stylus to tablet.

Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.
I doubt that the Committee would wish to sanction me for encouraging people to create articles, but you never know.
I have already invited all the committee members to talk to me, in person or by email, or on-wiki (they would be welcome to talk by telephone or Skype, if they wished - or indeed this "Google hangout" of which you speak, sounds a bit hippy... ). Two took me up on it at Wikimania, and it was certainly a learning experience.
Of course you must make whatever statement you feel appropriate.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
Good, I'm glad you got a chance for personal chats with committee members. I only had a chance for a reasonably long chat with one, which was helpful (around an Arbcom governance/transparency matter), though afterwards I felt a bit more depressed about the future of this particular project. Demonstrating that you are open to friendly improvement helps a lot, maybe enough to avoid some pointless bureaucracy. I'll hold off for a while and see what sort of initial responses the case gets, as anything I say I'd like to be one shot and nicely brief. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]


Wikidata weekly summary #124[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 00:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Items in an American county[edit]

Please fix Template:Items in an American county so that links to "Georgia" and "Washington" go to Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state) and not to the disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Georgia done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
Thanks! bd2412 T 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome! Washington done. Let me know if there are problems. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC).

Category:Unincorporated communities in DeKalb County, Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

Category:Unincorporated communities in DeKalb County, Georgia (U.S. state), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fram (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:SBKB[edit]

Hi Rich. Is Template:SBKB still required? If not, I'll nominate it for deletion (or you can if you prefer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since most of the rest of the bug squashing apparatus has been destroyed, I have g7'd it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Images at Arbcom[edit]

Hi Rich. I've disabled the image in your evidence. Given we've already had a little upset over images in the opening statements, I'd rather we didn't go there again. Feel free to fiddle round to keep it as a link, but don't show it as an image. Cheers. WormTT(talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea there had been issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Hall of famers[edit]

Does lower case really make sense here? I've been fixing these, while downcasing actual over-capitalizations. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does. Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS section Generic words we would write "he was inducted into the hall of fame", creating derived term does not introduce a reason to capitalise. I wonder, though, if we cannot make a better heading, for example "Hall of fame inductees", or "Hall of fame members". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
I'm a big fan of not over-capitalizing, but "Hall of Fame" is almost always used the proper name of a particular hall of fame, as evidence shows. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The same applies to the example given in MOS:INSTITUTIONS section Generic words. see evidence. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
No, that's not the same thing at all. Putting "the" in front of "Hall of Fame" cuts off all the specific names like "the NFL Hall of Fame", but putting "the" in front of "University" leaves you counting all the "University of XXX" names. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hall of Fame of Delaware Women... But you are also arguing backwards, that the capitalization is what determines that it is a proper noun, rather than that the type of noun should determine the capitalization. You are right of course about "the University of", it's interesting to note that the most common usage as a standalone phrase in 1890 was "the University" and there has been a more or less constant decrease, the Wikipedia style becoming more common in the mid 70s. I still think that MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies here, if you still disagree, may I suggest one of us cut-and-pastes this section to the talk page for MOS:INSTITUTIONS? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet[edit]

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

Picture your self leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one article at a time.
  • Show the Internet who is the better editor.
  • Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
  • Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
  • Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.


Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet[edit]

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites revolutionaries, free thinkers, and other sundry editors to a DC WikiSalon[edit]

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC


For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/


My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Wikimedia DC's Wonderful meetups[edit]

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

  • Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”
    A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.
  • Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon
    Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM
  • Saturday, September 20: September Meetup
    Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM
  • Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon
    Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM
  • Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bella Subbotovskaya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Bella Abramovna Subbotovskaya''' (b. 1938<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.maa.org/news/math-news/remembering-math-heroine-bella-abramovna-
  • math-heroine-bella-abramovna-subbotovskaya Remembering Math Heroine Bella Abramovna Subbotovskaya], Math in the News, November 12, 2007, [[Mathematical Association of America]]. Accessed June 28,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

The headings used are Georgia when you sign in, but it depends on which browser you use and your operating system.

Good luck,

Dark Liberty (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

Visual Editor glitch[edit]

Hi. Can you explain the reason for this revert? Your edit summary said "Visual Editor glitch", but I didn't notice any glitch in my edit, and even if there was one, surely that didn't necessitate reverting the whole edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Essentially your edit merged the lead sentence with the first part of the body, which is, I suppose, fine, sine there were no sections. I have created sections now, so that the reason for the slight repetition is, I hope, clear. You removed two double spaces, I have preserved that. Your edit also lead to the plain wrong statement that:
Tibbetts will be the first in their family to finish secondary education.
Of course this may have been deliberate, or an editing error, in which case I was wrong to blame VE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
Whoops, that was indeed my error. I must have assumed from the singular "family" that the phrase was intended to refer to Tibbetts, but I should have read more carefully. Thanks for the clarification. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Most welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Your comments at the arb request[edit]

Rich, you said on your section:

Newyorkbrad@ and everyone Formulating one's points in such a discussion will not always be easy; for example, how does one best discuss making Wikipedia more appealing to "female editors" without crossing the line into role-ascription or gender stereotyping?
This very issue came up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_3#Scope. Notably the two editors SPECIFICO and TwoKindsofPork raised it. I hope I put their minds at rest.

Can you please refresh my memory where (or SPECIFICO) raised a question and you answered? Much obliged. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes this was moved back from the archive and is currently[was] at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Scope.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
And now back at the archive.... I reproduce it below. The same issue was raised in a different way by Anne DeLong, who edits on technical (traditionally male) areas.

Scope[edit]

The Scope section of the article appears to say that women reject WP because it is fact-based. This seems ill-defined and problematic -- highly prone to various interpretations which would be sexist and denigrating of women editors and users of WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No Malibu Barbie language please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't (or shouldn't be) superficial stereotyping. It is a subject that has been researched, see Simon_Baron-Cohen#Autism_research, for example. We know Aspies are often great systematisers, and this is a good characterisation (indeed a classical description) of encyclopeadists. (We have female Aspies here too.doing good work.) The possibility that women "just don't wanna" should not be discounted, after all most men "just don't wanna" either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #125[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

My Goals[edit]

Kristine here. My goal is how to learn Wikipedia in a suitable fashion. If categories are inappropriate for me to use; I will ask you about them. Venustar84 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine just let me know if you have a query Kristien and I will do my best to answer it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

Hey Rich F![edit]

Long time no see! (On me, I guess.) Wonder if you can lend a little technical help.

  1. re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Need_CSS.2FJS_savant_help_coding_a_template_on_Wikibooks This post Here] - I'm baffled there aren't any C/S savvy eager beavers to take me up on that!
  2. and with {{#replace:}} ... or at least the status of Bugzilla 6455, where I just saw you towards the end of the posts. The Extension:StringFunctions' page needs an refresher update, at the least, with some sensible status, or perhaps a rewrite, with a nod to Lua scripts? (Just found out that tech is apparently in play as a replacement??!...) I'd posted the Mediawiki forum on that fact several weeks back... but... no update!

  The holy grail: I've a need to extensively add underscores to section names on the one hand via template calls, or underscores to the name to construct a full external url. Can't get past second base without the parser blowing things up. (See for example, Template:underscores on the Wikibook) If you're still the helpful fellow I recall and can lend a hand in these murky waters for me, please reply on my WB talk here, where I'm busy most of the time! Thanks for the time, and a few fond memories. // FrankB 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

You contribute a lot to Wikipedia:Notability so I thought you would be a good person to express your opinion one way or the other at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_September_18 for Susan Lindauer. Notability issues are being invoked and the interpretations are diametrically opposed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014[edit]

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF

sign up for monthly delivery

Feature – Ebola articles[edit]

Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:
New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats
Further reading


-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lyallpur (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lyallpur (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Lyallpur (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. noq (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mildred Mitchell-Bateman[edit]

I'm chagrinned that such a prominent Black West Virginian (and woman) has no entry in Wikipedia. She died in 2012 and I was just checking to make sure that her date of death was listed: http://musom.marshall.edu/news/view.asp?ID=162

There are now several red links leading nowhere. When I checked about starting an article, I learned that a user had deleted an existing article "recently" in 2005 for copyright infringement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mildred_Mitchell-Bateman&action=edit&redlink=1

I would like to see that article and edit it so that it is not problematic, rather than have it deleted.

  • The National Library of Medicine lists her as a "local legend."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/locallegends/Biographies/Mitchell_Bateman_Mildred.html

  • The West Virginia Division of Culture and History lists her as a "prominent African American in West Virginia."

http://www.wvculture.org/history/bateman.html

  • The second oldest hospital in WV renamed after her:

http://www.batemanhospital.org/

  • In 1973, she became the first black woman to serve as vice president of the American Psychiatric Association
  • In 1977, she was one of four psychiatrists on the President's Commission on Mental Health, which developed the Mental Health Systems Act, enacted in 1980
  • On July 1, 1977, she became chair of the Psychiatry Department of Marshall University's medical school and taught there for 20 years:

http://musom.marshall.edu/news/view.asp?ID=162

  • When she died she was the topic of a column by the Governor of WV:

http://www.governor.wv.gov/media/columns/2012/Pages/InMemoryofDrMildredMitchell-Bateman.aspx

  • The prominent WV scholar, Ancella R. Bickley (retired professor of English and Vice President for Academic Affairs at West Virginia State College) wrote her biography for e-WV:

http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/2003 http://www.ohioswallow.com/author/Ancella+R+Bickley http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/authors/16

As always, thanks for your help! --Beth Wellington (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The previous article is likely to be a cut-and-paste from some public source, quite probably one of those that you have located. I can't see the deleted version, unfortunately. I have created a one-line stub with some of the bits and bobs, your references are certainly enough to create a decent article.
If you wish I (or you) could drop a note to one or more of the appropriate projects/task forces.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich! --Beth Wellington (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #126[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THATSBOGUSSOWECANIGNOREPOLICY listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:THATSBOGUSSOWECANIGNOREPOLICY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:THATSBOGUSSOWECANIGNOREPOLICY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KonveyorBelt 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ancella_Radford_Bickley[edit]

Chagrined again. This time on the same day I started a stub (two days ago, it was speedily deleted for no context and or significance by User:FreeRangeFrog before I could even add to it. Just some of the materials I was getting ready to include. How do I reverse a speedy deletion and regain my stub? This is why I am loathe to help on wikipedia. Especially ironic, given the encyclopedia purportedly wants information on women authors. BTW, she's the author of several historic preservation articles here and I was intending to link to them.

Thanks!

  • Dr. Bickley was a graduate of Douglass High School in 1947 and then attended West Virginia State College, where she received a Bachelors Degree in English. She received her Master's Degree in English from Marshall University in 1953--where she was the first full-time, graduate student to integrate the institution--and her E. Ed. in English from West Virginia University.

http://hub.concord.edu/news/2004/01/20/west-virginian-and-african-american-educator-ancella-bickley-announced-grand-groundh

  • She was professor of English and Vice President of Academic Affairs at West Virginia State University. Dr. David Peavler Trowbridge, an assistant professor of African American history at Marshall, said Bickley is the reason African American history in West Virginia has been preserved.

http://www.marshall.edu/pressrelease.asp?ID=2348

  • She served on the West Virginia African-American Tourism Advisory Committee and authored articles for the West Virginia online encyclopedia of the state's Humanities Council:

http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/authors/16

  • She served on the National Parks Underground Railroad Advisory Committee:

http://www.harriettubman.com/ugrr.html

  • She was interviewed for the West Virginia Film Project:

http://www.wvculture.org/history/wvmemory/filmtranscripts/wvbickley.html

  • 1999 Rockefeller Foundation Scholar in Residence at Marshall's Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia:

http://www.marshall.edu/csega/index.asp?page=content&id=24

  • The West Virginia State Archives is the home of her papers associated with her co-editorship of Honoring Our Past: Proceedings of the First Two Conferences on West Virginia's Black History, as well as her participation in the Alliance for the Collection, Preservation, and Dissemination of West Virginia's Black History. She also documented business and civic activities of blacks in Huntington and Parkersburg, especially related to education, and desegregation.
  • The Commissioner of Culture & History under Gov. Gaston Caperton (1989-97) interviewed her for his program Cultural Conversations in 1993 and called her a "wealth of cultural information":

http://www.wvculture.org/history/ms2003-182.html

  • Editor, Memphis Tennessee Garrison: The Remarkable Story of a Black Appalachian Woman (2001)

http://www.ohioswallow.com/book/Memphis+Tennessee+Garrison

  • Author

https://www.libraries.wvu.edu/collections/bibliography/ethnicity/ 

Bickley, Ancella R.  1997.  “Dubie, Spanky, and Mr. Death: West Virginia’s Pioneering Black Airmen” [W.Va.’s Tuskegee Airmen].  Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 23 (Summer): 42-44.

Bickley, Ancella R. 2001. “Camp War: Remembering CCC Company 3538-C” [McDowell Co.; 1935-1942; all-black Civilian Conservation Corps camp]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 27 (Winter): 22-29.

Bickley, Ancella R. 2001. In Spite of Obstacles: A History of The West Virginia Schools for the Colored Deaf and Blind, 1926-1955. Charleston: West Virginia Department of Education and the Arts, Division of Rehabilitation Service. 88 pp.

Bickley, Ancella R. 2003. “Lafadie Belle Whittico: Black Medical Pioneer in Mingo County” [b. 1911; first black nurse, 1930s]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 29 (Winter): 40-45.

Bickley, Ancella R. 2004. “‘Lifting as We Climb’: Charleston Woman’s Improvement League” [black women’s service organization, founded 1898]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 30 (Winter): 54-59.

Bickley, Ancella R. 2008. “Carter G. Woodson: The West Virginia Connection” [1875-1950]. Appalachian Heritage 36, no. 3 (Summer): 58-69. “The Father of Black History”; special issue–“African-American Appalachia”

Bickley, Ancella. 2002. “The West Virginia Schools for the Colored Deaf and Blind” [Institute, W.Va.; 1926-1955]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 28 (Fall): 22-23.

Bickley, Ancella. 2006. “Education and Activism in Gary: A Visit with Jessie Moon Thomas” [African American; b. 1913; taught 42 years in McDowell Co.]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 32, no. 4 (Winter): 32-37.


Bickley, Ancella. 2011. “General Edward Greer: West Virginia’s First Black General” [b. 1924, McDowell Co.]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 37, no. 4 (Winter): 42-47. Memories of segregated towns, Gary and Welch; served in Korea and Vietnam.--Beth Wellington (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If by "several historic preservation articles here" you mean on Wikipedia, then linking to them (in the context of her bibliography) might be a problem, because her identity as a WP editor would have to be established and a permalink would be needed.
But certainly articles often get speedied when they are in the stub instar of their life cycle, the best first step is to leave a note with the admin concerned, who will generally restore it, either to mainspace or draft, or your user-space. In this case FreeRangeFrog@ is the admin in question, and the ping in this post should summon them like a genie. <poof> All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC).
@Beth Wellington: Restored to Draft:Ancella Radford Bickley. I understand this can be frustrating, but if you're planning on starting off with a stub, a draft (or your sandbox) is always preferable to article space. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rich and FreeRangeFrog BTW, Rich,she's listed as the author of references in these articles, so I was going to link to her bio when it's in better shape:
There's certainly no problem saying "Bickley wrote the NRHP nomination for Canty House" for example, nor indeed in having a red-link/stub-link from those articles to mainspace. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

WikiProject Women writers Invitation[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 5! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC).


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #127[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Wikidata Toolkit 0.3.0 released - Wikidata Toolkit
    • ProteinBoxBot is making Wikidata the canonical resource for referencing and translating identifiers for genes and proteins from different species
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Investigated and fixed issues with time values
    • Investigated issues with coordinate value precision
    • Fixed a number of issues related to HHVM
    • Further work on usage tracking
    • Created smoke tests for items and properties
    • Created a widget to edit badges directly on the item without going through the special page
    • Prepared for a week of work with the WMF multimedia team and volunteers next week to get more planning done for structured data support for Commons
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful annual meeting! And more![edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce our upcoming Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

RfD[edit]

I see you are sticking your oar in at RfD but don't tend to follow up anything you write beyond your sagacious first opinion. oIt was very kind of you to let us retarget a redirect for you, if you pleased. I ain't going to bother: you look it up "If you find a better target, go ahead". I forgot you owned WIkipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.

I've run into you over the years and I know your style, which is always patronising and high-and-mighty. One day someone will stick up to you. Well, it's today. It's me. Your bots do more harm than good. Is that plain speaking? Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Since Rich does not run any bots and has not for quite some time now, it would seem your opinion about his bots is rather...dated. As to your personal attacks upon him, I'm sure you've read Wikipedia:No personal attacks since you were blocked for violating that policy just a few months ago. I'm sure this was a slip up on your part and won't be repeated. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Aristarchus[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aristarchian_symbols&oldid=614833497

Making only the name "Aristarchus" visible in a link rather than Aristarchus of Samothrace was not a good idea. The fact that there were others named Aristarchus than Aristarchus of Samos isn't really at the tip of my tongue, and I doubt I'm anywhere near the only one. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I think first of the crater! Thank you for clarifying the text. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

ApiErrorException[edit]

Rich, it was good to see you in person at Wikimania 2014, however briefly.

The ApiErrorException Bug is preventing me from running AWB in a useful way. Any suggestions?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I take it you saw the response [/Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#ApiErrorException here]. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #128[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The 10 Legendary Singles[edit]

The article The 10 Legendary Singles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability as a one-off compilation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the ad hom[edit]

I made a couple of ad hominem attacks on you over at WP:RFD. I didn't actually mean them personally but only to kinda stir up a bit of a debate. I hope one day we will meet up and have a pint or two together. I do appreciate your hard work, and I think it is the kind of thing that face to face because of one's tongue in one's cheek it would be obvious I didn't mean it too seriously, but these things written down can sound far harsher. For that I sincerely apologise, I did not mean it as a personal attack but I probably put it very badly. Please accept my sincere apology. I am not here to hurt people but to try to make the encyclopaedia better.

Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The 10 Legendary Singles for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The 10 Legendary Singles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 10 Legendary Singles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

Can you tell me how to fix refs for Matt Harvey (poet)[edit]

There seem to be extra elements in the two publications when one gets down to the reference section for both the book I added and the one I fixed because it was attracting a note as incomplete Cheers, --Beth Wellington (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed two references to "Cite web", this has the effect that the title becomes the link to the URL. Similarly putting the URL in [] with a space then the title, which the other references do, works in the same way. I hope this is what you meant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of ISBN 0596000278[edit]

A tag has been placed on ISBN 0596000278, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is the only article with a RD like this. This isn't how it should be referenced. Creates weird search results when searching for ISBN.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~Technophant (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly not an R3 speedy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #129[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LGlossary of baseball (O) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LGlossary of baseball (O). Since you had some involvement with the LGlossary of baseball (O) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

GGTF arbcom[edit]

Hi Rich, just a heads-up. Your evidence appears to be missing at least one word, right at the end - I'm guessing "implemented"? Was this the proposal that you were referring to? What ever it was, it might be worth linking for clarity's sake. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I got sidetracked with a missing diff. As usual it's not really good evidence but (I hope) closely argued reasoning - I find trawling for diffs so soul destroying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

Anglicized[edit]

Hello, Rich. For my own edification, can you inform me of the nature of the letter "z" in "Angliciɀed"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a Z with swash tail, which closely represents how I like to write the letter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
Ah, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Your thoughtful response in the gender gap task force arbitration case was brilliant, wise, and insightful. You expressed every concern I had in the most eloquent way possible. Amazingly done. v/r - TP 01:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I hope it has a positive effect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

Category:Radioactive Man albums[edit]

Category:Radioactive Man albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #114[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • The Wikidata Game now has a 'Commons Categories' game
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Made significant performance improvements (to be rolled out next week)
    • Worked on usability improvements to the editing of sitelinks
    • When you link to an image on Wikimedia Commons in a statement it will now show up in “global usage” there.
    • Made the phpunit tests for Wikibase much faster
    • Wikibase phpunit tests on travis pass with hhvm now
    • Fixed label/description uniqueness constraint checks
    • Work on entity usage tracking
    • Year formatter now shows the year instead of the unformatted ISO string in case of a precision mismatch
    • Diff and old revision pages don’t run the JavaScript UI any more, should be much faster now
    • Introduced a Changers concept to the JavaScript frontend, wrapping the API and entityStore functionality
    • Identified issue causing content in the old serialization format to be included in XML dumps
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 20:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Michael Ford (composer) albums[edit]

Category:Michael Ford (composer) albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience)[edit]

An arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived. The request resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here For the arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

noticing what is "soul destroying"
Thank you, Rich, third user to hit over a million edits, for the quality of those edits, helpful bots, articles such as Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, "assisting smaller language wikis with technical issues", for copyedit with added precision, for noticing what is "soul destroying", for support and trust - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (10 December 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's always good to be appreciated! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

It's easy to appreciate you who understands ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

merge proposal[edit]

Hello, thanks for editing Heinrich von Louffenburg. Someone deleted the edits and redirected it to Heinrich von Laufenberg. I undid that and placed a merger tag. I'm new at this, will you look that over and see that I did that correctly? Dr. Mike (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Mike: - It's good. The name of the article doesn't really matter I suggest. The only reason to redirect rather than merge would be if all the information in the redirect was in the target. I will add a merge tag to the article you created too, then everything is fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC).
PS for practical purposes, though I have started a discussion over the preferred name, you could just go ahead and do the merge if you feel confident. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Hey - slight problem with the French Commune template.[edit]

Hey,

I was working on the Paris article for the first time since a while, and I noticed that its infobox has the city (commune, department) population way down at the bottom, and hardly recognisable as a population at all. I understand the logic going on here (if a commune's urban unit population is smaller than its total population), but in Paris' case the opposite is true, and the result is odd and even misleading to anyone not knowing any better. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Here's the diff where you made the changes [59] (but it looks like you were just activating whatever you were working on). Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Goodness this was a long time ago. The main thrust of the changes I made to the commune infobox was to translate it from French, and make it compatible with {{Infobox populated place}} (possibly then named {{Infobox settlement}}), with a view to using one as a wrapper for the other.
The change you link to, however, merely changes the include style, so that the documentation for the template is visible on the first screen.
The reason the population (and other text) is so low down the page is because the infobox contains so many images. The population figures are explained in the lead, so I'm not sure that it is much of an issue, nor what the solution would be if it is.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC).
It's odd that the {{Infobox settlement}} doesn't have this problem, only the "communes" 'son of' template does. But I've addressed the question to that template page (as I should have - sorry for bothering you with this). Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
See my suggestions here: Template_talk:Infobox_French_commune#Population_stat_order.3F. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry (you're not ; ), I managed to nail down the source of the problem. You just happened to eliminate the cruft above the template page (old version example), but I didn't catch that at first, so sorry for that. (looking down) 0.o - a million edits? Congratulations! Anyhow, wow ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

You've got mail![edit]

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

Jabir edits[edit]

I'm not entirely sure this is the right place, but anyway... I'm not against editing the Jabir section on mineral acids and alcohols; as it stands it is all rather unsatisfactory, but merely removing the Hassan comment and leaving the rather old one about distillation of alcohol isn't that great a solution. I've got the Hassan book, and he produces a number of examples of Arabic writings related to distillation. What of course is the problem is that this does not mean that the Jabirian corpus does actually contain definite proof of the distillation of alcohol. So basically can you give a reason for removing the reference to Hassan whilst leaving the rest there? Calcinations (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not against removing the whole section. I don't think it served any real purpose, even the sentence I removed was not relevant to Jabir, but to al-Razi. The only reason I didn't remove the whole thing was a lack of BOLDNESS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Ah hah, I found the bit you wrote earlier, not that I really agree. The Jabir etc articles are a running sore on wikipedia, I've deleted some nonsense from Rhazi before but think I might now have enough academic articles to be able to re-write some of it. Unfortunately nobody has translated the entire Jabirian corpus into English, and Arabic alchemical sources are still greatly lacking in proper study. Achad Al-Hassan died last year I think, and his book is a bit too polemical to be entirely taken seriously, although there are many sections that make sense because they are based on specific translations from the Arabic that simply haven't been made before. Forbes is a good introduction to distillation, but also over 40 years old and based on the previous generation of research into alchemy etc, thus not up to speed, but people use it a lot simply because it's famous and avilable, never mind whether it is accurate or not. Calcinations (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahmad Y Al-Hassan seems indeed to be on a mission. My view is that interpreting ancient texts, even in one's native language, is fraught with peril at the best of times. For example I was reading recently about the lines from The Wanderer

þinceð him on mode // þæt he his mondryhten
clyppe ond cysse, // ond on cneo lecge
honda ond heafod, // swa he hwilum ær
in geardagum // giefstolas breac(41-44)

The meaning of "swa" in line 43b is a matter of great controversy (or at least was between 1969-75) between people who read Anglo-Saxon for a living. Similarly with the Arabic word "taqtir". On this basis, and the facts which demonstrate al-Hassan is careless - 1. the Holmyard matter 2. the errors in his book that Ferrario points out 3. the use of "you're" for "your" - and the very great risk of confirmation bias in this type of work, if it is not undertaken meticulously and impartially, I do not consider his book a reliable source. And to add to this, Jebir (as opposed to pseudo-gerber, who al-Hassan denies) writes in code much of the time, and I have even greater doubts.

But to the point. The article is about Jabir. None of the four sentences in that section were - they were either generic or twelfth century related. I see little point in having a section on what Jabir did not discover. If at some later time there is consensus among science historians that Jabir "discovered alcohol" (which is not what even al-Hassan is saying) we can add it.

Al-Hassan cites Jarbir saying

.. fire which burns at the mouth of bottles of boiled of wine and salt, and similar things with nice characteristics...

in Chapter 9. This is not "discovered alcohol" and indeed it would seem that the flash point of strong wine is fairly low. But note that adding salt might well count as "taqtir".

(Much of the text, incidentally, is reused from or in "1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization".)

Chapter 9 talks a lot about distillation, but by no means makes it clear, even if we take it at face value that araq or araqi is distilled wine (which I might, if I didn't have the reservations above) that relatively pure alcohol was produced.

Anyway I have gone on too long, as I always do, since I find these things quite fascinating.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
Many good points there. I suppose I'll add tidying up the Jabir and Geber pages to my list of things to do, I've got most of Newman's papers on the topic and Principe's "The secrets of alchemy" will do as a more up to date summary of a lot of issues. Calcinations (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Shariah Project[edit]

A tag has been placed on Shariah Project, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No citations anywhere in target that demonstrate this redirect is at all valid

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Parrot of Doom 17:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I've declined the speedy on the grounds that it is a noted alias of the organization. A google search of the two names turns up ties (example). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Parrot, why didn't you come to my talk page and ask me? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi‎[edit]

Why you have lowered the importance value of this article? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't think it is high importance for WikiProject Philosophy, I also gave it Mid importance for WikiProject Islam, where it was unranked. That may be a little. If you disagree with the importance value,please feel free to change it to "mid" or "high". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
I wouldn't be doing it, you were correct. Those who consider him to be part of Islamic civilization are correct though, because he was one of the most influential doctor in the Islamic studies. Pretty much same with the philosophy. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #131[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 14:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

Just seen your note to Salvio. For the record, despite what he said (and you need to review the Evidence page also for info regarding that), I've got no problem with the guy. Just as I have no problem with Bishonen for proposing an interaction ban at ANI when I refused to back down regarding the same issue. I've moved on and am not mithered about people recusing themselves: I'm not the paranoid type.

If everyone who has had an involvement with me over the years were to be listed, there wouldn't be that many people with extra bits who would be able to act. I suspect that the same might apply to you.

I have no idea about the other situation that you raised. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also "have no problem with the guy", but I do think he ought to recuse. This is a matter of ethics, even where we have the ability to remain impartial, we should not be placing ourselves in a position where COI can be hinted at. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
I can't recall the email he mentioned: it's that long since, I've had far more worrisome matters to deal with, and by his account I ignored its contents. I'd be very surprised if there was a COI and certainly I'm not going to be alleging one. He's a practising lawyer and lawyers have to put aside their own feelings day in, day out.
I can already tell you what the outcome of this case is going to be and it doesn't need emails between arbs and me to work it out. In fact, I've already lodged details with an independent party in preparation for a commentary that I may be producing after the case closes: I've done that so as not to be accused of sour grapes. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, nice work! A considerable number of independent folk believed that this case should not have been accepted, for various reasons, and while it is possible that some good may come out of it, it is unlikely to exceed the cost of holding the case, it has slurped up many hours of my time and I am not even involved, I just happen to have seen the GGTF part unfold before my very eyes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
I have to say, nice work! Not sure what you mean by that: I've done nearly no work for weeks, only in part because of the case. There is stuff going on involving me and this project that you know nothing about and perhaps never will because of legal stuff. It has proved to be very time-consuming.
If you dig around ANI etc, you'll see that I was preparing to open a case or RfC/U about Carolmooredc. Like a lot of other people, I found it difficult to understand the scope of the case that was actually accepted, although I did comment in the pre-opening proposal phase. I still do find it difficult to work out the intended scope. I've mainly just rebutted, although I did add three principles. Unlike you, I had no option but to have some of my time slurped up. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to lodged details with an independent party. And I am concerned about editors having no option but to spend time on ARBCOM, contrary to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY - but that, perhaps, is for another day. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

Flounce[edit]

"One simply cannot work without it, and will have to flounce." LOL. Thanks for brightening my day. DH85868993 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

Mayor of Reading[edit]

You will love to fix the article Mayor of Reading! A 130 links to a total of 57 different disambiguation pages. {[smiley}}

WPCleaner would be a good option to use here, but I think that is illegal for you. The Banner talk 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Banner I know! It's a long project, and even the non-dab links need to be checked. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #132[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Sir Nigel Shadbolt, Lydia, Magnus and Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the ODI award gala
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arthur Fiedler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • File:USA-Arthur Fiedler Memorial.jpg|Arthur Fiedler Memorial (by [[Ralph Helmick]] in Charles River Esplanade

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Clifford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[James Clifford (designer)], American fashion designer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What a mess. Thank you. ...William 13:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticing your, what seems to me at a quick glance, positive participation in several sections over at WP:AN/I. And thinking that you would make a good candidate for Arbcom. If only you hadn't already been de-sysoped and blocked for a year. Yes, what "a mess". Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Would like another set of eyes on this[edit]

Someone like you who understands the limitations of the wiki software. User talk:Hyacinth#List of music students by teacher. Any comments or advice you might have would be appreciated. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What a mess. Thank you. ...William 13:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticing your, what seems to me at a quick glance, positive participation in several sections over at WP:AN/I. And thinking that you would make a good candidate for Arbcom. If only you hadn't already been de-sysoped and blocked for a year. Yes, what "a mess". Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Would like another set of eyes on this[edit]

Someone like you who understands the limitations of the wiki software. User talk:Hyacinth#List of music students by teacher. Any comments or advice you might have would be appreciated. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #133[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • Upcoming office hours for Commons (Nov 20th) and Wikidata (Dec 3rd). More details on the office hour page.
    • GLAM/Wikidata hackathon in Amsterdam
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Help make sure these items have labels in your language
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Work on reviving the tree of life built from Wikidata data
    • Added a "featured portal" badge (Q17580674)
    • Improved the performance of getting labels and sitelinks in Lua (and decreased the memory usage)
    • Did groundwork on applying page deletions to the repo
    • Refactor initialization of EntityView so that we can use batched label lookup for improved performance.
    • Added IRC to available protocolls for the URL datatype
    • Improved calendar model display
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

SEAMEO Mathematics Olympiad listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SEAMEO Mathematics Olympiad. Since you had some involvement with the SEAMEO Mathematics Olympiad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

27k more material added to arbcom case[edit]

Would you consider removing or condensing your opinions to a paragraph or two? I can easily do what you just did and state my opinions but it in my opinion just adds to a over-bloated page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For once, Knowledgekid87, we seem to be in agreement. Sorry, Rich, and I know you feel strongly about the case, but that is just eye-bleeding stuff. - Sitush (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not aimed at either of you. There is no need to read it unless you want to. As I remark there the majority of the material is the scaffold, designed to make it easier to understand the comments.
The reason the page is so long as it is, is that it is unstructured, and arguments are repeated in different sections. I seriously considered writing an index to the page, indicating which sections deals with which part of the proposed decision, and to some extent that purpose is also served by the voter's guide.
I can, however, summarise for you:
  1. Remove irrelevant material.
  2. Don't contribute to the Wiki-caste system by talking about "leaders" and limiting actions to admins.
  3. Don't be punitive.
  4. Be clear.
  5. Use the least sanctions that achieve the goal.
Unless spelled out, ArbCom will not change the decision. Even so it's unlikely, but allowing them to blindly assert punitive principles, which will be recycled in future cases, is not acceptable.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
Rich, as a very reluctant party in the case it would be remiss of me not to read it. But I didn't get anything much from it that wasn't already said, precisely because it is in most part intended to be a personalised summary of the prior discussions. I'm not convinced that the arbs are even reading that page any more, except in a glancing fashion. Given the state of it, I can't truly say that I blame them. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Your questions...[edit]

Hello Rich, I have seen your questions on my candidacy page; I just wanted to make sure you saw my statement here. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get to them for a couple of days. I just wanted to apologise for that and to assure you that I am not ignoring you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, Most people haven't answered them yet. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

I was able to answer most of them. I just need clarification on Question 5 and what you meant when you asked "would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case." Thanks. -- Calidum 05:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The important bit is at the [case] request stage, So for example a case is requested and an arbitrator says
  • Accept, Joe Bloggs needs some kind of editing restriction.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. -- Calidum 19:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

EQT[edit]

your cc: from my post to The Bushranger


Today, I looked up this article and its history and noticed that you had blocked the corporation back in January 2012. I was curious that there was so little information on the Mountain Valley Pipeline. I was about to add something when I saw that an ip only user had deleted a great deal of information this month, not only on the pipeline, but a whole section on legal problems and a reference to environmental problems in PA. I am suspicious that the corporation may be editing again, because of the nature of the wholesale deletions and the location of the IP in Pittsburgh PA, home of the corporate offices. http://www.iplocationtools.com/108.32.74.82.html https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EQT&diff=632904766&oldid=631979273 How should I proceed? If you deem it correct to block this IP and reverse the deletions, I'll be glad to edit for any POV problems and make sure to include not just the website for the opposition to the pipeline, but also for EQT's side (http://mountainvalleypipeline.info/), but it seems to me that this won't be sufficient without monitoring for future such deletions. I'll also cc Rich Farmbrough, as he's the editor I've been dealing with long term. Many thanks!--Beth Wellington (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, in looking up the IP for the editor who added the material, it was a workstation at Virginia Tech, rather than a home computer, so I don't know any way to request that the anonymous user sign up for an account, but I can post something to the facebook account for the opposition account, if that seems proper.--Beth Wellington (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

--Beth Wellington (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

your cc: from my reply to your post to The Bushranger

Thanks Rich. The watchlist will take care of any further problems, but what should I do about restoring the deleted material (and editing for POV)? I know one of the two conveners of the Facebook group about the pipeline, a professional soil scientist who lives a distance from Blacksburg, so I doubt he's the original author of the deleted material, but he should be able to give me sources for any claims that are unsupported and I'll explain POV to him and urge that folks editing the article to include the opposition sign up for an account so they can be accountable (unlike EQT, if it's the source for the deletion.)--Beth Wellington (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

--Beth Wellington (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

just a heads up that I sent you cc of my email to soil scientist in case you have advice via wikipedia--Beth Wellington (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spanneraol (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #134[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vincent DeGiorgio[edit]

The article Vincent DeGiorgio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Notable. See Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity. Also: No reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are now a template editor[edit]

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As you've already seen at the discussion at WP:RTE, people will probably be watching how you use this right because of your past arbitration case, etc. But after looking through your recent editing history, I'm sure that you will be responsible with it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! Echo send one a nice note on being granted a new bit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
Congratulations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
TY! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Yes indeed. Congratulations. You still have less rights than a brand new editor would have had five years ago. I miss Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks! Arguably I still have less rights than a brand new editor would have today! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC).

ALA Notable Books for Adults[edit]

There seem to be a lot of links to dab pages in the contents you've added! PamD 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There were only about 4, though repeated. Of course I had to deal with them manually. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC).

Email you a quote?[edit]

Hi Rich, I've just been reading an alumni magazine sent out by my university (where "alumni magazine" = "we send this to you for free now so that you leave us your house when you die" etc!) There is a diary piece in there about a woman researcher/lecturer/don who teaches in the computer science labs. It might not add anything to your ideas but it could at least affirm them. Would you like me to email you an eye-catching quote from within it? I'd rather not post it here myself because I'm in the spotlight as it is. I could scan the entire page if you wished but the key bit from your perspective is really contained in one paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes by all means. Thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
Done. Of all the words in it, "informing, supporting and promoting them" stand out to me. - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cause I know you won't quit you know where and leave them in the lurch...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

Category:Deadly Avenger albums[edit]

Category:Deadly Avenger albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Award[edit]

Mary Wollstonecraft Award
The Mary Wollstonecraft Award is awarded to contributors who have helped improve the coverage of women writers and their work on Wikipedia through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. In particular, thank you for your efforts with the WikiProject Women writers start-up; your ideas and contributions are much appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I am most flattered! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration amendment request closed regarding topics under discretionary sanctions[edit]

Hi Rich, just letting you know that I've closed and archived (archived copy here) the request you submitted to rescind/amend discretionary sanctions remedies. The motion has been enacted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, also to the Arbs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC).

Bot policy[edit]

I saw your arbcom proposed amendment. Now that it looks to be denied, might I suggest that you propose a change to Wikipedia:Bot policy to explicitly say what you think it means? If the problem is that is what the policy means, and that is bad, then propose changing it. (maybe you wont get everything, but maybe you will get some changes). --Obsidi (talk)

Well that's a good suggestion. Trouble is the ArbCom are not agreed on what I actually did that was "wrong", individual members even change their view with time, therefore it seems unlikely that I would be able to say "sure it was against policy then but now it is fine".
Look at this diff from @Roger Davies: in the original case
..the issue is whether RF exercises sufficient diligence in editing. In normal editing, this is not a significant problem because the errors can be swiftly correctly. But if the edits are high speed and in great volume...
but at RD has objected to my request to be able to auto-archive my own talk page, which is clearly low-speed, low volume.
Similarly @Worm That Turned: has pulled out of a hat the suggestion that "...your automated editing was causing significant issues at the time. I'm sorry to see that you still don't accept that." It's clear that there were significant issues, and they were debated during the course of the case. Unfortunately the proposed decision did not reflect the outcome of those discussions. Notably the "Suspected sockpuppets of..." categories did not have the effect claimed by the plaintiffs, if anything the opposite - moreover no-one else in the case protected these poor potential sockmasters form BLP violations when I was later blocked for a one-character typo, it was left to me here to actually fix a problem someone else caused, instead of complaining and causing disruption over it.
As it stands I am reasonably happy with WP:BOTPOL, although I objected to WP:MEATBOT it is not an objection to the idea but to the having it under the aegis of WP:BAG rather than the community at large.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC).


Answer[edit]

The Ip claimed to not be an involved party, Lightbreather was involved and continued that involvement despite being advised of WP:SCRUTINY violation of the sockpuppetry. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see a diff to that effect. I'm not sure that it would change my viewpoint. If Lightbreather wanted to contribute to the discussion without reactivating old animosities then admitting to being involved would have lead to a succession of guessing games. I am aware I have a more relaxed attitude to users editing logged out and socking than many, it is predicated on the results of the practice, rather than moral outrage that folk should hide their identities. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #135[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Template syntax[edit]

Your edit to {{Canadian election result/top}} earlier today has broken the template, because the templates are now generating redlinked titles with an extraneous space in an inappropriate place (i.e. Canadian federal election , 2011) instead of the titles they're supposed to be generating (i.e. Canadian federal election, 2011). I'm not an expert in template coding, and don't know what to fix — so you need to fix this as soon as possible, because it can't be left as is. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User ISO templates[edit]

Template:User ISO templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Automated renaming of pages in dated series[edit]

Hi Rich,

There is a little job for WMUK that could do with someone who is familiar with bots. I am sure they'd appreciate it if you could help out.

Have a look at wmuk:Volunteer jobs#Automated renaming of pages in dated series.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration amendment request[edit]

Hi Rich, just letting you know that I've archived the amendment request you filed as declined. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I had not finished discussing this matter. Sure it's like talking to a brick wall, but I see no other option. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for listing the various articles on 2/3 December at WP:PNT. Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:T10LSboxset1989.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:T10LSboxset1989.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: The page was redirected to a list. The appropriate details should be added to the list and the image used to illustrate it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

Register article on Jimbo's talk[edit]

Orlowski is not all that wrong. See [60] – the Foundation is richer than ever, yet the fundraising banners make it sound like they're down to their last penny. Have a look at [61], [62], [63], [64] and other posts in that thread. There are far more people perturbed by this than just Orlowski. Best, Andreas JN466 12:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't argue that he was totally wrong. I have some concerns of my own. He has however so consistently written against Wikipedia that he has little credibility. Even people with little credibility are not wrong all the time, nor are the most outlandish arguments often without a grain of truth in one of their assumptions. That does not mean they are worth wasting time over. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Phyll Opoku-Gyimah[edit]

The article Phyll Opoku-Gyimah has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no actual evidence for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

End-of-the-year meetups[edit]

Hello,

You're invited to the end-of-the-year meetup at Busboys and Poets on Sunday, December 14 at 6 PM. There is Wi-Fi, so bring your computer if you want!

You are also invited to our WikiSalon on Thursday, December 18 at 7 PM.

Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #136[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Wikimedia Commons now has access to the data on Wikidata
    • Statements on properties are now live
    • Sneak peek at a prototype for checking Wikidata's data against 3rd party databases
    • The Game has a new mode: alma mater
    • Work is ongoing for a bot job to tag thousands of objects in OpenStreetMap with the equivalent Wikidata ID
    • Resolver finds Wikidata items for a given identifier (VIAF, GND, IMDB, ...)
    • English-Wikipedia now has a template, RedQ, which puts a Wikidata link next to red links for subjects which have no Wikipedia article in any language, This should prevent duplicate Wikidata items from being created when an article is written, and assist Wikipedia editors to find relevant facts and sources. Please copy it to other-language Wikipedias.
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Started work on units
    • More work on evaluating options for querying
    • Implemented Property DataType (for relationships between properties)
    • Improvements to get by with fewer memcache request on clients
    • Work on file-based cache of the SiteStore
    • Work on improved label lookup performance
    • Wrapping up work on usage tracking
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:SWR Big Band albums[edit]

Category:SWR Big Band albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war map[edit]

Hi, please do NOT try to improve the Syrian civil war page.
The navbar which you removed is absolutely essential to edit the map. I reverted your last edit.
I know you are trying to help, but Jackmcbarn who converted the previous template to a scribunto module knew what he was doing, and it works quite well, considering the size of the page.
Thanks. André437 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

checkY Answered on user's talk page.All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC).
Indeed. Although it looks out of place, it actually does belong there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I realised, and have changed it so that it doesn't say "This box". You could perhaps set it to "This map".... I was mislead because the talk link took me to the talk page of the article (it was, of course, via a redirect). @Jackmcbarn: I pinged you on this matter over at VP(T). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Category:Italian novelist[edit]

Category:Italian novelist, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

Shortcut[edit]

The thread at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Need Acronym for GGTF Case may be of interest because you created the WP:ARBGGTF shortcut. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #137[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Close review, second closing[edit]

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Musée des beaux-arts de Quimper listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Musée des beaux-arts de Quimper. Since you had some involvement with the Musée des beaux-arts de Quimper redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Media viewer RFC close[edit]

With regard to this comment, it took me about 30 hours in total to close the RFC (I archived it only 8 hours before my effective closure, but I had started reviewing it long before), and my closing statement was one of the longest on the record, so I do not believe that I have been hasty or that I lacked diligence in closing this RFC that had been overdue for weeks. Cenarium (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Rich Farmbrough, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
The Herald : here I am 11:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Wikidata weekly summary #138[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Rich Farmbrough, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
 !dea4u  08:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you! A Merry Christmas! Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

Murder of Kylie Maybury[edit]

Can you give Murder of Kylie Maybury a general look over? Also, I just added this in brackets - "a little girl's handbag like Maybury had is not the same as the type used by adult women", but now it looks unweildly and awkward. Can you fix it. I know what I'm trying to say with that addition but i don't know how to fix it. Maybe a footnote or NB note would work - but i don't know how to create those :( Paul Austin (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_15.
Message added 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

333-blue 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_15#.EB.94.94.EC.A7.80.ED.84.B8_.ED.8F.AC.ED.8A.B8.EB.A6.AC.EC.8A.A4.
Message added 13:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

333-blue 13:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already[edit]

Hi Rich. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hope things go well for you to in 2015! A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #139[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 23:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Was that on purpose[edit]

Why did you remove Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month in this edit. It seems like a mistake to remove this relevant category. Debresser (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it is transcluded by {{Parent monthly clean up category}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
My inattentive. :) Thanks. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Je suis Charlie"[edit]

You seem to be reverting my edits on the Charlie Hebdo shootings article. The demonstrations are not for the slogan "Je suis Charlie", they are against the shootings! Please take this to the article talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Je suis Charlie for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Je suis Charlie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

City of Adelaide (1864)[edit]

As you are a previous editor of City of Adelaide (1864), you may be interested in the Style Proposal on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #140[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pings[edit]

Did you get a ping for this? There's a discussion on the village pump at the moment, discussing pings that are dropped on the floor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did, thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC).
But not from Reditgerz post. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

WP:Co-op[edit]

Hey Rich. It's a long follow-up, but I remember hearing from you at the the Wikimania discussion on retaining new editors from last summer. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in in February for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach/learn comprehensively about Wikipedia. We also want to make to easier for new editors to find mentors as well. Your experience in technical matters and at the Teahouse would be hugely valuable to editors just getting started. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Je suis Charlie has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #141[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury[edit]

List of specific crimes in Melbourne is likely to be deleted, which means that there won't be a good place to link the Kylie Maybury article anymore. Paul Austin (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Gaff. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jennifer Toombs, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Gaff (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Rich Farmbrough,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thank you. A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Project assessment[edit]

I find it much easier to assess or reassess pages if the project templates show the various parameters on their own lines. With that in mind, what is the rationale or purpose of this edit? I'm not critical, just curious (maybe I can learn something). Have put you on my watchlist, so no need to ping me when you reply. Schwede66 00:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

When a page has several banners a significant amount of vertical space can be taken up by them. Banners (and the other miscellaneous stuff that gathers at the top of a WP talk page) are generally only of interest to Wikipedia insiders, especially in the edit view. For a naive user it is good to see a section heading as high up as possible, to divert from the impenetrable code.
I wonder if it is worth lining up the class and importance fields, as the first two parameters, I have now done that on the page you mention. In this case doing that enabled me to spot a missing "importance" field.
This is not as simple as it appears- see my subsequent edits! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC).
It would be interesting to have some statistics on the layouts used: I run some monthly stats on article layout, I'll look at talk pages if I get time.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Bad news...[edit]

...you're slipping down the charts. You might like to ask Koavf (talk · contribs), Waacstats (talk · contribs) and Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) how they managed it without automated editing or other blockable practices. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

They are quite permitted to use automation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

Millionaires' club[edit]

Thank you kindly. I love the view from up here. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Je suis Charlie[edit]

Thanks for helping free speech Victuallers (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to give Precious to the one who wrote this, found out: YOU. Thank you. Remember? Had to be you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #142[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Reference Errors on 29 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic.
Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I'm stuck on mobile tonight. Can you take care of it. I have no problem with it being unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'm back and I've unprotected the pair of them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC).


Museum hacks and museum edits[edit]

Hello there!

Upcoming events:

  • February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
  • February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
  • February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".

I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.

If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.hare@wikimediadc.org.

See you there! – James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #143[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Laura Lam for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laura Lam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote[edit]

Hi. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian, and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #144[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Did more work on Capiunto to get it into a state where it can be deployed to Wikimedia sites.
    • Mourned Titan (phabricator:T88550) as its developers were bought up. Began evaluation for which graph database to use instead for a Wikidata query service (mw:Wikibase/Indexing)
    • Further work on header section redesign
    • Tweaks to the sitelink section
    • Worked on making monolingual text datatype accept more languages
    • Finished showing the language when a language fallback is used
    • Started looking into fixing the existing Guided Tours after Guided Tours extension API changes
    • Worked on implementing Lua convenience functions for rendering arbitrary Snaks. This is useful for displaying references or qualifiers. (phabricator:T76213)
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
    • Help develop the next summary here!
    • Contribute to a Showcase item
    • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 17:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more![edit]

Hello again!

Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.

First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).

Now, I am very pleased to announce:

There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!

If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.


Regards,

James Hare


(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steven Kukuna Kari[edit]

The article Steven Kukuna Kari has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. JBH (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Communist government (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Communist government (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Communist government (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015[edit]

Hey Rich Farmbrough, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening:

Landing page draft. You know it's a draft when you need to squint at the logo, ha ha.
  • Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together. We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right. You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious. Soni, Slalani, and I are working together on some of the front page elements. We've also been doing some testing on test.wikipedia.org for profile building and matching. If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
  • We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia. Gabrielm199 is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
    • On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
      • However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
    • Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
    • Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
  • We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that. So there it is: March 4th or bust! But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully. I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to Missvain to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Valentine Greets!!![edit]

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Rich Farmbrough, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
 Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Nomination of Patrick Pasculli for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Pasculli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Pasculli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #145[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Spiffy new project building on top of Wikidata: inventaire.io. Check out this example entry!
    • You will now see when a language fallback for a label is used on an item or property. The language name will be shown next to it.
    • Automatic descriptions for Wikidata items by Magnus
    • The templates for adding badges (good article, featured article, etc) to articles on Wikipedia in the sidebar are getting removed from articles rapidly in favor of getting that information from Wikidata \o/ German Wikipedia even deleted those templates already. English Wikipedia seems to be getting close.
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • <3
    • We are hiring! Passionate about Wikidata and know your way around Java Script and co? Apply!
    • We'll spend the next week working with Nik and Stas from WMF to move queries forward in Berlin
    • Worked on implementing a Lua interface for arbitrary Snak rendering. This can be used to render eg. qualifiers or references in Wikipedia infoboxes.
    • Did groundwork for Lua convenience functions that render data in the user’s interface language, rather than the content language (for multilingual wikis, like Commons or Wikidata only)
    • Did further work on making the Lua interface code nicer and share code with the parser functions
    • Removed input method selector in the sitelink input as it was hiding the actual input and not very useful there
    • Fixed some issues in diff views showing new data instead of old data
    • Created a few scripts to make it easier for 3rd parties to install Wikibase
    • Fixed icinga notification that tests if dispatch lag gets high
    • Investigated several issues regarding storage of time values and started fixing them
    • Fixed editing of qualifiers
    • Fixed most browser tests after introduction of new header design
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
    • Help develop the next summary here!
    • Contribute to a Showcase item
    • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 10:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanjay Singh[edit]

Hi Rich, your recent userfication at Sanjay Singh seems to have missed the elephant in the room, which was the sanitising that the user did immediately prior to adding their information. Did you miss this or was it for some deliberate reason that you did not restore that material? See [65]. It might need tweaking for BLP but it certainly seems to be valid. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's next on the list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
Great, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

DYK for Whittington's Longhouse[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #146[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015[edit]

How to pick up more women...
Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. Examples include the Edit-a-thon blitz during WikiWomen's History Month and the "new articles" work underway by WikiProject Women Writers. The Wikimania talk proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you get all the fun posts?[edit]

Found it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=The_Transhumanist&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1       The Transhumanist 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool beans. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Welcoming users on their user page[edit]

Hi, I assume this was a mistake? (You welcomed them on their userpage, not their talk page) Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015[edit]

Hey Rich Farmbrough. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

reigned in?[edit]

Spill chuckers strike again <g> I think you meant "reined in" <g> Collect (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Feel free to correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
I loathe folks who do that - sometimes I make a pun deliberately, and to have "sic" after a pun is really embarrassing! ("Henry VIII reigned in Anne Boleyn" is what I would try.) Collect (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Or maybe "Henry VIII rained on Anne Boleyn". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Those personal pronoun use gender stats[edit]

Hi Rich, Just noticed your last comments from last week on Village Pump... I thought I would check-in on the possibility of getting these monthly stats for trying to take a preliminary look at trends, etc. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not abandoned the project, but I am a little busy until Tuesday evening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich - any thoughts about Picking up More Women?[edit]

My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. I know you have some expertise in this creation of articles thing, what are the top tips?. I was hoping that you might give this some thought? No rush ... no ideas? Thanks for listening Victuallers (talk)

Top tip is to use a list. Effectively someone else has already decided that this female (girls are under-represented as well as women, my intuition tells me) is notable. It isn't always successful, though. Patricia Ainsworth was deleted, and very likely Laura Lam will follow. So it's probably more sense to get those notability criteria nailed down before creating the article.
Various lists are already on-wiki see my sandbox section Chican-American writers, WP:GGTF and lists posted to the talk pages.
I am also aiming to get complete lists of women from ANDB and/or ODNB.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC).
19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2015 March


References[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rich_Farmbrough/Talk_Archive_Mega_5&oldid=705633342"