User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 4

October 2011-August 2012 inclusive

Previous Next

Femto Bot and Helpful Pixie Bot

{{Unblock|Unblock the bots, there is no reason to block them}}

Yanno what? Forget it. Rich Farmbrough, 08:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

Thomas Seckford

Please correct the typo "His coat of arm ". Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Mind checking if this should be done? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove a large portion of text from a page without a reason, as you did here at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with your sockpuppet. If the account is to be used as a WP:NAS dummy account, then at least put that in the edit summary. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Date formattings

Urged to formalise the project, I have just updated Wikipedia:Date formattings to incorporate what I do. I invite feedback and any amendments and changes to the project in the hope that we can expand the effort by recruiting some members. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

THIS BOT SCREWED UP THE FORD FE ENGINE ARTICLE AND WILL NOT ALLOW ITSELF TO BE UNDONE

- It messed up the coding for the template at the bottom of the article, messed with, apparently, every line in the article. And when I tried to undo the damage it just redid it all again. And I'm not supposed to notice, or comment on that???? You delete any comments that point out the failings of this bot? I read a little about this bot, and even more at its apparent author's talk page, and this is not an unknown, or unidentified issue with this bot....SO WHY THE HECK IS IT ****STILL**** RUNNING?????? User:12.73.220.22 19:58, 18 September 2011

-

You are a little confused. Look at the rendered page before and after, nothing is messed up. Nor is every line affected. And no I don't delete anything. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

-

you deleted this complaint fast enough.

you post an answer and then delete everything? Nice. You don't want to hear/see or deal with problems with this bot? If every line isn't affected, then why is every line highlighted in a differential before and after view? If you didn't mess up the template at the bottom, then why is there now a dead link in the center of it? If your bot doesn't do anything, why the heck does it exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.236.202 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing was deleted, merely archived. You had time to read my answer. If you had bothered to sign in I could have left it on your talk page, given that someone screwed up the page you left your message on.
• The reason "every line is shown" is that the diff doesn't show lines that are unchanged.
• There is a dead link because there has always been a dead link. There is no difference in rendering between:
  

{{Ford V8 engines}}

and

{{Ford_V8_engines}}

• I didn't say it did nothing I said it broke nothing. What it did is explained in the edit summary.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Incidentally I'm not sure why you think "block" is a proper noun, perhaps you could explain that? Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

User:Helpful Pixie Bot

First off, the bot is blocked, and has been since September 23.

Second, I can just imagine the bot frolicing through a garden (the garden being Wikipedia's location), looking like SmackBot, and waving to a few users occasionally. Not kidding, I can. :D LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm guessing you want your bot to stay blocked. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope I'm waiting for MSGJ to unblock it... Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

AWB removing GOCE template

Hi. I'd like to find out why your use of AWB removes the GOCE template (e.g. at the bottom of this edit)? Thanks. GFHandel ♬  01:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Investigating. Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

I'm curious how this is going? I replaced the GOCE template removed by the above edit. If you need someone to help look at script, I'm more than happy to help. GFHandel ♬  00:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious too. :) There was no obvious reason, I haven't had time to set up a test page, which is what I normally do. The fact that I left the thread here is to remind me. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for responding on my talk page, however could I request that we keep discussion here (as other editors interested in this issue are likely to come here for more information)? Your response on my talk page was "The answer is that AWB moved the GOCE template to the head of the talk page, and my script renamed it to {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}, its full name". The rename is okay I guess, but I believe it is important to (also?) keep the {{GOCE}} stamp in-line on the talk page as it better indicates the moment in time that the copy-edit occurred and gives other editors a chance to comment on the effects of the GOCE edit. The removal of the stamp risks leaving response edits hanging and out of context (as happened with the above edit). Giving the template its full name seems like a good thing to do, but what is the advantage of graphically moving the template away from its in-line location? I've requested further input on the GOCE talk page. Thanks. GFHandel ♬  23:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that AWB only removed it, it did not create any other GOCE template at the top. That template which you were saying it would be replaced with, is really only used for second or third copyedits. There is a short version of some commonly used GOCE templates here Chaosdruid (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I thought that it didn't create it at the top either, but if you search for the string "WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors" in the original edit, it is there (the highlighting syntax for added text in the diff doesn't seem effective in this case). GFHandel ♬  01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am not 100% sure that moving it is the best thing, if not an AWB bug will need to be raised. However there is a date parameter for the template so it that should not be an issue. If it is in a section it will of course get archived, and not form part of the header, which I gather is the point - to show that a proper copy-edit has taken place. On a slight tangent maybe the "record" function should be part of {{Article history}}. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

Need to update the documentation for the template. Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:DBK Works albums

Category:DBK Works albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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☯ 08:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Page Music albums

Category:Page Music albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it was deleted as there was no record company page. The record company page had been deleted (prod) for having only a single artist. This was demonstrably false according to the article. And so it goes. Doubtless the artists will be deleted for only being produced by non-notable labels, and their records will follow leaving nothing to go in the category. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

And indeed the record articles had been deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

And of course the orphaned fair use images... and so it goes on. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Talk:List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Database error debug/fix?

I noticed you were keeping a log of db errors - I just encountered one like your "new one" above. When you've encountered them, how long have they persisted? When logged in, I can't view User talk:Lexein - it times out after a minute and produces this message

"Database error - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "User::deleteNewtalk". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)"."

The problem seems to have started after this last change to the talk page (as alerted by my talk page alert email). So I asked on IRC #wikipedia, and got the suggestion to try adding ?action=purge, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lexein?action=purge still produces the timeout and error when I'm logged in. Interestingly, when I 'm logged out, there's no problem. If you have any suggestions for who to contact, please either email me or respond here on your talk page, since I can't conveniently see my talk page at all. --Lexein (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Update - problem cleared up after 20 minutes. Don't know if the purge had anything to do with it. --Lexein (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I had the same (or similar) error twice at the time you originally posted. Looks like it was failing to get a lock on the database table/row that clears the "You have new messages" flag. Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Talkback II

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Asdas

Can you unprotect the Asdas page and move Asdas, Yemen?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

((lang)) and ((cat handler))

Hello Rich Farmbrough. I created the {{cat handler}} template. Today I noticed that a year ago you were involved in trying to deploy {{cat handler}} in the {{lang}} template, but that it didn't work. After some testing and staring at all versions of the code I finally found the error: {{cat handler}} was not the problem, instead you guys placed the ending brackets in the wrong place. The discussion at {{lang}} has already been archived, but for future reference I left a message in the archive explaining what went wrong. See Template talk:Lang/Archive 2#Change categorization method.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In case of template difficulties, nine times out of ten it's the brackets! Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

And on an unrelated note: I just noticed it was you who fixed so {{sec link auto}} works with Wiktionary links. Thanks for fixing that while I was away. (I really still am on Wikivacation, but currently I am at home with a cold so I have time to do some editing again.) See Template talk:Sec link#Wrong capitalization for Wiktionary.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome. And it's a pleasure to work on some of the stunning template coding created around here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Please make helpful pixie a little less eager to be helpful

I appreciate what the bot does, but I have two complaints:

• Removing trailing blanks in markup: It's extremely annoying to see line after line in the diffs where the only difference is the (invisible) deletion of trailing blanks.
• Acting too quickly: It's extremely, extremely annoying to save a second round of copyediting on a given article, only to get an edit conflict with a bot that jumped in 5 minutes after my first save. Nothing the bot does is urgent. Why not wait 24 hours after the last edit before it acts? This would virtually eliminate the edit conflicts, plus reduce clutter in edit histories.

Thanks for taking a look at this. EEng (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The first one seems to be forbidden by the editing restriction currently on the operator (prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page). The second is an excellent point (and is a request which has been made several times in the past if I recall correctly). I think it deserves a response from the operator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not. Being an AWB general fix it is permitted. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure this is true. I just loaded up Margaret Truman (the version that EEng was working on before HPB came long) into the latest version AWB and it didn't want to change anything despite all the automatic changes being enabled. So this is not an "AWB general fix". Can you prevent this whitespace-tweaking from happening in the future? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• As far as the first goes, trailing white-space is a form of pollution, without something cleaning it up it builds up as a type of cruft, the ideal place to remove it is during non-contentious maintenance edits. Ideally MediaWiki would strip it as part of the pre-save transform, but you can do your bit by removing it from pages you edit.
• I am happy to resolve this problem for EEng. I used to run the bot (then called SmackBot) under AWB in batch mode, initially weekly or monthly and then later daily - this was good because there was a window for other processes to date or remove the tags en-passant. Part of the great thing about the bot in those days was that it rolled so many fixes together with the dating, and people were happy by and large with that, a lot of SB's specific fixes got back-ported to AWB and of course AWB has a whole bunch more. Over the past year, I have been running a continuous perl bot, because it was the only way to deal with the new, more hostile, environment, and still benefit Wikipedia by a tiny fraction of the fixes that SmackBot (AWB) made. However I can wind back the time delay for any users who find SmackBot too fast.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Could I suggest that you wait a full hour before dating any maintenance templates? This is a round figure, and a good compromise between EEng's suggested 24 hours and the immediate dating that currently happens. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's at least an hour it's no big deal to me, but since the discussion continues let me repeat that, to the extent that articles often get bursts of edits on a single day, waiting longer reduces edit-history clutter as well as (when more than one editor is involved) confusion over who's done what. 24 is also a nice round number. And as for trailing blanks: if they stay forever... so what? EEng (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected template moved

I moved the ungrammatically name Template:Over detailed, which you'd semiprotected, to the grammatical name Template:Overly detailed, which has no such protection. The redir Template:Over-detailed, which is also grammatically correct, works too. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool. I thought protection moved with the page? Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC).

It does; see here. The timestamp and edit summary are the same as the page move. Since SMcCandlish isn't an admin, and thus couldn't have altered prot level manually, the fact that the prot log entry is in his name implies that the action must have been coupled to the page move process. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

E-mail notification

RF, I'm unsure if you check your e-mail regularly, so please be aware that I've sent our response to your message from last week. Sorry it took a little longer than our seven-day target to reply; I was meant to have sent it a few days ago, but was tardy. Regards, AGK [•] 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:JVC Records albums

Category:JVC Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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☯ 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take care

...not to violate your editing restrictions (and AWB rules of use), with edits that don't change the rendered page like [1],[2],[3] (note that the change to Defaultsort doesn't do anything since defaultsort is case insensitive nowadays),[4],[5],[6],[7]. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This is for creating the list of lists of lists. Brilliant work! :D Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

HIV/AIDS Project

Hi Rich, Isaac here how is the Project so far? I have talked with a few people in in WHO and I am awaiting their reply, Asaf from the foundation has also been here and is helping us out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipsizoo (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great news. I put together a product diagram on paper and am hoping to produce a digital version tonight. Will let you know. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

Cleanup-laundry

Because of an editor raising some good questions on Template_talk:Cleanup-laundry#The_validity_of_this_template_is_disputed, I realised what always bother me in {{Cleanup-laundry}}. 1. The vagueness of the term. 2. The parallel existence of {{Cleanup-list}}. Could you clarify these two things for me? Or is a merge of "laundry" into "list" the best idea? Debresser (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They are slightly different. One says that the list needs cleanup, the other that it should probably not be there. That is, though, probably a bad use of "laundry list", nonetheless there may be benefit form improving both templates per their discussion pages. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Scotland (continued)

Hi. Thanks for that, I've sorted out Indonesian links. Now Scotland. Can you do the same thing with the maps in Category:Populated places in Inverness committee area and Category:Populated places in Sutherland? Once that's done I'll add the infoboxes to the remainder.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I do this? I think so...Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

New template suggestion?

What's the best place to suggest and get checked User:Lexein/Template:Expand-barerefs, as part of the Expand- family of templates? It appears to be desirable, based on discussion at WP:ANI#Koavf, specifically WP:ANI#Not_so_arbitrary_break. --Lexein (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is something similar. I'll try to check. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

{{Cleanup-link rot}} is the slightly inappropriately named template. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot

Hi Rich, SmackBot has been iconic and ecumenical, why change its name? Is there any chance he can go back to SmackBot? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Camilo, nice of you to say. There was some concern that SmackBot's name was unwelcoming to newbies. Not sure about that myself, but that was the reason for the change. If the community wanted the old name back... Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

I would like to move it back to SmackBot, is the process the same for bots? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of the number of edits, the process simply requires me to swap the account it uses, and the "bot" authorisation to be changed. Maybe Village Pump might be a place to gain consensus, if anyone else thinks it matters? Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

People are too busy at the village. If you can move it back to its iconic name please. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I sympathize, I'm not going to make the move back unless it's a community decision. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

John Peel (huntsman)

Clumsy lead. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Thomas Skinner (Ceylon)

Tense problems. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Because helpful machines deserve love too!!! :D MusicLover650 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Rich, with all your hard work I thought you may be in need of some refreshment ;-) Marek.69 talk 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with "Article Reads Like News Release"

Hey - the Widener Law page has the "News Release" message at the top...I tried to format the page after the Temple Law and U. Penn Law pages. I think the content is neutral and comparable to information found on most college/university pages. Can I remove the "News Release" tag? (I know I physically can remove it, I just don't want to piss anybody off). If there is something you think should be changed/neutralized on the page, please let me know!

Thanks 98.235.125.61 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I removed the tag. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Rich! I really appreciate it! 98.235.125.61 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fishing...

I love that little statistic you provided. It's a fish. I need more.

500,000 per month, that's 6 million per year! My guess was 5.

'Give someone a fish and you feed him for a day; teach the person to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.' (See Distributism).

Please teach me how to fish. How did you generate that stat?

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Kingsmill_massacre#Names_of_victims_2. I know you're busy but I'd be grateful if you could clarify it. My query is there after your post --Flexdream (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bug bash

"Bug bash sounds similar to eat one's own dog food" - this needs to go. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

 Not done Although this is straight-forward, I haven't done it—to "eating your own dog food is a fairly well-known concept in software development and it would probably be preferable to reword the section. —Sladen (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept. It is more of a public-relations principle, though, and the software development benefits are a side issue. It might be worth contrasting the two, from a SD POV, since dog-food seeks an ongoing long term benefit, whereas a bug bash is a "heroic" concept. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Emacs

Don't cap Pinky.

 Done[8] —Sladen (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Kinesis

Piezo not a proper noun.. sigh. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

New error?

Database error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View logs for this page A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "Block::purgeExpired". Database returned error "1213: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)".

Film lists

Hi there! I just came across Category:Film incomplete lists while looking for some tidying-up work. It looks as though you created the category; thus may I ask, how is this category different from Category:Incomplete film lists? I do see that there's a different list template used for each: {{Expand list}} or {{inc-film}} and maybe you can explain that to me as well. Before I start sorting, I want to be sure of what goes where. Thanks. Humbly, Pegship (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm yes, the purpose is the same. The idea is to have simpler templates (many need a subject field available, Notability, this one, In-universe and Expert are good examples) though there is some challenge as to what the field should be called. So we should merge these two categories. The easiest way is to use inc-film as a wrapper for Expand-list. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC).

Okey dokey...what's a wrapper, and how shall I create one? Thanks for your reply. Pegship (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

Sir Robert Peake

Needs sorting out.

My RFA

Hi Rich; please see comment in this !vote. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

John Paulet, 5th Marquess of Winchester

Link first occurrence of Basing House, not the second

Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Use dmy

In this edit your bot again added the {{Use dmy dates}} template without any good reason. Actually, the writer of this book is American. As I have said before, the incidental usage of a dmy type date is not reason to add the template. Please stop your bot from adding this template automatically. And I am serious about this... Debresser (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the bot is still making these errors ([9]). There has been time for this to be addressed as the operator has been online and making edits as well. And the bot does not seem to stop anymore when its talkpage is edited. So I am going to block the bot until this issue is resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:Helpful Pixie Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The talk page was set up as a redirect to my talk page. I am just too busy (and too annoyed at the situation) right now to make further comment. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

It would be incredulous that you were not watching your bot's talk page ... and if it was on your watchlist I'm not quite sure how you could miss that many posts. Anyway no big problem, I can unblock when the issue is resolved. Question: why does editing the talk page not stop the bot? It might be a good idea to re-add this feature to avoid the need to block the bot in cases like this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because that was an AWB feature I used for years. All the AWB features have been wasted since it was decided that the bot could be blocked if it made a "non-render changing" edit, since AWB is not capable of distinguishing between rendering and non-rendering edits, and I had to recode everything in perl. You may think that it was a stupid, short sighted decision. I couldn't possibly comment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Oh and I don't use the watchlist system. Incidentally: wikt:incredulous. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Rich, if you're too busy (your words) to care for your bots, then please don't run them. —Sladen (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too busy to care for the bots, just too busy to care for every rules junkie that thinks rules are more important than the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

This is all very well, but don't you agree that the bot should stop adding these templates on an automatic basis? I think I gave a very good reason, and a reply to the issue would be in order. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a stupid question, but why shouldn't {{use dmy dates}} be added to articles that only use dmy dates? Jenks24 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In this edit [10] the article doesn't seem to have any dmy dates in it. One of the cleanup templates did, but the bot removed that at the same time it added the dmy tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This one is another example, I think that the script caught the phrase "the set containing 3, 4, and 5 may be ..." and though that was a date. I don't think there are any dates at all in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good spotting, though since I will be removing that feature, a little late. :) Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

Feature disabled. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Excellent. Could you also disable the whitespace adjustment (as discussed in #Please make helpful pixie a little less eager to be helpful and as necessitated by certain editting restrictions) and add a 60 min waiting period as has been requested? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure why not? The bot will then do nothing, but that's what it's doing now. Consider it done for version p615. Rich Farmbrough, 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I did see your response a while ago but have been waiting for a clarification because I am not sure about your stance on the issues raised. It is a unfortunate that one has to use a block to force you to make your bot work correctly, but that seems to be the case. Please could you confirm, without any possibility of doubt, that you have enabled a waiting period (as discussed) and that your bot will no longer contravene your editing restrictions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have increased the waiting period to 1 hour. I have also disabled the white-space reduction, which did not contravene the so called editing restriction. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

Okay I have unblocked the bot, although it was disappointing that its very first edit seemed to put the 1 hour waiting period in some doubt. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't wait for IPs. Or for me. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

By "It doesn't wait for IPs" I assume you mean the bot doesn't wait after an IP's edit before acting, whereas it waits an hour after a logged-in user's edit. Why not wait after IP edits? It seems to me that an IP edit is as likely to be followed up quickly as are logged-in edits -- maybe more if you believe IPs are more likely to vandalize, and therefore more likely to be reverted, making an intervening bot edit just confusing clutter. I suggest the bot wait an hour in all cases (except edits by you, if you wish). EEng (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

James Robertson (British Army officer)

• Needs sources.

William Wynne Ryland

1. dob
2. Last hanged at Tyburn
3. paper evidence

Ceibal project

May need moving, certainly needs massive cleaning up. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Luigj Gurakuqi University Library

Replace body with

Luigj Gurakuqi University Library (Albanian: Biblioteka e Universitetit të Shkodrës “Luigj Gurakuqi”) is the library of the Luigj Gurakuqi University of Shkodra in Shkodër, Albania. It traces its history to the establishment of the Pedagogical Institute in 1957 with a stock of about 1000 books, mainly in Albanian. Today, this library has about 150,000 books.It includes a holding of thirty two rare volumes form the early part of the sixteenth century. The older stick is in the process of digitization to ensure longevity of the items, and improve advisability. The library runs exchanges with Albanian and foreign libraries.

Bibliography

• World Guide to Libraries, Thomson Gale, K. G. Saur.

The Reader

"The warden expresses the disappointment of Hanna in her anger towards Michael for not communicating with Hanna in any way other than the audio tapes." We can do better than this. Rich Farmbrough, 10:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

• Ruth Franklin should be a redlink
• equally... as...

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Continuous spontaneous ventilation

Spurious caps all over the place. And may be a good merge candidate. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Bash shell

Keyboard shortcuts:

• Don't cap "Forward" etc.
• Don't Wikt to foreground, WP to Foreground process
• Possibly use a table

Synonyms : http://www.hypexr.org/bash_tutorial.php#emacs  Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso

1. $ - dollars
2. conversion
3. Caps
4. missing link around pipe?
5. PoV

 DoneRich Farmbrough, 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Archibald Skirving

Needs refs and parentage. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

• Edward Pellew, 1st Viscount Exmouth
• Michael Slattery (priest)
• Foulis Baronets
• Eoghan Rua Ó Súilleabháin dob etc.
• Banastre Tarleton
• Thomas Pingo
• John Purchas

 Done what I can. Again inaccuracies and infelicities remain due to the stiff necks of certain admins. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Mirrorbot

I just wanted to let you know that one of your bots was being mentioned again recently on the Bot requests page. Not sure if your still interested but thought I would let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Daniel Avery

m. Alice Brwon, Bristol 1 s etc.. http://mssa.library.yale.edu/obituary_record/1859_1924/1870-1880_supp.pdf p. 425  Done

• Mahmood Hussein Mattan - tidy up.

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

William Roper (biographer)

• Birth year 1496

   Done – I corrected the birth year in the article to match the sources given.

• Also that "Biblical City" link if I can find it
• (in French) Site du Conseil général de Mayotte.
• (in French) Les communes de Mayotte sur le site de l'Insee

Give up on these. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Keith Griffin (economist)

The article Keith Griffin (economist) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Keith Griffin (economist) has been proposed for deletion because.. we are too lazy to fix it.. adn would rather see it deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

Mughrabi Gate ramp reconstruction (February 2007)

Repetition.

Kinda done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

speedy deletion

please change october 2010 to october 2011 in Eshan Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.237.181 (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done by someone else. Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

article deletion

Eshan Sharma should be deleted from wikipedia. its of no use and have no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul341 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

template conservatism

Hi Rich! Noticed you removed the transclusion. Was there a problem with the transclusion? – Lionel ^(talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It just seemed an un-necessary level of indirection, unless the logo is expected to change reasonably frequently? Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ml.wikiquote

Could you please explain what is being done [here]? --Jyothis (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Eshan Sharma

Thought that might be the case and was thinking of prodding it myself but decided to wait for things to calm down with the SPA so as not lead to an even more confusing situation. Once things have calmed down I'll prod it myself - a quick google search doesn't seem to find any usable sources. Dpmuk (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help with reflinks

Hi there. You helped me a few months ago with fixing some reflinks and I'm contacting you to see if you can help me out again since you have automated powers. I've worked on a few articles over the past few months and the reflinks are getting out of control. I basically just need help from someone with automated privileges who can shorten the follow-up reflinks for me to make the articles easier to navigate for future editors. I know I should have used "short-hand" follow-up reflinks when I originally wrote the pages, but I'll admit I just got lazy and didn't bother to type up a second code for every reflink (some pages have 40+ reflinks and it was just easier to keep pasting the original) but now some of the pages are becoming a nightmare to navigate for anyone who needs to edit them in the future. Some of the pages I've written that need follow-up reflinks shortened are Jay North, Academy Juvenile Award, and GLAAD Media Award, to name a few (there may be more, but I just can't think of them right now). It's not an emergency situation, but I was wondering if you could go to those pages when you have a few spare minutes and shorten the follow-up reflinks to <ref name="Reflink"/>. Thanks --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Done those 3. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. :-) --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ml.wikiquote

May I request you to inform the community before doing such things? :) --Jyothis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

Categories in user space

Hi Rich. You have a lot of categories here - User:Rich Farmbrough/BO - that need to be disabled. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

Dinah

Redlinked template ... now what was this? Rich Farmbrough, 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

 DoneRich Farmbrough, 17:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

Template:Did you know nominations/John Clapp (baseball)

If you could review the hook from Template:Did you know nominations/John Clapp (baseball) that would be great. The article itself has already been reviewed, just not the alts. Best, Albacore (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Commented, not really knowledgeable enough to review. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

Date templates

In this edit I noticed that you are still adding date templates, manually. I understand you add the template not only to articles which because of their subject matter should use a certain date format (like dmy in articles about England and mdy in articles about America), but even when you notice a preference for a certain date format which might have grown randomly, in order to further uniformity. Is that correct? Do you think that is also part of the intention of the date format templates? Debresser (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the date format should be consistent within an article To understand the usage patterns see Calendar date, Date format by country and Date and time notation in the United States (althoguh the last could be expanded a little). Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

Acts_of_the_Apostles#Speeches

• Ced. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC).
  
• Gospel of the Twelve link JM. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC).
  

Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot

In a recent discussion on this talk page, you agreed to set a waiting time for HPbot, but you didn't set this for IP edits for some unknown reason. This creates siutatuions like [11] where 7 times in 20 minutes you edit the same article while an IP is actively editing it, thereby possibly creating edit conflicts only because the bot won't wait for an hour or so before making its edit.

The same happened e.g. here with three bot edits in five minutes.

I also notice that the waiting period for non-IP edits only seems to be about 10 minutes, even though you said that you had increased it to 1 hour[12]. Any reason that you don't actually wait for 1 hour, and for IPs as well? Fram (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did set it to 1 hour but the effectiveness became zero as I predicted. I now have it on twice the previous delay, and effectiveness is about 50% at a guess. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

I unblocked this bot on the very clear undertaking you gave me. As you have reneged on this I have reblocked the bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What do you mean by "effectiveness"? Are there pages that should get tag-dated but don't, due to the delay? Or do other bots get there before yours (and why is that a problem?)? Or something else? Apart from that, any reason that you can't implement the same delay for IPs, avoiding (from today) four bot edits in seven minutes to the same article[13]? Fram (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake by Helpful Pixie Bot

In this edit, you not only claim to date the "currentrelated" template, which doesn't take a date template; you also didn't date this template, but the "!" template included in it: that one as well doesn't take a date template, of course. Fram (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC

Current related (two words) does take a date. The other issue is fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Stephen Skinner

Birth and graduation dates need sourcing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Someone else can do this, my time is being stolen. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Mistake by Helpful Pixie Bot

In this edit, you not only claim to date the "currentrelated" template, which doesn't take a date template; you also didn't date this template, but the "!" template included in it: that one as well doesn't take a date template, of course. Fram (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC

Current related (two words) does take a date. The other issue is fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Template:Noc

Your recent changes to Template:Noc have left it nonfunctioning. Please see the Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,  Buaidh  19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hilux Surf

Hi there. Came across your article on the Hilux Surf and you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, not many are including myself. I have a 1989 4Runner and for all general purposes it appears the 4th generation Hilux is basically a 1st generation 4Runner. Now when it comes to finding parts and pieces, accessories, etc. for my 4Runner it is darn near impossible, discontinued or made of gold for the price of a part if found or sold. My question I pose is, do you know if the two are interchangeable/compatible? Would sure ease my search for my restore.

Thanks for any input, JasonChpfreak (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Category talk:Lists of people by nationality

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Lists of people by nationality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International recognition of the National Transitional Council

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International recognition of the National Transitional Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AWB errors

Please be more careful when using AWB. Your edit to William Gouw Ferguson[14] has been reverted for being clearly incorrect. This was a good edit but a wrong edit summary. Here you change the date for a tag for no good reason, and again use the wrong edit summary. Fram (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judas Maccabeus

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Judas Maccabeus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of California public officials charged with crimes

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of California public officials charged with crimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Burma

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Burma. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox character

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox character. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick templates

While it is obvious that something needs to be done about the template transclusion problem, it may be best to address this in a structured manner instead of creating and using new things without much coordination or care. I have reverted a number of your edits with the cite quick templates, because while they solved some problems (partially or completely), they introduced new errors as well. Please start a discussion about this problem, so that a general fix for it can be found (e.g. by simplyfying the existing cite templates), instead of this well-meaning effort with rather poor results. So far, I undid your changes at Philippines, Alzheimer's disease and Bacterial phyla, I'll check the other ones using the cite quick templates as well. If you want to reuse (Pixie Build p616), make sure it contains less errors. Fram (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While at first glance the earlier errors are no longer happening, there are still some minor tweaks to make (assuming we continue using these "quick" templates instead of trying to improve the "normal" ones to eliminate the transclusion problem). In Bacterial phyla, you list author=[[Carl Linnaeus|Carl Linnaeus]] which should simply be author=[[Carl Linnaeus]] It's also a pity that a ref that was layouted with one line per parameter now gets one line with two parameters... Fram (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know about the Linnaeus issue, that of course was the situation before the edit. As far as improving the "normal" cites, there is no reason that can't be done at the same time. (Or indeed a cite module for MediaWIki can't be written.) If it is sufficiently successful to obviate the need for (or benefit from) the quick templates, then they can be removed trivially. Rich Farmbrough, 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Trial as an adult

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Trial as an adult. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AlgoSec

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolution of problems?

I notice that you have not responded to the comments above, and yet this bot is continuing with its editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rule that says the bot should stop if some editor makes a comment. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

As a bot operator you have to be responsive to editors' concerns. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check

Please check whether you have the templates and category in this edit, which I found today. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, added the one I didn't have. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

You dated Category:Wikipedia articles without plot summaries. How did you do that? And, most interesting, how did you add dates like May 2008, if the Template:No plot was created only 22 September 2011? Debresser (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. They were tagged previously with Template:Sectstub (or other templates perhaps), and the old date remained when it was replaced with the newply created "No plot" template. Ok. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with these noplot AWB edits

Please be careful not to make empty edits like this one and this one (the added empty line doesn't alter the appearance of the page). Please also don't replace <references /> with {{Footnotes}}[15], there is no need to make such a change, and considering that footnotes is in itself a template redirect makes it a rather baffling replacement. Fram (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William Lane Craig

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:William Lane Craig. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National debt by U.S. presidential terms

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:National debt by U.S. presidential terms. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serer people

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Girl gamer

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Girl gamer. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Spain

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Spain. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harriet Harman

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harriet Harman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Split tax avoidance and tax evasion

Your comment would be appreciated here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)  Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Men's rights

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Men's rights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laurence Tribe

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Laurence Tribe. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox television

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To do

1. fix up broken archives  Done
2. import main todo list (or build a new one off-wiki)  Done
3. fix the following minor edits Done

email

I didn't reveal your email, but I do reserve the right to reply to emails on-wiki. I'm sorry if you feel my replying to your email on-wiki was unethical or if I have breached your trust. I see you have removed this comment and this is fine with me. I will think carefully before something similar again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article Jayen Varma

Dear Sir, Could you please let me know why the article jayen Varma was deleted by you. Based on its credible links could you please bring it back?. Thanks. (Musicindia1 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC))

The page had been deleted thrice before. I see no reason that the new version was more credibly notable than the old versions. Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

Yes sir, It was deleted 3 times before. The contents are also same. But the fact is that the article didn't have enough credible links at the time of discussion and deletion. But I request your good self to look in to the links attached to it now. The links are mostly from those news papers and magazines approved by Wikipedia, like India's national news paper The Hindu, Bass Musician magazine USA, Mathruboomi of India, North East Today of India, Webindia123, Gibson Guitar Corporation website etc. You can even find his name in this week's news papers in India like New Indian Express and Times of India. Please Google for his name in news. He is definitely a notable person from the links available. I appreciate your view with respect to the rules that the article which was deleted previously has to be deleted if recreated. I had discussion with few administrators before recreating the article based on the links. Sir, Kindly do the needful to keep the article because it has enough proof to show its notable. And that was my first original article, though I am mostly focused on translation of music related articles to Malayalam. I hope you will definitely find a solution for this. Thank you. (Musicindia1 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

I have restored the article, also merged the history, I couldn't see your discussion with admins, but the references do indeed seem better. Good luck with your translation work. Rich Farmbrough, 10:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks a lot for restoring the article and for the encouragement to do more in wikipedia. with much respect(Musicindia1 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

Karol Szymanowski

Hello Rich Farmbrough! Could you please take another look at Karol Szymanowski article? It seems to me that Template:Refimprove could be removed? What do you think? Thank you and best regards, Semimartingale (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well no refs have been added since User:LibStar placed the tag back in March - see this diff, so I'm not really sure. It's not clear what specifically needs citing, conversely it is also not clear which of the references sources which uncited parts of the article. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Ok, thank you! Semimartingale (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DNB articles

Hello Rich, I see you have been generating some new articles using DNB articles on Wikisource. Did you use a semi automated method to do this or did you do by hand? If you used a simi-automated method I am sure there are other editors who would be interested.

The problem is that the template you used when generating them was the incorrect one. That is you used {{cite DNB}} when we have a dedicated one called {{DNB}} which does several things including filling out some of the relevant fields and puts in an attribute string. We have similar templates for a number of project basically:

• {{cite DNB}} or {{cite EB1911}} etc. The work like normal {{cite book}} etc
• {{DNB}} or {{1911}} etc. The basically do what is needed for WP:PLAGIARISM and more specifically the section "Where to place attribution". It also adds some hidden maintenance categories which you will find described in the template documentation.
• {{DNB Poster}} puts the DNB wikisource link into a pretty box.

One of the things that {{cite DNB}} and {{DNB}} have is the standard "title=" and "url=", but they also include another parameter called "wstitle=" which takes the DNB article name and adds onto it the necessary extra path information and puts in a intra-wiki link rather than an external URL link.

Your solution to endnotes was certainly imaginative, but it is non standard. One of four things is usually done, Either they are added as a "quotation=" parameter (but that is depreciated), or they are tagged on the end of the line (after some suitable explanation such as you gave, or they are added as an indented bullet point list. Or the are just ignored.

Adding a general reference as an attribution will do, but usually one should add inline citations at the end of each paragraph. {{DNB}} has ref=harv set so you can use {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} to link the short citations to the DNB template.

If the process you are using is automated, then to make sure that the TOC goes at the top of the page it is a good idea to break the line after the first clause and start a section called "Biography" or "Life". You will need to add the subjects name to the broken sentence. See as an example: George Beattie (poet) to which I have made minimal changes to your layout, to demonstrate what I mean. Note also that one has to be careful about the nationality of the subject particularly if they were born before 1707 for English and Scottish subjects and 1801 for Irish subjects. Subject in both meanings of the word as they were not British before those dates.

There is a project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography where if you used a semi-automated method there would be interest. Also it would be helpful if you know what pages you have created using extracts from DNB text if you could list them there so that willing editors can alter them to call the {{DNB}} rather than {{Cite DNB}}. The one I know about to date (supplied by another editor) are: George Beattie (poet), George Steward Beatson, John Bearblock, Richard Butcher (antiquary), John Dunstall, Gabriel Dugrès, William Augustus Barron, Dubthach Maccu Lugir of which I have altered two so far George Beattie (poet) and John Bearblock.

-- PBS (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems I am no longer allowed to create pages my interest is somewhat abated. However you raise some interesting points. As far as hidden maintenance categories go I was adding all the pages I create to a category called DNB drafts, as this was cited as evidence of my perfidy in creating less than perfect pages, I removed it. The use of wstitle is something I was aware of, although not in detail. I cannot, now I know it is an intrawiki link, condone its use. Any linked citation should be clearly an external style link. Wiki-wiki links should only be used for matter that is in the nature of a cross-reference. The horribly named "DNB poster" template, for example could reasonably use this style.

The abandonment of the endnotes is the main solution used, however it is not particularly great. Anyone working seriously on the subject of one of these biographies will want to follow up these citations and can then, if they are so inclined, improve the referencing, without having to concern themselves overmuch with the formatting, and hopefully the content - the parenthetical referencing is much useful though, where it is employed. In addition we can add links to the references which may or may not be outwith the scope of WS.

I believe WP:DNB are aware of what I have been doing, but things are very quiet there at the moment. I have, on the other side of the coin, recently added about 2000 links from Wikisource DNB articles to their corresponding WP articles.

The following list of articles may be a good subset of the articles I have created.

• Henry Duncan (minister)
• James Grant Duff
• Ernest, Duke of York and Albany
• James Duff, 2nd Earl Fife
• James Duff, 4th Earl Fife
• Sir Robert Peake
• William Duff (writer)
• Daniel Duncan (physician)
• Peter Elmsley (bookseller)
• Henry Walton Ellis
• Charles Richard Elrington
• Samuel Burdon Ellis
• Renold Elstracke
• Charles Abraham Elton
• Edward William Elton
• James Frederic Elton
• Thomas Elrington (actor)
• John Fenwicke
• Robert Ferguson (1799-1865)
• Ronald Craufurd Ferguson
• William Ferguson (1820-1887)
• William Gouw Ferguson
• James Fergusson (1688-1759)
• James Fergusson (1769-1842)
• William Fergusson (1773-1846)
• Thomas William Fermor
• William Fermor (1623?-1661)
• Alfonso Ferrabosco (d.1661)
• Henry Field (apothecary)
• Robert Finch (1783-1830)
• John Finlay (poet)
• Kirkman Finlay (philhellene)
• Finnchu
• Joseph Firbank
• List of contributors to the Dictionary of National Biography
• Richard de Fishacre
• David Fisher (1788?-1858)
• David Fisher (1816?–1887)
• Richard Field (1554?-1606)
• William Fergusson (1808-1877)
• Sir Charles Dalrymple Fergusson, 5th Baronet
• Francis Foster Barham
• Henry Barham
• Edmond Barker
• Robert Barker (1729?-1789)
• Thomas Barker (fl. 1651)
• Thomas Barnardiston (legal writer)
• John Barret (d.1563)
• Joseph Barret
• Robert Barret
• William Barret
• George Barrett (actuary)
• John Barrett (d.1810)
• Stephen Barrett (1718 – 1801)
• Thomas Barritt
• William Augustus Barron
• John Barrow (fl. 1756)
• Thomas Barrow (Jesuit)
• John Shipp (soldier)
• William Drury (d.1589)
• Andrew Duncan (1744-1828)
• Dubhdalethe
• Dubthach Maccu Lugir
• William Duesbury (1725-1786)
• Duff (d.967)
• James Duff (Banffshire MP)
• William Duffield
• Edmund Butcher
• Philip Bearcroft
• William Beard (1772-1868)
• Nathaniel Beardmore
• Richard Butcher (antiquary)
• Nicolas Gouïn Dufief
• Richard Beatniffe
• Gabriel Dugrès
• Bartholomew Thomas Duhigg
• Dunan (bishop)
• James Dunbar (writer)
• Robert Nugent Dunbar
• Andrew Duncan (1773-1832)
• John Duncan (1721-1808)
• John Duncan (1794-1881)
• John Duncan (1796-1870)
• John Duncan (1805-1849)
• Mark Duncan
• Philip Bury Duncan
• William Augustine Duncan
• Robert Duncanson (1705)
• Susanna Duncombe
• Samuel Duncon
• John Duncumb
• James Dundas (d.1679)
• Robert Dundas (Second Lord Arniston)
• Henry Fitzgeffrey
• John Fitzedmund Fitzgerald (d.1589)
• Thomas Fitzmaurice (1502-1590)
• Richard FitzPatrick, 1st Baron Gowran
• William Fitzwilliam (1460?-1534)
• Thomas Fleetwood (1661-1717)
• Christopher Fleming (surgeon)
• James Fleming (1534?-1558)
• James Fleming (1682-1751)
• Robert Beatson
• James Hay Beattie
• William Beattie (physician)
• Samuel Astley Dunham
• Alfred John Dunkin
• John Dunkin
• Alexander Dunlop (1684-1747)
• Alexander Colquhoun-Stirling-Murray- Dunlop
• Frances Anne Walker Dunlop
• John Dunlop (writer)
• William Dunlop (1692-1720)
• Robert Dunn (surgeon)
• Samuel Dunn (mathematician)
• William Dunn (1770-1849)
• John Dunstall
• Jeffrey Dunstan
• Charles Dunster

Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lexi Thompson

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lexi Thompson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ugg boots

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ugg boots. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Focolare Movement

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Focolare Movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of melodic death metal bands

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of melodic death metal bands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foxconn

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foxconn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Homosexuality

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Homosexuality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of longest ruling non-royal national leaders

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of longest ruling non-royal national leaders. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Omdurman

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Omdurman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiHistories

Here are some relevant links regarding the WikiHistories project:

• WikiHistories fellowship
• The Russian Wikipedi history (English version)
• WikiHistories fellowship announcement
• Example of one of the individual stories

HTH,--Eloquence* 08:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mirror Bot

I see you filed an RfA for Mirror Bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot which has since expired. Do you plan to file a new RfA for this bot? I think this bot could be very useful. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Eventually. I had the full spec written, but I was getting so much hassle on-wiki that I lost the time and inclination. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Notice it took a month to get any response from BAG for that BRFA, whereas other bot operators were getting full approval in 3 hours. Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

Can you tell me if I correctly understood how this works? Say I place a mirror thread at WP:VPR. Does that mean all users participating in that thread will automatically have the thread copied to their talk page and can comment in the thread by editing the mirror on their talk page? Wikipedia:Mirror threads doesn't do a very good job at explaining this yet. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, you are pretty close. Basically the effect is exactly as you describe, but the thread itself is not copied around, merely a template transclusion. We tried something like this manually, years ago, but of course there is no "you have messages" when the thread is merely transcluded. By having a bot update the places where it is transcluded, an appropriate edit summary can be given, and of course the user can control how often this is done. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

A beer for you

Thankyou for co-nominating me for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the beer... Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Theatre

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Theatre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Astrology

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazism

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Firefox

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Firefox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pan Am (TV series)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pan Am (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of new religious movements

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of new religious movements. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dana Tyler

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dana Tyler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Clerks

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Clerks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ejaculation

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ejaculation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falun Gong

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falun Gong. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Something gone wrong?

Please try again... [16]. Fram (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States Armed Forces

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States Armed Forces. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bruce Kaphan

The article Bruce Kaphan has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

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. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines

In this edit, you changed [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] to [[Georgia (US state)|Georgia]], but the latter is a redirect to the former, and neither is visible to the reader anyway. In the same edit, you changed "Commented guitarist Billy Duffy: "We are very much looking forward to returning to our U.K. roots in many ways working with Cooking Vinyl."" to "Commented guitarist Billy Duffy: "We are very much looking forward to returning to our UK roots in many ways working with Cooking Vinyl."" even though the former is the correct quote[17]. We shouldn't go around changing quotes to match our MoS. You do the same here, changing "PwC's US arm "was the reviewer for the U.S. filings for Satyam."" to "PwC's US arm "was the reviewer for the US filings for Satyam."" In that same edit, you also replace the correct U.S. Steel with the redirect US Steel.

Oh, and if you change U.S. to US, make sure that the abbreviation didn't come at the end of a sentence: in that case, it should be "US." of course[18]. The same happens here.

In this edit, you change Dance Party USA to Dance Party US. Please, just don't. In that same edit, you also change two correct links to redirects.

Please be more careful with your changes of U.S. and USA to US, and check your contributions more carefully. All the above come from the 15 most recent such edits, so the rate of errors is quite high here. Fram (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While you have now corrected a few of these, you create new errors in the meantime. Here you change two bluelinks to redlinks. Please, either be a lot more careful or stop this task of changing references to the US. MoS application is less important than having bluelinks, correct quotes, and so on.

A different and more minor issue is that you are still changing Defaultsorts for no good reason at all, since it is now case-insensitive anyway ([19]). Fram (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Again turned a bluelink into a redlink[20]... I have created the redirect for you, but please don't change links like that anymore. Fram (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christiane Pflug

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christiane Pflug. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Stoughton, Massachusetts article

Hi Rich. Might you have a look at this? User:204.144.15.20 keeps inserting a person "Christina Anastos" into "Notable people" in the Stoughton, Massachusetts article. I googled the person and not much came up. I reverted out the person but User:204.144.15.20 keeps re-inserting it. The IP address (204.144.15.20) is from Stonehill College where it would appear Christina Anastos is a student (see this link: http://www.stonehillskyhawks.com/news/2010-11/ADHR_Fall10 ) Nevertheless, the anonymous editor keeps adding "Christina Anastos - Javelin extraordinaire, competitive cyclist" to the article. Please advise and/or take action. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a note. Always tricky with schools, this seems to be a low volume, mainly white-hat school. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. Indeed so it seems. However, it seemed fiddly prima facie. Bests --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deleteme

Template:Deleteme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Templates

This is a project page to try to get on top of template usage around the DNB (see threads now active on WT:WP DNB). You will notice that it says {{Wikisource}} is deprecated in this particular context; and it is known that you disagree. Please add anything you have about this issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Templates, so that we have a chance of getting all relevant opinions into one forum. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tamara Toumanova

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tamara Toumanova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coin toss

Template:Coin toss has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}}

Please see Template talk:Dated maintenance category. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Order

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Texas HoldEm Poker (Zynga game)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Texas HoldEm Poker (Zynga game). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Protect IP Act

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Protect IP Act. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John Shipp (soldier) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Shipp (soldier) 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/John Shipp (soldier) 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 good 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Dosansen InoEkisya.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Dosansen InoEkisya.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Canadian federal political parties

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Canadian federal political parties. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

an edit of yours mentioned in a discussion

Hi. I've mentioned an edit you made at Template talk:Physical oceanography#Colouring; down a bit in a subsection marked width. It concerns an edit you made to that template to support v·d·e links. You were reverted. It seems the 'e' link erodes ownership. One Ton Depot (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joint custody

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joint custody. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of My Own Planet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My Own Planet 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/My Own Planet 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 good 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. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

InterWiki template

{{InterWiki}} seems to be broken. It does not work in any of the articles where I have checked. For instance, the very top right corner of Kabardian language. —Stephen (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Coroboy fixed it by creating the ISO template for that language {{ISO 639 name kbd}}. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

I took care of the others. Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

Pouring gasoline on a fire

I'm not sure what you were thinking when you added that image to a protected policy page, but please consider self-reverting at this time. Feel free to use the talk page to propose adding the image. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rich, thank you very much for self-reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Most welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC).
    

Mas creation of templates seems to violate your editing restriction

You have created over 40 templates in a very short time, which seems to violate your editing restriction on "indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented". Can you please indicate where such "prior community approval" for these creations can be found? Can you also indicate where you have found the official ISO 639 code for Simple English (Template:ISO 639 name simple), since that one doesn't even seem to exist... Fram (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the templates are needed to support the {{InterWiki}}. Secondly the specification for mass creation is undefined, but suggestions have been made that it would need to exceed 50 pages to constitute such. Thirdly, if you read the documentation on the ISO 639 name family of templates you will see that they are designed to be permissive, this avoids creating special cases and killing the servers. Fourthly why are you still stalking my edits? I have repeatedly asked you not to interact with me, the least you could do is restrict your interactions to things that actually concern you rather than following me around. Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for showing (again) why your edits need watching, and why you shouldn't be an admin anymore either. You have edited, without discussion, a fully protected templated to introduce your templates to it, without any apparent added value for the template or Wikipedia. It looks like between 14 October (the day you changed the template) and 7 November (the day you created these additional templates), it didn't work anymore on a number of pages, e.g. Simple English Wikipedia. Correct? If so, this is again an example of you changing a fully protected template without adequate testing and without proper discussion, with as result no benefit and things that no longer work on a number of pages...

As for your other statements: WP:BOTPOL states that "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed.". You conveniently take the higher limit, instead of staying well clear of the limit of your edit restriction by using the lower limit... And you may request that I not interact with you, but as long as you make errors, misuse your admin rights, and generally continue to screw up things and to violate the editing restrictions that have been imposed because you screwed things up before, I'll continue spotchecking your edits and notifying you of any problems with them. If you don't like that, clean up your act and make my checks pointless. Finally, please indicate (with evidence) which other editors you think of when you claim that I'm "following me around in the same persecutory manner you used to drive other editors form the project.", or retract that personal attack. Fram (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So instead of substantiating your allegations, you WP:REDACT your statement while repeating the accusation in the edit summary? How low can you go? Fram (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:My Own Planet albums

Category:My Own Planet albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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☯ 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sad...

Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

A request for Femto Bot

Hi there Rich. Since Femto Bot (talk · contribs) takes the task of creating cleanup categories, I was wondering if I could drop a request. It seems that there's no bot set up to create monthly categories for Category:User pages that include images for deletion, so they have to be created manually. Several non-existent categories are currently populated (like Category:User pages that include images for deletion as of September 2007, just one of many examples). Can Femto Bot possibly be set up to create populated non-existent categories? Regards. — ξ^xplicit 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes no problem. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

 DoneRich Farmbrough, 13:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks! The categorization is a bit weird, though. — ξ^xplicit 18:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's becasue of the "as of" instead of "from" - I customised the progress box to deal with that but itmight be simpler to move the categories than customise the monthly clean-up category template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

 Done Category:User pages that include images for deletion from September 2007Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

Awesome! Thanks again. — ξ^xplicit 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.64.245 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Help

Hello Rich,

I was going through the following article and noticed that it has many issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variator_(variable_valve_timing)

I really want to help improve the article but I cannot figure out how I can do so. The talk page of the article is blank and hence there is no other place where I could leave a message for help. Through the history of the article I noticed that you had left a message on it's talk page. I would be grateful if you could help me figure out how I can improve this article.

Thank you. Regards, Gunit. Gunit31 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, who are you? Ross G. McMiller (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rich Farmbrough! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

dated cleanup categories

I just noticed that some of my dated categories are showing up. They didn't before. This is the example in question. The simple undated categories still do not show up at the page bottom, and the {{use mdy dates}} seems to be functioning without displaying the red categories. Any idea what could have made this happen? Is there anything wrong? Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is because Femto Bot hasn't created all of the monthly clean-up categories yet for November, so they do not contain the {{hidden category}} code on them in order to not show up on articles. I have been creating them manually with {{Monthly clean-up category}}. It's easy to do this at Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to you and to Rich for the explanations. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution in Hong Kong article

Hi Rich. It's about the Prostitution in Hong Kong article. See ersatz-discussion at Talk:Prostitution in Hong Kong. Might you look into this matter and act or advise? I think the material on "compensated dating" as reported by CNN isn't off-topic and in a category of its own as a trend. User:108.67.153.215 keeps removing the material and also keeps blanking his talk page to get rid of vandalism warnings in 2010 by other editors. Also the anonymous editor wrote as his summary of reversion:

• 23:06, 1 November 2011‎ 108.67.153.215 (talk)‎ (17,771 bytes) (→Types and venues: See talk page, this clearly doesn't belong, reverting and making bad faith accusations is not constructive.) (undo)

"Bad faith accusations"??? I have no idea what the editor is talking about. We had no dialogue ever before that reversion. Unless he's talking about a previous re-insertion of the material by another non-anon editor:

• 16:27, 31 October 2011‎ Underwaterbuffalo (talk | contribs)‎ (18,375 bytes) (Undid revision 458309841 by 108.67.153.215 (talk) There are better things to do than just deleting content you don't like. HINT: For instance, you can fix it.) (undo)

Thanks and bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

By the look of things this is sorted? Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

It is, Rich. Thanks for having a look. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Blanker

Hello Rich. User:216.3.102.114 keeps blanking out a valid and sourced section of the Like Crazy article. How does one stop it? Might you have a look and take some steps? Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The probable reason was that "Trivia" sections are somewhat deprecated. I wrote a reasonably long screed about why such sections should be renamed, and true trivia ("Bette Davis was reported to have consumed blueberry muffins") removed. Rich Farmbrough, 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Template:Wikisource1911Enc Citation

I fixed the template redirect at Template:Wikisource1911Enc Citation to automatically use the #1 parameter as a wstitle parameter, which will avoid the need to replace the template with a redirect, at least in the majority of cases. This one edit to the template redirect is more efficient than editing every page that used the old template. I looked at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and this redirect change does not seem to be part of stock AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

re main page

How about promoting Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page or something like it to Guideline status? I'm not even sure how that's accomplished (by discussion I suppose, but if there's an RfC and it fails does that mean the page is marked with a big red "failed proposal" X? Anyway I suppose it would need to be essentially rewritten to serve as a guideline? Just a thought. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Rich Farmbrough and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Fram (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Femto Bot error

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26]... it doesn't look like this would ever stop. Fram (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, Femto Bot on that page only looks forward, not backwards, so the page shown by the bot is in some cases not actually the oldest backlog page. E.g. Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction is according to the bot starting in September 2007, but in reality the oldest page is July 2007. Similarly, Category:Userspace drafts doesn't start in December 2007, but in August 2007. Fram (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of year from reference for Trichopodus leerii

Hi, I noticed that you removed the year from the reference I added to this page, what is your reasoning behind doing this? Kat (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Observation

I noticed this was added to your user page, was this edit legitimate? Just making sure :) C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 05:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Good spot. Yes it was/is. Microsoft made Vista, in it's attempt to be smarter, really dumb about disc caching. In addition to the normal disc thrashing the indexing software can create, it attempts to pre-load stuff you might use based on time of day and day of week. It is also not as easy to turn this stuff of as it might be. This means it is constantly disc accessing, especially if you don't have absolutely enormous memory. (There are other things that do this too.) The built in disc access monitor, while more useful than nothing, is badly broken. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Sounds good! Just looked a little spamish so I wanted to make sure. Cheers, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Cleanup cats by month

Clean-up categories

All articles

16,635

Hi Rich, I was wondering if you could work out the best way to automatically place all of the cleanup cats from a month into a common cat - ie create a Category:Clean up categories from June 2011 and make it contain each of the June 2011 cleanup cats, ie Category:Accuracy disputes from June 2011‎, Category:Articles lacking in-text citations from June 2011, Category:Article sections to be split from June 2011‎ etc, without having to manually edit thousands of cats. I asked at WP:VPR and the response I got was that {{Monthly clean-up category}} would be the place to change. I've had a look, but it's beyond my template comprehension level without a heap of research! As the main author of that template, can you help? I don't want to replace or modify any of the existing cats, just have a single cat that will contain everything by date, not just the current situation where you can only roll them up by issue. Can you help? The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

thanks, fantastic- love your work! The-Pope (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

One request - I think your last edit of

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Clean up categories from {{{month name|}}} {{{year|}}||[[Category:Clean up categories from {{{month name|}}} {{{year|}}}]]}}

is trying to not place the cats in its own cat - but it seems like they are in a circular loop, ie Category:Clean up categories from May 2006 is a member of itself. Any idea why it isn't working? Maybe if we change it to rollup the new cats to annual Category:Clean up categories from 2006 it might help - it would be a useful way to combine the monthly cats too?

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Clean up categories from {{{month name|}}} {{{year|}} | [[Category:Clean up categories from {{{year|}}}]] | [[Category:Clean up categories from {{{month name|}}} {{{year|}}}]]}}

Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably I ned to add the word "Category:" to the test. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

 Fixed If in doubt, it's curly brackets. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Not sure about the annual roll-ups. If there's a reasonable number of people that think they are useful I'll provide them. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks again for the coding detective work. The annual rollup will be most useful for the older years where the by month counts are low. The-Pope (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Piping in Persondata?

While the habit you have of taking the state out of the link for American places is debatable (no idea if there is actual guidance on it, seems to be a case of imposing your personal preference over other people's one), there is no reason at all to do this in the Persondata, like you did here. Pipng links in what is essentially (largely unused) metadata only makes the article larger for no actual use at all. Fram (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the piping of placenames in this way is beneficial at all. In my opinion it is better to do

• Alton, Illinois, United States

because Alton is the most relevant link, the rest is overlinking. I had a look round to find discussions on this matter and came up with the following:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 6#Linking city + region
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 22#Template:City-region
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Template:City-state

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, interestingly it was RF himself who stopped the {{city-region}} template from linking the state in January 2010, so apparently he agreed with this argument at that time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And this is exactly concomitant with what Fram is complaining about. So while I have some sympathy with what Fram says here, your comment is arse about face, to use a technical term. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Economy of Xiguan

A tag has been placed on Economy of Xiguan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Explains itself. I can't see anything on my Opera Mini web browser. (everything except section headings appears as the box character, so I'd assume its foreign characters)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you upgrade your browser/fonts. Maybe you didn't examine the whole page, this is a good idea before CSD-ing anything. I have commented out most of the zh: stuff, although leaving it visible might encourage translators. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Last member of the Gang Of Four arrives

Concur with block, as those edits are a clear violation of the restriction. This user is understandably upset now, and I suggest that rational discussion is unlikely at this time, and so perhaps we should clear off this talk page for the time being rather than poking the bear? Any genuine queries can be answered in the next few days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on how you define rational discussion. If you mean supporting a bureaucratic approach, while the things we are actually concerned about are left to wither and die, then you will see plenty from the comics fan, the mathematician and the bureaucrat. But that is hardly surprising. If you see me speaking in those terms, however, you can be sure I am being ironic. Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Stirring it up

Not in that list, but this one seems a rather obvious example. Fram (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the immediately preceding edit tries to transclude a template that does not exist [27]. –xeno^talk 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is relevant, how? Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC).<br /

Note that apart from separating related comments into different sections, Rich Farmbrough also added the section header "stirring it up". As it gives the impression that this was my section header, I thought it best to add this comment to avoid any confusion for any third parties. Fram (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not your heading, but pretty clearly your intention. Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

You are blocked for making changes that violate your editing restriction. You dispute this, and I provide an example from today that does exactly that. That's not really "stirring it up" as much as your shipping things of to separate sections looks like "removing evidence". Fram (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Xeno blocked based on the reasons he had at the time. Not on something, however heinous, that you dug up later. I do not think his block based on those diffs holds water, it does not protect the encyclopaedia, the encyclopaedia noes not need that sort of protection. If you wanted to have a discussion about the edit to PJ Bianco you could do so, but you just want to buttress Xeno's case - which is perfectly understandable, but wrong. The case stands or falls on its own. Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Typos

That first one didn't just do nothing though, it also replaced a correct template Persondata with an incorrect one. I am not referring to the replacement of uppercase parameters with lowercase ones, a topic which has been raised countless times with Rich and which got a clear consensus that the parameters should be uppercase; I'm referring to the replacement of "short description" with "ahort description", "date of death" with "date fo death", and "place of death" with "palce of death. Fram (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Fram. let me go and fix them.. oh wait.. Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Nice, first you change my statement to small, then you move it to a separate section, removing it completely from its context (what does "that first one" refer to here?). Fram (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to have a conversation with Xeno. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

That, however, is not how Wikipedia works. If you want a private conversation, take it to email. Adding information relevant to the block is normal editing. Fram (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But it is not relevant. You are trying to make it relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

How amusing

I went to thank those involved in the Arb request for their time, only to find that I am blocked by a party to the case. Two of the four who I could loosely call "anti" have commented there since I was blocked. They might consider stepping away from the dead horse. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Actually, I last edited that page some minutes before you were blocked, and Xeno only edited it to make a note about this block. Nothing substantial has been added since your block. Anyway, if you have anything you would like to add there, you can post it here and request for it to be added there. Fram (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing substantial was added at any point.... Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I'm glad to see that you didn't lose your sense of humour :-) Fram (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a party to the case request bearing your username. –xeno^talk 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Historically, anyone joining a case became a party to it, for good reason. Maybe the same rules don't apply to requests, but to all intents and purposes you joined the action, it is terribly disingenuous to try to imply otherwise. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

The parties are listed on the case request; you may be mistaking parties with those who have commented. You may, of course, ask for me to be added as a party, but the simple fact is that I am not presently a listed party to the case request bearing your username. –xeno^talk 19:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me then say "one of the hostile witnesses". Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

The death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar

Hi Rich Farmborough. I've open an RFC at The death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar. An editor states that it is not a proper RFC. Would you kindly check for me all is well before I respond to one of the editors.

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have commented there. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Rich for clearifying the policy.

Tamsier (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Another view

The restriction has been listed on WP:Editing restrictions since January. If there was not consensus to enact it, you have had 11 months to demonstrate that and get it removed. You were blocked under the same restriction for a week in September, and that block was not lifted early (according to your block log). So the argument that you are not actually under an editing restriction is very hard to make. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Fram, I am trying to have a conversation here. However to address your points, simply because I choose not to create drama earlier, when I had a fairly sane arrangement with RD-232 (except when Fram stuck his nose in), does not make the objection invalid - surely as a mathematician you can see that. The apparent intent of the alleged ER was met a long time ago. Only pettifoggers would worry about minor detail, and not see that making a fuss about things that don't matter is akin to The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

{{User talk:Cyberpower678/Statussig}} may be contrary to the guidelines. I wouldn't mention it but you never know when someone who attaches more importance to rules than results will review your edits. But seriously the more you sign the more that page becomes a vandal vector. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I was expecting a response on my page. I see no issues according to the guidelines other than the length of the string. The colors are acceptable and can still be viewed if by a person having trouble seeing colors. It does not have flashy text or font violations. It neither has images or videos. The signature is also not a space hogger. If I do run into somebody that wishes to complain about my signature, I will fix it on the spot. I am working on making the signature shorter so half of the edit page isn't just the code for my signature. If you respond, please send a TB.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, how do you know how many times your page has been viewed?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that the having the colour transcluded (while clever) creates a vector for (among others) what are crudely known as "penis vandals" - who can replace that page with something like blue">[[image:My very distasteful picture.jpg]]. Not a big deal now you have 20 or 30 transclusions, but when it is 20k transclusions....
• I can't leave a TB just now as some clown seems to have blocked me.
• I must have used "Grok" stats - of course the number is outdated now, anyway, but it surprised me.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

That stinks that you are blocked. If my signature creates too many problems or causes to many disturbances, I will kill the template.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is something that happens, there are over a thousand admins, some of the will make mistakes some of the time. And the more you do the more likely you are to be subject to one of those mistakes. Simple arithmetic, and a known problem - (User:Hans Adler drew attention to this in 2008 when he said: "An editor who works hard on content 40 hours/week and gets reported to ANI once a month is notorious. An editor who does an hour of wiki gnoming every Sunday morning and gets reported to ANI twice a year is a valuable member of the community..." While I can't yet claim notoriety, the only way to definitely avoid it is to stop improving the project. On-wiki dramah is just something you have to roll with. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

I have changed the signature although, I really have no idea what you just said.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And don't worry you are not the only one. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Now you just have to wait to be unblocked.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken refs

Can you sort out the broken refs in Political career of Silvio Berlusconi and Silvio Berlusconi?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look this evening. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Violation of editing restrictions

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval).

I have blocked you for two weeks for semi-automated violations of this editing restriction. –xeno^talk 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Quacks like someone who failed to get the result he wanted at Arbcom, ... but go on, which semi automatic edits (or edit) did you have in mind? Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, those arbitrators who declined to accept the case felt that your behaviour could be adequately controlled by the editing restrictions. Unfortunately that means that other administrators will have to enforce same... Here are some of the specific violations: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] –xeno^talk 16:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And which of those edits are you claiming does not affect the rendered page? Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

changing {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} does not affect the rendered page. –xeno^talk 16:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So you think that's a good reason for a block? Based on the poorly written restriction that you wrote and which was never adopted by the community? And you are applying this in a spirit of fairness? And you have read the warning at the top of my page? Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

If you do not comply with your editing restrictions, you may be blocked.
I believe you made this same objection (that the restriction was not duly imposed) in the past, and as I said at the time: you will need to make that argument to the community, not simply ignore the restriction altogether. See also: #Another view.
I'm not sure what you mean as regards the warning at the top of your page. –xeno^talk 17:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The warning at the top of the page is from George Orwell, whose literary success clouds his achievements as a philosopher and linguist. It is "A therefore can become a wherefore." The imbroglio of last year was predicated on certain issues, which were dealt with to short order, and weren't really difficult at all. Nonetheless someone felt inclined to create a great fuss about it and we landed in the current situation. Trying to apply the somewhat dubious remedies that were proposed at the time, when the things they were supposed to remedy aren't at issue, is akin to the constabulary apprehending motorist for using their indicators in contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1946). I'm sorry if you can't see this without prompting. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

And I noticed that you avoided most of my questions. Perhaps that's your sense of integrity playing up. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I answered your leading questions; I think you just don't like my answers. You are free to use the {{unblock}} template to have another administrator review the block. –xeno^talk 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you thought it was a good reason for a block. You replied with a technical justification. The implication therefore is that you do not think it was a good reason but blocked anyway "because you could".

I asked if you were applying the block in the spirit of fairness. You did not answer. The implication is you think the block was unfair, but don't wish to admit it.

You can at any point self revert the block.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

It is not a good reason for a block, because the blockee should not be doing those edits in the first place. So the block itself is ungood - it shouldn't have had to happen.
And no, it is not fair that administrators are being put in the unfortunate position of having to block you for making these changes in violation of your editing restriction. Very unfair.
I would be willing to reduce the block to 'time served' if you agree to comply with your editing restrictions until such time as they are no longer listed at WP:RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice avoidance tactics. And I use the word nice in its old fashioned sense. Also appropriate use of Newspeak. I would say it was doubleplus ungood.

As far as the ERs go I am basically in compliance, I just don't expect (or appreciate) this kind of Kafkaesque enforcement.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

So why is "reflist" still being changed to "Reflist"? –xeno^talk 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it is one small improvement I can make while doing other things and know that nobody is going to worry about. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

But there is no consensus that changing "reflist" to "Reflist" Is an improvement, and you have been formally restricted from such edits. –xeno^talk 19:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, and if I was making a significant number edits that just made that change I would expect that it would be drawn to my attention (ER or no ER). But if it is merely an incidental part of another change, then it would not be reasonable to expect anyone to pay much attention to it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

So do you plan to continue changing 'reflist' to 'Reflist', despite there being a formal restriction enjoining you from doing so? What if there is another editor out there who feels that {{Reflist}} should actually be {{reflist}} ? Should they change it back when they happen across the article and make some other non-incidental change (imposing their personal preference)? Or should they simply leave it in the state in which they found the article? –xeno^talk 20:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well of course they would be at perfect liberty, according to the current state of things, to do so. And of course articles are changed in every way imaginable. But I'm sure we could deal with any such contretemps by reasoned debate, were editors ready, willing and able to take part. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

• Unblocked. Xeno is clearly an involved admin, he proposed the original restrictions and had to recuse as an arb on the recent case. Further, the violations linked to above are trivial and all edits involved other changes. Blocking for capitalisation changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} is punitive and provides no benefit to the encyclopedia. Fences&Windows 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  This was an ill-considered and poorly executed administrative action. You neglected to consult either myself or the community, and now put Rich Farmbrough in a precarious position of wondering whether or not he should comply with the restrictions currently listed at WP:RESTRICT. My interactions with Rich Farmbrough have been strictly administrative in nature; proposing an editing restriction does not make one 'wp:involved'; and the reason I recused as an arbitrator on the ongoing case request was specifically to retain the ability to take administrative actions should Rich Farmbrough violate his editing restrictions.
  Rich, I would urge you to seek the lifting or modification of the restrictions prior to making further cosmetic changes to wikicode. –xeno^talk 03:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Not at all. I am in no more of a "precarious position" than before, less so in fact, because I have more information than before. Moreover while you were certainly right to recuse at Arbcom, in the case request that was denied some days ago, your post there showed that you are certainly non-neutral and involved. Any reasonable reading of that request to open a case would support that, and if you had wanted to start to create the appearance of being non-involved, you should have simply stated that in your recusal, and not taken part in the request. Moreover the only reason that I have not mentioned these, apparently egregious, failings previously, is that I was hoping you would see how ridiculous the block is on its face, without muddying the waters with matters of propriety. From our above conversation, I think I may have succeeded, at least in part. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
  

• Rich. Please focus the time and energy on Wikipedia content. Something that everyone can benefit from. —Sladen (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  I would if certain people would allow me to get on with things. See below. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
  

• FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction. –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot Request (Ice Hockey)

Hi Rich:  I just stumbled on your user page and saw your comments about some of your bot army not yet having edited any pages; if you're looking for something to keep them (and you) occupied for a brief, fairly straight forward single pass task, I was actually going to make a request at bot requests, but just haven't yet.  The details of what I'm looking for are in this talk page conversation and are marked with a  yellow sidebar; if you'd care to take a look.  If you're interested in training one of your minions for this task, please let me know if you have any questions or if any clarification is needed.  If you're uninterested, for whatever reason, no problem; I can make a bot request at the appropriate message board, I just thought that, since I came across your page, maybe that was a sign that you were looking for a reasonable little automated task.  And, of course, I trust your bots are very careful to test themselves before running roughshot through a field of 10,000+ articles.  Thx — Who R you? Talk 05:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I looked a this, it seems straight forward. Of the five templates that redirect there, only one is in use, the remaining use (out of the other four) I have removed. This will simplify matters for all concerned. There is no need to change the remaining instances of {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} to {{Infobox ice hockey player}} except where the page is being edited for other reasons - all generic AWB edits will fix this on the fly. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Disc

Template:Disc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you help out with a suggestion on Template_talk:TfD_end#Dates, please? Debresser (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How

Did you get a consensus out of this? Srobak (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My question would not be about the outcome, but why did it warrant "speedy" closing? As the outcome was not clear cut it would probably be best to reopen this one and allow more people to comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way was it not clear cut? We have probably thousands of redirects to "List of characters from..." This one does not meet any of the reasons for deleting a redirect. Speedying it saves everyones time (except mine). Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

As I said, my issue is not with the outcome but with the speedy closure. The instructions page specifies that Policy suggests a week of discussion before closure. However, exceptions may be made for items qualifying for speedy deletion. It did not qualify for speedy deletion (and wasn't deleted) so there is no reason why the discussion should have ended early. Please bear this in mind in future, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't get why you would think it a good idea for a snow keep should be read by 20 or 30 more people. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

(ec)

1. Most importantly it's obvious, once Thryduulf found the target spot.
2. Two of the three contributors explicitly support the redirect, the third does implicitly
3. The reason for deletion "Redirects to article that does not have a single mention of "Don", "Bartolo" or "Don Bartolo" in " it falls once the target is identified, if indeed it doesn't anyway - taking "implausible" with it. NN is not a deletion criteria for redirects, indeed it is often the reason for their creation, since the subjects don't merit a stand-alone article.

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Attribution

When you copy text directly from a public domain source, it isn't sufficient to add it as a source, you have to properly attribute the text as well to make clear that it is not only the source for the information, but also for the actual text. The text you took and slightly altered from the Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois in Adjutant general of Illinois is not correctly attributed. Please correct this. Fram (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a bet with myself that you would say exactly that. You have a strange definition of "slightly altered", or you are just using the edit as an excuse to browbeat. I would have guessed the latter but from the strange things you have been saying in the case of Richard Arthur Norton, I cannot be sure. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Considering that you even copied the typos of the original, I wonder why you made a bety with yourself instead of just doing the right thing. Anyway, I have attributed it for you, correcred some typos, added a category, and expanded the article. As for the RAN case, apart from one misinterpreted example I have the feeling that most neutral people agreed with my comments, considering that it ended in a CCI investigation and a temporary topic ban. Fram (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the Fuller article. Edit summary is very humorous. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

You're welcome. Please add at least one source to new articles in the future. Fram (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail! Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for turning my drive-by post into an article, and kudos. :D Dru of Id (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Please be careful when using subst:

Hi, re this edit - the subst: failed, because it's being used inside <ref>...</ref> tags. As a result, refs 1,2,3 at the bottom of the article now contain the text {{subst:PAGENAME}}, which is not what was intended. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought that bug was fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

HBW Tax Excel

Hi Rich, Snowman has indicated that you might be interested (Josè Luis Copete sent it on today). If this is true, send me a line to [redacted] and then delete the e-mail here. I will send.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

G4 deletion

You deleted NHFFL (New Hampshire Fantasy Football League) as a G4, recreation of content that was deleted per a deletion discussion. However, all previous deletions of that page and the similar NHFFL were after a speedy, never after a deletion discussion. I may of course have missed the deletion discussion anyway (providing a link to it in cases where it was under a different name helps), but otherwise, could you please refrain from using G4 in cases where only speedy deletion has been used before? Fram (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:El84.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:El84.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. [extra cruft expurgated] Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Justice!

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Manicjedi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your signature

It looks like the "nbsp" before the time in your signature is stopping the auto timezone correction from adjusting the date, would you consider changing it ? Mtking ^(edits) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Any better? Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

That seems to have fixed it, thanks for that. Mtking ^(edits) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP templates

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Maryana (WMF)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Rcsprinter123's talk page.
Message added 11:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rcsprinter (gossip) 11:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at The Master of Mayhem's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Master of Mayhem (talk, contribs, email) 15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

direct quotations

Hi, Rich. When making changes such as this one, please take care not to change direct quotations, as they must remain as they are in the original sources. Thanks! Powers ^T 01:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikilove

Slowking4 has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! while i don't normally applaud bot maintainers, i find your contributions invaluable. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Slowking4: †@1₭ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yum, great! Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bad documentation

Another template for your bot to date-stamp, please: {{Bad documentation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I shaped up that template a little. So far, the category doesn't even exist. One page uses it. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to the basic list. Just have to get the bot unblocked yet... Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

Didn't know about that. Sorry to hear. No reason to make dated subcategories though, if you ask me. Although dating the templates transclusions probably never hurts. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

references vs. reflist

This seems to be a matter of personal preference; it is my understanding that there is no consensus to change <references> to {{Reflist}} just for the sake of changing it. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations, which suggests either may be used and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 30#References template vs. reflist tag where the topic of changing from one to the other en masse was explored. Please remove this rule from your ruleset. –xeno^talk 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, as long as he doesn't make just that one edit, there is no reason he shouldn't make that edit alongside some other more useful edit. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a reason not to change it: either is acceptable and the references list of the article should be left in the state it was found unless there is a good reason for the change, just as one doesn't change from variants of English or date styles without good reason. <references /> is generally used when there are few references as the font size is larger; {{Reflist}} is generally used for articles with many references. Both are acceptable and one should not use semi-automated tools to change one from one to the other without such editorial justification. –xeno^talk 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the difference is so minor, that I do not consider that a reason no to see them as interchangeable. In other words: I disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been some community discussion about this specific subject that I am not aware of? If so, I think you should have linked to it in your first post. Your words "it is my understanding", on the other hand, seem to indicate that this is only your personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS, lead: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." This is a general principle: we don't change BCE to BC or vice versa, we don't change a ref style to another, we don't add or remove the spaces inside section headers to suit our preference, and we don't change reflist to references/ or vice versa. More specifically, WP:CITEVAR gives "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There is no consensus to change from reflist to references/ or the other way around. Fram (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The community discussed is linked above in my first post; there are likely others on the same subject. –xeno^talk 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps what I wrote above is out-of-date. Since Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#styling .3Creferences_.2F.3E like Reflist, <references /> and {{Reflist}} seem to have identical output. Therefore, such a change is purely cosmetic. –xeno^talk 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(editconflict with Fram) I didn't find that discussion conclusive, and WP:CITEVAR addresses citation style rather than their representation.

A good reason to change to {{Reflist}} is that the template is more flexible than the hardcoded <references/>. Both in the fact that it is a template, meaning that its functioning can be easily changed by the community, as also and prominently because it can be adapted for example with |2, |3, and other parameters. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The output of <references /> may also be changed by the community, as evidenced by the VPP thread I linked above. –xeno^talk 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Need I say that that process is a lot harder? Also, there is the argument of the parameters. And there is the "minimise mark-up" argument Rich mentioned below. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a 6:1 usage consensus in favour of {{Reflist}}. The font size issue while very important, for accessibility, and one I have brought up on numerous occasions, is the same with both methods, as the presentation is entirely in CSS. The discussion you refer to was started by one user who conflated (regularly) what is meant by footnote style (as in Harvard, APS, parenthetical etc.) with just about any feature of referencing one could imagine. The majority of the discussion is then about columns rather than templates vs mark-up. Guidelines quite rightly enjoin us to minimise mark-up in articles, and this is one small way of doing it. I'm sure you'll see that clarity of the edit page is a critical part of new editor retention. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

How does changing references to reflist improve "clarity of the edit page"? Apart from that, if there are multiple accepted styles, we don't change the miority one to the majority one. Otherwise, you could also change BCE to BC everywhere (and hey, that's shorter as well!). Fram (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And indeed the only reason we don't is that there are vested interests. It has been usual to deprecate "anything with angle brackets" on article pages - with exceptions, of course. "references" has been one of those exceptions, mainly if not wholly because it did not invoke the evil "90%" size markup. Clarity clearly improves if we use a smaller set of mark-up. New users are not faced with trying to understand the difference between the two, and the canonical template mark-up is simpler and cleaner. It seems to me that the only constituency for not changing the remaining examples en passent is either a) those that have a personal reason to object to my edits or b) those that think some wiki-law is being broken and they have to defend it for the sake of the rule itself or c) those that have a psychological problem with things being changed at all. None, I regret to say, is a good reason. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Or those that believe that having only one possibility left isn't necessarily better for editors' understanding and ease. I have seen the same arguments used (by others) to defend the unification of all biographical infoboxes, and I have seen the same argument used (by you) to attempt to erase all template redirects. Perhaps there are people that have a psychological problem with change or diversity, just like there are people with a psychological problem with things being changed at all. Instead of arguing why people are opposing this change, wouldn't it be more useful to convincingly defend the reasons for the change? Why does this one have to go and why don't you e.g. replace "br/" at the same time? Do you think that the additional possibilities of reflist will be used in the foreseeable future on this article? (and why did you remove "as well" from that page? That sentence is now incorrect...) It's a purely cosmetic change: if you want to get rid of references/, get consensus first. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a perfectly good sentence. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Before you changed it? Yes. After I posted here and you changed it again[37]? Yes. Inbetween? No... Fram (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The previous version used a tautological cliché. Not to say that it can't still be improved. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

You are right that <references /> and {{Reflist}} display the same - my apologies for not keeping up with that change that was made to site-wide CSS in late 2010 - I have partially struck my comment above. So am I correct in understanding that such a change would not affect the rendered page? –xeno^talk 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So am I correct in understanding you aren't on a fishing trip? Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

All here are highly experienced editors, with me probably being the most junior of all. So I think we can do without the drama. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was asking you to remove a rule from your ruleset for one reason, and found I was mistaken due to a relatively recent change. I am now suggesting that you remove it for another reason until demonstrable consensus exists for this cosmetic change. Since <references /> and {{Reflist}} now have the same output, a discussion should perhaps be held to determine whether the former should be deprecated in favour of the latter, but doing so in fait accompli manner is not an appropriate use of semi-automated tools. –xeno^talk 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also a standard arbcom principle about stylistic changes called Fait accompli, as some in the discussion will already be aware. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That ArbCom ruling applies only if there were intent to create a fait accompli situation. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot gage R.F.'s intent, but we can judge whether it has the effect of making a change without consensus - which it does, when applied widely. And we can gage whether it violates his editing restriction - which it also does. There is no requirement that we have to be able to read other editor's minds. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Do the statistics. The approximate half life of the crap version if only I am changing it is about 40 years. Hardly "fait accompli". <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

WP:CITEVAR covers both the appearance of references and the method used to format them within wikitext. But since the appearance does not change, it would be a violation of R.F.'s editing restriction to be changing <references/> to {{reflist}}. Unilateral "deprecation" of existing syntax is one of the things that the editing restrictions are intended to avoid. In this case <references/> is not deprecated, it is perfectly acceptable syntax. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not deprecated, but it is inferior, for the several reasons mentioned above. So there is a good reason to make the change. I don't know about Rich's edit restrictions, but surely making a useful edit is not one of them? Debresser (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually "useful" is not a criterion in the restrictions, but making changes that do not change the appearance of the page, and are not built into AWB, is specifically forbidden. The reason that AWB does not make the replacement automatically is that there has never been a consensus that <references/> is any worse. Now that they have the same formatting the edit really has no use at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Carl you have been told a hundred times that's not the case. Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Not at all. There is a reason that AWB does not make this change automatically. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So are we now quorate or do we wait for MSGJ? Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Rich, if you want "drama free days" on your talk page [38], perhaps you should stick to the issues rather than introducing unnecessary drama? (I speak of your comments above regarding "psychological problems", "fishing trip", "quorate" - these add heat, rather than light to the discussion.) –xeno^talk 16:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For whatever little my opinion is worth I also agree that {{Reflist}} is better than <references/> too. I also agree that as long as the edit is done in conjunction with other more significant edits it should be allowed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45

Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.. *

Edits by:

1. Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45

Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.. *

Edits by:

1. Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another template

From this edit it follows that you didn't have Template:Refcleanup as a redirect of Template:Citation style. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly correct. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

About bird classification

Something to think about while you are blocked. Do you have any thoughts on using data in lists or websites to add details to bird pages with bots or semi-automatic tools. We have been discussing how to update many bird pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds#Repetitive_work. I hope to hear from you in about two weeks time. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just reading the example "Birds of Zanzibar" at the RFC over lists. One I have acquired, prpeared and consumed a little something, I'll take a closer look. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Good, you can use your talk page when blocked. Yes, it takes a methodical approach to do these tasks. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK pulling the genus author off Wikispecies does not look hard. The mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC, should we be noting monogeneric families? (E.G. Limpkin.) I presume IBC is authoritative enough to cite for this. The IOC spreadsheet is golddust - do you know the licensing of the notes? Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I will transcribe your question to the WP bird talk page. Please indicate if you would like any further questions copied to there. Snowman (talk)

Is IBC a typo for IOC? What notes do you refer to? Would you agree that there are 903 monotypic bird genera (including monotypic families) listed in the IOC spreadsheet? The IOC taxonomy might be controversial for some birds. The HBW list (here) might be slightly different, because of controversies. Erudite ornithology editors might clean the list manually, if they know where the controversies are. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IBC=International Bird Collection =HBW. The IOC spreadsheet has a notes column - we could quote this if it is freely licensed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

I expect the notes would be copyrighted, but see with the others think on the WP Bird talk page. I used the shorter spreadsheet. A list of monotypic genera from IBC might be useful somewhere. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick check on monotypic genrea, I get the same result. Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

That is reassuring. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get a similar list of monotypic genera according to HBW. It looks like I will not be able to scrape their website for this list; perhaps, I have missed something. Do you have any observations on data scraping ibc.lynxeds.com for a list of monotypic genera? You say; "the mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC". This is for monotypic genera, not monotypic species. It looks difficult to me, their might be other websites that are easier to scrape. The HBW spreadsheet might be available - see discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a list from the HBW page last night, I'll post it here later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

As well as redirect creation, interesting questions arise - is Acanthidops bairdi a typo for Acanthidops bairdii or vice versa? Is the Golden Bulbul two species or one? Etc. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for making the list. I suppose you could park it in a sub-page or remove it leaving it in the page history, if you wanted to. I have copied all 9,918 to a txt file on my PC. Interesting that the IOC list has well over 10,000. For clarity: is this list a list of every bird species on the HBW website? If so, then I could list the monotypic genera separately from it. I have not focused on the queries that you raised as yet. Did you come across a lot of listing problems? Some apparent listing anomalies might be due to taxonomy controversies, and some might be typos and other errors. The HWB list could be quite a lot different from the IOC list, partly because of the different functions of the lists. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked it up elsewhere, but Acanthidops bairdii is the name on the en Wiki species article. In brief outline, I would be interested to know how you made the HBW list. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's where I got he "ii" spelling. Google gives 17k with "i" and 4.5k with "ii". I created the list by scanning all the family pages from HBW. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Brilliant. How did you scan all those pages? I presumed that the list was alphabetical without any exceptions. Is that assumption correct. Do you agree with 929 monotypic genera according to HBW? I got a perl script to grab the genus name one line and compare it with the genus name in the line above and below. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I get 923/926

1. Herpsilochmus sp nova: New Herpsilochmus Antwren
2. Otus sp. nova: Santa Marta Screech-owl
3. Strix sp. nova: San Isidro Owl
4. Stymphalornis sp nova: Sao Paulo Antwren

might be causing some confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

IUCN has 10029 aves species. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Well spotted. I think that they are the only ones listed like that on the full list. I have got all four on my derived list, so subtracting four, I get 925, which still is not the same as yours. What is "923/926"? I am expecting your count to be an integer not a range. I am subtracting one more, because Marsh Antwren (Stymphalornis acutirostris) might not be monotypic if there is a new Stymphalornis sp in that genus. That leaves 924. If there is a difference I could use a list comparer. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is worth doing a monotypic genus list for IUCN. Can you get there birds as a list? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have not made a list, but merely counted them. The number depends on the rule one uses. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

• Can you get the IUCN url (with the page number) and the corresponding species? Doing something with these would be useful for WP Birds. I do not think I could fix the IUCN links in the cite references of the on bird pages quickly, so I hope that you will be able to help and liaise with the others soon. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have requested an export of the full AVES search from IUCN. This should provide all the desired information. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
    

Page move

Hello. When you moved Template:Infobox UK Legislation to Template:Infobox UK legislation, you did not move its talk page, Template talk:Infobox UK Legislation with it. I assume that this was a mistake. I am unable to fix it myself because the target page Template talk:Infobox UK legislation has a page history, and it does not appear to be possible to request the move of a talk page at Wikipedia:Requested Moves, unless I have misunderstood the instructions there. James500 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Violation of edit restriction

In this edit [39] you changed "Infobox Military Unit" to "Infobox military unit". This is not listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and is thus a violation of your editing restriction. Additional examples of this sort of violation are [40] [41]

In the same edit you changed "portal" to "Portal". AWB does not change the capitalization of first letters of templates, so this is also a violation of your editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in these edits you changed <references/> to {{reflist}}. You just marked for archiving a discussion on your talk page admonishing you to avoid doing this. As it is not built into AWB and does not affect the rendered page, it is also a violation of your editing restriction. [42] [43] [44] [45]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Looks like you better reset the counter back to 0 Rich!. I didn't look through every edit example but I don't see a problem with the first four provided that other more significant edits are done at the same time. That's just me personally though and my opinions don't usually carry much weight. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no exception in these edit restrictions for edits done at the same time. The changes I mentioned are simply forbidden outright. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is surely a case of "thou dost complain too much" – not entirely inconsequential changes bundled with at least one consequential change. As to the 'reflist' change, I suggest:
(/(References ?==\n)[\n\s]*(?:\{\{[Rr]eflist\}\}|<references\/>)/g, '$1{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}') would make the change 'consequential' --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If the change was made consequential, it would violate WP:CITEVAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let it pass until something actually dramatic happens. Getting these kinds of messages after a 12 hour work day followed by 6 hours volunteering is more pathetic than dramatic. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

<Sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Carl, I am with Kumikio on this one. An editor is allowed to make cosmetic changes, even with automated tools, as long as they are made alongside some more significant edit. If this wasn't specified in those edit restrictions you mention, then such was their intend, no doubt. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the intent was not to allow Rich to make whatever unnecessary/disputed cosmetic changes he feels like as long as he is making some significant edit - it was to prohibit Rich from making cosmetic changes of any kind unless they were built into AWB or had demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(Otherwise, no restriction would be needed at all because cosmetic changes on their own are already prohibited by AWB's rules of use. It would be like an editing restriction prohibiting vandalism - pointless.) –xeno^talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, do you still feel sufficiently uninvolved as an administrator to block for these sorts of violations? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that further violations should be reported to a noticeboard for discussion so that any block based on the editing restrictions cannot simply be unilaterally overturned. –xeno^talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at AN was just archived, and the editing restrictions were not removed. So it is not clear what another discussion immediately after that one would accomplish. At the same time Elen of the Roads indicated she might be willing to handle enforcement of the restriction. I will ping her again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And these changes have demonstrable consensus. Which is why only a select few object to them. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations indicates that <references /> and {{Reflist}} are interchangeable. I do not see demonstrable consensus that the former should always be replaced by the latter. Nor is there any consensus that template should always have their first letter capitalized, this is simply a change that you make because YOULIKEIT. –xeno^talk 14:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS says to minimise markup. Consensus. Usage is in favour of the template 6:1. Consensus. When I consolidated several portal boxes into one it is a standard change for which there is consensus. For capitalisation of infobox names there is consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Can you provide some links to back that up? For example, where is the guideline, policy, MOS page, or whatever that describes a consensus on how to capitalize template calls? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Usage numbers aren't really that compelling when we both know the usage numbers are where they are because you have been doing these edits for months or years. So the usage numbers are where they are at because you engineered that situation. –xeno^talk 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have (I'm sure) a preponderance of US spelling over UK spelling, but that does not mean there is a consensus to change one to the other. The general rule is that optional stylistic things should be left alone unless there is a specific consensus to change them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not-isomorphic. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

You over-estimate me. I have only made 1% of the edits in en:. I will crunch some numbers this evening though. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

I analyse 110 Gb of diffs (roughly 1% of the total) and found 9 cases where I had made such a change. Sine the total number of instances is about 1.4 million, accusations of fait accompli would appear to be as empty as the rest of them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

My biggest problem in all this is that if Rich's edits are so bad then why is it the same 4 or 5 editors crying wolf every time. I agree that some of the edits in the past were unnecessary and I also support the blocks due to the actualy errors that were introduced breaking certain articles. But when he bundles the inconsequential edits in with other more meaningful ones I don't think there is a problem. Even if there are 4 or 5 editors who are adminsn and self professed guardians of the Wiki that say other wise it doesn't make it against consensus. Additionally, by and large I think there is consensus for most of the changes with the exception of the same 4 or 5 editors. As for the UK to US spelling thats mixing apples and oranges into an already problematic discussion so lets try and stay on point. I also think arguments of edit volume are mostly kinda stupid BTW. Yes he did some edits that some thought to be pointless, so what, with the exception of the changes that actually broke the article the changes arguably made the article better, incrementally a little at a time. Just because one editor spends more time editing and less time discussing shouldn't be used as a blunt instrument in which to bludgeon them verbally! If he actually makles errors or does truly fruitless edits alone thats one thing but badgering him for this is nonsense and a waste of 99.99998% of the communities time. --Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, the process of improving AWB is so bureaucratic and tedious. They still disconnect after some 15 seconds of idle time, even though that makes using it almost impossible, and many editors (!) have expressed their strongest feelings about it. Now, after that you can hardly expect anybody to take AWB as a standard. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB has a large collection of "general fixes". Since the problem is R.F. making up his own general fixes without broader consensus, using AWB as a standard for which general fixes have consensus makes some sense. Also, the AWB devs try to incorporate as many useful changes as consensus will allow, so if a change is not well enough supported to be in AWB, it is hard to justify making it on a semi-auto basis over large numbers of articles. A history of doing that is what led to the current restriction that R.F. is not allowed to make these changes at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't support that argument and heres why. AWB is used by a lot of projects besides Wikipedia and the logic AWB must also take into account these other projects. There have been plenty of times when the devs wanted to make a change for the betterment of WP but couldn't because they had to account for the other projects and sister wikis. Also, bare in mind that several bots use AWB and the edits they perform are not "built in". Using myself as an example also, I do a lot of edits that aren't built into AWB (at least not yet) such as rearranging sections (see also goes above References, external links and Further reading) based on the guidelines in the MOS. I also do this based on the MOS guidelines for talk pages. Many, many other editors also have logic they do thats not part of AWB. Before you argue that these limits are because of his edit restriction, which may be true, that is not how you phrased it above and the tone above sets a bad precedent to be used in future arguments above what kinds of edits can be done in AWB for all editors. So as I mentioned above, if he is careless andn breaks something fine, if he goes willinilly making changes for spacing and casing alone that seems to be so aggravating to some users fine, but when he is incoporating these insignificant changes with others that are more meaningful that should allowed. Otherwise these minor changes that you hate so much will stay on the article forever. --Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone does something with an AWB bot that is not built in, they need to have explicit bot approval for it. If someone manually reviews their AWB edits, they can do many things that are not built in, if they have consensus. But R.F. is under a special editing restriction that does not allow him to do even as many things as a normal AWB operator would be able to do. In particular he is not permitted to make the changes I linked in the first post of this thread. This section is not about whether to lift the editing restriction, which is what you seem to be getting towards with language like "should". The restriction is in place, and the point of this section was to document that it was violated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO the point of the restriction was to stop him from doing these edits individually and to get him to pay closer attention to the logic so pages don't get broken. Or am I missing the point. And I'm not asking for the restriction to be lifted or limited I don't see these as a problem since there being done with other edits is all and there are quite a few of us that are getting a little tired of the little boy who cried wolf act that goes on here every couple days. If you would have brought a bunch of cases where he was breaking pages and doing inconsequential edits (like removing blank spaces) I woudln't have bothered to comment at all and simply gone about my merry way as I have done in the past on such occassions. This just isn't one of those times. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See Xeno's comment above dated 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Rich for this IMO is utterly useless and I do not believe is in the spirit of the restriction. I personally think that creating this discussion over such petty things is more mischievous than the edits performed. I find it a little irritating frankly that the same users pull these shenanigans over and over. If he does something truly grievous like breaking articles then ok but otherwise your just wasting our time with this discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Between Chaos and Creation (film)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Between Chaos and Creation (film) whether the article Between Chaos and Creation (film) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Between Chaos and Creation (film), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

References to IUCN on bird pages

See discussion at Template talk:IUCN and on WP bird talk page. These links have plagued the WP Birds project for a number of years. I guess that it would need scraping the website. Any thoughts. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See above section: I have the data, Just need to firm up exactly what is needed - maybe some thinking time would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

{{GravEngAbs}}

Could you please elaborate on your answer in this RFC. It seems it is interpreted differently by me and User:Gerardw. Thanks. — Christoph Päper 08:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted your changes to Template:Sockpuppet category

I have reverted your changes to Template:Sockpuppet category, since it created errors on lots of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets pages, i.e. every page with a user name longer than about 15 characters. E.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of We had wheels on toast in the freezing rain started with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of We had wheels omax index is 50 for str_sub=Suspected sock puppets of <span id="We had wheels omax index is 50 for str_sub" and so on, and was listed on Category:Pages with incorrect formatting templates use, which has at the time of writing still 580 pages, or more than one out of ten pages from the category. Fram (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I thought of that, and probably would have investigated in more detail, but I had all sorts of other stuff going on onmy talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

You had plenty of time to do all kinds of other stuff, like creating dozens of categories (some of which had this problem, by the way), so that's hardly an excuse to create errors on hundreds of cat pages for nearly a day. If you don't have the time to check your changes more thoroughly, don't make them. Fram (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to automated edits

We've got to find some way to resolve this. You're driving people mad, and they seem to be driving you mad. Can you stop doing some of the stuff that drives them mad, so you can carry on doing useful stuff? There was a lot of support for taking some sort of action to stop you making automated edits, and the final terms are actually milder than those supported by a lot of people.

Will you agree to the following

• run the script off another account, not your main account.
• not fix things that are not broken. No changing capitalisations and redirects unless they are actually causing something not to work. No fiddling with non-visible whitespace. Changing them otherwise is mere cushion-straightening, and the only tolerable error rate is zero, something you have never achieved.
• and on that subject, do more error checking. Apologies, I know you probably already do some, but believe it or not I run a technical team, and they only ever error check for the errors they can think of. We always also get three or four lasses in the call centre to check the output - you'll be surprised what they spot. Obviously you don't have that luxury, but there does seem to be a consistent if low error rate in your scripted edits.
• get a clear approval before using reprogrammed AWB, because the consensus seems to be that you need to do that. If you can get clear approval to do a task, it will get people off your back.

If you can't agree to these, then as the restrictions were as far as I can see legitimately imposed after proper and thorough discussions, then the consequences listed can legitimately be applied.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, we're talking a different language here. Well several different languages. It makes it hard to know where to start.

First off my last 153 edits (not counting this one) have been standard Firefox edits, I'm scarcely touching AWB, because, yes, the illegitimi are carborunduming me somewhat. Before that there's two - count them - AWB edits on the 6th December.

Secondly you miss the fact that, even if we allow that the ER is binding (I worked with RD-232 on the basis that it was, to keep the mob off my back, because he was actually pretty sane, and I add, worked successfully - except when Fram kept jumping in the middle of conversations shouting "look look!") then 99% of the changes you mention are allowable - which is why it is so ludicrous to be opposed on thing like "we MUST preserve {{tocright}}" and "We must keep confusing markup". Let me stress again it's pretty much the Fram and CBM show, here, with a little Xeno thrown in from time to time.

Thirdly I am not clear what you mean by a "reprogrammed AWB." The fact is that I never even downloaded the source for AWB until CBM basically forced me to do so, to remove something that he doesn't like. It is frustrating that these tall tales are being put about - I even came across someone on IRC calumniating me. Of course its funny as well, but it does fit in nicely with the "signs of mobbing" that, I think it was, Hans Adler recently linked to.

And finally AWB is not automated edits.

On the matter of the alleged ER, it was brought about by a totally crazy discussion, arising from some really shameful behaviour on the part of several editors, and mobbing on AN/I. At one point I left simple queries on the pages of 18 editors who had chipped in with "ban him!" type comments, to the effect "On AN/I you said X, can I ask what your reason for this was?" Only one had the decency to respond, and that one withdrew their comment from AN.I and apologised. Another editor adduced these gentle enquiries as further proof of my diabolical nature. It was against this sort of background that I was initially willing to work with R2-D2 who I believed had actually put some effort into understanding the dispute, although his conclusion was completely wrong. It turned out later that he had simply cut and pasted the poorly thought out text someone else had posted. For which there was no consensus. The salient matter had all already been dealt with, in the first brou-ha-ha. He has now retired, having seen through the type of posturing and mobbing that was going on in those AN/I disputes. Unfortunately he has left me with two unilaterally imposed ERs, and a comics addict, a mathematician and a bureaucrat still hanging around my talk page making a nuisance of themselves.

It is fairly clear to the meanest intelligence that this is no longer about the encyclopedia as far as they are concerned. Fram reverts my edits, takes me to every forum he can think of, deletes articles and redirects, wheel wars, opposes everything I post where he can and generally makes a nuisance of himself. CBM has for years been doing inane reverts of users, edit warring and breaking templates, and yet he has the cheek to say I am "wasting edits". And although Xeno and CBM have some technical competence, they still are quite happy to go off half-cocked (though Xeno has the grace to apologise) on matters they don't understand. Fram - technically - just doesn't get it. And that I think is the most annoying part. It's all very well to politely point out an error on a subject where one is knowledgeable, but a lot of the criticism is over things that I know about and Fram doesn't. And it's not even worded in any way other than a command. I have long ago given up trying to teach Fram anything, which is a sad sate of affairs. I then asked him not to interact with me, several times. He has steadfastly refused.

And in case you still think, as you expressed on Arbcom (which comments still mystify me, both as to why you believed them and why you thought that was a good place to enunciate them) that I have "poor customer skills" don't forget that I had several years of frequent questions, sometimes very angry as to why "You have tagged my article." when the bot had simply dated the tags.

So really there is a lot more to this than just some nut who likes articles to look good. These are carefully thought out improvements, most of which are now built into AWB and hence "permissible". The fact that I don't feel like rolling over and dying under the bullying tactics that I have seen over that last year or so, I think should be considered commendable rather than otherwise.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Oh and just a postscriptum, "run the script off another account" among other things leads me to suppose that there is off-wiki lobbying going on here. I prefer to keep as much as possible in the light of day, and would appreciate knowing if this is the case. Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

The reason I brought this up is that creating another account for larger projects is something I was bullied into doing sometime ago, it was then used as a stick to beat me (or sock to beat me - think Death Wish perhaps). So I wondered where the meme had come from. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Couple of immediate points. First, no-one is off-wiki lobbying *me*. Secondly, a lot of the objections seem to be related to introducing errors in the attempt to fix an error. This is a problem for automated edits obviously. If you do it with manual errors, while other editors may request that you be more careful, I know that I myself keep two Wikignomes permanently employed running round fixing up my bad code, failure to complete clerking, lack of signage etc, so I don't feel I can say a word about it.

There is some discussion on my talkpage, but you can read that anyway, and in fact I'd be interested if you'd read Carl's points here, and respond if you feel led in either location. I suspect people use the old/wrong/redirect names because (a) they remember them, (b) they keep a subpage of code snippets, or (c) they cut and paste out of an existing article that works the way they want, rather than go to the template documentation. I've b0rked a good many templates that way, so have learned my lesson and always look at the documentation, but if all the versions work, and the end user never sees the code, there really is no point in changing it. I agree that fixing bad code (FrontPage's approximations of html, or the junk generated by using the Macro Recorder to create your VBA), cleaning up code that the developer stopped looking at as soon as it worked (leaving 15 commented out iterations behind), documenting undocumented code, etc are all important activities. But if I can use {{TOCright}} or {{TOC right}} and get the same effect, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll address Carl's point on your talk page to avoid muddying the debate here.

Well I'm certainly pleased about the first point, it keeps thing simpler.

The second is undoubtedly correct, people probably use all these methods to apply templates. And two more are typos and short-cuts. Indeed I extensively used {{wfy}} in the sure and certain knowledge that it would be replaced by something meaningful when it was dated. However the conclusion does not follow - for a whole bunch of reasons. Firstly we want to provide a simple interface to users, when we have some hundreds of clean-up templates and some thousands of redirects it is much easier to lean the smaller set than the larger. Moreover if we consistently use spaces in template names, and consistently use sentence case we really do lighten the cognitive load. Secondly not all redirects are benign, {{Fact}} was changed to {{Citation needed}} because the first was too bitey - it says, more or less, "Liar!", there were redirects to different templates that differed only by a space or a capital letter, there are redirects that are misleading. Because I approached this on a very gentle incremental approach, rather than making runs just to replace template redirects, this is something the community was (an is, despite a recent attempt to derail consensus) happy with. There is no problem with many hundreds of redirect replacements. There's a couple, mainly done by hand that have been picked on. This is where my patience runs thin, instead of coming and saying "Hey Infobox blah isn't on the AWB list, or better, adding it a WP:POINT message is left on my talk page with very condescending instructions "not to do it again".

In fact really WP:POINT is the crux of what Fram and CBM are doing. Really if you saw I had changed, in the course of another spelling correction edit {{Infobox UK Legislation}} to {{Infobox UK legislation}} would you go and look through a long list of allowed and almost identical infoboxes, then come back here and post that I was in violation of editing restrictions? It passes the quack test as pointy behaviour, and it's only because I cut them extra slack, being mathematicians and comics addicts, that I haven't classified it this way before.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Note: to highlight the lunacy, examine this edit by Fram where he fixes a date (substantive edit), removes un-needed white space, changes {{cn}} to {{Citation needed}} and changes a hyphen to an en-dash. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I use standard AWB changes while making substantive changes. You are allowed to do the same. Those times that I complained about an edit you made, and it turned out to be standard AWB, I acknowledged my mistake and stopped complaining about you making that kind of edit. So what "lunacy" are you actually highlighting? That I use AWB as intended and without problems? If you do the same, you won't hear anything from me. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand that while to you that type of edit is completely different in nature from replacing "tocright" with "TOC right" while fixing a spelling error, to the vast majority of sane, technically literate Wikipedians the two are basically indistinguishable. Indeed some of the things Elen asked me to agree to stop doing are precisely things that you do - that are "allowed". And even my three wise monkeys have got it wrong, as you comment above. So if no-one can tell the difference between an allowed change, and a disallowed one, without going off and doing tests, then really there must be something wrong if someone is proposing blocks based on this - or even taking any notice of it at all. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Dear Elen of the Roads and Rich. I understand that I am only a simple editor, but I hope my two cents will help here. I know Rich here on Wikipedia from working together on several occasions. I mention this to make the point that Rich is an approachable and friendly editor, the point of which will become clear soon enough. In general we share the same opinions as to the desirableness of having pages (articles, templates and categories foremost) look technically elegant, well-ordered and understandable. This I add to explain that my "defending" him here and in other sections above is not without a personal interest. All the same, I'd like to remind Rich that I am waiting for him to continue the discussion above on the subject of dating format templates (where we seem to disagree).

I'd like to make a few observations, related some more some less to the issue.

• Some editors do more thorough test than others before saving the page. This is a matter which depends on the editor's character. I, for example, often reread what I wrote only after saving, and then fix typos, etc. This is not ideal, but that is the way I work. Perhaps the same is true in a certain measure for Rich.

On this same subject I'd like to make another two observations

• There is a Dutch saying that wherever people work, flints fly. Meaning that the laws of statistics dictate that the more one works, the more one errs. In view of the large number of edits Rich makes, being the most active editor on Wikipedia, it is only normal that he makes a lot of errors.
• Rich is very conscientious about replying to messages on his talkpage, and replies seriously to any and all notifications of errors made by him (in automated as well as semi-automated and hand-made edits).

And two more general comments

• I for one disagree with the editing restriction against Rich. Moreover, I don't think there is any justification for such a restriction. Especially in view of the way this restriction came about, if we may take Rich's word for it.
• As to the level of technical versatility of the editors involved I have no opinion. I did notice that Fram's posts here are sometimes less than detached. Unfortunately, even Rich sometimes gets irritated by the many critical comments here from a select group of editors, and that also doesn't help. Personally, I am a fan of the English sense of humor, and would like to use this occasion to thank Rich for "a comics addict, a mathematician and a bureaucrat". With all due respect, of course, for said editors. 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In defence of Fram

Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above, all I usually do is point out errors he makes, and do it here, not on noticeboards. In those cases where I was mistaken, I acknowledged this. I don't drag Rich Farmbrough to noticeboards for every edit I don't like, I don't post here every time he changes references/ to reflist, I don't post here even for every mistake he makes and I corrects. I only drag him to noticeboards when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them or otherwise creates serious problems or seriously misuses tools. In nearly every case where I started a thread on a noticeboard, general (not unanimous) agreement was that there indeed was a problem with his edits, and some corrective action was taken. Only the ArbCom case, which I started in the hope of getting more eyes on this and putting this to rest, was rejected, but with a majority of arbitrators willing to take on the case (which doesn't mean that they saw a problem with Rich Farmbrough's edits of course). Apart from that, in most cases outside review of my actions resulted in agreement with me and disagreement with Rich. E.g. he recently complained about my deletions of some improbable redirects he made. To test this, I tagged three redirects he created for speedy deletion, and all three were deleted, by three different, uninvolved admins: Template:Jewish Encylopedia, Iran (Islamic Republic of ), and Bolivia (Plurinational State of ). Please also take a lok at other things I noted here, or things I reverted: I don't believe that is a case of me not getting things on a technical level, it's just Rich Farmbrough being careless (or stubborn or whatever other reason he has to continually create so many errors). Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows CSD is broken. The rest is observer bias and mobbing behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

I also see here some more unfounded accusations "when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them"- I have never refused to correct errors I make. For example I recently went through 18,000 edits checking for a particular error, that occurred on maybe 4 or 5 pages. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

"More" unfounded accusations? Please list the ones I haven't provided evidence for, or acknowledged that I was wrong. For this one, an example would be User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines, where you continue to create the exact same error I posted about repeatedly, or with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#Cite DNB and the previous WP:AN section (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction about this, where even after I pointed out the pages with errors (content, cats, wikilinks, ...), you didn't correct them (you claimed you did, but a simple search showed that even errors I pointed out as examples weren't corrected, never mind the other similar ones). Or take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011#Automated creation of incorrect categories, one of these discussions which you feel lead to unwarranted editing restrictions; you continue creating the same problems while multiple editors explain why they are problems and clean up after you, until you finally get blocked. Fram (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everclear_%28album%29&diff=next&oldid=457308794 for example makes your first example moot.

And I never claimed not to make errors, moreover not only did I not refuse to clean up errors, I often create a list of similar errors and fix them as the same time. For example I fixed a number of incorrectly capitalised WSOP headers that other people had created.

And I'm not having a diff war with you over this, you need only find one example where I agreed something was an error and said "I'm not fixing it". Which if course you won't because that is not the type of person I am, despite your pathetic attempts to paint me otherwise.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Of course you are not having a diff war, you hardly ever provide diffs for your accusations (see e.g. the Betacommand 3 case, or the rejected Arbcom case about you). And I'm not talking about what you "say", I'm talking about what you "do". I have also "corrected" your section header above, since making it a level 2 hader removes the context (the section starts with "Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above", which can become meaningless once you start archiving here). Fram (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't provide diffs, because its a waste of my time, I know it's true and so do you. Whether you refuse to admit it to yourself or just to others I can't tell, nor does it greatly matter. The fact is I have never refused to correct a genuine error, nor would I. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I don't believe that it is true at all, please don't pretend to know what I think. All I see is time and again you are asserting things and making accusations, and time and again you refuse to back them up with diffs when requested to do so. This makes them baseless accusations and personal attacks. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I re-read some of the stuff you point to, including a lot of your ranting and demands for blocks and other general stirring, and remembered just how bad your interactions have been. I have really run out of good faith with you. Unless you can find an example of me refusing to fix agreed mistakes, then please depart this thread, and preferably this page and the project, which you are not a net benefit to. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Rich. Please reflect on what you're saying. There are people who perhaps feel the above statement precisely reflects your own behaviour. Regardless of whether that's the case or not, your account is the one that has been subject to editing restricts and blocks, not anyone else's account. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reflected on it. And I nearly came back and retracted it. I even thought perhaps I should suggest some project that I should work with Fram on, so we could diffuse the tension. But I am human, and to be frank, there is nothing that Fram could do to redeem himself in my eyes, it has gone far beyond that. That's not to say I don't understand, partially, Fram's point of view. I don't say that he is without ability. However he has a talent for rubbing people up the wrong way, he has no grasp of the big picture, and has been pestering me for over a year. The fact that some of his bug reports are correct and even significant no longer matters. I just don't want to see his name. Had he stuck only to real errors, been polite, non judgemental and also listened to my responses, I would have welcomed his comments, as indeed I did at first. It is, now, too late for that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Reconstructing how we got here: our interactions were few and far between, until he started editing some (protected and unprotected) templates to remove cats he didn't like, deleted them out of process, and was very dismissive and uncivil about anyone and anything opposing him, which lead to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. Note that only a few weeks before, there was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes, which basically is a prime example of most RF discussions since, and which wasn't started by me (or any of his other current regular posters), but by totally different people. What have we there: "totally unnecessary capitalization changes", "He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back." (anyone wanted evidence of the "refuses to fix problems?" statement), "Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard,", "RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. ", "Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour," "In my experience the user in question is unfit to be combining adminship and botting. ", and so on and so on. All this without my prompting or interference. Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is with you? Fram (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Even then you were there to be a member of the mob. As I have repeatedly acknowledged, blanking my talk page, simply because some editors though it was funny to jump onto every thread and turn it into a battleground was a mistake. Doing it without a clear explanation of what was happening, from some misplaced desire not create conflict with said editors even more so. Although you may have only started being disruptive at that point, it didn't take more than a few days until you were making a nuisance of yourself on BRFAs and elsewhere. Anyway.. . enough time wasted on you already. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Let me also state that I have not contacted anyone about this, either on or off-wiki. I don't email other users, I don't use IRC, all my wiki-related things are conducted on Wikipedia and free for everyone to check. Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Singles category

Template:Singles category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Please don't protect templates before they are even in use anywhere, like you did with Template:Page name sub. Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you stop deleting useful content for a few weeks, then we talk? Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Examples? Fram (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Example where you wheel-warred is a good start. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

So, as I expected, none. Anyway, problems you preceive with my editing are no excuse for problems with your editing (and vice versa, of course)... Fram (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, in human relations, your behaviour does impact on whether I want to respond to what you say, whether I care about it, and whether I even want to see your sig on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

In defence of Fram

Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above, all I usually do is point out errors he makes, and do it here, not on noticeboards. In those cases where I was mistaken, I acknowledged this. I don't drag Rich Farmbrough to noticeboards for every edit I don't like, I don't post here every time he changes references/ to reflist, I don't post here even for every mistake he makes and I corrects. I only drag him to noticeboards when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them or otherwise creates serious problems or seriously misuses tools. In nearly every case where I started a thread on a noticeboard, general (not unanimous) agreement was that there indeed was a problem with his edits, and some corrective action was taken. Only the ArbCom case, which I started in the hope of getting more eyes on this and putting this to rest, was rejected, but with a majority of arbitrators willing to take on the case (which doesn't mean that they saw a problem with Rich Farmbrough's edits of course). Apart from that, in most cases outside review of my actions resulted in agreement with me and disagreement with Rich. E.g. he recently complained about my deletions of some improbable redirects he made. To test this, I tagged three redirects he created for speedy deletion, and all three were deleted, by three different, uninvolved admins: Template:Jewish Encylopedia, Iran (Islamic Republic of ), and Bolivia (Plurinational State of ). Please also take a lok at other things I noted here, or things I reverted: I don't believe that is a case of me not getting things on a technical level, it's just Rich Farmbrough being careless (or stubborn or whatever other reason he has to continually create so many errors). Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows CSD is broken. The rest is observer bias and mobbing behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

I also see here some more unfounded accusations "when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them"- I have never refused to correct errors I make. For example I recently went through 18,000 edits checking for a particular error, that occurred on maybe 4 or 5 pages. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

"More" unfounded accusations? Please list the ones I haven't provided evidence for, or acknowledged that I was wrong. For this one, an example would be User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines, where you continue to create the exact same error I posted about repeatedly, or with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#Cite DNB and the previous WP:AN section (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction about this, where even after I pointed out the pages with errors (content, cats, wikilinks, ...), you didn't correct them (you claimed you did, but a simple search showed that even errors I pointed out as examples weren't corrected, never mind the other similar ones). Or take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011#Automated creation of incorrect categories, one of these discussions which you feel lead to unwarranted editing restrictions; you continue creating the same problems while multiple editors explain why they are problems and clean up after you, until you finally get blocked. Fram (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everclear_%28album%29&diff=next&oldid=457308794 for example makes your first example moot.

And I never claimed not to make errors, moreover not only did I not refuse to clean up errors, I often create a list of similar errors and fix them as the same time. For example I fixed a number of incorrectly capitalised WSOP headers that other people had created.

And I'm not having a diff war with you over this, you need only find one example where I agreed something was an error and said "I'm not fixing it". Which if course you won't because that is not the type of person I am, despite your pathetic attempts to paint me otherwise.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Of course you are not having a diff war, you hardly ever provide diffs for your accusations (see e.g. the Betacommand 3 case, or the rejected Arbcom case about you). And I'm not talking about what you "say", I'm talking about what you "do". I have also "corrected" your section header above, since making it a level 2 hader removes the context (the section starts with "Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above", which can become meaningless once you start archiving here). Fram (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't provide diffs, because its a waste of my time, I know it's true and so do you. Whether you refuse to admit it to yourself or just to others I can't tell, nor does it greatly matter. The fact is I have never refused to correct a genuine error, nor would I. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I don't believe that it is true at all, please don't pretend to know what I think. All I see is time and again you are asserting things and making accusations, and time and again you refuse to back them up with diffs when requested to do so. This makes them baseless accusations and personal attacks. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I re-read some of the stuff you point to, including a lot of your ranting and demands for blocks and other general stirring, and remembered just how bad your interactions have been. I have really run out of good faith with you. Unless you can find an example of me refusing to fix agreed mistakes, then please depart this thread, and preferably this page and the project, which you are not a net benefit to. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Rich. Please reflect on what you're saying. There are people who perhaps feel the above statement precisely reflects your own behaviour. Regardless of whether that's the case or not, your account is the one that has been subject to editing restricts and blocks, not anyone else's account. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reflected on it. And I nearly came back and retracted it. I even thought perhaps I should suggest some project that I should work with Fram on, so we could diffuse the tension. But I am human, and to be frank, there is nothing that Fram could do to redeem himself in my eyes, it has gone far beyond that. That's not to say I don't understand, partially, Fram's point of view. I don't say that he is without ability. However he has a talent for rubbing people up the wrong way, he has no grasp of the big picture, and has been pestering me for over a year. The fact that some of his bug reports are correct and even significant no longer matters. I just don't want to see his name. Had he stuck only to real errors, been polite, non judgemental and also listened to my responses, I would have welcomed his comments, as indeed I did at first. It is, now, too late for that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Reconstructing how we got here: our interactions were few and far between, until he started editing some (protected and unprotected) templates to remove cats he didn't like, deleted them out of process, and was very dismissive and uncivil about anyone and anything opposing him, which lead to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. Note that only a few weeks before, there was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes, which basically is a prime example of most RF discussions since, and which wasn't started by me (or any of his other current regular posters), but by totally different people. What have we there: "totally unnecessary capitalization changes", "He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back." (anyone wanted evidence of the "refuses to fix problems?" statement), "Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard,", "RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. ", "Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour," "In my experience the user in question is unfit to be combining adminship and botting. ", and so on and so on. All this without my prompting or interference. Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is with you? Fram (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Even then you were there to be a member of the mob. As I have repeatedly acknowledged, blanking my talk page, simply because some editors though it was funny to jump onto every thread and turn it into a battleground was a mistake. Doing it without a clear explanation of what was happening, from some misplaced desire not create conflict with said editors even more so. Although you may have only started being disruptive at that point, it didn't take more than a few days until you were making a nuisance of yourself on BRFAs and elsewhere. Anyway.. . enough time wasted on you already. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Let me also state that I have not contacted anyone about this, either on or off-wiki. I don't email other users, I don't use IRC, all my wiki-related things are conducted on Wikipedia and free for everyone to check. Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the pi-jaw

I let that discussion at WP:AN run itself into the ground, in the benighted hope that you would stop making the edits that are driving people mad. However, it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. (remove dismal failure at humour. Just call me Jeremy Clarkson ) Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people. So it falls to me, Captain Swing the Luddite to remind you that

regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged. Sanction imposed per this AN discussion, to be enforced by escalating blocks

Now you're an intelligent man, and it shouldn't come to this. So I want you to take all the code out of whatever instrument of the Devil it is that you use, that does things like this and changes <references/> to {{reflist}}, and switch cases the first letter of template names, and stuff like that. Because the next time that someone tells me that you have done it again, I will block you in the following sequence - 24hrs (in case you thought I wasn't serious), 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. And that would not be a good thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, which it seems is virtually none, you are way out of order. That is not pi-jaw, it is an out and out personal attack, coupled with an amount of stupidity that exceeds anything I would expect from a sitting arbitrator. In the attempt by people, some of whom almost certainly actually are suffering from some of the conditions you accuse me of, and of which you clearly are in almost complete ignorance, to have me hauled before the august committee upon which you sit, you accused me, without any evidence, from the bench of a number of malfeasences. In addition you stuck your hand up at ANI as willing to enforce, showing that you had completely missed the question that was being asked and had not read or understood what was going on. Nor were you capable of noticing that, in the tangent that the hijiacked thread became, new accusations that were completely wrong (I.E. factually wrong) were being thrown around like confetti.

I must say this is a disappointment, after the way you handled the question of the ethnic make up of Gibraltar, I had conceived that you were competent. That estimation began to evaporate rapidly when you made your unseemly comments in ArbCom and your subsequent folly has rather inverted it.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Do you want your rattle back yet?

Nice... Do you think your behaviour here is acceptable? Because it seems reprehensible to me, and I think I do you a service by pointing it out. Snide comments like that, however, serve no useful purpose. So better not make them. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

I waited out the AN report

Funnily enough so did I. The question posed was whether an ER had been correctly imposed. The only opinions expressed were that it hadn't. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

in the hope that you would be more intelligent than a certain other editor whose case I have shortly to go and write up, and would actually be able to stop pissing people off by making piddling edits that achieve no purpose that the community can fathom.

I'm only "pissing off" people who have decided to be pissed off, this is not random editors, its essentially a small group of misguided editors who have lost sight of what we are here to do. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

I tried to be lighthearted because I know you actually edit articles as well, so you do speak a language other than Python.

Calling someone anal retentive, OCD and autistic spectrum is light-hearted? Apart from the fact you are mixing an an outdated and debunked Freudian term, a syndrome, and an organic condition, if you are using them in the pop-psychology way that a responsible person wouldn't, they are virtually synonyms. And make no mistake Wikipedia has many AS contributors, for whom we should, by and large, be grateful. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

But no. For some reason, every chap with a bot has to make a blamed nuisance of themselves, like cycle couriers whizzing about the pavement and periodically mowing down pedestrians who don't get out of the way fast enough.

Until the massive attack on me back in September of last year, I had had no long running disputes, no blocks, no warnings, and never been "taken to AN/I". The whole farrago of nonsense stems from that most interesting event. In an attempt to meet concerns I went to considerable lengths to completely re-write my main bot, and made lots of changes to the way I was doing things. I have learnt though that there are people who will find fault with anything. In particular people who will stir things up and persecute others to the point of causing damage (and I have had emails from editors in this situation) and will continue to claim, and maybe even believe that they are "just enforcing the rule". That attitude cannot be allowed to flourish on Wikipedia, it is even more prejudicial to the project than the incivility that runs rampant and the complexity of the rules system. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Explain to me what was the point of anything in this edit [46] other than moving the Lennon and McCartney wikilink from pointing to a redirect to pointing to the current title, which does have some limited use, I'll grant you. Convince me it serves some useful purpose. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously that is the key component of the edit. The style has been agreed and for most articles it should be followed, there are exceptions though. The comment by the infobox is misleading, for detail on the infobox editors should go to the infobox page, where the documentation should be. Wikipedia is not here to serve the WikiProjects, rather the other way around. References in Wikipedia come after the punctuation, not before. The template {{Tracklist}} is a redirect to {{Track listing}}, "Track listing" is the preferred name for the section and the template follows suite. There is no benefit in having several versions of the template name in articles, those of us who speak languages other than Python prefer spaces between our words. Asking users (implicity) to remember that the section has one title and the template another is unnecessary cognitive load. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

The Lennon-McCartney part was the key component? Since when do we use AWB to replace redirects with their targets? It's not as if the redirect was something ridiculous, it was the actual article title for years until it was changed without discussion earlier this year. We still have the very similar Jagger/Richards as well. There is no good reason to edit dozens of articles to get rid of a redirect for a style reason, "it should be followed" is your personal aspiration, not an accepted rule here. You are, again, imposing your preference for no actual benefit to the encyclopedia. AWB rules of use: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from piped links, bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial." (emphasis mine) Edits like this one is not even visually changing the "/"style to the "-"style.

And, as usual (hence the editing restrictions), even such a relatively simple task leads to errors, e.g. a minor one like inserting the same template twice[47], but also a more major one, making a sentence meaningless like here. Fram (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just passing by and I have two observations: 1) Lennon/McCartney should definitely be replaced because it's in Category:Unprintworthy redirects and, as such, should not be used in articles. 2) Elen, your comments are unnecessarily provocative. If someone came to my talk page and called me "an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum", you can be sure that my response would be a lot angrier than Rich's very measured one. Surely you weren't trying to bait him into a dreaded personal attack, but that's how it appeared to me on first reading. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't my intention, and if he had told me to "get the hence thou aged crone" or similar, I wouldn't have taken offense to it. It's not that I think he is one of those things (or a cycle courier for that matter), it was intended as a hyperbolic expression. However, as an attempt at humour, it did come over as offensive (I should give up on the humour - I seem to do it badly), and I would like to apologise to Rich for the offense caused. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hyperbole is fine in its place, and I do find a lot of your comments more, shall we say, "interesting" to read than most of the dry-as-dust's contributions. Recently I have allowed myself to wax a little more lyrical, since what I say is largely ignored by those who need to listen to it, I may as well enjoy myself saying it. Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

I've removed that redirect from the "unprintworthy" category, as it clearly didn't belong there. The page had survived move requests before being moved without discussion to the current location. The same editor that made that move also decided that the new redirect suddenly was "unprintworthy", even though that version is used in many, many books as well, e.g. The Rough Guide to the Beatles and others[48]The Songs of John LennonThe Beatles... The current name may be better, that's not really relevant, but the other one certainly is printworthy. Even ignoring this, he also changed it when it wasn't the actual "printed" text, but a piped redirect, like in the error I gave above. Unprintworthy redirects may well be piped, there is no reason to replace these. Fram (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, Elen. Although I can't speak for Rich, I'm sure he appreciates the apology. Fram, just because it is printworthy in other publications, does not mean it should be used in Wikipedia because it goes against our MoS (see MOS:SLASH) – an article would not get through FAC using the slash so I don't see why Rich shouldn't be replacing it. I'd encourage you to add the unprintworthy template back, but I don't think we need to make a big deal of it. I'm not sure which diff you're referring to, but I'll assume it's this one. No doubt that's an error and it shows that [[Lennon/McCartney|xyz]] should not be changed to just [[Lennon–McCartney]]. But one error in a few hundred or so edits does not seem to like a huge problem to me (and nor does it appear to be a violation of his editing restrictions). Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's (at least) two errors in the fifty or so that made this replacement, plus a few others where he replaced it for no reason (piped links). Fram (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jenks, it is a problem in that it shows that Rich is actually using his main account for unattended automated edits, as such an error would have been caught by a careful editor in a proper semi-automated workflow (i.e. the kind where you actually review the changes you are committing rather than using an auto-save mechanism or hitting save blindly). –xeno^talk 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, his attended edits aren't that much better... He went back to the page in question, and "improved" it like this[49]. Luckily another editor corrected it twenty minutes later[50]. Fram (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another example of that is [51] which changed "Written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney" to "Written by Lennon–McCartney". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One more example. This edit [52] replaced the names of several templates and removed "example.jpg". But why was "example.jpg" there in the first place? The vandalism on the page - adding the name "Kailyn" - stands out both because it is in bold and because it is in a "see also" section but not linked. It's very odd to remove the image but not remove the rest of the vandalism. It is also not clear how the edit summary "copyedit" is applicable to that edit; cf. copyediting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So he makes a good edit, but because he didn't completely remove some vandalism, it's bad edit? No wonder Rich doesn't respond to these complaints... Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

He simply continues though, e.g. replacing here the deliberate and correct McCartney-Lennon with the reverse Lennon–McCartney. This one as well was not necessary at all. Fram (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The first edit is good because "McCartney-Lennon" --> "Lennon–McCartney" replaces a hyphen with an en dash (as is required by MOS:DASH). The second edit may well be "not necessary", but was there anything wrong with it? Every day, there are probably thousands of edits to Wikipedia that are "not necessary", but I don't think we need to block the people who do them. Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Correcting a dash and at the same tilme changing the meaning is not a "good edit" by any strectch of the imagination. MOS is always subordinate to meaning. Fram (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12-5

Unfortunately, the same violations are still present after the warning above. [53] still replaces <references>; [54] replaces {{tocright}}, which is not on the AWB list. Template:tocright is used on thousands of pages and is in no way deprecated by Template:TOC right.

There are also edits which remove the " Metadata: see Wikipedia:Persondata." comment from the "persondata" template [55]. AWB actually adds this comment by default, based on this diff from the AWB documentation [56], so in particular AWB does not remove this comment by default. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So what are you getting at here a block or the ban that you have been trying to get for months. Frankly If I was Rich I wouldn't pay any attention to anything that was said by CBM, Xeno or Fram based on the dozens of accusations. The problem is that you complain so much about such trivial things it completely takes the credibility out of your statments. Especially when he is the only one you even watch. Rich can't log an edit without one of you three picking it apart. If you had the same zeal with all the other editors in WP there would be no vandalism or sock puppetry at all, but you focus all your attention on this one editor.

As I have said before if something breaks thats a different story but if hes cleaning a few trivial edits while he is doing more significant ones which seems to be the prevailing argument these days then your just shouting into the storm. In regards to the Metadata comment that hes removing. Personally I hate the thing. I think its a waste of bytes and looks like crap on the articles and falls into the same category of crap that should be removed as those huge gaudy no more external links comments that some people like to leave. We don't usually put these comments for Categories, infoboxes or other templtes we don't need them for these either. I also think that the Lennon–McCartney edit was a good replacement and I think it shows what you really know by even brining it up. I somewhat apologize for the somewhat angry tone but its getting really really old. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rich is free to seek the lifting of his editing restrictions at any time at the appropriate venue. What he may not do is simply ignore them, despite your irresponsible suggestion and encouragement that he do so.
If the song writing credits list "McCartney-Lennon", then it should not be replaced by "Lennon-McCartney" (and in any case, it was Fram that brought this up). –xeno^talk 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No thats not what Im saying. Knowone ever said that however I also don't think we need to get overly worked up if hes doing them with other edits either. The fact is he does a lot of edits so he is fixing a lot of things on a lot of articles that would otherwise go on for months or years. What I'm saying is that no matter what, how or when he does it he's got three editors hanging out on the fence watching his every move. The McCartney-Lennon think I was talking about was where he replace the / with an -. --Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked about legitimacy at the appropriate venue. Every reply to your question was that the supposed ER was illegitimate. I see no reason to re-hash that argument. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Then surely you will be able to find an uninvolved administrator who agrees with you and will remove the listings at WP:RESTRICT? Until such time, you can expect the editing restrictions to be enforced as recorded. –xeno^talk 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Were there an admin with sufficient integrity aware of this, then doubtless they would remove it without prompting from me. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

It's about what is better. I'm sorry that your vision is cut off at the point of "there is a rule". Even "TOC right" is jargon but "tocright" is totally meaningless. The fact that there are about six times as many "TOC right" as "tocright" is not what makes it the better name, the fact that it is more understandable is what is important.

With the {{Persondata}} comment, the information is visible on the template page, there's no need to direct editors off to Wikipedia space.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

You win

On the Matter of John Shipp, I'm come to inform you that I will be leaving the article alone from here on out. Although I feel that the article is still questionable, consensus is clearly in your favor for the retention of the article. I tip my hat to you for the work and for being patient with even as I worked to get the article axed; most users are not that polite.

Sincerely,

TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Request for advice

Hi Rich: Although I have edited on WP for years, I don't think I have run into quite the situation that now prevails in trying to add a section about Wikipedia administration to the article Wikipedia. I wonder if you can provide some perspective on the matter. Here is how I see things:

I've made a proposal for an addition to Wikipedia regarding its organization into four levels: the WikiMedia Foundation, WP:Bureaucrats, WP:Administrators, and WP:Arbitrators. Some details about their duties and the selection process by which they are appointed are added.

If the proposal is implemented upon the article page, it is immediately reverted with citation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, which are completely inappropriate, without any attempt to show that the criteria have been violated. A more complicated objection is WP:Primary, although there is a caveat in this document that WP may be used as a source about itself.

No argument about the applicability of these criteria is engaged upon, and no attempt to analyze just what is objectionable about these facts is made. Does it help or hurt the article? Not a consideration.

So we have here a situation where a presentation of very simple facts cannot be made because there are perhaps four or five editors that will revert it on the basis of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:Primary; applicable or not.

Am I correct in thinking that this is a perfect block to presenting this material? Can you conjecture as to the source of this opposition: what is so hard to swallow here? Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposed addition is here, in case you have forgotten about it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a perfect block, for several reasons. Firstly in terms of process you have several options, the first being BRD. You were bold, they reverted, now you should (both) discuss. If no discussion is forthcoming oe a reasonable time period, say 48 hours, you can reasonably re-insert the material. If it is reverted again, and no discussion is forthcoming, you should either look for admin support, or try another RFC, centralised discussion or a suitable noticeboard.

However on your second question, I do understand, although I don't agree with the opposition. The advantage to citing secondary sources is that it should quieten down such plaints. There is a wealth of secondary source material, I have read a number of papers that discuss some of the roles, and there is Charles Matthews book which is available on-line somewhere.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the comments, Rich. I have listed Matthews' book among some others here. It has a Google preview here. Some of the facts about WP administration can be found in this book, but not all. It is perfectly clear from the cited links in the book itself that the source of its information is exactly the same WP links I have used myself. There are no alternative sources for this info provided, as that would serve no purpose: WP is the best source for the description of WP's formal organization. I might attempt to use this source as backup in the article, but it is of doubtful value as it brings no additional assessment or accuracy. And because the unreflective use of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:Primary by those objecting to the proposed addition appears to be primarily as impediment, I suspect further impediment will be sought. Brews ohare (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The reasons that such sources might be better in general are that they reflect study of the phenomenon, in this case Wikipedia. In this case there is little gained because the main thrust of the content will be the same (there will be no shortage of "expert" editors willing to correct or improve the section - and I'm sure it wil be improved massively and quickly) but in other cases it might be different. For example you could have written the same section with an "anti-vandal" voice, or a "Copyyvio voice" or a "pro anarchy" voice. The fact that you haven't should be reason enough for people to chill and let the text develop. Editors seem to forget that the rule is verifiability, not verification. Perhaps a better tactic is to create at draft, and encourage folk to edit it? Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Sounds like a plan; I'll try that. The distinction between verifiability and verification is interesting. I guess that either can be debated. Brews ohare (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The draft can be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot

In a recent discussion on this talk page, you agreed to set a waiting time for HPbot, but you didn't set this for IP edits for some unknown reason. This creates siutatuions like [57] where 7 times in 20 minutes you edit the same article while an IP is actively editing it, thereby possibly creating edit conflicts only because the bot won't wait for an hour or so before making its edit.

The same happened e.g. here with three bot edits in five minutes.

I also notice that the waiting period for non-IP edits only seems to be about 10 minutes, even though you said that you had increased it to 1 hour[58]. Any reason that you don't actually wait for 1 hour, and for IPs as well? Fram (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did set it to 1 hour but the effectiveness became zero as I predicted. I now have it on twice the previous delay, and effectiveness is about 50% at a guess. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

I unblocked this bot on the very clear undertaking you gave me. As you have reneged on this I have reblocked the bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it in build 615. That proved ineffective, so I changed it again in build 616. This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, which is my touchstone, not, with all due respect, what you or Fram might think. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

(ec)What do you mean by "effectiveness"? Are there pages that should get tag-dated but don't, due to the delay? Or do other bots get there before yours (and why is that a problem?)? Or something else? Apart from that, any reason that you can't implement the same delay for IPs, avoiding (from today) four bot edits in seven minutes to the same article[59]? Fram (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also be interested in the answer to the questions above as it makes no sense to me. I see no compelling reason to unblock this bot considering all the factors (the number of errors it seems to make, and the lack of responsiveness from the operator, the number of complaints on this talk page, ...). Another bot performing the same task seems to receive no complaints and is doing the job perfectly well.

RE This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, it was due precisely to complaints/feedback from the bot's "clients" that this delay is being demanded. Your dismissive response to User:EEng and failure to follow through showed how you respond to your "touchstone".

To summarise I propose leaving this bot blocked indefinitely as I foresee no end to the problems encountered so far. My patience is fairly well exhausted on this matter and other bots are doing the same work without any problems, so there is no loss to Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that you treat that other bot differently, since it's editing at 10 minute delay is considered fine and dandy. This is simply prejudice brought about by the slinging of mud, and blocking the bot is bad for the encyclopedia. I addressed EEngs concerns by allowing a much longer delay in his case, as I have done for anyone who has raised the concern. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

AnomieBot has a twenty minute delay, not a ten minute delay, and uses the same twenty minute delay for IPs... Fram (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT running alone has a 20-minute delay. I have some experimental code running that automatically adjusts the delay to match (within reason) if Helpful Pixie Bot has been running faster; I did this because, way back when I started running the task, it was proposed that AnomieBOT use the same delay as (then-)SmackBot and Rich kept resetting his bot to just slightly faster. That seems to be what happened here, too, BTW: Rich turned his bot to about 19 minutes, then 18, then 16, then 14, then 10 over the course of 4 days. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that AnomieBOT was also running at 10 minutes and it doesn't make sense to me that AnomieBOT's delay should be affected by other bot's settings. It's as if you two are competing with each other, for some unknown reason, and I don't see this being helpful to the encyclopedia. This work is completely non-urgent and a delay of 24 hours would seem perfectly adequate to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No competition on my part, just parity. And it lets me know to do things like this. A delay of 24 hours is IMO too long, as on even a moderately active article the bot would never be allowed to edit. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would still get to see new templates regardless of which bot edits first, since Helpful Pixie Bot wouldn't know about them either - and you have code I think you said to capture these cases. Interestingly that is one reason I find AnomieBOT frustrating - that it clears certain hard cases, which in my old (AWB based) daily workflow I would see the morning after kicking off a run, enabling me to keep the bot up to date. Another advantage of an AWB daily run was that an actual delay was built in, due to the time it took to build the list and the relatively low editing speed. A third advantage was far less reads of Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Sigh. Time to unblock this, since the block was done on the mistaken basis that I had reneged on an undertaking to MSGJ, which even if correct would not be a reason for a block. Blocks are not punitive. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

MSGJ. You said you blocked because I reneged on something. If you re-read you will find that I didn't. Please therefore unblock. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

I unblocked your bot based on some very specific undertakings which you did indeed renege on. I do not need to re-read the discussion to know this. Based on all that has happened I am not inclined to trust you to run this bot in a responsible manner. As I said earlier my patience is exhausted and I will not be unblocking the bot. If you wish to seek review of this, you may post at the Administrators' noticeboard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If it means anything, I miss good old Smack bot; it was fast and reliable as a nuclear clock. At 22:48 I last laid down some tags @ Medal of Honor and as of 02:48 the "nicely behaved bot" has not placed dates. I also liked Smack bot because it fixed any irregularities in the article while it was in there. I used to ping Smack bot with the request template just to have it clean up articles. :) So this delay going on made go and look for what happened to your bot and I find this crap. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Brad (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Templates Cat use dmy dates and Cat use mdy dates

I created {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} and applied them to the most obvious categories having to do with ballet companies and dancers (which is all I really care about!)

They are crude copies of {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use mdy dates}}, merely omitting the onlyarticles parameter.

I don't know whether there is an onlycategories parameter; but, if there were I would include it.

I just made the presence of the templates visible within the categories in which they are present: Articles in this category use dmy dates (and vice verse).

For the benefit of editors who do things the old-fashioned way, by hand.

This discussion began on my talk page, the Megan Fairchild section, which is now archived here.

Ohconfucius wrote that he uses a script to tag articles MDY or DMY and could use some help modifying it.

Rather than expect a script to search up and down the category tree for each article it seemed wiser to do so once and for all, tagging the categories by hand.

Ohconfucius' script needs to be modified to detect the presence of the Cat use dmy dates and Cat use mdy dates templates in any of the categories in which a given article directly resides.

NB There will be articles that lie in categories that are tagged both ways, Alexandra Ansanelli being a prime example; these ambiguous articles will need to be skipped by the script.

Ideally the script would put out a list of articles requiring human intevention — but this is far from an ideal world.

I would not be asking you, a veteran of the Date Wars, to re-enlist, but hope that this can be done discreetly and so avert future Date Wars.

You are absolutely right about how unimportant this, date format, is.

Indeed, I'd be happier if there were fewer scipts being run, ideally none, and people would do some real editing for a change! — Robert Greer (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the advice! — Robert Greer (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Rich,

I have noticed your helpful edits on the Ariel A. Roth article, thanks.

Most welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Urgent, please clean up my mess

I moved AfD to Afd. because "Articles for deletion" really should be "Afd". And because Cfd and Tfd are that way also. And I moved quite a few templates with the capital "D", together with their documentation pages. Just one page I couldn't move: Template:AfD in 3 steps. So I temporarily created Template:Afd in 3 steps with the lowercase "d", but now I need someone to delete it and do the move the way it should have been done. Could you please do that? Debresser (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And the same precisely for Template:AfD categories, Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD, and Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD/doc. Debresser (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I might add that I don't believe this to be supported by consensus. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Then see it as a bold move. The arguments above stick. Of course, if someone would want to discuss it, I am more then willing to repeat these same arguments over and over. But would that really be of any use? I think this is a classical case where being bold is recommended. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was reverted again, with a circular argument. But respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss. Perhaps it would be better to wait doing my request till after that. Also, feel free to jump in. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that was super-bold. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

But it needed to be done. Your help will be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I already see people are not going to agree with it. Although the best argument so far has been WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sic transit gloria mundis. ;-) I think I'll turn those page I couldn't move into redirects at some point. Or perhaps I'll just keep them where they are. They don't bother anybody, and can be just just as well. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So let's get back to #Request_for_help. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Substitution checking

Please see the two sections I posted about this subject on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check and Template_talk:Fix#Method_of_substitution_check (one right after the other). I compare Ambox with Fix, asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been answered. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Kimchi Chronicles

Hi Rich. I just wondered if the original creation of the article for the American TV series Kimchi Chronicles (which is fine as it is and I edited it recently as well) had a kind of flaw in its creation. It seems that the original article was created by an editor called "frappeinc" (User:frappeinc) which happens to be the production company for the show and owned by Charles Pinsky in NYC: Frappé Inc.. That was the only contribution by that user. Was it a COI originally? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say so. Unless it's a copyvio there's nothing we need to do about it now. Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Right. Thanks for having a look, Rich. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Governing hierarchy and structure of WP

Hi Rich: You commented earlier upon this proposed addition to the page Wikipedia outlining the formal structure of WP. Since your comments, a number of further changes have been suggested and implemented. Could you take another look at this proposal and comment further? Thanks for your assistance. Brews ohare (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Daily Mail Inspirational Woman of the Year, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Femail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).

So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).

For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Purple Star
		for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Request

There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Purple Star
		for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

The stable version template

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For the {{Stable version}} template, a light-touch way to keep track of article stability and quality. Yaris678 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Stable version and article milestones. Yaris678 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to automated edits

We've got to find some way to resolve this. You're driving people mad, and they seem to be driving you mad. Can you stop doing some of the stuff that drives them mad, so you can carry on doing useful stuff? There was a lot of support for taking some sort of action to stop you making automated edits, and the final terms are actually milder than those supported by a lot of people.

Will you agree to the following

• run the script off another account, not your main account.
• not fix things that are not broken. No changing capitalisations and redirects unless they are actually causing something not to work. No fiddling with non-visible whitespace. Changing them otherwise is mere cushion-straightening, and the only tolerable error rate is zero, something you have never achieved.
• and on that subject, do more error checking. Apologies, I know you probably already do some, but believe it or not I run a technical team, and they only ever error check for the errors they can think of. We always also get three or four lasses in the call centre to check the output - you'll be surprised what they spot. Obviously you don't have that luxury, but there does seem to be a consistent if low error rate in your scripted edits.
• get a clear approval before using reprogrammed AWB, because the consensus seems to be that you need to do that. If you can get clear approval to do a task, it will get people off your back.

If you can't agree to these, then as the restrictions were as far as I can see legitimately imposed after proper and thorough discussions, then the consequences listed can legitimately be applied.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, we're talking a different language here. Well several different languages. It makes it hard to know where to start.

First off my last 153 edits (not counting this one) have been standard Firefox edits, I'm scarcely touching AWB, because, yes, the illegitimi are carborunduming me somewhat. Before that there's two - count them - AWB edits on the 6th December.

Secondly you miss the fact that, even if we allow that the ER is binding (I worked with RD-232 on the basis that it was, to keep the mob off my back, because he was actually pretty sane, and I add, worked successfully - except when Fram kept jumping in the middle of conversations shouting "look look!") then 99% of the changes you mention are allowable - which is why it is so ludicrous to be opposed on thing like "we MUST preserve {{tocright}}" and "We must keep confusing markup". Let me stress again it's pretty much the Fram and CBM show, here, with a little Xeno thrown in from time to time.

Thirdly I am not clear what you mean by a "reprogrammed AWB." The fact is that I never even downloaded the source for AWB until CBM basically forced me to do so, to remove something that he doesn't like. It is frustrating that these tall tales are being put about - I even came across someone on IRC calumniating me. Of course its funny as well, but it does fit in nicely with the "signs of mobbing" that, I think it was, Hans Adler recently linked to.

And finally AWB is not automated edits.

On the matter of the alleged ER, it was brought about by a totally crazy discussion, arising from some really shameful behaviour on the part of several editors, and mobbing on AN/I. At one point I left simple queries on the pages of 18 editors who had chipped in with "ban him!" type comments, to the effect "On AN/I you said X, can I ask what your reason for this was?" Only one had the decency to respond, and that one withdrew their comment from AN.I and apologised. Another editor adduced these gentle enquiries as further proof of my diabolical nature. It was against this sort of background that I was initially willing to work with R2-D2 who I believed had actually put some effort into understanding the dispute, although his conclusion was completely wrong. It turned out later that he had simply cut and pasted the poorly thought out text someone else had posted. For which there was no consensus. The salient matter had all already been dealt with, in the first brou-ha-ha. He has now retired, having seen through the type of posturing and mobbing that was going on in those AN/I disputes. Unfortunately he has left me with two unilaterally imposed ERs, and a comics addict, a mathematician and a bureaucrat still hanging around my talk page making a nuisance of themselves.

It is fairly clear to the meanest intelligence that this is no longer about the encyclopedia as far as they are concerned. Fram reverts my edits, takes me to every forum he can think of, deletes articles and redirects, wheel wars, opposes everything I post where he can and generally makes a nuisance of himself. CBM has for years been doing inane reverts of users, edit warring and breaking templates, and yet he has the cheek to say I am "wasting edits". And although Xeno and CBM have some technical competence, they still are quite happy to go off half-cocked (though Xeno has the grace to apologise) on matters they don't understand. Fram - technically - just doesn't get it. And that I think is the most annoying part. It's all very well to politely point out an error on a subject where one is knowledgeable, but a lot of the criticism is over things that I know about and Fram doesn't. And it's not even worded in any way other than a command. I have long ago given up trying to teach Fram anything, which is a sad sate of affairs. I then asked him not to interact with me, several times. He has steadfastly refused.

And in case you still think, as you expressed on Arbcom (which comments still mystify me, both as to why you believed them and why you thought that was a good place to enunciate them) that I have "poor customer skills" don't forget that I had several years of frequent questions, sometimes very angry as to why "You have tagged my article." when the bot had simply dated the tags.

So really there is a lot more to this than just some nut who likes articles to look good. These are carefully thought out improvements, most of which are now built into AWB and hence "permissible". The fact that I don't feel like rolling over and dying under the bullying tactics that I have seen over that last year or so, I think should be considered commendable rather than otherwise.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Oh and just a postscriptum, "run the script off another account" among other things leads me to suppose that there is off-wiki lobbying going on here. I prefer to keep as much as possible in the light of day, and would appreciate knowing if this is the case. Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

The reason I brought this up is that creating another account for larger projects is something I was bullied into doing sometime ago, it was then used as a stick to beat me (or sock to beat me - think Death Wish perhaps). So I wondered where the meme had come from. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Couple of immediate points. First, no-one is off-wiki lobbying *me*. Secondly, a lot of the objections seem to be related to introducing errors in the attempt to fix an error. This is a problem for automated edits obviously. If you do it with manual errors, while other editors may request that you be more careful, I know that I myself keep two Wikignomes permanently employed running round fixing up my bad code, failure to complete clerking, lack of signage etc, so I don't feel I can say a word about it.

There is some discussion on my talkpage, but you can read that anyway, and in fact I'd be interested if you'd read Carl's points here, and respond if you feel led in either location. I suspect people use the old/wrong/redirect names because (a) they remember them, (b) they keep a subpage of code snippets, or (c) they cut and paste out of an existing article that works the way they want, rather than go to the template documentation. I've b0rked a good many templates that way, so have learned my lesson and always look at the documentation, but if all the versions work, and the end user never sees the code, there really is no point in changing it. I agree that fixing bad code (FrontPage's approximations of html, or the junk generated by using the Macro Recorder to create your VBA), cleaning up code that the developer stopped looking at as soon as it worked (leaving 15 commented out iterations behind), documenting undocumented code, etc are all important activities. But if I can use {{TOCright}} or {{TOC right}} and get the same effect, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll address Carl's point on your talk page to avoid muddying the debate here.

Well I'm certainly pleased about the first point, it keeps thing simpler.

The second is undoubtedly correct, people probably use all these methods to apply templates. And two more are typos and short-cuts. Indeed I extensively used {{wfy}} in the sure and certain knowledge that it would be replaced by something meaningful when it was dated. However the conclusion does not follow - for a whole bunch of reasons. Firstly we want to provide a simple interface to users, when we have some hundreds of clean-up templates and some thousands of redirects it is much easier to lean the smaller set than the larger. Moreover if we consistently use spaces in template names, and consistently use sentence case we really do lighten the cognitive load. Secondly not all redirects are benign, {{Fact}} was changed to {{Citation needed}} because the first was too bitey - it says, more or less, "Liar!", there were redirects to different templates that differed only by a space or a capital letter, there are redirects that are misleading. Because I approached this on a very gentle incremental approach, rather than making runs just to replace template redirects, this is something the community was (an is, despite a recent attempt to derail consensus) happy with. There is no problem with many hundreds of redirect replacements. There's a couple, mainly done by hand that have been picked on. This is where my patience runs thin, instead of coming and saying "Hey Infobox blah isn't on the AWB list, or better, adding it a WP:POINT message is left on my talk page with very condescending instructions "not to do it again".

In fact really WP:POINT is the crux of what Fram and CBM are doing. Really if you saw I had changed, in the course of another spelling correction edit {{Infobox UK Legislation}} to {{Infobox UK legislation}} would you go and look through a long list of allowed and almost identical infoboxes, then come back here and post that I was in violation of editing restrictions? It passes the quack test as pointy behaviour, and it's only because I cut them extra slack, being mathematicians and comics addicts, that I haven't classified it this way before.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Note: to highlight the lunacy, examine this edit by Fram where he fixes a date (substantive edit), removes un-needed white space, changes {{cn}} to {{Citation needed}} and changes a hyphen to an en-dash. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I use standard AWB changes while making substantive changes. You are allowed to do the same. Those times that I complained about an edit you made, and it turned out to be standard AWB, I acknowledged my mistake and stopped complaining about you making that kind of edit. So what "lunacy" are you actually highlighting? That I use AWB as intended and without problems? If you do the same, you won't hear anything from me. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand that while to you that type of edit is completely different in nature from replacing "tocright" with "TOC right" while fixing a spelling error, to the vast majority of sane, technically literate Wikipedians the two are basically indistinguishable. Indeed some of the things Elen asked me to agree to stop doing are precisely things that you do - that are "allowed". And even my three wise monkeys have got it wrong, as you comment above. So if no-one can tell the difference between an allowed change, and a disallowed one, without going off and doing tests, then really there must be something wrong if someone is proposing blocks based on this - or even taking any notice of it at all. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Dear Elen of the Roads and Rich. I understand that I am only a simple editor, but I hope my two cents will help here. I know Rich here on Wikipedia from working together on several occasions. I mention this to make the point that Rich is an approachable and friendly editor, the point of which will become clear soon enough. In general we share the same opinions as to the desirableness of having pages (articles, templates and categories foremost) look technically elegant, well-ordered and understandable. This I add to explain that my "defending" him here and in other sections above is not without a personal interest. All the same, I'd like to remind Rich that I am waiting for him to continue the discussion above on the subject of dating format templates (where we seem to disagree).

I'd like to make a few observations, related some more some less to the issue.

• Some editors do more thorough test than others before saving the page. This is a matter which depends on the editor's character. I, for example, often reread what I wrote only after saving, and then fix typos, etc. This is not ideal, but that is the way I work. Perhaps the same is true in a certain measure for Rich.

On this same subject I'd like to make another two observations

• There is a Dutch saying that wherever people work, flints fly. Meaning that the laws of statistics dictate that the more one works, the more one errs. In view of the large number of edits Rich makes, being the most active editor on Wikipedia, it is only normal that he makes a lot of errors.
• Rich is very conscientious about replying to messages on his talkpage, and replies seriously to any and all notifications of errors made by him (in automated as well as semi-automated and hand-made edits).

And two more general comments

• I for one disagree with the editing restriction against Rich. Moreover, I don't think there is any justification for such a restriction. Especially in view of the way this restriction came about, if we may take Rich's word for it.
• As to the level of technical versatility of the editors involved I have no opinion. I did notice that Fram's posts here are sometimes less than detached. Unfortunately, even Rich sometimes gets irritated by the many critical comments here from a select group of editors, and that also doesn't help. Personally, I am a fan of the English sense of humor, and would like to use this occasion to thank Rich for "a comics addict, a mathematician and a bureaucrat". With all due respect, of course, for said editors. 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I'm not sure that this is being read though. The whole discussion has been fractured, partly by invidious interventions, but partly by Elen starting new threads and not responding to old ones. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I think that you are doing the right thing. The fact that you get supported and "defended" here by other editors, and moreover the fact that your opponents are the same two-three editors but your supporters are many different editors, are telltale indications that this is so. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia organization

A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Now moved to this location. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

To those who have provided moral and intellectual support in these recent troubles, and especially the last days and weeks. It is, of course, irritating, annoying, frustrating and depressing when those who should know better nickel-and-dime over the most inane trivia that should have been sorted on day 2 of Wikipedia, but of course we have come to expect that after an eight year battle over the spelling of a dairy product. It is even more depressing to find that these folk have had some success in poisoning the well, as one ex-arb put it "anything repeated often enough becomes believed."

I never know quite why we loose users like some of the all-time greats we have lost this year. If they were blocked, was it justified, or was it "the cabal" or infighting? If they left have they thrown their toys out, or just been ground into submission, or is there indeed a difference? But I do, more and more, come to understand the sort of thing some of them have been on the receiving end of. Let me assure you, though, that I will not willingly join their number.

Despite the depressing nature of some recent events, and interactions, I am by nature an optimist. My optimism is buoyed whenever someone acts in a way that is for the betterment of the encyclopaedia, and especially when they can see the big picture. In particular coming out and speaking in support of what I am doing (albeit a minor part of what I am doing, but I believe important for a number of reasons, including, vitally, editor growth and retention) - in the face of some determined, some might say unswervable, opposition including some big "names" might not be considered fun. Nonetheless, they come, not just here, but on ANI and even at Arbcom, and for no more reason than to do what is right - many, indeed most, do not agree with me on everything, but they still take the time and effort to post their insights and support.

And for that I thank you.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

I'm very glad that you plan to stick around. Your leaving would be a serious loss to Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. Cheers. The Transhumanist 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Yep, not easy at all. Thanks for your efforts to improve WP. Even "inconsequential" changes have their place in one's scripts and editing repertoire – if nothing for more effective maintenance. I've been around long enough to see how through incremental change that WP becomes a better reader's (I didn't say "user") experience. Keep yer chin up! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Milford Haven, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Pembroke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Two Barnstars for your great work

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your great work in mediating over the years

Tamsier (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		You always edit with integrity and honour. A quality I respect greatly. Always there to offer help when needed to clarify Wiki policy

Tamsier (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Barnstars are cool. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

Bot help

Hi, Rich! I was wondering if you have time/are willing to help with a simple, but voluminous task I'm facing. I am looking at replacing one parameter name of the {{ru-census}} template with another in every article which transcludes this template. Is this something you can help with? I'll let you know the details of what needs to be changed if you can. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 19, 2011; 16:12 (UTC)

Yes this won't be hard. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks! Here's what need to be done. The transclusions of the {{ru-census}} template need to use "p2010_prelim" parameter instead of "p2010". After you are done with your run, I'll change it back to "p2010" for the entities for which the final 2010 Census results are available.

Your help is greatly appreciated! I will take care of tweaking the template after you finish your run.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 19, 2011; 16:50 (UTC)

Just wondering, are you finished or just taking a break?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2011; 20:59 (UTC)

ALl done, and I ran a double check. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks a bunch; much appreciated! By the by, that darn rule which replaces "city/town/etc" with "inhabited locality" in the infobox name is still in place :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2011; 21:13 (UTC)

Text editor?

What (free) text editor do you recommend for editing perl scripts? The Transhumanist 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I use mainly VIM, as recommended by Anomie (also vi, notepad and the command line editor), I also have Perl IDE but I haven't done much with it. The main problem with VIM is that it doesn't cope with Unicode. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

I'll try 'em. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perl text editor

Do you know of any (copyleft) text editors and/or word processors written in perl? I'd like to familiarize myself with how they work. The Transhumanist 21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea on this one. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

These aren't Perl specific but try taking a look at notepad ++ here and Scintilla here. They may lead you to some helpful information. You can also check out Sourceforge fro some good stuff written in Perl. All three of these are Free open source software related. --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look. The Transhumanist 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hans Popper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Sinai Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing the "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" problem. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore so I was not able to sort out the problem myself. Anyway, thanks! Jaguar (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the barnstar! Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC).

WP:BLPN#Multiple BLP articles of Queen's Enterprise Promotion award winners

Just to let you know about this current discussion concerning a series of articles which you created. Exok (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Rich, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Help me!

Help me to edit this article: Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's Asian Qualifiers User:Banhtrung1 03:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

You need to be a little more specific. Rich Farmbrough, 11:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

GoldenhollerGlory284

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Golden_Glory_hijinks (in case you hadn't).  Chzz  ►  20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC).

New article

I wrote a short article about a Jewish youth organisation I am familiar with. Would you mind having a look at it, and perhaps make some changes or leave me a comment? Also, do you think it should perhaps be considered a stub? It is already in main article space at Ezra USA. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wouldn't you say that "Shalom World Trip" is a proper noun and should be capitalised? Debresser (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably. The concept of a proper noun is not as well defined as people like to think. Regardless the text and the headline should conform. Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Ok, thanks. And I guess it is not a stub any more? Debresser (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable short article to me. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring

You are now wheel warring on the fully protected page Template:Schooldis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. I was bold, you reverted, we had a discussion, showing the move was correct, so I moved it again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

See WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." Given that nobody else commented on the talk page, the claim that there was a discussion is also dubious, but that's a separate issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than cherry-picking, perhaps you should read "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." Knee-jerk preservation of garbage does not count as good cause or careful thought. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

It shouldn't require saying this, but belief that your own action was correct is not an excuse for wheel warring. If another instance were to arise, I would take it to a more public forum for dispute resolution. This time I chose to just leave a reminder that you are abusing your administrator tools, nothing more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

SOPA

Hi Rich,

I've broke a drought of about a year to make a comment on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Could you have a look at Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act#Another article that misses crucial parts of the bill as I've a number of concerns that there are important sections of the proposed legislation that aren't addressed in the article.

I've no intention of making an account, and I don't wish to reveal who I am (no, I'm not banned) though it might be possible to work out who I am. But I'm bringing to your attention on the off chance that something can be done.

Thanks, anon - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Might be worthwhile also considering deleting Stop Online Privacy Act. Rather an inappropriate redirect? :-) - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It is fine, we are not advancing that name by having the redirect, and it seems that it is widely used, possibly in error. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Paul Davidson (business)

The article Paul Davidson (business) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable per tag

While all 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. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Nickelodeon

Hi, I want to possibly add a watchlist patrol for WikiProject Nickelodeon, including the talk pages and Recent changes which I've created without a bot. Could someone add it? Thanks. JJ98 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I added it to the list, but there's a little tweaking required. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

WP:Cambridge

Wikiproject Cambridge is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 21:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

KK thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dates in Russian

Here's another bug I've found: [60]. The dates in Russian should not be converted to English even when they are actually just dates (a translation of the whole ref needs to be added, if only to maintain the style), but in this particular case these dates are in fact parts of the book title, so translating them mangles the ref completely. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2011; 21:57 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Another request

You are going to hate me, but can you also do a similar run for {{ru-pop-ref}}, replacing the "2010Census" parameter with "2010Census_prelim"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2011; 18:04 (UTC)

The last one of these really should have had a BRFA, as should the "Encyclopedia Britannica" task. I let those go, but now that there is a third one, which seems to implicate a couple thousand articles, a BRFA is certainly necessary. Edits of this scale should be done by accounts with a bot flag, not by human editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough getting a BRFA through in a sensible amount of time is well nigh impossible, in no small part due to the shenanigans of you and Fram. Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

BAG is actually quite fast for these sorts of things, when it is clear that the change should be made and there aren't any objections. I don't have any objection to the parameter replacement, but it does need to go through the approval system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless it's me. I have sat waiting for weeks to even get an acknowledgement from BAG, yet when I take 3 hours to reply to Fram I get blocked. I'm not complaining, that's just the facts and I have to live with it. And so does everyone else. It is however not of my making. Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

Besides which there are a small but significant number of mis-spellings that are correct. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

Bot approval does not prevent manual review of the edits, but a task that involves thousands of articles needs to go through BAG before it starts even if it will be manually reviewed. In particular there are ENGVAR issues that should have been considered in public for the EB task. I let that one pass, but I did notice it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a proper name, using the Latin alphabet in standardised capitalisation. The engvar considerations only apply the use of encyclopaedia/encyclopedia in running text, which I have not touched (although I previously corrected about 2000 exavmples of spellings such as encylo- . (I take it you don't think we should preserve "Brittanica" - it is after all just a signifier.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

The way that the "ae" ligature is dealt with varies greatly from British to American English, as I'm sure you know. Like I said, I let that one pass, but it is far from obvious that (1) the 'ae' spelling should be used in articles that employ American English and (2) that a ligature, rather than a digraph, should be used at all. Ligatures are not matters of spelling, they are matters of typography, and I think our house style generally uses the digraph for 'ae'. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Gdasnk or Danzig, but you are always Carl and never Karl. Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

But Martin Löb is also Martin Loeb, and Michelle Pfeiffer is also Michelle Pfeiffer. The latter of those is a much more parallel analogy. In general the MOS seems to recommend the digraph 'ae' over a ligature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very different. You can if you wish go and spill much wikiblood over the use of diacritics in various nationalities personal names but that turns on WP:COMMONNAME. This is just a case of WP:WRONG. Even on Wikipædia, where the digraph is hard to type, in 9,220 cases people had used the digraph. The remaining few thousand cases varied widely, from clear misspellings (Enclopedia, Brittanica...) to those where the digraph had simply been split. It is (I believe) Loeb's Classics any other spelling is simply wrong, if that is the proper name. If the trademark abuses English significantly more egregiously than the Britannica does, then we reserve the right to Englishize it, for example Toys R Us or Ebay. Which is as it should be. Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

(If you are really interested see Æ and Ligature which both explicitly cite this example, making it perfectly clear that it is a spelling difference and is also correct.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

I don't think that template is used explicitly.Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

It is, actually. See, for example, Belgorod Oblast. And regarding the above—should I file a BRFA request, will you do it, or is there some other course of action?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 22, 2011; 12:56 (UTC)

Ping?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2011; 18:25 (UTC)

Ah so this is the value of parameter 1. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Yup, that's it. On an unrelated notice, could you please turn off the rule which changes "city", "town", etc. to "inhabited locality" in the infobox name? I cringe at the thought of having to restore those for the third time :) Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 27, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

OK, done. Not sure what value shaving different names for the template serves. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

It currently serves no purpose, but I am planning to eventually create separate templates for cities/town, urban-type settlements, etc. to wrap around the inhabited locality template, as each type has some peculiarities which the generic template does not address too well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 27, 2011; 19:22 (UTC)

Category:Pages_with_2010Census_set_in_ru-pop-ref need looking at. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks a bunch! I'll take care of the rest. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 28, 2011; 16:47 (UTC)

Deletion review for Duff (d.967)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Duff (d.967). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mopani Copper Mine

Hi Rich, I've restored this after you deleted it as I don't think it was anywhere near worthy of deletion under G11. I've removed some of the worst spammy stuff instead. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the text looks as if it's pumping copper. One of the references cited shows that there are suggestions of fraudulent activity here. I thought the difficulty in distinguishing the PR work form simple factual statements too great to be worth the candle. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

Re: a little challenge

Previously, you wrote:

In fact a little challenge:

1. get the stats for the previous year for one page
2. output the data in a format suitable for a wiki-page - using a by-month table and a year total on the right.
3. do the same for a list of pages
4. We could build this into a little bot.

I saw how to do #1 and #3 in your initial ("Stats") script. How do you do #2? The Transhumanist 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK so by "Previous year" I meant Dec 2010, Jan 2011, Feb 2011....

To output the data in Wiki-format you just need to use the print command. Perl is generally very forgiving about print:

print '{|\n!December\n!-\n...';

(note both types of quotes work, they are subtlety different.)

print "\|$number";

You might need to use a for loop.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

But how do you put the data in a file ("print" just displays it on the screen, right?), and then how do you place it in a page on Wikipedia? The Transhumanist 03:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

. One thing at a time. If you open a file for output then you can print to it.

open MYPAGE, ">mypage,txt;

print MYPAGE "Some words and a newline.\n";

close MYPAGE;

Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC).

Nice. By the way, was that supposed to be "mypage.txt" (mypage dot txt)?

Thank you for the tip. I'm now reading the Input and Output chapter of the Llama book.

And I found the documentation on get () (which you used in the initial script).

Okay, here's my next question...

Now that you have content in a file, how to you place that content on a Wikipedia page? The Transhumanist 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Duff (d.967) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duff (d.967). Since you had some involvement with the Duff (d.967) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Sandstein  17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Portal box to Portal

Greetings Rich. I noticed (as did others) that you were replacing {{Portal box}} with {{Portal}}. IMO all well and good however I have opened up a discussion on the Portal box talk page to solicate some opinions of eliminating portal box completely and just using Portal. Comments have already been made about also merging a couple of other Portal related templates and just using {{Portal}} for those as well. So, in the mean time could you stop making the Portal box to Portal edits so that we can discuss the consolidation of these templates (then maybe we can do a bot request or something and just be done). This will eliminate the possibility of changing one and then end up changing it back again after the discussion is over. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

There was a question on Template_talk:Merge#Avoid_blank_line_at_end about a template you made. I gave an answer, but you may have more to say. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of venue

Talk page followers might be interested in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#RfC on Template redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Michael Largo - machine translated

Hi, you've recently fixed some spelling in that article but the whole text is at times unreadable machine translation of its Italian version, it seems. :) What's the policy on that? WillNess (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends how bad it is. In this case it is quicker to fix it up than to research a new article. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Stable version template

I have posted on the talk page of Template:Stable_version and would like your input there. Great job, by the way, that's an excellent idea.

Falconus^{p t c} 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of adding a couple features, which I am currently updating in the documentation. If you don't like them, let me know, and I'll rework them or take them back down (e.g. if I'm taking this in a direction that you did not intend). Falconus^{p t c} 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A dab issue

Can you throw light on the point at Talk:Michael Tyson (antiquary), by any chance? PS you said Humph! re the recent Cambridge meetup. There was something screwy about the site notice, but not that I could see; so apologies if you were blind-sided. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

NP. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

HPB unblock

Relevant discussion is at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot. Anomie⚔ 00:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Fox bat me to declining the unblock. However, here are some of my thoughts.

1. Breaking the assurance on the basis of which the unblock was made certainly is a perfectly good reason for reblocking, and I am at a loss to imagine why you think not.
2. Reducing the waiting time to a small fraction of the time that you had stated in order to get an unblock was scarcely "fine tuning".
3. Whether it was "fine tuning" or not, if you are unblocked on the basis of assuring us that the waiting time is half an hour, then reducing that time to less than half an hour is breaking that assurance: it is not "wrongly treated as a breaking of that assurance".

JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Waiting time was not even part of the original block. Various time delays have been suggested by various editors, ranging from "as fast as possible" to a week, which I have been happy to comply with. After introducing the waiting time in release 615 as promised, I adjusted it in later builds to allow the bot to actually work. Investigation of the code seemed to show that AnomieBot was comparing elapsed time to an uninitialized value, and hence waiting based purely on other tasks it was doing. Manual adjustment of the delay was then the natural step. I am sorry people seem to see this as a bad faith act. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Whether or not waiting time was "part of the original block", it is clear that the unblock was based on an assurance that the waiting time had been increased. I don't know whether anyone else thought the change was done in bad faith, but I didn't. You made a change which invalidated the reason why the account had been unblocked. What your intentions were in do8ing so was irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

James this sounds sensible of course. The implication of it is that I would have to clear any future changes in the timing of the bot with MSGJ - who has gone off impatiently anyway. This would be hard enough with someone who was willing and able to have intelligent discussion about the matter. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Do you acknowledge the possibility of the error, reocgnize the concern, and is it fixed? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes in the sense that I now know that Anomie Bot has been running with an adaptive response speed, based on Pixe Bot's and that Anomie Bot has received no complaints about its speed. I have always been willing to discuss the question of response speed in a rational manner and add rational or irrational delays for individual users. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

 Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

OK I've waited long enough for the bureaucracy. Since the blocking admin flounced out, and no one else seems to be interested, I will resolve this myself, presently. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you Reaper, you are a scholar. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Rich Farmbrough, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Rich Farmbrough/Final Fantasy (video game)/Header.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible Helpful Pixie Bot error

In this edit to Frank Sinatra, Helpful Pixie Bot rearranged the sequence of two references for the same content; around line 100 in the diff, <ref name = "Kelley" /> was moved in front of another existing reference. However, the "Kelley" ref was originally followed by an {{rp|91}} template that was not moved. This appears to have separated the page number from its proper book and attached it to another which already had a page included. Would it be possible to have the bot check for {{Rp}} templates (and maybe others likely meant to refer to the immediately preceding ref, such as {{Rs}} and {{Fv}}) and keep them associated with their original targets? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. This is an AWB feature, and I logged a bug for that sometime ago (with {{Rp}} I think), which was fixed. I suppose it must be a regression. I scarcely use AWB for Helpful Pixie these days, so no real worries there. I will log another bug. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

Noted. Thnx. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited William Duesbury (1763-1796), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Edwards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Portal/Portal box merger

Greetings Rich, I was just wondering how much longer we should wait before moving forward on this proposal. It seems the overwhelming majority Support this and even those that oppose seem to be doing it from a keeping the status quo standpoint. --Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was looking at it today, and tempted to snow-close it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC).

Ok thanks for the quick response. Its fine with me either way I just don't think that the outcome will change at this point by leaving it open longer. Considering that the merger warning is displaying on 300, 000 plus articles I don't think anyone can say they didn't know or didn't have time to respond. --Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blockquote

WP:MOS#Block quotations explicitly gives <blockquote> as an example of how to format a block quote. There is no reason to replace this with {{Block quote}}, as that template is only useful when the additional parameters are used. In particular this edit [61] is a violation of your editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree in general with the above, but in this case Rich actually fixed the quote because it was not closed properly. I have now refixed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource1911Enc Citation

With regards to this edit and its revert, please see Template talk:Wikisource1911Enc Citation#Redirect. -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 4; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on linking to streamed copies of albums

Wikipedia policy allows us to link to legal streamed copies of albums. It would be useful to draw up a guideline on how and when to link to such albums; however, there is concern that it may not be appropriate as the music would not be available in all parts of the world. Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region? Your view would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

hlist

I left you a belatedly reply at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Article message boxes#Classes - sorry, I didn't notice your question 'til now Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI Portal box

Saw you were in the talk about Portal box.. pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#December 22.Moxy (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Rich. An editor, User:Edenc1, removed the theatrical poster image for the 2011 film Footloose in the Kenny Wormald article. See:

• 09:20, 30 December 2011‎ Edenc1 (talk | contribs)‎ (7,636 bytes) (→Career: WP:NFC#UUI) (rollback | undo)

Is this on the up and up? Happy New Year. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We have very strict rules (over strict, some might say) on the use of non-free content, that poster can probably only be used on the film article itself. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can AWB access arguments?

That is, in its search replace commands, is there a way to specify the name of the current wikipedia page it is working on?

I'd like it to be able to insert that name, as the name and not as a sticky variable (I need the actual title of the page).

I'm guessing that regex can then be used to assign that name to a variable for modification.

The trouble I'm running into is that I often need to use the subject's name in replace strings, but the pages' names are "Outline of subject". This renders MediaWiki's variables useless. So if I can access the pagename within AWB, I think I can solve this problem using regex's variable manipulation.

Can AWB do this, and if so, how?

Also, if AWB can do this, where is the documentation on it? I'm sure there'd be other useful things in there.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 19:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I'd like to do this all in one pass, if possible.

Not sure if this is what you were looking for but AWB and Wikipedia have certain "Magic words like PAGENAME, NAMESPACE, %%KEY%% and others. If you look at the magic words link under variables I think that will help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But when you just want the subject name, using PAGENAME in this situation produces "Outline of subject", which necessitates a second pass with AWB to get rid of "Outline of". There are about 540 outlines, so an additional pass even with AWB is pretty cumbersome and time-consuming. I'm looking for a more efficient way to do this. Thank you though. Every input helps. Can you think of anything else? Where are the advanced features documented? The Transhumanist 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

%%title%%

Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. I'll try it. The Transhumanist 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Debian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NAS

Ranjit Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Penn

Richard Coggins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Southwark

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cardinal maker

do you still need this template? if so, we should add some documentation. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's obsolete. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Slakr at 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 07:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Slakr at 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 11:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 11:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Fram at 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Fram at 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Fram at 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
3. CBM at 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
4. CBM at 14:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 14:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 14:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
3. Fram at 14:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
4. CBM at 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia perl script repository

You mentioned interest in starting a repository for perl scripts.

What should its structure be? That is, how should the perl scripts be presented? (Each on its own page, all on one page, or some other way?)

Here's a place to start: Wikipedia:Scripts/Perl scripts

This is something we can build as we go, while working on other perl-related projects, starting with the initial script you sent me. That script isn't proprietary, is it? (I figured I better ask before I deposit it).

I hearby release it GFDL/CCBYSA3.0 Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Which reminds me, have you found the second script you were going to toss at me?     The Transhumanist 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Db-vandalism-notice

Hi Rich Farmbrough, I've reverted your edits to this page. I don't think being "friendly" is necessary to users who attempt to create inappropriate pages. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen people being warned with this type of template for creating GF pages. Our templates are one of the biggest reasons of new editor loss. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC).

I've altered it in a different way - what do you think? --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Nonexistent template

Hi Rich. Not sure who to ask, but I thought I'd try you since you seem knowledgeable about such things. Do you know what {{ISO 639 name sux-Latn}} is, and why all the constellations transclude it? 28bytes (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sux is the ISO 639 code for Sumerian, and -Latn determines the script. This is actually based on an IETF RFC, I believe, which is in turn based on two standards for languages and scripts with a bit of faffing about thrown in. The tempalte family is intended to be flexible, rather than rigorous, to accommodate user error. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Forgive my ignorance, but what does it actually do? 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well mainly puts articles in Category:Articles containing Sumerian language text, via {{Lang|sux}} for example. But also can be used anywhere you want to convert from a code to a language name. One of incidental the advantages is that text included in {{Lang}} templates has implicit meta-data that keeps spell checking agents away. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Ah, OK, that helps. What is the significance of the superscript "MUL" in Orion (constellation)'s transclusion of the template? 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it is that Orion is a multiple star system, and does not belong inside the template, but I do not know. Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

OK. Well, at least one mystery solved, anyway. Thanks for your expertise! 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

" The determiner glyph for "constellation" or "star" in these lists is MUL (𒀯)." Babylonian star catalogues Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Huh. Learn something new every day. Wonder if would make since to link the "MUL" to that for readers as clueless as me? 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably when web-fonts are available,the original can be added (𒀯 doesn't render for me, and most stuff does). But maybe an explicit note. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

The footnote you added was perfect! Thanks again. 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Slakr at 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
3. Rich Farmbrough at 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
4. Slakr at 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
5. Rich Farmbrough at 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
6. Slakr at 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
7. Rich Farmbrough at 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
8. H3llkn0wz at 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
9. Rich Farmbrough at 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
10. Rich Farmbrough at 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
11. Rich Farmbrough at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
12. Rich Farmbrough at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
13. H3llkn0wz at 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
14. Rich Farmbrough at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
15. CBM at 18:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
16. Rich Farmbrough at 19:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
17. CBM at 22:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
18. H3llkn0wz at 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
19. Slakr at 06:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 06:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 06:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 06:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 06:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Mr little irish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Awkward

Template:Awkward now also takes a date parameter. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

How many Morphos

You were right to question this and I'll change the text.Lamas reduced the number of Morpho species without saying why.In fact synonymies (in any taxon) are seldom explained Funet being no exception.The problem is Le Moult and Real (with it's many faults) remains the standard work hence "many authorities". De Vries has faults too.Web names are variously derived and EOL and NHM opt out altogether (for many Valid name = Valid species so this term does not help in the least) I'll put something alng these lines on the articles talk page. Modified it can then replace the unrefed text.All the best and a Happy New Year Notafly (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC) PS. What do the Japanese make of all this I wonder.

Nomination for deletion of Template:First year of decade et al

Template:First year of decade,Template:First year of next decade and Template:First year of previous decade has been nominated for deletion. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Thank you and update

Hi Rich,

I wanted to thank you for your reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences, and to tell you have I've now extended the query to cover three specific conferences relating to a particular paragraph (I'm a little worried that it's an old enough thread that it won't get enough attention, hence my hawking for more opinion here... :) Failedwizard (talk)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
3. Rich Farmbrough at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
4. CBM at 18:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 18:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 18:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

False Positive from FemtoBot

Hey Rich, could you doublecheck one of FemtoBot's edits here? It seems that the bot re-created an old cleanup category for September 2006 - but, near as I can tell, there are no articles to populate it. I can find no related changes that add (or remove) the category, so it's not like the category had an article earlier today. The kicker is that the bot termed the category as "Non-empty", which may point to the error. Not a huge deal, but thought you might want to look into it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this happens. There was almost certainly an article where either someone misunderstood the dating, or, more likely a revert was done, which has since had the tag re-dated or removed. Finding the article now is almost impossible, I am planning to have the bot add the name of a member of the cat to the edit summary when re-creating, just to satisfy our curiosity. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

That's kinda what I figured - crisis averted, it would seem. Thanks for checking on it for me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please stop removing stub tags from short articles containing long lists (e.g. Kenneth Kent Mackenzie, Munidopsis, Draba, etc.) It is not helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. Rich Farmbrough, 07:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Adrian Edmondson

You have made a recent edit to a page about me. I have tried a number of channels to try and remove factual inaccuracies about me on this page, all to no avail. How do I do it? Do you know? Can you help? Where can I be verified as myself??? They're not huge lies, it's just the boring kind of stuff I'm bored of answering whenever I'm interviewed... Cheers, Adrian Edmondson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianedmondson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

info-en@wikipedia.org. Two people have left you messages saying that. I did remove a couple of sentences that you challenged, a lot of this stuff is of borderline significance whether true or false. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

NRIS dead link

Template:NRIS dead link also takes a date parameter, and is quite full (with 800 articles), but there is no structure yet. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Another one is Template:Third-party-inline. Debresser (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, already got that one. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Userspace edits?

Why does this bot make edits to pages in userspace? I created an article "template" (containing the basic outline of an article without details) in my userspace to facilitate creation of articles with similar formats and it kept adding dates that I don't want in a blank template that I plan to use for future articles where the current date will not be applicable. I had to remove the {{Userspace draft}} template from the page to get this bot to stop editing it. Why edit pages in userspace? The edits were invasive & unwanted and wouldn't stop until I removed that useful template from the article. DemonJuice (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. However the page is not a userspace draft. The {{Userspace draft}} template is for actual drafts, and is dated so that we can keep a record of how old they are. If you want to create articles directly by cutting and pasting this then you don't need the userspace draft at all. If you want to create userspace drafts then you can use includeonly tags, and create a new user draft page by entering (for example) {{subst:User:DemonJuice/sandbox/Portland Timbers season template}}. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

What template would you recommend I use on a blank article template such as that then? I'm using {{Userpage}} right now but that didn't seem to suit it as well as {{Userspace draft}}. DemonJuice (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you could try {{Workpage}} or {{User sandbox}}. Or not use one at all, since you have "only" another 10 or so season pages to create. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

OK, thanks. I was just worried about it being picked up by one of those aggregator sites that seem to pinch content willy-nilly from Wikipedia and publish it. DemonJuice (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Today I found a couple of pages which mirrored diffs' of User:SmackBot's most mundane edits.... Try adding __NOINDEX__, although I think those templates probably include it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Excellent. Thanks again. DemonJuice (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Mathdab

Since you have taken part on the discussion about the reversion of the common-sense move of Template:Mathdab to Template:Mathematics disambiguation, you may wish to comment on a new move proposal. Lmatt (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Linear-gradient

Please review the documentation on {{linear-gradient}} and note the different parameter format then that of {{gradient}}. — Edokter (talk) — 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, foolish me. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

Your recent edit to my user page

Please refrain from removing content from my user page; instead, please leave me a note on my talk page so I could reduce the "massive cruft" if it really bothered you. Thanks --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, would have left a note if I'd realised it was you. I was doing some work on 41,848 user pages and yours was third biggest.... Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Asked

There is a question at Template_talk:Monthly_clean-up_category/core#Edit_request, which I think you are most qualified to answer. Debresser (talk)

Thank you for doing so. Debresser (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Libby Zion law

I notice both you and RjwilmsiBot are adding persondata to plenty of articles. I have been trying to add short description parameters and have noticed that in the last two days both of you have added the template to the above article. I'm not sure what category is being used to pick this up (possibly the WP: Biography talk page template) but is there any chance of blacklisting this article, It's hard enouogh clearing a 600,000+ category without articles being wrongly included by automatic edits. Thanks. Waacstats (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Don't know how I missed them. Waacstats (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup broken

Your recent edits to Template:Cleanup broke something. Even the view of the template on its documentation page is now screwed up. I suggest you revert to 15:43, 27 December 2011‎ until you can figure out what went wrong. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AN discussion

I've started a discussion at WP:AN#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of New Age Diamonds

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on New Age Diamonds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated)

A revised version of WP:Formal organization is proposed for inclusion in the article Wikipedia and a RfC is posted. It is found here. Can you kindly take a look at this request for comment?

Thank you in advance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

951K edits

Even with automated tools... that... is a large number. I have seen your work over a long time (far longer than Shajure has existed), and you do good stuff... and lots of it. I know you don't do it for a random thank-you... but thank you nevertheless.Shajure (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated - positive feedback helps enormously. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Date in bad documentation

I noticed you removed the date from {{Bad documentation}}. It used to work when the template was still using Ambox. When it was changed to use Ombox, to avoid the template loop I asked you about above (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more say no more), that functionality was lost. I added it back in the old-fashioned way, as you can see e.g. on Template:Infobox ukcave. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is OK now. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

I think so too. Now, what about the template loop (see section above)? Debresser (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A New Year for the DNB, and launch of "volume of the month"

See WT:WP DNB#Volume of the Month for a collaboration that I'm in the course of setting up. Everyone who signed up to the WikiProject for the Dictionary of National Biography is being notified, while there is still time to alter the way of working if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:DNB JMR

You created a page at Template/DNB JMR. I moved it to Template:DNB JMR under the impression that it was your original intention? ... discospinster _talk 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

A discussion regarding your edits can be found at WP:ANI#Rich Farmbrough violates editing restriction and creates errors. Fram (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

African revolution

I've recreated African revolution as a dab after a sort of inconclusive RFD verdict; however I've been a bit more concise than you suggested (I've just linked to events specifically referred to as revolutions, rather than uprisings, coups, etc) so you might want to take a look and flesh it out a bit. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. I added pointers to a couple of lists under See also. Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

555-Crazy-1234

Check this diff! |mob= contained a mobile telephone number! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

<ROFL> Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Template:Rescue

Could you handle restoring the history and talk page of {{Rescue}} as was done with {{Expand}}? I asked Ironholds about it, but he is swamped with other community stuff right now and doesn't have time to work on it. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)  DoneRich Farmbrough, 10:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Template: Denied.. *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
2. Madman at 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Madman at 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Madman at 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Bah}} Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

Blackford County

Hello Rich. I noticed you recently ran the AWB on Blackford County, Indiana, making some minor cleanups. Bots are currently beyond my ability, but can be especially helpful fixing my en–dash problem. Could you please run the same AWB on the Blackford County Courthouse article? TwoScars (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Great Arkansas Barnstar

		The Great Arkansas Barnstar
		Thanks for your help editing Arkansas Confederate Unit Histories Aleutian06 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the help with the Tom et Lola article. :) Ganymede 901 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

WP:JAPAN Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		You've been doing all kinds of work recently to clean up the persondata and defaultsort on Japan-related articles (which is a very large, long, and thankless job...at least until I gave you this award). You also created the {{Vertical text RTL}} and {{RTL scroll}} templates, which will prove very useful, I believe. Your efforts to improve Japan-related content, even though mostly behind the scenes, is greatly appreciated. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles with citations needing edition

Hi, a month ago, you created Category:Wikipedia articles with citations needing edition. It's currently empty and there is no indication what template fills it. Is the category actually used by some template or not? If it is, I think the category page should link to that template. If it's not used, I think it should be deleted. User<Svick>.Talk(); 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
  

UnHelpful Pixie Bot

Fix cleanup tag - typo in month Feruary => January. Feruary 2012 => January 2012 -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed, changed from Hamming to Levenshtein. Though I miss my old AWB regexs... Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of Interest

I noted your delisting of the RfC/U after it was already relisted. I actually went to Tarc's userpage and asked him to explain himself.

He never did answer my question and basically told me to, uh, "sit down, put a cork in it".

Needless to say, I believe this is one of those occasions where my response was justified. CycloneGU (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained template move

Hi there. Could you please assist me in reverting a template move done by an editor without first seeking community consensus? I've tried to revert the move, but somehow I must have done it wrong. Here is the template: Template:Infobox African Movie Academy Awards Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you did the move back correctly. I'm not sure quite why you moved it back, a template that can be used on hundreds of pages is better than a template that can only be used on a handful. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_27, and I am contesting the speedy deletion of the generic template, since it is under discussion. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what you ought to have done in the first place: sending the template to tfd to get community consensus first. thank you. Amsaim (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's "Bold, Revert, Discuss", so it's all good. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

TMZ

Although I agree that TMZ.com is not largely to be considered a reliable source for controversial statements about the biographies of living persons, I must point out that, in cases such as that of Sam the koala), TMZ.com can be considered a reliable source for statements like "TMZ.com officially apologized for having made hurtful statements". DS (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Date templates

In this edit your AWB again added a date template without any intrinsic cause. Please Stop That! Debresser (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So if someone were to add a reference with a different date style, that would be a good thing? Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Шn my understanding, these templates are first and foremost for the date formats as they are used in the text of the article itself. And even then, and regardless of that, if there is no intrinsic reason for an article to use a certain date format (e.g. an article about an English township should use dmy, and an article about a Canadian province mdy), I don't think incidental usage of a certain type of date format should be used as an indicator. Perhaps if there were five instances, e.g., all in the same date format, that would qualify as more than incidental usage. Has this been discussed somewhere? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Canadian usage varies even more widely than American (our Canadian colleagues have told us), although there seems to be a surprising consistency in the WP articles. In terms of difference between ref dates and content dates there is a red-herring in that when wee were writing the MoS we did not want to prohibit (preferably uniform) 1999-12-31 date style in references. On a later discussion proposing that all access dates be in that style, at least two otherwise intelligent editors swore blind that they were incapable of understanding dates in that format, until they were explained to them - otherwise I would have backed that proposal to the hilt. In terms of first usage there is no de minimus requirement, and nor should there be one, it would result in (even more) endless squabbling ("yes there were x dmy dates. but only because you converted my x-1 mdy and one ymd"). If there is a good reason to change (which is really only "national ties") it should just be changed with a suitable edit summary. Extensive discussions on date styles will be found in the archive of MoSNUM talk. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

So here you are, saying the same thing as I do. So then why did you add a date format when there was no good reason? Pray tell. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that the reason for accepting different date formats in refs is to allow (DMY, YMD) and (MDY,YMD) not (DMY,MDY) or (MDY,DMY). Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

I see. But that still doesn't resolve our argument. Should a date format template be added in a case where 1. there is no substantial reason to prefer one date format over the other, and 2. the only practical uniformity is in references, while the article itself does not have any dates? Debresser (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

<I haven't forgotten this, I'm just hoping to get the messy threads put to bed fairly soon> Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I read that before. :) Debresser (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK the principle is one of broken symmetry. Once a style is established it should not be thoughtlessly changed. There could be various criteria for "established", however there is no reason I can see over and above a complete cromulence with one or other style. Making more complex rules would, to my mind, be counter-productive. Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

That sounds reasonable. But you should also take into account that once the bot tagged an article as using this style or the other, all coming editors will be expected to adhere to this style. Therefore I think that the bot should be reluctant in tagging articles, and tag them only in the most clear of cases. Date formatting used in citation templates does not count as such, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a plae where we just have different opinions.Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Re:Stats

Okay, I've been studying Perl, and today I finally took a crack at the script you sent me:

use LWP::Simple;

$month = "09";
$year = "2011";
$lang="en";

while (<>){
    s/ /_/g;
    print "$_";
    $page=get ("http://stats.grok.se/$lang/$year$month/$_" );
    $page =~ /has been viewed (\d+) times in/;
    $total+=$1;
    print " $total\n ";
}

print "\nTotal: $total";

It's a command with the syntax perl script list

You use LWP, because that's the module where "get ()" is.

The "$" lines set literal variables to the values provided.

while is a looping command, and in this case works on the default variable $_. The default here appears to be each successive entry in the list specified.

The angle brackets <> turn the script into a command that is executable from the command prompt in the same way that a Unix command is.

In the loop, you substitute all spaces for underscores, to make the entries work in URLs.

Then you print the current entry to the screen, but print; would have done the same thing.

You follow that with pulling in the output from toolserver. For example http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline_of_geography. In the same operation, you assign the output to the variable $page.

Then you employ the bind operator to specify a pattern (regular expression) match from toolserver's output (taking the match from the content of the $page variable), for the purpose of using the automatic match variable $1. The \d matches digits and the + means one or more of them in a row.

Then you assign the matched string to $total using a cumulative numeric assignment operator. Because it's a numeric operator, Perl automatically strips out the non-numerical stuff from the string (well, not quite, the stuff on the left of the numbers is set to zero, while the stuff on the right is dropped).

Basically, you've scraped the monthly page views from toolserver's output.

Then you print that value to the screen and advance to a new line.

And the loop repeats on the next item in the list.

When the loop is done, you repeat the final total at the end.

I'm ready for my next one. Please send me another simple but useful Wikipedia-related script. The Transhumanist 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Thank you for the Strawberry recommendation. It works fine.

P.P.S.: is there a collection of perl scripts on Wikipedia somewhere?

Good work. The angle brackets actually take next line of input. If you ran this without the list file, the script would take input from the command line, one item at a time. The input from the angle brackets is automatically assigned to $_. (As you can see, perl does a lot of stuff automatically for us.) I'll ferret around for something tomorrow, and see what I can find.

I'm not sure if there's much simple perl floating around, perhaps we should start a library. But there are quite a few bots, Anomie's code is rather beautiful, if a little obscure. Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

In fact a little challenge:

1. get the stats for the previous year for one page
2. output the data in a format suitable for a wiki-page - using a by-month table and a year total on the right.
3. do the same for a list of pages

We could build this into a little bot.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I'm intersted.

On a similar vein, a script or bot that I have great need for is one that builds a chart (similar to this) of subjects, with columns showing comparitively the monthly traffic for outline, portal, and category corresponding to each subject listed. It could take input from a list similar to the script you sent me.

Is that something you'd be interested in helping to create? The Transhumanist 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OF course, that is where we started, wasn't it? Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

What's the plan? To pass code back and forth, or wiki-develop it on a project page? The Transhumanist 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Interview Regarding Wikipedia Bots

Greetings-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. As a member of the bot community and bot operator, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon

UOJComm (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Less asked

As to the issues in a section above:

1. Do you have a solution for the template loop problem of {{Ambox}}? It has been suggested to remove the auto-documentation feature if this issue can't be resolved. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Article_message_boxes#Template_loop.
2. {{Fix}} now can use both "substcheck" and "subst". I replaced most instances of "substcheck" by "subst". Could you check whether I missed any, and then remove the "substcheck" parameter from Fix? Debresser (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the first. I am hoping you will take the time to do the second as well. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that also. Please feel free to comment on Template_talk:Fix#Progress. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your AWB edit to 1996–97 Birmingham City F.C. season

Hello. This edit removed the names of templates {{Fb rbr footer}} and {{Fb rs footer}} from calls to those templates, leaving the article in a bit of a mess. On a lesser point, it also added a date parameter to those template calls. I thought this parameter was only used if no source (s=) parameter is present; am I mistaken? I've undone the edit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The first is a mystery which I'm investigating (also checking for other cases - none so far.). As to the second, it's just a matter of simplicity to give these templates dates regardless, if there is a source then the date is ignored. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

And you've removed those template names again with this edit to 2008–09 Birmingham City F.C. season... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

Ted Nelson

PixieBot is flagging a dead link on Ted Nelson. The link isn't dead -- at least not when I've checked it. I reverted, and PixieBot reverted my change. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is reapplying a date to the {{Dead link}}. The {{Dead link}} was added by an IP, see history. I reverted the IP. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Rich, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple of comments and made a couple of changes. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Just a heads up...

Hey, you might want to figure out why Smackbot did this, as there is a big possibility that it has done other edits similar to this, messing up a lot of pages in the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The underlying cause was resolved at the time. Someone futzed with a redirect. It is possible to do a retroactive search, but it will take some time. Rich Farmbrough, 12:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

Ok 60,000 of the maximum window of 160,000 edits are checked. So far only a handful of affected, all fixed now. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

This is a great example of a bot operator taking responsibility for their edits. Good work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

All done. Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

office hours

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:multiple issues

A while back a placed a request on Template talk:Multiple issues that hasn't received any feedback. The request was that the linkrot issue of multiple issues be changed to resemble template:linkrot in including a link to the reftool. As someone who has worked on this complicated template could you comment on my request? RJFJR (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Femto for WikiProject Christianity

Hi Rich! Been a while since you setup WPConservatism with Femto--and it's working marvelously btw. WP:CHRISTIANITY has been without a RecentChanges update since SQLBot went inactive in 2008 Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Watchlist (OK to change the title). I forget whether Femto uses a template or a category. Anyway we don't have a cat for all articles (although easy enough to modify the template). The template is {{WikiProject Christianity}}. If you could setup Femto for us that would be great!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 11:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

'Tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks Rich for the fast work. It is always a pleasure and a delight working with you. You are one of the most valuable editors we have on Wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll second the thank you (perhaps, as it's WP:CHRISTIANITY, an "amen" would be more apropos). • Astynax ^talk 00:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting a warm glow inside. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

With any luck, it isn't heartburn. Anyway, although some may consider this a bit over the top, I think it is called for.

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thank you for your recent work in helping the Christianity WikiProject keep track of its content. It is very much appreciated. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Attribution required

As was explained to you a number of times (e.g. in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction and the subsequent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#Cite DNB, your copies from DNB, assuming they are not copyright violations (see the end of the discussion you started at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers), need to be correctly attributed, i.e. indicating that the DNB is not only the source for the information, but the actual source for the text. This can easily be done by using the "vb" parameter with the Template:Cite DNB, or by changing to the DNB template, as shown here. Wikipedia:Plagiarism has more info on this. Please also take care with your links, which often go to the wrong article or a disambiguation page, and please remove the DNB drafts category once the articles are in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "As was explained to you a number of times" - this is rude.
• "assuming they are not copyright violations" - I am perfectly aware of the discussion I started, and we had discussed DNB there. It's a shame that the templates which would have allowed rapid assessment of where there might be copyright problems in DNB articles were deleted, but it is not surprising that you supported this stupidity, since I created the templates and you have repeatedly either deleted or attempted to delete what I create.
• The drafts category was requested, but since the great Fram wants it deleted who are we to argue?
• There is really no need for you to come here and issue detailed instructions to another editor. Had you simply pointed out the "vb" parameter, then you might have come across as helpful. As it is you come across as arrogant, confrontational and didactic.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

• • If an experienced editor is well aware of problems with his articles but doesn't do anything to address them, it becomes necessary to be more blunt and more explicit in the instructions he needs to follow. I used to think that gentle reminders were sufficient, but with you they don't seem to be. I don't really care how you perceive my posts any more, as long as they get the job done. Can you indicate how and when the "drafts" category was requested? It's a bad idea, we don't put "drafts" in the mainspace, drafts are for userspace or projectspace. As for the DNB templates; you didn't use them on the earlier articles you created, they were unused when deleted. I only try to delete the errors you create, not the good things. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It is a foolish person indeed who does not care how he is perceived. Despite my enormous patience with you, you do not win back any of the respect you have squandered by behaving in an uncivilised way. This results in what you say being relegated to the lowest priority.
    • And the DNB templates were used on earlier articles I created, as usual you wasted a lot of good work, and created more unnecessary effort.
    • You are wrong about drafts. All articles are drafts. Development in user pages is an option. Also projectspace is a bad word to use, since it may refer to the project i.e. the encyclopaedia.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Proposal to split Park51 to Ground Zero controversy

Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought this already happened. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Removal of TMZ

Can you stop utilizing automated tool to remove the source. You are adding a cn tag where it is not needed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know. I was going back to that item. Thanks for changing it anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

The Act of Settlement 1701 (O.S. 1700)

I thank you very much for your help indeed. I am still relatively quite new in all of this. 213.249.218.39 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Only one of the "Use X English" templates is needed, it is effectively a note to avoid mixing varieties on the same article - thinks like "colour", "honour", "sulfur" etc. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

MSU Interview

Dear Rich Farmbrough,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy —David Levy 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Watch

Hi Rich. Might you have a look at this and please advise? Watch and User_talk:The_Magnificent_Clean-keeper#Watch_article. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks ok, I think you have established that it is not a random book about watches, so there should be no problems. I guess you could have given the other editor a while to reply (BRD), but I see no harm right now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks so very much, Rich. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Foxconn

Hi Rich. User:206.180.101.2 continues to remove the same sourced information from the Foxconn article. Might you look into it? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Left a note. Clearly the article is a little contentious. Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks very much, Rich. It is a (contentious) complicated issue in general but it's been getting a lot of coverage here in the States. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

- - -
Hi Rich. Other anonymous users are doing it now, like User:76.188.129.97. I don't know exactly can be done. Semi-Protect from anons? Dunno. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your timestamp.

How is it you are manipulating your timestamp? Does your signature end with <small> and you sign with ~~~~</small>?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,697,904) 18:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I sign with "~~~". Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

What manipulates the timestamp?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,764,060) 01:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{Subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC).</small><br />

Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,765,199) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alaska recent changes

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council.
Message added 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI note

Hi Rich--I left a response to your note on ANI, "Continued legal threats by blocked user". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commons+cat listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commons+cat. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commons+cat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Crappy DNB articles

You are still creating crappy DNB articles by script, instead of manually. The problematic character of these creations has been discussed before, but for some reason you still use the same script to create these (but then again, even after you had been blocked for these, you wanted to create them by bot, so it seems obvious that you don't see any major flaws in this script...). The rules you use for adding bluelinks are pretty useless, e.g. Thomas Bedingfield (1593?-1661) links to sentences, the name of the subject, disambiguation pages (including "Thomas"), ... Note that your link in the Cite DNB template doesn't work (due to the "?"). Other articles lack all categories (also an old problem), copy the poor transcriptions from Wikisource without any improvements (e.g. Charles Beckingham "He died 19 February 1780-31"), and have poor layout (see e.g. Thomas Bedford (fl.1650), which obviously had not any human oversight after it was script-created, as evidenced by the first lines' italicization, and the link to Baxter Bedford, which in reality is about Baxter and Bedford, not one person or entity).

Another old problem is your creation of articles from the DNB, for which already an article existed. E.g. John Danckerts already existed as Johan Danckerts, and Henry Danckerts as Hendrick Danckerts. Fram (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich, I noticed you are progressing nicely with the DNB articles. Thanks for implementing the changes I suggested in my previous message. I was looking at Thomas Bedford (fl.1650) and it seems like you haven't go around to copy-editing this one yet....

This sort of message might actually keep me reading to the end. I don't know why you think rudeness is the way to approach other people - perhaps it works for you in you personal life, it doesn't work on Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

I'll not start lying just to get you to read messages. You are not "progressing nicely", and have not implemented many changes: you no longer add articles to the clearly incorrect living people cat, and you are finally correctly attributing these articles; but the other errors had been pointed out by me as well, and are still in those articles. I didn't know that you should be treated as a little child and be patronized. It doesn't seem like you had gone around to really copy-editing any of them yet, despite the claims in the edit summaries. E.g. Lawrence Bedeman was created and "copyedited" the 17th, i.e. 10 days ago: it has the incorrect name in the infobox and first line ("or" or "Or" are not part of the name), no categories, links to many disambiguation pages (he is a supporter of Wycliffe? Which one? Probably John Wycliffe; similarly, John Aston should be replaced by John Aston (preacher), and Lifton by Lifton, Devon), redlinks for which we have an article (Archbishop Courtney is William Courtenay, Acts and Monuments' is The Acts and Monuments, would have worked without the extra ' at the end of the redlink), missing links for which we have an article (Foxe is John Foxe), and poor transcription ("Fasiculi" should be "Fasciculi"). I have no idea why you keep on creating such poor quality articles, and are not going to applaud you for them. If you perceive my realism as rude, then tough luck, but repeating the same errors over and over again may perhaps work in your personal life, but not on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And before creating or copyediting articles, perhaps you can do a check to see if we have articles on these persons already (a problem I pointed out above, and which wa also indicated in earlier discussions). You just spent time on Thomas Bedingfield (1593?-1661), but we already had Thomas Bedingfield (judge) on the same person. Fram (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am aware. The articles need merging it is on my list. And I have created links from several thousand WS articles to their corresponding WP articles, this hazard is in the nature of the work. I love your approach to mergeing - replace one article with a redirect, 'tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

No one stops you from using the history of the redirect to merge anything you want to merge. But please don't "merge" like you did with Johan Danckerts, where you replaced an approximate date of birth from a more recent source with one from over 100 years old. You should only add info that is better, not make an article worse. Fram (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RIP to the "incomplete" template

The incomplete template (see discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22) will likely go away soon. Would it make since to run a bot on the articles it's tagged to and:

1. if it has an old date, remove it
2. if it's in a section, replace it with the Expand section tag
3. if it's over a list, replace it with the Expand list tag
4. other tasks...

Is that practical? Who might have a bot that could handle that? Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh.. great. Expand was deleted partly on the grounds that "incomplete" was available. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

They're both toast now -- with about a half-dozen more of those expansion-type templates ready to walk the green mile. So, does it make since to run a bot on those articles? What have you done to articles in the past when transcluded templates were deleted? Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's one way of doing it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Incidentally it is not "toast" until the TfD is closed, and even then there might be a DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)

Hello, I want to add the Recent changes for Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) to monitor all articles automatically updated by a bot. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks :)

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi Rich Farmbrough, thanks for helping out with the Gopal Krishan article. However, you will notice that the exact same two images were readded today by a new user whose only contributions are to "Gopal Krishan" and "Vichitra veena". This is quite obviously the same user you warned under a new account, no? Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably, the images themselves are at commons though. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Rand, Paul listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rand, Paul. Since you had some involvement with the Rand, Paul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – hysteria18 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

• The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
• An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
• An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Unwanted DNB redirects

Even if you can manage to create decent articles from the DNB, we do not need "… (DNB00)" redirects. Please stop creating them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well since it's you asking. Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Could you please check this?

Hi Rich Farmbrough. As an experienced admin, I kindly ask you to check these edits of user MarshallBagramyan. ([62], [63], [64]) That clearly seems like edit war to me. While the source insists that this incident has happened and was the main reason behind these clashes, MarshallBagramyan clearly wants to erase this fact. Could you please help me in this, as I am very reluctant to engage any edit war against him. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping. You already reported this at WP:ANI --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think it was User:MarshallBagramyan who did that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I'll let him off then. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have had a brief look, and certainly there is a slow motion edit war going on, involving a number of editors. I suspect I can guess their nationalities by their edits. I don't see an urgent need for action, so I'm going to think about this a little more. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

There is some mediation going on at [65] not sure if this could be wrapped up with that, or if it would sabotage the process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi Rich. As you have some previous experience about the topic, could you please check this out and leave some comment about what you are thinking about? Some admins are trying to ban me for the things that I have not done. --Verman1 (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please

Please see the updated Request for help section. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Thanks, --Beth Wellington (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop with the cosmetic changes please?

Can you stop with the cosmetic changes please? I find it annoying to have worse-than-pointless edits like this one constantly coming up on my watchlist. Hesperian 03:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to comment

... on Category_talk:User-created_public_domain_images#Keep_local_files. I noticed you made this edit. --MGA73 (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you also fix Template:PD-user? --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at {{PD-author}} which is a bit of a problem one - 11,000 images, most of which, it appears, are either PD-ueser or PD-old (or PD-maybe). Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

{{PD-author}} does not sort the images in dated categories so it is not a big problem at the moment. {{PD-user}} put the files in the same category as {{PD-self}} so to make it work as planned {{PD-user}} should also be fixed. But it looks complex. --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I already did it. Let me know if there are problems. Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie bot mistakes and minor problems

1. Here, HPbot changes Mar2012 in May 2012. Two small issues: Mar is a typo for March, not for May, and HP bot should perhaps never place future tags, since these are usually incorrect.
2. Something seems to have gone wrong here, although it didn't cause any problems.
3. I understand that a bot can't catch every eventuality, but I thought that this one was covered by it: missing "date=" before months. This doesn't really produce the optimal result. Fram (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1 Hm, the Mar thing is interesting. Back in the AWB days there was a complete suite of comprehensive regexes that verged on AI in its effect, but I replaced (most of) them with Hamming distance code in the Perl version. A few weeks back I changed this to Levenshtein distance which is much more sophisticated, but compute intensive. Obviously neither are as good as I would like.

Actually this was much simpler, the code to split months from years was after the code that expands month names. So  Fixed from build p625. (625 is 5*5*5*5.) Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

a.) Again the AWB version had code to fix future and too-far-in-the past dates, this could be re-introduced.

HPB does limit dates, but it is fairly relaxed about it. I have made it a little more assertive about future dates. (p626) Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

2. This is interesting. The code and the mediawiki software should catch edit conflicts, here is AnomieBOT making the same edit (AnmoieBOT tunes it's time delay to match HPB, maximising the chance of edit conflicts).

3. This is a known issue, and slightly tricky. Adding "date=" is fine if parameter is meant to perform that function, and guessing by "if it looks like a date" is a good filter. I have never felt happy, though, since there have been cases where a default parameter is legitimate. Perhaps I will implement this for current month only.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks a lot better. Fram (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Clear right}}

Can you please fix the syntax after this edit, thanks.

Removing the CSS float is what was needed. Changing <div> to <br> is incorrect (and unnecessary) because it breaks the HTML nesting rules for %block; contexts. More importantly, your edit now leaves a dangling </div> closing tag that just shouldn't be there. Also <br/> is a bogosity anyway, as that's XHTML and if we're embedding anything in MediaWiki wikitext, it's a HTML parsing model, not an XHTML one.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I checked a bunch of articles, but none of them actually needed the {{Clear right}}. (But I believe we are supposed to be XHTML compliant.) I am not sure if the un-named parameter belongs there. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cleanup category population

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cleanup category population. Can you explain there why you made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATrivia& diff=469030301 this edit]? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Arthur Hall (stationer)

I have added enough to document his publishing activities. But note that the identification with the DNB author is tenuous: see s:Author_talk:Arthur Hall. Common name. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Much like his cousin, Albert. Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC).

Problem with images: Working in English, not working in French

Hello Rich,

I created the Alhaji Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof article and added these images: [66] and [67]. They are showing up in the English article but when I tried to use them in the corresponding French article [68] they do not work, even though I've given permission (atleast I thought). Do you know how to solve this problem? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you will need to upload them to the French Wikipedia as well. Since they are fair-use they can't go on Commons. This is exactly the sort of situation where my proposed "uncommons" project would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC).

I see. Thanks very much for that Rich.

Tamsier (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

request of help regarding PIT

Dear Rich, regarding an article about Pumpable ice technology. In order to understand your remarks deeply, please, show 2-3 examples. When I prepared this draft, my main target was to support Wiki requirements including the writing content from a neutral point of view. Of course, I've not got the experience to work with Wiki articles. That is why, please, show 1,2,3 external links that are not appropriated up to your point of view or Wiki standards. Thanks Swallow2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC).

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC).

Tags (UK constituency articles)

Hey

Helpful Pixie Box has gone on a tagging binge - Rayment build 626 or something like that (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Down_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&curid=865888&diff=480337792&oldid=465261465). Could you explain what this is, please, because I have almost every United Kingdom parliamentary constituency on my watchlist so I currently have either a lot of work to do or a lot of stuff to ignore.

Thanks! doktorb _words^deeds 16:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, consensus (which I don't fully support) is that Rayment is not a wholly RS, and therefore {{Better source}} has been inserted into the main {{Rayment}} template (which can be over-ridden when the template is used for external links, for example, instead of as a citation). This means that all occurrences needed dating. Generally I can spot this sort of thing coming (with template tags) and start dating the templates in advance, sometimes years, so that it's not a big bang when it becomes official, this one, however took me by surprise. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

Hmmph, I can't think of a better source! What shall I do? doktorb _words^deeds 16:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Template talk:Rayment you will see many sources discussed, not just Burke's and Debretts, and the MP lists, but many I am not familiar with. As to what you should do, that's up to you! Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

Hehe, cheers Rich. I have a watchlist page full of constituency articles now, I think that what I should do is just leave it be :P doktorb _words^deeds 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Some errors in your latest edits

In your latest edits, you are carefully making some minimal change so as not to violate the letter of your editing restriction. You are at the same time making errors though, duplicating the "Use British English" template[69][70][71][72][73]... Furthermore, you have now made a few hundred edits (basically to replace a redirected template to the target of the redirect name, not really very useful) with the rather non-informational edit summary "General fixes using", which seems to be the result of some tampering with a tool like AWB. Please provide more informational and less incomplete edit summaries, and be more careful when adding templates. Fram (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There may be 9 edits which duplicate the template, easily fixed. If I wasn't looking over my shoulder all the time that would certainly not have happened. As to to the rest, .. Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps better if you only edit while you are able to watch the screen? It can't be good for your back to edit while looking over your shoulder all the time. Any reason why you don't use better edit summaries? Usually, one would expect that something would follow "using"... Fram (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

George M. Cochran

Hey, Rich, I'm back. Hope you're well. How does one remove the [1] before the first external link...Thanks! --Beth Wellington (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just take the description (which will become clickable) into the []. As long as there is a space between the url and the description it will work. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category TOC exists

Template:Category TOC exists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't people talk instead of nominating? Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Yeah, sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

NP. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Ref web

Is {{Ref web}} going anywhere? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. something I really should get back to. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue

Terrible restore. You should know better. You do know better. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the point in hiding history? Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

What does that even mean? After over 6,000 deletions, you're now opposed to the practice?

And what history? {{rescue}} wasn't {{qif}} or some other template with technical or historical value. It was exactly what you'd expect it to have been, with just as many edits. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I have always been opposed to hiding history, except where there are legal, moral or ethical concerns. The point is that I merely restored historical versions under the new text. I also corrected the new code so that it functioned properly. Both unexceptional actions.

I'm not sure why people are so angry about this, it in no way represents a victory, phyrric or otherwise for ARS. As far as I know the three people involved, Ironholds, Tothwolf and myself have never vouchsafed an opinion on ARS vs deletionists. I believe Ironholds was the closing admin?

As I remarked this is simply a piece of functionality the MediaWiki software should support, and anyone can utilise it, I would encourage them to do so, if they find it useful, until and unless it becomes native.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

{{rescue}} is a political tool. That's why your restoration was more than just a restoration.

Re-reading some of my comments here, they sound a bit harsher than I intended. I'm mostly just annoyed to see the template alive again (and back at TFD). :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

TMZ...

...has often proven to be at least as or more reliable than the so-called "reliable" sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure. Mostly they are cited for stuff we really don't want to get wrong (and possibly shouldn't be including anyway) like divorce settlements and stalking court orders. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC).

The encyclopedic value of their content is a whole separate issue from their reliability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

J'agree Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC).

MediaCityUK conundrum

Hi Rich. Might you have a look at this and advise or act on it accordingly? User_talk:J3Mrs#MediaCityUK. Thanks and bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you have settled. I'd not worry too much about this particular case, there are some deep issues here which are better solved at guidance level (there may be something on the first point) rather than on a single article. Any of the references support that some programming was moved which is good, and of course the gold standard is verifiable not referenced.

1. What is the optimum number of references for a given fact?
2. How can we preserve unused but potentially useful references?

But as far as that paragraph goes I'd like to see, "Research and Religion and Ethics departments" changed to be less ambiguous.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. It (and User:J3Mrs) just felt iron-fisted and unreasonable, something I am unaccustomed to. I made a case for the set of references I put in -- which J3Mrs rejected. I think it might be a larger problem with this editor. Anyway, let it go for now. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Outline of Perl

Here's a new outline.

You could help us Perl newbies by adding anything you think would be helpful. The Transhumanist 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer

Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 13:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Stable version template

I just wanted to let you know that I tweaked the stable version template a little; I made it collapsible, and added a link to the template documentation.

Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sounds good. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/pscbk/til_wikipedias_highest_editorial_honor_is_the/

This editor is a Master Editor II and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

I created that discussion today in TIL. Currently, it's 3 on the TIL page. Go tell everybody in the discussion you're the most BA MFer on Wikipedia :)

Thanks. I love rhodium, so crunchy. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

The Redditors forgot SmackBot though..

Take a look The first two questions are the only ones that matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess in a month I get bufonite... Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
23:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Larry Jordan

HELLO. I see you helped edit the article I wrote about Larry N. Jordan that is undergoing some tweaking. I am wondering if you could also help me create a footnote? Near the end of the article I have cited a story that ran on Mr. Jordan in two Texas newspapers but I did not know how to create a link to a footnote so I merely made the actual newspaper names a link to the story. If you could modify this I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks, Lisa BrownLisaBrown2012 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

HELLO AGAIN. I noticed in re-reading Larry N. Jordan's Wikipedia page that someone removed the reference to Billboard magazine. But this is a MAJOR citation that should be included, especially since it appeared in the magazine recently when they did an interview with Mr. Jordan and it helps justify his accomplishment in writing a major new book on this iconic star Jim Reeves:

(The link is: http://www.billboard.com/column/the-615/jim-reeves-life-disturbed-author-of-biography-1005837352.story#/column/the-615/jim-reeves-life-disturbed-author-of-biography-1005837352.story )

There is also a quote from the article I'd like to include, as follows: According to Billboard:

"Though the author is a Reeves fan, he didn't put the singer on a pedestal... The book is a balanced account of Reeves' life and career, his marriage to Mary...and his penchant for the opposite sex that might not have meshed with his 'Gentleman Jim' persona. However, Jordan spends a lot of time discussing what made Reeves fans all over the world: the music."

I'm a newbie and I have got in over my head in trying to do a good deed by posting to Wikipedia on a guy I think has some impressive accomplishments and yet I still don't quite understand the technical aspects here. If you could help again I'd sure thank you! -- Lisa BrownLisaBrown2012 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm there should be enough eyes on this, but I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 10:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
 Done

BOT problem

Hi, just a minor problem with BOT in this edit where the BOT dates an already dated {{Rp}} template, as well as 2 undated ones. Keith D (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, how very curious. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Resolved, thanks again Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Template blanking

Hi Farmbrough, your bot Femto Bot (talk · contribs) blanked {{wikification progress}} with this edit. Was this a mistake? I'm notifying you just in case; for now i have restored the template as it is used by WP:WWF. Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! This is very odd, it null edits those pages several times a day, but has never deleted one before (it wiped three). I suspect it may be related to WMF server problems, I will but in a check to ensrue that it doesn't happen again. Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. benzband (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Template:more plot

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#Template:More plot is closed as keep. However, these issues are still discussed in Template talk:More plot. Please join in discussion for more consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't use the same incorrect edit summary over and over again. You made 48 edits with "Fix refs and/or minor fixes Depov a little", but apart from the first one none of them did "depov" anything. Fram (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorted. Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Deleting an article out of process

When an AfD concludes as "merge", you shouldn't simply delete the page and move another page over it. Please restore the history of Statesman (276 deleted edits, stertching back to 2003) and respect the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statesman and the general deletion rules. This was clearly an incorrect "G6" deletion. Fram (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The content is on the talk page. Please don't be an ass. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

There was no reason at all to delete these 276 edits, there is such a thing as a history merge which could easily have been performed here. There is also suich a thing as DRV if you disagree with an AfD. Any reason why you can't just follow our normal processes? Fram (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't seem inclined to do this, I have asked another admin to restore this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Restoration of page history requested. Fram (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Waste of time.. Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot errors

Your code to change "Reference" to "References" should only work when it is the only word in the section header, not in cases like this and this. I corrected them both, no idea if there are any others where the same happened. Fram (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Allright. I have meanwhile also corrected [74] and [75]. Fram (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Doesn't seem to be completely corrected, notice e.g. [76] and [77] (both corrected now). Fram (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That was useful, the AI is supposed to review my instructions periodically, and I told it to stop doing header fixes at all, so I've improved the obedience function a little. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot error

Hi Rich. Helpful Pixie Bot broke a number of URLs on an article I watchlist in this edit. I reverted and have temporarily indefinitely blocked the bot. Feel free to unblock without asking me whenever you get that bug fixed. Best, NW (Talk) 18:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation template doesn't need dating

Re this edit, the {{Disambiguation}} template doesn't need dating, as far as I know. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Dated template "disambiguation" - see [78]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Edit - I see someone said this. Ignore. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD Alan Forsyth

would like you to take a look at the discussion. We have posting of misinformation which is then used to support what seems to be an overriding BIAS against those who seek elected public office couched in "notability" terms Yaloe (talk) 03:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Calfix

The sources for this page have been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlowenstein (talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot & ISBN

Why is the Helpfull Pixie Bot having a problem with "isbn= 2-06-008-099-0". That is exactly the ISBN as stated on the book cover. Could it give trouble because this is a French' ISBN? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the publisher made an error, that is not unknown - ISBN 2-06-008-099-0 is invalid (click it and get confirmation from special:boooksources). Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Hmmm, maybe a blob of ink too much. After comparison with the guides from 1985 and 1993 I have tried 006 instead of 008 and that gave the right book. Nice Now I have to find al articles with the wrong ISBN and correct them.... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW: "{{Please check ISBN|reason=Check digit (0) deos not correspond to calculated 1.}}" should be corrected too Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes... actually I'm going to change that message, because the risk is that people will simply change the check-digit. However sometimes they have done a manual 10->13 conversion by simply sticking a 798 at the front... Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes, that agrees with the number I just found at paper-back swap. I had forgotten the thrill of the ISBN chase. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

perl table construction script

I don't have a clue where to start.

I'd like the table to list subjects down the left, with columns for traffic on the right. One traffic column for the corresponding outline, category, and portal for comparison purposes.

And totals at the bottom of each column.

If you whip something up, I'm sure I could help refine it.

I look forward to any perl code you can throw at me. The Transhumanist 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Happy New Year!

OK so here's the (untested) basics in pseudo-perl. (There's two approaches, storing everything then making the table,or making the table line by line. Both have advantages, the latter is simpler.)

let us suppose we have a config file with the subject, outline, cats and portals listed thus:

Stamford,Outline of Stamford, Category:Stamford, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stamford

(We could just have the word "Stamford" - if we could be sure that all three entities follow the naming convention.)

print_headers...

while (<>){
    chomp;
    if (/^([^,]*),([^,]*),([^,]*),([^,]*)$/){ # Note: this could be also done with the split function, in a different way
       $name=$1;
       $outline=$2
       $cat=$3;
       $project=$4;
   }
   else{
       print "$_ does not match pattern; skipping.\n";
   }
   $outline_count=count($outline);
   $cat_count=count($outline);
   $project_count=count($project);
   print "\|$name\|\|$outline_count\|\|$cat_count\|\|$project_count\n\|-\n"; # make a line of the table....
   # keep track of the totals....
   $outline_total+=$outline_count;
   ...
}

print_footers....

sub count{
    # in some circumstances there would be error checking code here - what if the page doesn't exist,or the server is down?
    $url=shift;
    get the page...
    $count= find the number..
    return $count
}

Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

I'll see if I can figure out how it works. Thank you! The Transhumanist 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Spamming?

Hi Rich. Do you know what this is all about? He keeps putting invitations on my talk page and I keep deleting them, and he keeps putting them back. A bot? I never heard of this editor: User talk:Walter55024. Please have a look. The message he keeps leaving on my talk page is:

Would you like to join my disscion at:User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Walter55024?--Walter55024 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this fairly new editor around. WTT is mentoring him, but I rather think this is going to be a long process. Definitely means well, and presumably is excited about the technology - but just doesn't "get it" yet. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich, for having a look. It seemed a bit odd. Another admin has blocked the editor now, indefinitely, until such a time as he can be appropriately productive on Wikipedia. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Copro Records albums

Category:Copro Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Helpful Pixie Bot task is this?

HPB is "Delink USA (overlinking) and replace with US (MoS)" (e.g. here). I couldn't find the approval for this task. Can you indicate where this was approved? Fram (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

E.g. edits like this one are unnecessary and don't do any other approved tasks at the same time. Fram (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How curious. I shall put a stop to it immediately. Rich Farmbrough, 10:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Fram (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But then again... [79]. Oh, and totally unimportant, but there is a typo in some HPB edit summaries, e.g. [80] (paramter instead of parameter). Fram (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1998

So I know you have everything up to 1999 up, are you gonna be able to do 1998? Arjoccolenty (talk)

Some mistake? This is data I do not have at my fingertips. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Please stop the ISBNs for a while

You have been asked by some people on this page to stop with changing the ISBNs (hyphenation) through Helpful Pixie Bot while discussion about it is ongoing. On the other hand, the task to do this has been approved, but that was some years ago.

Now I notice that Helpful Pixie Bot is not only adding and changing hyphenation (e.g. here), but is also removing hyphenation[81][82][83][84]...). Perhaps it would be better if you stopped with this task until it has become more clear whether there still is consensus for this. The tagging of incorrect ISBNs[85] is separate from this and seems undoubtedly useful, so no problem there. Fram (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You're a programmer?

Rich Farmbrough, I dropped by your page the other day on a completly different matter. I noticed that you're a programmer. I assume you work with the wikidatabase. I'm looking for two things:

1. a list of all 9000+ items contained within Category:WikiProject Canadian music articles
2. a report listing articles (from the above category) that is missing Category:Musical groups by year of establishment (for music groups only).

Maybe you can point me in the right direction if you can't help? Thanks very much. Argolin (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Download WP:AWB, use the list comparer (tools on the menu bar) to create the list of members of both categories. Hit compare.. well yoll have to futz a bit to get non-groups out of the list. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

omg! The AWB is more than a simple edit tool? Thank-you very much. I'll look into signing up for it. How about item #1? I use my list of these articles to look for the intersect/nonintersect of other categories. Most recently, I took the articles from Category:Albums by artist, removed the albums, and compared it to my list. There are many, many album articles not linked to any project other than WP:Albums. Argolin (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

here is a list. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks Rich Farmbrough I've signed up for access. It's something I've always meant to check out, but never got around to. It sounds like a great tool that will do a lot of what I'm looking for. For the other request that I pressed of you, please don't spend any more time on it. Unless you're done, I'll see what the AWB does first. I'm sure there must be a request a feature section in AWB. Thanks again Argolin (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC).

I was looking for a .csv or tab delimited dump of all items in Category:WikiProject Canadian music articles not recent changes: I've done most of them! In fact, I need the sandbox dump to be able to run live anytime I choose. I'm sure you know the "articles" in the cat name refers to all main namespace class articles. That's what I want all 9,076 of them as at 20 February 2012.

Yes the cat name is misleading, it contains (the talk pages of) more than just articles. There's currently 8191 articles listed here. What we need really is an ontological assessment of articles. Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC).

There are 9,081 items here Category:WikiProject Canadian music articles. You've removed all the non-article classes (and the "talk"). The problem is that I'm now unwilling to manually compile my database of Canadian music items by copying each page grouping 200 items (from the above cat). I always knew it was somewhat silly to do it that way but also knew that I would seek help. In the last month the project went from ~7k to 9k (mostly of music album articles). The project will baloon again after I add the song articles. Can you tweak your page to include all classes and have it point to the talk page? Thanks Argolin (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore the above request. I can get it myself with AWB! I'm already woking on a 600+ list of music group biographies without a year of establishment. I posted my question at the AWB help: it was answered pdq! I figured I have bothered you enough. You gave me that one final push to sign up for AWB (which I'm diggin'). Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Tools make people more productive! Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

AFD/PROD notices

Hi Rich. Awhile back you got either an AFD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested, that would be very useful. We're specifically looking for info about whether the messages were more effective at communicating how people should participate in deletion processes as the author of the article. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments Rich, it's uber helpful. If you want, I can keep you updated on any new developments... Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Foxconn redux

Hi Rich. Foxconn is still dicey after semi-protection expired. User:76.188.129.97 got back in there. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-jigged the section a little, since that sentence was a mess, and consolidated the facts into one detailed sentence. Shame there aren't better sources. Rich Farmbrough, 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. It seems better off with your clear edits. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal view

The current build of the bot is placing templates on articles to say they have one source - obvious and no inline citations - obvious. It could be said that the bot goads people into action - but I jyst find it a bit depressing to think of those BLPs that we added a ref to, to now have these templates. IMO Victuallers (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

... er... no it's not? Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

Template:Sister project link listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Sister project link. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Sister project link redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rayment

Thanks for removing the an(s) this edit, but why add the date parameter to the templates? As it will just change every time the template is called, I had considered doing it but decided that it just meant more execution every time the template is called. Was it done to shut up some sort of error report?

If so it will not work too well because doesn't the date parameter includes a day? I think the code that would be needed should look like this. But of course the real way to fix it is to pass in a parameter to the {{Rayment}} with the Magic variables subst so it is set once in the article eg: |editdate={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} which will set "editdate=March 2012" -- PBS (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the date parameter needs to be set in the articles {{Rayment|date=February 2012}}. Helpful Pixie Bot will take care of this. I am not keen on having clean-up tags wrapped in other templates, but it is a fairly common requirement, and this is a simple template. Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

{{Rayment-hc}} has been converted in a similar way to {{Rayment}} including your date alterations. There are about two times a many article inclusions to this template than {{Rayment}} (6,000+ instead of just under 3,000) -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-Acess Article

Hello,

Your bot tagged an ariticle I was working on for various things. I have worked this past few days to correct those thing and was hoping you could check and see if I have cleared up any of the issues. If I have not, could you provide guidance on what my next steps should be? Thank you very much. Trieka Ayer (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Link to page: Dropa stones Trieka Ayer (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Category:Bongo Beat Records

Hey Rich Farmbrough. Would you mind if I call you Rich? The Category:Bongo Beat Records albums you created has been flagged for speedy deletion. By chance, I was working on The Diodes. The article claims that the band was signed to Bongo Beat Records. I haven't done much work to prove this. However, for some reason Bongo Beat Records is familiar for which now I can't recall. They were a legit record label as evidenced by one naming form Bongo Beat acoustic series. I've done a cursory search on wiki for others to add to this empty category with no results. There are many, many deletionists out there! Argolin (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem in my eyes, record label categories are deleted if there is no article about the label, albums are dleeted becasue they are not on notable labels, artists are deleted because they do not have notable albums. People seem to forget that merge exists. Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

I found four members, with little difficulty. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks one for the inclusionists! Argolin (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Lancelot "Capability" Brown

isbn help please. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We have the capability... Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Talk page spam

OK, but Lttljvd is the original one I wanted to talk to but I thought that he had left so I sort of went crazy. I'm sorry. It won't happen again. Arjoccolenty (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You left the message on his user page User:Lttljvd (which was empty and I have deleted so it's empty again), instead of his talk page -User talk:Lttljvd ... Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

ISBN hyphenation

Hi, Rich. I ask you to at least temporarily stop using HPB for ISBN hyphenation, as there is no consensus that it's needed. You may join discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did stop for several days for the record. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot dropped year

Hiya. Helpful Pixie Bot may be a bit confused, and dropping the year from date params: ''|date=March 15, 2012}}'' to ''|date=March }}'' For example[86] Thanks ;) Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   23:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The same happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aga_Bai_Arrecha!&diff=482135826&oldid=482133689 here in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's cool, fixed in a later build. All errors will be sorted by the bot or the other bot. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Note to self. There may be more problems hidden by the other bot. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Saving bot resources?

We recently updated two template doc pages that were unclear as to syntax usage. If the date option is added to the usage docs, it may save bot resources. Template:Missing information non-contentious/doc and Template:Missing information/doc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Canoe. I have found historically that the level and variety of mistakes people make when they are trying to date templates costs more effort than leaving them blank, when I ran the bot in batch mode. Now it runs continuously, an uncorrectable mis-dated tag might cost more bot resource than before, and the number of items per day is no issue at all. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Angela Wright

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

This individual is only noteworthy for the award, whose article already mentions her. It is a one-sentence article with multiple issues and pretty obviously falls under WP:1E

While all 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. Sleddog116 (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues template usage suggestion

I have started a discussion about making the Multiple issues template the new cleanup template here. Since you have edited this template several times in the past I thought you might have some insight into this idea. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wiktionary pipe

Template:Wiktionary pipe 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☯ 05:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple questions...

In the annotation Perl script you wrote...

What does $page do?

I tried opening a file into $page, and it didn't work:

open $page, "Outline.txt" or die $!;
while ($page =~ /\n\*\s*\[\[([^\])]*\]\]\s*\*/s ){
   $bulleted = $1;
   $entry =   get ($bulleted);
   $entry =~ s/.*?'''.*?'''//;
   $entry =~ s/([^\.]*.[^\.]*.).*/$1/;
   $page =~ s/(\n\*\s*\[\[$bulleted\]\]\s*)\*/$1 $entry/;
}

I used the following script to test the behavior of $page:

open $page, "Outline.txt" or die $!;
while ($page){
   chomp;
   print "$_\n"
}

It just produced blank space.

I tried the above script without the "open" line, providing "Outline.txt" as a command line argument, and it still didn't work.

I use regex all the time, but file handling in perl has me stumped.

The Transhumanist 01:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's not how I would open a file - if I wrote that it was very strange.

open FILE, "Outline.txt" or die $!;

will open the file.

Then you need to read from it. Something like:

@array=<FILE>;
$page=join "\n", @array;
close FILE;

^perlmonks

The you are good to go. Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Or just

while (<FILE>) {$page.=$_}

TMTOWTDI. Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Is it normal for beginner Perl students' heads to spin? (Mine is spinning).  :)

You provided the following script fragment in a previous thread:

while ($page =~ /\n\*\s*\[\[([^\])]*\]\]\s*\*/s ){
   $bulleted = $1;
   $entry =   get ($bulleted);
   $entry =~ s/.*?'''.*?'''//;
   $entry =~ s/([^\.]*.[^\.]*.).*/$1/;
   $page =~ s/(\n\*\s*\[\[$bulleted\]\]\s*)\*/$1 $entry/;
}

There is definitely something missing, because the script does not work when run, even when I replace the guts with

while ($page){
   chomp;
   print "$_\n";
}

I don't understand "$page". It's not defined in the script, and I don't know how to define it from the examples you just provided.

It doesn't appear that this fragment can be dropped into the new script you provided above.

What is missing? The Transhumanist 03:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes $page is the contents of the page. How you get the contents of the page is another matter. Remember data types in perl are somewhat flexible - $page does not need to be defined unless you

 use strict;

which you probably should. So in the example I gave (gluing it together)

open FILE, "Outline.txt" or die $!;
while (<FILE>) {$page.=$_}
close FILE;

while ($page =~ /\n\*\s*\[\[([^\])]*\]\]\s*\*/s ){
   $bulleted = $1;
   $entry =   get ($bulleted);
   $entry =~ s/.*?'''.*?'''//;
   $entry =~ s/([^\.]*.[^\.]*.).*/$1/;
   $page =~ s/(\n\*\s*\[\[$bulleted\]\]\s*)\*/$1 $entry/;
}

# Now do something with the text we have created.
open FILE, "Annotated.txt" or die $!;
print FILE $page;
close FILE;

the text was loaded from a file. There would need to be a subroutine to get the Wikipage $bulleted.

Rich Farmbrough, 03:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

I swapped out the guts to test the file handling portion...

open FILE, "Outline.txt" or die $!;
while (<FILE>) {$page.=$_}
close FILE;

while ($page){
   chomp;
   print "$_\n";
}

...and it didn't work.

What did I do wrong? The Transhumanist 03:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: is there supposed to be a "." after "$page"?   -TT

Yes ".=" appends so it's the same as "$page = $page . $_;"

The critical difference is that the while loop in my code has a match in it. While that match is true it loops.

Assuming there is some text in your "Outline.txt" file, your code will stay in the while loop forever, printing whatever is in the $_ variable; If $page evaluates to false, (which probably means an empty file) then it will just finish.

open FILE, "Outline.txt" or die $!;
while (<FILE>) {$page.=$_}
close FILE;

print $page;

would be all that was needed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Gabi Ashkenazi article

Hello Rich. An anonymous editor from Antwerp, Belgium keeps putting in erroneous and un-cited information about the name of the brother of Gabi Ashkenazi. His brother's name, as per the citation given, is Avi not Natan who's a military leader. I'm on the verge of a 3RR. Help? The anonymous editor(s) are User:91.176.220.231 and User:91.176.56.106. Help? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. The Hebrew article agrees (luckily Aleph is one of the Hebrew letters I know). Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Very good. Thanks, Rich. I guess Georg Cantor helped aleph along for many. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich. User:84.198.183.148 is back changing it from Avi to Natan. Another Antwerp, Belgium IP and anonymous editor. Help? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Left an HTML comment, fingers crossed. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

ISBN hyphens

Hi. This bot just added hyphens to some ISBNs in Smith Act trials of communist party leaders. I'm preparing the article for WP:FA, and uniformity in citations is critical. So I need to have them all with hyphens, or all without hyphens. My preference is without (which is the way the article was before). I tried to "undo" the change, but intervening changes made that impossible. NOTE: I'm not cranky, and I love bots & appreciate the work the bot-creators do; but in this case the article became, from a FA/MOS/uniformity viewpoint, worse. I'll go ahead an manually undo; but I thought I'd give you all a heads-up since other editors will probably object to these sorts of changes. --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

Gabi Ashkenazi revisited

Hello Rich. User:84.198.183.148 is back changing it from Avi to Natan in the Gabi Ashkenazi article after my prior query to you. Another Antwerp, Belgium IP and anonymous editor. Help? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich, for helping. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nantucket Sleighride (album)

Hi Rich. User:Areyoureadyeddy keeps insisting on putting the full name in the Nantucket Sleighride (album) for West/Palmer, inconsistent with the way the other songs' composers are listed. It's a revert back and forth issue too by now. Any thoughts? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You should drop him a nice note, remember many new users don't know how to use the history, and probably think a revert is their edit not "taking". I would mention that the full names are given in the next section. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Hi Rich. Thanks. That user is not new (first edit in 2007). Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but with less than 100 edits, never used a talk page... Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes I see. However, as far as full names go, not quite so. The editor keeps inserting "Sue Palmer" which isn't subsequently listed by first name as minor others are not either. Sue Palmer was apparently a co-composer of one or two two songs, not necessarily a credited performer on the album session. The only other name that isn't listed subsequently who's not a member of the band was "Collins" which is Felix Pappalardi's wife, Gail Collins Pappalardi. Think the user User:Areyoureadyeddy is Sue Palmer or agents thereof? ;) --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I thought it was just West. No I don't think they are that Sue Palmer, (not Sue Palmeror we could just put a piped link) and of course there is a point here. Surname only is fine if the disambiguation is clear, but there are many composers called Palmer, and of course we don't want to either clutter the listing with "full names for all!" or have it inconstant. So let's add a short note. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Palmer also has writing credits on Why Dontcha and Live 'n' Kickin' for The Doctor. Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Right. Very Good. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For creating Helpful Pixie Bot. Wikipedia depends on bots, including Helpful Pixie Bot, to keep a presentable appearance. Good work! ChromaNebula (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooh thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Merges, Internet addiction disorder

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Talk:Internet addiction disorder.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possible Merges, proposed by User :Rich Farmbrough Balypu (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi! Rich Farmbrough, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here Sarah (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Steven (WMF)'s talk page.

Linguistic misunderstanding

I noticed your comment on the Invasions of the Rio de la Plata. You might be amused to know that I have just found out that Pretensión is the Spanish word for "Claim" so the heading that became a debate about a Point of View, "British pretentions", was almost certainly a linguistic misunderstanding and intended to be "British Claims". I would have found this out earlier but Google Translate needs the acute accent above the ó. :-) PS: thank you for sorting out the "sockpuppet". 86.4.27.128 but now: Argcontrib (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. That's pretty much the older meaning in English, just as a "pretender" to the throne was someone who claimed it, not someone who was playing make-believe. You're welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 01:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

template:Scroll box

Hi Rich, quick question about scroll_box. Currently when scroll_box starts it defaults to the top row of the target page. Is there a way to scroll to the bottom row as the default? I was going to use scroll_box for a talk page. And I want to go to the newer threads first. Those are on the bottom of the talkpage. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 12:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I poked around in some CSS docs and haven't found a solution yet. I think, though, that even if there is one it would not be without problems, as people will tend to add new sections after the scroll box. Also if it's anywhere other than your user:talk folk will probably object. I suspect you could use JavaScript to go to the last section on a talk page, or indeed on all talk pages. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

WP:Bad links

Hi Rich, here's a blast from the past: WP:Bad links and its subpages, some of which are long lists, seem to be obsolete. I came across them when checking "what links here" from what is now a disambiguation page. Can they be nominated for deletion at MfD? I thought I'd ask you first as you seem to have been an active user of these pages several years ago. – Fayenatic L (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the sup-pages could be speedied, and the main page redirected to the appropriate database report page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC).

Cheers, I've deleted the sub-pages. I couldn't find a matching database report so I redirected the project page to Wikipedia:Database reports. It's the subpages that needed to go, to remove the unnecessary incoming links. Maybe the project page should be kept for historical interest anyway. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just redirect to Wikipedia:Database_reports since there is no one-one mapping. Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC).

Diff?

I know that you mentioned you added a different wording to {{cleanup}} in the last deletion debate and it was was "sadly reverted". Could you tell me which one?Curb Chain (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This one. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for village pump license comment

Hello--I should have thanked you a while ago for your response, but I've been mostly off Wikipedia. I'm still wondering about it, but I'll probably go with the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. (Mostly I was wondering if including the "BY" part would create too much of a practical barrier for others to import my material into Wikimedia project. I suppose as long as I'm the one it's coming from, if I don't object, it's not a big deal.) Anyway, thanks! (I may not see any response as I'm falling off Wikipedia again .. right .. about .. now CRETOG8(t/c) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Statesman

Hi, Rich. I am a little puzzled by Statesman. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statesman was merge to Politician. It appears to me, as an uninvolved observer, that you just deleted the article without merging anything. And, since it is now deleted, no one other than an administrator will be able to merge anything in the future. In addition to this, what do you suggest should be done about the 1000+ other articles that contain links to Statesman? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There was, as I remarked ion the talk page, no content both relevant to and worthy of merging to politician. I have copied the content to the talk page, in case you (or anyone else) think otherwise. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Gahame (surname)

Hi Rich Its my first time on wikipedia, thanks for the editing on my page. Have you any more ideas/edits that would improve the page.

The name "Gaham" no "e" on the end is actually in the bible, "Gahame" may be a variant of this? could I edit in "Gaham" as a similar name? Also "Gahan" was a surname used by my "forefathers" so could I mention "Gahan" as a similar surname.

Hope you can help me further with this.

Regards

Robert Gahame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert gahame (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The relationship between the surnames is worth mentioning if it is documented. For example I can cite books showing that Farmbrough, Farnbrough, Farmborough, Fambro and the rest (many many variations) are used in branches of the same family. Certainly they should go in the "see also" section - if articles or disambiguation pages exist. As for the biblical name Gaham, I would recommend that you either cite a source that makes the link, or put it in the "See also" section. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Whitespace around section titles

Hi, could you please modify the bot to not change whitespace around section titles when correcting them, like here or here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Which BRFA covers this task? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia ... Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 1 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_2#SmackBot_task_approval_III. Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

The changing of the whitespace though is not covered by the BRFA, and is not supported by any other policies or general fixes either (see WP:MOSHEAD and WP:MOS intro: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason."). Fram (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Busy today Fram? Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Ok, thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done build 631. Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Cool, thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the Pixie bot from changing "Reference" to "References"

I'm having to undo these changes on all the pages on my Watch list. Many articles/subjects are so small that they only have one main Reference, and will likely never have more than that one. Please remove this function from the Pixiebot's changes. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The change is appropriate; using "References", like "External links" is forward-looking. I'm sure it's written up somewhere as correct practise. You should not be undoing these automated fixes. Alarbus (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and References says: With the exception of "Bibliography", the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing the display of article's name?

Rich Farmbrough, would you mind if I call you Rich (you didn't really answer last time). This is somewhat a bizarro thing. I've found {{DISPLAYTITLE:''iTunes Originals – Barenaked Ladies''}} does what it says. When I try to use that syntax for DE9: Transitions it's a no go. I'm trying to put a "|" into the title per the opening line of the article (and before my edits). Maybe I'm stretching the wiki naming rules? Argolin (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible. See WP:DISPLAYTITLE. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My that was quick! Thank you. It seemed odd to me that wikipedia was making an excption for Apple and not for others. The exception is for more than them. Argolin (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

However there is {{Wrong title}} which some people use where a title can't be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Your opinion is requested

Subject - Pumpable ice technology.

Dear Rich Farmbrough. I am sorry for my questions. In the present of your time, please, support/give me your recommendations about the following:

1.Dated clean-up tags in. The first, thank you for your fast answer. 2nd, I am sure, the text can be improved. Unfortunately, my knowledge in Wiki, really, is negligible. that is why, sorry for my request, please, remove Dated clean-up tags. If you can too, please, suggest the attractive article (by structure and subject closed to PIT) for improving. Thank you for your cooperation.

2.The user 70.52.128.71, changed text. I know that his redaction is not right. I checked his activities and he only pushes advertising of one company (Sunwell) that is in contradiction with one of main principles of Wiki – neutral point of view. In addition, his changes do not introduce a real history. What can I do? Thank you in advance.

I wish you the efficient activities in Wiki. BR Swallow2011 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Doubling of date-fields

This edit seems confusing. There already was a date value passed to the {{Deletable image-caption}} template (via positional parameter 1=). I tried uncommenting this item and the added named parameter date= appears to be ignored in preference to the positional one anyway. DMacks (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a slightly vexed point, since the PHP time function is capable of working out the month year from a well formatted positional parameter. However in cases where it is not well formed I didn't want Helpful Pixie Bot to futz with parameter 1. The category-code/bot combination is designed to fail-safe. Assuming this problem occurs when the template is added then current month will be added. If the parameter 1 is valid then the bot will not be called to the page, and the date= parameter will not be added, unless the bot calls by chance, but in that case the parameter 1 is used anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Sounds sensible enough. Sure *looks* weird in effect, but doesn't look harmful. DMacks (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird edit

What exactly what this edit supposed to achieve? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hypehnating the ISBN. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Bot adding the word "template"

Your Helpful Pixie Bot is changing  {{Cite ...}}  to  {{Template:Cite ...}}  in various articles. For example: [87].

Is this intentional? It seems very strange to me. I am not aware of any new Wikipedia rule that requires (or even permits) the inclusion of the actual word Template: to be included when invoking a template in an article.

If this actually is the policy, does it apply to all templates? There are thousands -- probably millions -- of articles that include  {{Infobox ...}}  templates. Should all of these say  {{Template:Infobox ...}}  instead?

If that is a new policy, then your bot is not being consistent. For example, in the edit I cited above, your bot did not replace  {{By whom}}  with  {{Template:By whom}}. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here with another example [88]. There cannot be a good reason for this. SpinningSpark 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also not sure why changing <references/> to {{reflist}} is such a good idea. It is an invisible edit and could potentially annoy editors who are used to doing it that way. SpinningSpark 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is important to minimise mark-up. One of the main reasons given for not editing is the complexity of mark-up. This is an easy simplification. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

If anything it is inclined to remove spurious "Templates". Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

(I.E. it's not just probably a bug, but against the philosophy the bot expresses.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

 Fixed. The pixie was thinking about replacing the template name, but since it is a redirect with possibilities stuck the old name back, with an unnecessary (but mostly harmless) prefix. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

I have been back and cleaned up a small bunch of articles. I'll do a full scan at the next dump. Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hey Rich. I noticed up in #Please stop the Pixie bot from changing "Reference" to "References" that your bot often changes ==Reference== --> ==References==, ==External link== --> ==External links==, etc. in headings. I thought it might be worth suggesting that you also change ==Source== --> ==Sources==, as that's one I come across every now and then and fix manually. You're always busy doing different things, so no rush, but I thought it might be something you're interested in. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it used to do a lot of stuff like that - a lot of header capitalisation corrections many of which are now standard AWB, but these had grown organically on the base task and I had to stop because someone objected it wasn't covered by BRFA. However "Source" can be correct if we are talking about a river or a story, so that one might be a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

(Bear this in mind) Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Capitalization

Template:Capitalization has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Stfg (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Pagestats doesn't appear to work anymore

It looks like they changed the output at http://stats.grok.se...

I tried running this script again (last time was in September), to get a new total for outline traffic, and it doesn't seem to work right. Just returns zeros now.

use LWP::Simple;

$month = "02";
$year = "2012";
$lang="en";

while (<>){
    s/ /_/g;
    print "$_";
    $page=get ("http://stats.grok.se/$lang/$year$month/$_" );
    $page =~ /has been viewed (\d+) times in/;
    $total+=$1;
    print " $total\n ";
}

print "\nTotal: $total";

On the command line I specified a file that is a list with bare unbracketed article names, one article name per line.

perl Pagestats Outlinelist.txt

Does the script work for you?

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the problem. Solved by removing " times in" from the script.

The new total is 586,206. The Transhumanist 01:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

Template:Otherplaces2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Otherplaces2. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Otherplaces2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Adult bio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Adult bio. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Adult bio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Subsrt:Null?

Did a macro or something go awry tonight? —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeedy. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit restriction violation?

Hello - I'm curious to know what this is about? Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh CBM has a few bees in his bonnet, one is about never re-ordering references to be in numerically increasing order, in case the "original author" meant to have them out of order: since this is WIkipedia references are added by many authors and moving a paragraph can change the numbering across the article, so his arguments make little if any sense. Empirically this has been a fix done by WP:AWB for many years, and while there have been a handful of queries, only CBM objects. CBM cites a rule to support him, namely WP:CITEVAR which was introduced to put a stop to the "reference wars" - everyone but CBM agrees that this is not applicable since it is not changing the reference style. <meh>

In terms of the "edit restriction", a few years ago I was mobbed on AN/I which was a thoroughly unpleasant experience, and an admin unilaterally imposed an edit restriction. I worked with the admin since it kept everyone happy. Now that admin has more or less left, leaving most people uninterested in these puerile games. Attempts have been made to resurrect the dramah from time to time, including inciting other users, and messages at noticeboards and so forth, but they are generally unsuccessful. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

Rich is right. It is a style requirement inasmuch as any article going through FAC has to have its references renumbered. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

FAC has many of their own requirements that exceed the actual requirements of policy and guidelines, which is fine because FAC is an optional process and if you want to be in their club you have to play by their rules. If an editor has started an article with intentionally out-of-order references, this is perfectly acceptable under the actual MOS, because any consistent style is acceptable. In the past several days Rich has been running a bot-like job on his main account, without BRFA approval, solely to rearrange references. As for the edit restriction, it is documented at WP:RESTRICT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless if your (frankly absurd) position that this constitutes a referencing style held any water, we would be censuring people every time they introduced an OOO by moving a ref. Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 21:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Hersfold at 21:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Rich Farmbrough at 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
4. Rich Farmbrough at 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
5. Headbomb at 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
6. Kwamikagami at 21:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
7. Headbomb at 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
8. Kwamikagami at 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
9. Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

smallcaps

Please don't change SC to smallcaps SC is widely used on wikisource if you go around changing {{SC}} to {{smallcaps}} it will only be time before some muppet puts {{SC}} up for deletion, this will make cut and pasts from wikisource more difficult and time consuming. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> The surfeit of muppets should not influence that. I agree that TfD is out of hand - and sock-muppets and meat-muppets abound. There isn't, though, much trouble keeping shortcuts or compatibility redirects.

Footnotes

Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

A truly "helpful" bot...

You know, a truly helpful pixie bot would bother to tag the 20 other pages that needed an expand list, and not just insert a date on expand list tags already placed. :) -- Hooperswim (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideally it would expand the list... But getting agreement to that would take a team of UN negotiators the age of the universe. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, if I come off snarky. I do understand the purpose for dating the tags. Then again, that the tag gets updated 20 minutes after placement, when the tag has been needed on the page for over a year.... -- Hooperswim (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

12 more pages to tag to go (for this group, at least). Time for a break and change o' venue (i.e. I'll let the bot rest for a bit ;). -- Hooperswim (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously if you can define it (and maybe show consensus) you can probably get a bot or AWBer to do it for you via Wikipedia:Bot requests or WP:AWB/REQ Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Now done tagging all the pages. (And a request for the tagging was on the talk page since last year: I guess that's not the place to make the request). -- Hooperswim (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Headbomb at 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Headbomb at 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
4. CBM at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Headbomb at 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

None of my business, and I'm hardly one to talk, but as stultifyingly frustrating as bureaucracy can be, I don't see much benefit in baiting people in the approval process. (Okay, I'll butt out now!) — kwami (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. However years of attrition, CBM reverting edits and destroying major fixes, in order to preserve obscure redirects that he regards as some kind of shibboleth, where we have a programme running that minimises edits by rolling minor fixes into major ones, accepting that things will take sometimes years to accomplish, which could be done in minutes or hours, but CBM renders impossible for some crazy idea that "rules must be obeyed" regardless of the cost to the project. Is it any wonder that we loose contributors? Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Request for help

I have a few Ambox and Fix related issues that I'd appreciate help with, if you have time, and if you have no reason to not want to interfere, of course.

• There is still a problem with template loops, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Article_message_boxes#Template_loop.
• Should there be a temporary category added to {{Fix}} to locate all templates that use the substcheck parameter, or are there other ways to do this? That is, simply said, how to locate those template that use the substcheck parameter?
• Also, I'd be happy if you'd have an opinion whether it is a good suggestion to replace the substitution check of {{Fix}} by that one of {{Ambox}}, or at least, which basically comes down to the same, remove Category:Templates needing substitution checking, which I think is not practical. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the template loops. The rest I'll have to look at. I did have an alternative method for subst:checking, but it was pretty much obviated by AMALTHEA's self-substituting tricks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, I'll look at it right away. I have just had a long look at the way substitution checking works on Ambox and Fix, and am proud to say that I understand precisely how they work. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my before-last question, and have added a sentence to it, to make my intent more clear. Debresser (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rich, I found the reason for the template loop, and I know what needs to be done to solve it, but don't know how to do that. I wrote there on the Ambox talkpage linked above. Can you have a look at it? Debresser (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rich, the second and third question are now quite urgent... Debresser (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You took care of the second today, thank you. The third is on Template_talk:Fix#Progress.Debresser (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

• We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
• A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

PixieBot cn tags

It appears that your bot is adding a citation needed tag at the end of every sentence that is not already specifically referenced. See [89] Is that your intent? Or is this a manual process with bot assistance?--Hjal (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Phew, nearly gave me myocardial infarction there. {{Cn}} is {{Citation needed}} - just less readable. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Risale-i Nur article

Hello Rich, I saw you added some tags that says the language of the article is like a magazine article. I changed it a bit and removed the tag. I hope it worked out. If you want, you can check and see and give an idea in tha talk page of the article or to me.rinduzahid^(talk) 17:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, I don't think I added the tags though. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Celebrity Rehab

Hi. Regarding your having removed the TMZ citation from the article, and replaced the statement that Michaele Salahi lacked an addition with the somewhat more euphemistic statement that she "did not meet the criteria", I took a closer look at the UPI source from which that latter, amended statement came from, and it also supports the statement that she lacked an addiction. It did indeed relate the statement from the network source that she did not meet the production's criteria, but only because it described what those criteria were beforehand:

The treatment program that 'Celebrity Rehab' documents is intended for individuals with serious substance abuse and addiction issues. Prior to the taping of the current season, producers were advised that Michaele Salahi met the criteria to be treated in this setting," VH1 said in a statement Tuesday. "However, professional assessments spanning from that time to the present, found that she did not meet such criteria.

Thus, there was no reason to remove that original point. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Make the changes you think appropriate. I will just point out that the press release is either carefully worded or sloppily worded. It says "met the criteria to be treated in this setting" - this leaves open the possibility that either she had "serious substance abuse and addiction issues" but not ones that could be "treated in this setting" of that she had "substance abuse and addiction issues" of a less "serious" nature - as well as the possibility that she had no such issues. Rich Farmbrough, 03:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history

• In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing

• Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion

• WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

• Featured content: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open

• Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

.. for the barnstar! I just wiki-gnome away, usually leaving the Dramahs to other folk, though seem to have got involved in a couple just lately. PamD 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lost editors

I replied on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

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

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

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. Sarah (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Weston (Merchant Adventurers entrepreneur)

Thank you for your information regarding this new article I am creating. I presently have two books on the subject and more to come, but so far I have not made any connection with the two Merchant Adventurers that are in Wikipedia. I will have to continue to research to be certain but it clearly states that he started this particular Merchant Adventurers so I do not think they are connected. We will see and I study further. Anyway, thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Most interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

What is going on?

The Helpful Pixie Bot is not so helpful at the moment. It is changing all heads "External link" to "External links", even when there is only ONE (1) external link. Stop this bot and let it check the number of external links first. I will revert the whole lot that showed up at my watchlist... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that. On Wikipedia "External links" is always supposed to be plural, just as is "References". This is simply a stylistic standard. See Wikipedia:Standard_appendices#External_links for the appropriate guidance. Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Yep, but when I use "External links" for just one link, there is always someone passing by and changing it into "External link". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Either point them to the guidance, or don't worry about it. There is nothing so trivial on Wikipedia, from invisible spaces, to capitalisation that someone won't fight to the Wiki-death about. (See the great eight year yoghurt spelling debate.) And there are even people who have no opinion but will oppose a change for the sake of it - and others who do nothing but hang around noticeboards calling for blocks. It's a strange place. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes, I have seen the big "dash"-battle. Ridiculous. I plain ignore the whole thing. If it is not right, a bot will fix it. But most annoying in it, is that is is mighty unfriendly for the users of Wikipedia, because it hampers search efforts. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - en-dashes and em-dashes in article titles? Or in text? For the former there should be redirects, the latter should be covered by search-engine smarts? Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Night of the Big Wind, I do a lot of editing of MOS:APPENDIX stuff. I just want to confirm Rich's stance that it should be plural as per the link given already. I make many "External link" to "External links" fixes myself. In my experience, these changes are rarely contested so I dispute that. As for the reason why it should be plural even if there's only one link, it's because it works better in an environment where editors change links more often than editors who care about heading formats change the headings. Grammatically the plural is acceptable too. It shouldn't be thought of as introducing a list of links but the name of a section that shall contain any links. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

• Interview: Liaising with the Education Program

• Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters

• Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators

• News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation

• In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar

• Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History

• Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case

• Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education

• Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Empty categories

Category:Empty categories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, I have asked the Albums Project to consider recommending use of your album category templates and including it into its documentation at WT:ALBUMS. The "empty categories" category should really be expanded to broader topics to be useful, don't you think? As is, it just seems like something for you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. There are many categories that are set up by template, the dated maintenance ones I go further and have them nominate themselves for speedy deletion. A good candidate might be stuff like "year in" where the very early cats are likely to have only one member, and could become empty, on the other hand they should mostly be nominated for up-merging to decade or century cats. Might be worth a look, anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

Viewing outlines with or without annotations

The next improvement I'd like to tackle is to provide some way to toggle an outline's annotations off/on (all at the same time) while viewing the outline in Wikipedia!!!

For example...

The user is browsing Wikipedia and has just arrived at an outline page. It's fully annotated, but he wants to look at the page uncluttered by the annotations.

How could we make it so that all he has to do is press a hot key to make (all of) the annotations disappear?

And then reappear by pressing a different hot key.

What are the possible approaches to implementing this?

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 23:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm well, the two that spring to mind are using the collapse functionality - navboxes can be set to collapse if there is more than one of them, so presumably this can be brought under control using the same technology (I assume CSS), or java-script. The Javascript code would need to be installed as default, whereas css an be soemwhat standalone, I think, although the preference is for having it all centrally stored. Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

It sounds like a javascript might be the best approach. Though it would be nice to have the functionality built-in on the browser level (via add-on). Do you know any add-on programmers? The Transhumanist 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't that I know of. And I have to disagree, add-ins are great but not for something you wan to be standard WP functionality. However the two tasks become very similar if you use Scriptish. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

BTW, I'm stuck on the thread preceding this one (extract/insert annotations). I posted a bunch of new questions up there for you (I mention them here just in case you missed them). The Transhumanist 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot editing markup comments

At Outward postcode list, User:Helpful Pixie Bot recently added a maintenance template date ("Dated {{Afd-merge to}}. (Build J/)"). But the template was commented-out and so not part of the operative wikitext. While harmless in this case, you might want to consider whether editing <!-- --> markup comments could produce unintended results elsewhere, in which case comments should probably be excluded from bot parsing. — Richardguk (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is an issue which has exercised my mind. Currently the benefit from doing a full parse is slight to none, although I do use hacky "strip markers" to some extent. In the particular case of commented out templates (and much other content) I believe that dating them is appropriate as well as harmless. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Wraps infobox

You might find {{Wraps infobox}} useful. It currently adds a category; we could make that switchable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Apropos of what? Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Adding hyphens to ISBNs

Hi Rich, I see two significant problems with adding the hyphens to ISBNs at this time:

• It makes it more difficult to search for the ISBNs on the Wikipedia, either with the Wikipedia search engine or other web search engines, e.g. Google or Yahoo
• When the ISBNs wrap at the hyphens, it makes them more difficult to read and more difficult to select and copy

I think we should focus on solving these two problems before converting all ISBNs on the Wikipedia to the hyphenated forms. I made a couple of suggestions for how we might be able to solve these problems at Wikipedia talk:ISBN, but you did not respond to these ideas, so I wonder whether you believe they are of no importance. I had some discussion with User:Michael Bednarek about how we might try to implement a workaround, so that hyphens could be added without creating the above two drawbacks. We agreed that the best approach would be to get the Wikisoftware modified so that the hyphenated ISBN is formatted as nowrap text in the page source code, and the unhyphenated ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 are automatically added as hidden text, which then serve as targets of search engines. I saved our discussion here. If you have a moment, would you please take a look at it. With your expertise and help, maybe we could get these problems solved and then proceed with making the encyclopedia consistent with the original ISBN hyphenation standard (which, as I know you are aware, has not been generally adopted on the web). --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBN's don't wrap at the hyphens that I can see (I did some testing on that). I did read your comments on the possibility of changing the Wikimedia software, the way to resolve these would be to raise a request at Bugzilla. Requests at Bugzilla have mixed fortunes, but this might be successful, since it self-contained and previous requests to tweak the behaviour have worked. I also have been working on some possible pro-tem fixes the search issue, but I do wonder whether this is not actually a problem for the search engine operators. Please bear in mind that Google seems to de-rank Wikipedia for ISBN searches regardless, and promotes book-specific sites. Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

The wrapping may be browser dependent. I just checked, and I definitely still see it in my browser. I use Safari on and Apple Mac. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if what you are saying about Google deranking Wikipedia vs book sellers is correct, as this would make sense from their point of view. But the searches do still turn up the pages, for instance, when one uses Google advanced search to search only the Wikipedia. (Example searches are part of the discussion Michael and I had.) If we did this, we could add such a search to the page Special:Booksources, e.g., "Find articles which cite this ISBN at Wikipedia." I think we need to work up a detailed proposal that a programmer can use to easily create the code, showing the algorithms needed to calculate and interconvert the ISBNs and also examples of what the final page code should look like. This is where I am hoping you can really help us out. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I created an example of how I think it might work [90]. If you have interest in working on this, could we continue our discussion there and work together on a draft proposal at User:Robert.Allen/Draft? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. In case you did not see it, I am trying to write the proposal at User:Robert.Allen/Draft. I would appreciate if you would look it over to check for errors or misunderstandings on my part, and would appreciate any suggestions. Feel free to make changes that you think would improve it. Thanks, --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich, I tried to modify the proposal to include the alternative hyphenated ISBN as a hidden target. This is definitely an improvement. Thanks for the suggestion. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Re: regarding your latest comment about code, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Another possible problem I noticed, WP:ISBN allows for editors to add formats such as: ISBN 978-1413304541. Perhaps we need to specify the number of hyphens (or spaces) to expect in the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. Should we then recommend that these nonstandard formats be automatically converted to the unhyphenated form until a bot can add the proper hyphenation? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it best to keep it simple. The software should assume that the version on the page is correctly hyphenated, since the harm from doing so is minimal (adding a spurious search hyphenation for a relatively short period of time). Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Is the draft to the point yet where we can post a notice linking to it in an appropriate forum, like: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or WP:BUGZILLA/bugzilla? (Or should we post the entire draft?) If so, which forum? (Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what you mean about adding code, since I'm not very code savvy. From my point of view, the only code that seems like it would be tricky is calculating the remainder. But you mention some parsing code, whatever that is. I'm guessing maybe it is the code that determines the extent of ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 and distinguishes it from the following text.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I should think that is a good idea (VP(T)). The php module I referred to does the bit of finding that it is an ISBN and wrapping it in tags - it would have to do the rest we want too. The only thing I would be cautious about right now is the wrap, since I am pretty sure the current class is already no-wrap anyway, at least my attempts to break an ISBN at the dash, on a line break have failed. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
        

I think it may be browser dependent. On the page Samson and Delilah (opera). I'm not seeing wrapping in Firefox, but I do see it in Safari. Here's the source code from Firefox:

• <a href="/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4">978-0-19-518954-4</a><span class="printonly">

Here it is from Safari:

• <a href="/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4">978-0-19-518954-4</a><span class="printonly">

It looks identical to me, but behaves differently in the two browsers. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: the example ISBN above uses Template:Cite book, so the source code is a bit different than when the template is not used, but that actually makes no difference to Safari and Firefox. The only way I have found to get Safari to act like Firefox is for example to put ISBN 978-0-19-518954-4 into {{Nowrap|ISBN 978-0-19-518954-4}} giving ISBN 978-0-19-518954-4, which wraps the code with <span class="nowrap">...</span>. However, the question also arises whether templates will hinder the Wikisoftware solution we are proposing, since this template seems to create the page source code for the ISBN link differently from how the Wikisoftware formats it. I put some ideas here --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could do the whole thing with templates, but it's better to let the wikimagic prevail, since it (should be) more efficient. So we should just note that Safari allows the ISBN to break, maybe this is a thing Safari is written to do, or maybe it's a bug or dis-feature - and suggest that no-wrap be added to the css. I guess the devs will be fairly pro putting more stuff in css to deal with Safari, there deos not seem to be any concern for bloating the css and java (or the html come to that) - indeed this proposal is an html expander in a small way. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes, adding nowrap is not a big deal and shouldn't have any deleterious effect. I know you are very busy, but I left more discussion on the template problem for you here. I think maybe that initially we should just ignore the problem, and you are correct, we should focus on Wikimagic exclusively. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion about ISBNs and Helpful Pixie Bot

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Bot continues task despite objections and without apparent consensus to support it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A mostly helpful bot. In that talk, User:Diannaa pointed out a helpful fix (and my reply)

• Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Here the bot changed an invalid 11 digit ISBN to drop the dashes, leaving a still invalid ISBN. Diannaa found the right one: ISBN 86-84433-00-9 and noted that there are about 3000 instances of the wrong ones in various Balkan village articles. I suggested that the bot could be tweaked to know about this ISBN and actively fix them up. This could become a feature that could be re-used to fix other similarly widely propagated bad ISBNs. Alarbus (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I spent some time looking for that ISBN, I believe the work is in a number of volumes. Last time we went after invalid ISBNs in a big way we made quite a project of it, there was a birding book that had been mis-ISBNed on many many pages. I'll fix up these today. Rich Farmbrough, 09:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

Sounds like lots could happen here. The bot should be able to collect a log of bad ISBNs that could be sorted for priority. Diannaa's a librarian, so I expect she's pretty good at finding these things. fyi, I read that draft proposal, and think it too much. Does anyone really know Google parses our pages? This should be run by Andy to see if there's a proper microformat for this; off hand I'd say it quite likely. 53 seconds later: http://microformats.org/wiki/isbn — Andy's name is on that page. Alarbus (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is my concern with the whole micro-formats initiative, it seems to be about 5 or 6 people, and a solution in search of a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

It's obvious that few people see a problem with this, and most people find it a good thing, so I'll close the ANI discussion and let you continue with this. At least (trying to give a positive twist to an unnecessary ANI section) now you have a more recent discussion showing support for this task. Fram (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rich. Thanks for fixing all those busted ISBNs in the Balkan articles. A Good Thing. -- Dianna (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbo photo links

Hello there,

How on earth to you find these things, like the correct formatting of isbn numbers (where hypens go)? What brings you to them? Do you have a special role in WP? Do you respond to some kind of alert system? What does pixiebot mean when your name is Rich? Please let me know--I'm fascinated! Thanks for taking the time,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the database behind the site is periodically "dumped" into xml files, which can be downloaded. These can be scanned to find particular errors without having to hit every page on Wikipedia. Helpful Pixie Bot is a an automated system for doing a number of small tasks, (almost) all such systems are meant to be run on "bot accounts" rather than "human accounts" - see WP:BOTS for more information.

I don't know about a special role (though I am an admin), I simply prefer (like most Wikipedians) to fix something rather than leave it broken, and happen to have skills (like most bot-masters) to fix some things across the encyclopaedia.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 19:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Rich Farmbrough at 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
4. Headbomb at 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
5. Rich Farmbrough at 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
6. Headbomb at 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
7. CBM at 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
8. Headbomb at 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
9. CBM at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
10. Rich Farmbrough at 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
11. CBM at 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
12. Headbomb at 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
13. Headbomb at 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
14. CBM at 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
15. Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Femto Bot at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at .
Last edit by anyone was by Femto Bot at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot error

Most of this edit is fine, but the bot proceeded to "fix" something in an HTML comment. Just a heads up. - Denimadept (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 04:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fifteenth Lok Sabha summary

Template:Fifteenth Lok Sabha summary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chandan Guha (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
3. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing restrictions and Pixie Bot

Hello RF, in looking through some things for the current BRFA, I noticed that Pixie Bot appears to be conducting cosmetic changes alongside its approved tasks. While this is permitted under WP:COSMETICBOT, it is not under your editing restriction regarding such changes. BAG does not explicitly approve such actions, only the task for which the bot is specifically programmed. Some examples I noted include:

• [91] [92] [93] - whitespace changes at the end of a newline, not part of AWB's default genfixes
• [94] [95] [96] - capitalizing the first letter of a transcluded template, where the transclusion itself was not changed
• [97] - Modifying text within a comment (actually a sub-case of the above bullet)

These edits, and others like them, of which there are many, violate your editing restrictions as they do not affect the appearance of the article. Would you mind taking Pixie Bot offline temporarily until it can be reconfigured to avoid such actions, or request that BAG specifically permit these changes to be executed? Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I noticed this when I saw these sorts of changes occurring with your main account's edits (example) - could you avoid making these changes manually as well? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like CBM is getting his way? I really think experienced editor should not enable CBM's games.

However, even if we accept the "edit restriction" (which was unilaterally imposed with no consensus bye User:RD232) the changes listed above have all been accepted by the person who wrote it, and therefore should be considered legitimate.

A healthy dose of common sense is what is needed here. I am currently busy with some significant tasks, we can leave the trivia to get fixed by scripts and bots or we can have a massive bust up about it. I prefer to leave it to the computers to take care of and focus on the more complex matters.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

I'm asking you this of my own volition - no other editor put me up to this, and you violating your community-placed editing restrictions is a serious concern in any event. I am doing this out of good faith and ask that you would respect that.

I don't follow what you're saying in the second paragraph - the changes have been accepted? By who? Did BAG or the community give you clearance to make those cosmetic changes, as stipulated by your restriction?

I agree that common sense should hold sway here, which is why I'm asking you here first rather than making a big stink of the issue. However, the will of the community should also hold sway, and that will is that you should not be executing these changes under any account. Now again, would you please disable PixieBot and your current tasks temporarily until you can either set them to not make such changes, or attain approval to do so? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes sure, but did you read the BRFA, and CBM'scomments and think "hmm what's going on here, I'll check a few edits" or did you read the description and spontaneously go and check some edits? That is what "For the record" and "I'd just like to note" mean. They are equivalent of "Hey guys - look what this cad and bounder is doing? You gonna stand by and let that happen? Sic him!" Wording them as "For the record" and "As a matter of note" is why this type of behaviour is known as passive-agressive. It doesn't wash with me and it shouldn't with you either.

So on, briefly, to your points. This is not a community-placed editing restriction. It was placed by one admin in the middle of a discussion in which I had both supporters and detractors, and where even those who said they had a problem did not by any means endorse the ER. The editor in question simply declared "I'm going to sever this Gordian knot" (perhaps he would not have done so if he had known the line This Gordian knot is quickly scissorable!// Go, make everybody miserable!). There was no consensus, and discussion such as it was, was ongoing.

Of course I believe you are doing this in good faith, why wouldn't you be? It doesn't mean that the information you have been given is correct, though.

In terms of the actual changes, it has been accepted since day 1 by person that "imposed" the "ER" that it is perfectly fine to replace the template name if the bot is dating it. A lot of details were hammered out (rather pointlessly) between him and me, with the occasional pointed intervention of the haters.

Just as a measure of the absurdity of the whole scenario, part of the "ER" is that the bot is allowed to make the template replacements done by AWB - why is this absurd? Because the template replacements done by AWB are from a list that I created from the template replacements SmackBot (as it was then) made.

So the bottom line is, firstly no harm is being done, secondly a lot of good is being done, thirdly pandering directly or indirectly to those who believe rules are more important than the project is a bad thing - it only encourages them.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

(Restoring your old talk page as I post this, it's rather confusing to be confronted with a wall of red links when I expect to be able to pull up a conversation I'm involved in)

I'm going to ignore most of what you've said as you're attempting to deflect the problem away from your actions and towards other people. I will instead focus on a few points I see as particularly problematic.

This is a community restriction. It was discussed at AN, and I don't see that there was any particular opposition to it; a number of editors suggested some changes to the restriction as worded, but later comments clarified those concerns. There was a consensus to apply that restriction to you.

Technically this is a community restriction, and therefore I'm not sure Rd232 (even as the person closing the discussion) really has standing to grant such an exemption given the way the restriction is worded, but if he said that changes of the form {{templatename|[...]}} → {{Templatename|[...]}} were acceptable, then I'll back off on that point. I'll leave Rd232 a note so he can chime in here if he's able; in the meantime, a link to those discussions would be very helpful. However, that doesn't address the other two points I raised, that of your bots and scripts changing whitespace and text within comments. These changes are NOT done by AWB by default, and thus violate your restriction.

I don't see that a lot of good is being done here. These changes clutter the diffs your bots leave behind, and are not supported by consensus nor BAG approval. You are under a restriction to not make these changes, and if you are unwilling to abide by that restriction I do intend to enforce it. Please stop these changes now, or I will issue a block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I will update the page when a new version is created. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Thank you, I appreciate that. Again, though, if you could disable the bot in the meantime...? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You haven't replied and User:Helpful Pixie Bot is still running, so I've blocked it until you can make assurances that it will not continue to violate your editing restrictions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

<Shakes head> I kinda rely on people to be rational, especially administrators. Foolish of me I suppose. Thansk for screwing things up. Build 640 has been rushed to production. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

And this build won't make any edits that are purely cosmetic? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No build of HPB has ever done that except once as a result of an edit conflict that was affected by a bug, that would also never have happened if people weren't morons. Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, I meant won't make any changes that are cosmetic? Such as the issues I noted above? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It addresses the trailing space issue, which is currently polluting approximately 22 million lines on en:Wikipedia, bloating the code base by over .1 %, causing wasted power and time on every page edit, adding megabytes to every copy of every data-base dump, slowing every analysis and scan. That seems wuite enough damage. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Then I will unblock your bot, although I am sorely tempted to block you for being so astonishingly uncivil about this. I've made a very strong effort to remain reasonable, yet at every turn you've been rude, sarcastic, and/or uncooperative. That is NOT how bot operators are supposed to respond to concerns about their bots, and certainly not how an administrator should be responding to good-faith concerns about their own conduct. The only reason I've held my temper this long is because I hoped - thankfully not in vain - that this could be dealt with here rather than ANI or RFAR. Please clean up your conduct soon, or this may end up there anyway. Good day, sir. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"I'm going to ignore most of what you said" that is the rude and uncivil part. I understand that you fell for CBM's games, and that you probably either don't want to admit it or don't believe it yourself, but telling it like it is is not uncivil. Blocking the bot while I was coding is uncivil. Making judgements on things you are not familiar with, without taking the time to understand them is uncivil. making threats is uncivil. But I let that stuff wash over me. Wehn you then turn around and call me uncivil, it's getting a little rich. Rich Farmbrough, 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 04:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. DePiep at 09:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Kwamikagami at 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 07:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. WilliamThweatt at 05:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by WilliamThweatt at 05:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by WilliamThweatt at 05:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 06:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Calliopejen1 at 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Calliopejen1 at 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Calliopejen1 at 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. DePiep at 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
2. DePiep at 18:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by DePiep at 18:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by DePiep at 18:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. DePiep at 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
2. DePiep at 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by DePiep at 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by DePiep at 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Another one for your collection

Today, trying to execute a regular tool - Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 2097152 bytes) in /home/tparis/public_html/pcount/counter.php on line 223 --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice... Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49

Template: Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

1. Hellknowz at 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Hellknowz at 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 19:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Rich Farmbrough at 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
4. Headbomb at 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
5. Rich Farmbrough at 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
6. Headbomb at 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
7. CBM at 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
8. Headbomb at 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
9. CBM at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
10. Rich Farmbrough at 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
11. CBM at 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
12. Headbomb at 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
13. Rich Farmbrough at 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
14. Headbomb at 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
15. CBM at 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
16. Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
17. Rich Farmbrough at 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
18. Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
19. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
20. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
21. Rich Farmbrough at 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
22. Kwamikagami at 21:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
23. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
24. Rich Farmbrough at 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
25. Headbomb at 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
26. Hersfold at 21:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
27. Rich Farmbrough at 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
28. Rich Farmbrough at 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
29. Headbomb at 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
30. Kwamikagami at 21:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
31. Headbomb at 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
32. Kwamikagami at 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
33. Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
34. Rich Farmbrough at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
35. Kwamikagami at 04:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
36. Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
37. Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
38. WilliamThweatt at 05:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
39. Kwamikagami at 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
40. Rich Farmbrough at 07:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
41. DePiep at 09:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
42. Kwamikagami at 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
43. Rich Farmbrough at 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
44. DePiep at 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
45. DePiep at 18:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
46. Kwamikagami at 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
47. DePiep at 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
48. Kwamikagami at 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
49. DePiep at 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
50. Rich Farmbrough at 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
51. DePiep at 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
52. DePiep at 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by DePiep at 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by DePiep at 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 09:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
2. DePiep at 16:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
3. CBM at 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
4. Hellknowz at 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Hellknowz at 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49

Template:  Approved.. *

Edits by:

1. Hellknowz at 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Hellknowz at 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ghirlandajo

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot error!!

See [98]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49. Fram (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot breaking citation templates

Hi. Could you please tweak Helpful Pixie Bot so that the insertion of {{Please check ISBN}} into citation templates does not cause them to break? See this diff and the result. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'll find a solution to this. Part of the problem is the cite templates doing unnecessary cooking to the ISBN's. Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

OK, thanks. A simple solution might just be for the bot to place {{Please check ISBN}} outside and just after the citation template. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mhm, that's more complex than it appears, though. It looks like introducing a space resolves the issue, which is great except when the ISBN is in running text, followed by punctuation. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Example:

1. Introduction to Administrative Law (3rd ed.), London: Taylor & Francis, 2003, ISBN 978-6610165360 (ebk.) {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help).
2. The book is ... ISBN 978-6610165360 .

Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Ah, glad you've found a possible solution. (By the way, I've checked the above ISBN and it seems to be correct, though I note that the Library of Congress ISBN converter cannot resolve it. Looks like it may be an error on the publisher's part.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag on that article, since OCLC lists the ISBN, I am guessing that the 6 range may have been started. I'll check the hyphenation rules fro an update soon. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Kwamikagami at 01:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Kwamikagami at 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Hellknowz at 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Kwamikagami at 08:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 08:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 08:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 09:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBN dashes

This edit by Helpful Pixie Bot added dashes to what looks like an isbn but is actually a file name. Can you prevent this occurrence? Chris857 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There will be some head-scratching involved though. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

FITNR. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Headbomb at 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 12:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. DePiep at 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Kwamikagami at 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Hellknowz at 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Kwamikagami at 19:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
4. DePiep at 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by DePiep at 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by DePiep at 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 01:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
3. Rich Farmbrough at 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
4. CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
5. Rich Farmbrough at 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
6. CBM at 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
7. CBM at 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
8. Rich Farmbrough at 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
9. CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
10. Rich Farmbrough at 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
11. CBM at 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
12. Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
13. Rich Farmbrough at 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
14. Rcsprinter123 at 11:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
15. Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rcsprinter123 at 11:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
2. Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject category

About this template. It currently categorizes the category into category:x-importance articles, into category:project articles by importance and into category:project articles by quality and importance

For example: see Category:B-Class Education in India articles of Top-importance

Ideally I do not see why it needs to be a subcategory of anything except Category:Education in India articles by quality and importance (x-articles by quality and importance), Category:B-Class Education in India articles(y-class x articles) and Category:Top-importance Education in India articles(z-importance x-articles). I see that the template is used at a lot of places, and hence I'm a little wary about editing it. Maybe you should check how the other projects categorise and fix it accordingly. Thanks and regards.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. If you want to change the way it works in "Education in India" categories then you could simply susbt: the template and tweak it. Or change the template, I have no strong opinion on the article assessment sub-category structure (in fact part of me says the whole wiki-project assesment edifice is just to keep certain people out of trouble, at which is it failing ). Good luck whichever route you take. Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 04:32, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Data extraction & insertion

Let's say I have the wikicode file "Outline of Stamford" saved on my computer, and I want a program that goes through the outline, finds the first bulleted entry lacking an annotation, pulls the article from Wikipedia for the subject in the entry, extracts the first two sentences of the lead paragraph, then inserts those two sentences as the annotation for that entry, then repeats for the next missing entry, until the all the entries have annotations.

This would be very helpful, as it would save tons of manual cutting and pasting.

How would you go about doing that with perl?

The Transhumanist 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "un-annotated" means but at a guess you could use something like:

while ($page =~ /\n\*\s*\[\[([^\])]*\]\]\s*\*/s ){
   $bulleted = $1;
   $entry =   get ($bulleted);
   $entry =~ s/.*?'''.*?'''//;
   $entry =~ s/([^\.]*.[^\.]*.).*/$1/;
   $page =~ s/(\n\*\s*\[\[$bulleted\]\]\s*)\*/$1 $entry/;
}

here the handwaving is in the assumption that the Wikipeida articles are well-formed, and not exceptional. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

You would need to get the source of the article. You need a module for that, which comes with examples. MediaWiki::API I think is the name. Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Entries in outlines look like this:

• Architecture – art and science of designing buildings.
• Crafts – activities and hobbies that are related to making things with one's hands and skill.
• Drawing – visual art that makes use of any number of drawing instruments to mark a two-dimensional medium. As a verb, it is the act of making marks on a surface so as to create an image, form or shape. As a noun, it is the image produced, or the visual art form itself.
• Film – also called a movie or motion picture, is a series of still or moving images. It is produced by recording photographic images with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or visual effects. The process of filmmaking has developed into an art form and industry.
• Painting – the practice of applying paint, pigment, color or other medium to a surface (support base) with a brush or other objects. The term describes both the act and the result of the action.
• Photography
• Sculpture –

Concerning list entries, an annotation is a dashed comment.

The entries "Photography" and "Sculpture" above lack annotations. Would the program you wrote above home in on those and add an annotation for each?   The Transhumanist 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It would pick up the first, fail on the second for two reasons: it would count the endash as an annotation, and there's no following list item. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

I'm stuck!

(I had to return the programming books to the library).

I don't know what to do to be able to use the while loop you provided above on an outline.

That is, how do you make it read the outline file into the $page variable?

Also, what did you mean by "handwaving"?

Once the annotations are inserted, how do I save the outline back to disk?

When this script becomes fully operational, I expect it will do more than 50% of the work on outlines. Because inserting annotations by hand is tedious as hell, and all of the outlines have entries that need annotations. We're talking tens of thousands of annotation insertions. I can't stress how helpful this tool will be.

How fast do you think it could insert 100 annotations? [

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The while loop will run while something is in the $page that consists of a newline followed by a bulleted link with nothing after it on the line.

• So this is done .. wait didn't we do this? Depending on where the file is, by the reading it from disk as we discussed, or by loading it form Wikipedia.

• "Handwaving" means the bit of the argument that is glossed over. Often it is a good idea to simply not worry about some problems until they can be actually met with (like developing the internal combustion engine, without worrying too much about people getting lost in strange towns), but sometimes this can be disastrous (like setting out across the desert without planning your water consumption).

• Once the text is completed you can save with

open FILE, ">:", "somefilename.txt" or die;

print FILE $page;

close FILE;

Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Thank you very much

Thank you very much by your unselfish cooperation in Article "Biodiversity of New Caledonia". Muchas gracias por tu colaboración desinteresada en el articulo "Biodiversidad de Nueva Caledonia". 85.251.99.49 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

"Retracted paper"?

Hi. I see that your edit summary here states "tag retracted paper". May I ask what you mean by a "retracted paper"? I suspect that it is not the meaning used by the publishing houses. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a paper where there is a published retraction. If you follow the pub-med link and select "publication type" at the bottom it will say "retracted publication". There were 138 pages which cited retracted publications by PMID as of 7th March 2012, three have had the cites removed, 134 have been tagged and one (retraction) has been left alone for now. Full details on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

You seem to be playing around with your talk page text. Anyway, the reference that you edited doesn't have a PubMed link. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, search the author, you will see the pmid link in the references. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

ISBN proposal

Hi Rich, I just wanted to let you know that I went ahead and submitted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal to improve Wikipedia's ISBN Magic. Thanks for all your help with this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

More Expand language thoughts....

Hi Rich! Thanks for all your help with the bot! I've been thinking more about all the expand language templates, and it might make sense to combine them all into one master template with an article parameter and a language parameter, rather than having ~100 separate templates that need to be individually maintained. Would you be able/willing (I'm confident you are able to do this!) to code a bot to convert {{Expand French|articletitle}} to {{Translate|French|article=articletitle}} for all articles currently tagged? (First I would need to get permission to repurpose {{Translate}}, which is currently a redirect.) Hopefully, this would be a one-time task. I had always wanted to keep the template super simple for users, and now instead of having to specify the articletitle parameter (which they can now just ignore), they'd just have to specify the language parameter. Any thoughts about this? The only thing that is currently inconsistent in any significant way across the templates is the use of different topic categories for different languages, but I think this could be easily managed using a switch parameter in the master template. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a Good Idea. Rich Farmbrough, 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

I think I've figured out the necessary template code here. What do you think? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it would save a lot of edits every time the template needs to be revised at least... But it would require several thousand edits to fix of course.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A bot could just convert all the existing uses - that would be pretty simple. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, trivial even. I'll try to look at the template, but, as usual, problems are occurring with those who see noticeboards as a forum for vengeance. This does rather dampen my enthusiasm. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

Violating editing restriction

Per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented." You have however created hundreds of categories in a short time, many of them of very limited or debatable use, e.g. dozens of categories for test templates like Category:Immediate children/Test-44 and Category:Immediate children/Test-16.

Much worse is your creation of all missing "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ..." categories. These are often years old, only contain one editor or IP address (who may have gone on to completely different people), and are based on sometimes flimsy or dubious evidence. You have e.g. created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ghirlandajo, based on a tag from 2007, and where the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghirlandajo concluded that there wasn't enough evidence at all to link the two. However, thanks to your creation now, five years after the fact, this has been "officialized" for no good reason at all. I'll start a discussion at AN again to see how to deal with this umpteenth violation of your editing restrictions, which were imposed to avoid these kind of problems... Fram (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is at WP:AN#Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems. Fram (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case the tag needs to be removed and the cat deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

Ultimate Spider-Woman:

Ultimate Comics Enemy, Ultimate Mystery, Ultimate Comics Doom -ComicVine.--Shawnee Smith (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the IP that added the tags (not Helpful Pixe Bot) was asking for issue numbers. Comicvine is an open wiki, and, as such, not a reliable source. Rich Farmbrough, 10:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

• I'm sorry I just wanted to add a little bit of information, but the Ultimate Spider Woman my favorite character, only please do not remove information!--Shawnee Smith (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  I hope it won't be removed (if its correct!) - I certainly won't remove it. There is a lot of information on Wikipedia which would benefit from references, we don't necessarily remove it, unless there's a deeper problem. Keep up the good work! Rich Farmbrough, 10:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
  

• Well, sorry for the question, to be honest I would like to ask how you can replace a picture of Spider-Woman in a frame and a picture of Ultimate Spider-Woman, well that without inscriptions was just in the photo without the signatures.--Shawnee Smith (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe Talk:Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) is the place to ask that? (Since I haven't a clue about that article.) Rich Farmbrough, 10:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
    

• Clearly thank you!--90.155.142.140 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  My pleasure. Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
  

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I would love to, but some maroon.... Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

Your opinion is needed

Hello Rich,

Sorry to be a nuisance I know you are very busy. If you have time, would you kindly check the following articles (below) to see whether the tags placed on them are still justifiable and if so how to improve them. I have re-edited the articles per the objections raised but the editor who put the tags has not contributed to English Wikipedia as a signed-in editor (going by their contribution history) for over a month. I am very close to the article because I originally created them so another opinion would be immensely appreciated. Thank you.

• The Battle of Fandane-Thiouthioune
• Maat Sine Kumba Ndoffene Famak Joof
• Serer history (medieval era to present)

Regards

Tamsier (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your contribution to WP:BOTREQ! Chrisrus (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot blocked

FYI, the Helpful Pixie Bot isn't allowed to edit as long as your main account is blocked. Since it was continuing to, I've procedurally blocked it for now. Should you be unblocked, Rich, please feel free to undo that block as well. Courcelles 06:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So people have claimed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Britball cannot in Wikipedia

	The Britball of persistence against all odds
	And some of them are very odd. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC). 02:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
2. Kwamikagami at 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. DePiep at 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by DePiep at 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by DePiep at 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kwamikagami at 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of edits

Still number 1, I see. And closing in on the 1,000,000 edit mark. The Transhumanist 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but blocked... one could hypothesise a link, between people who do very similar edits to me, and call for me to be blocked using Freudian analysis, but that would be unkind (if funny). Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Think of it as a change in routine, and a change of pace...

The block may be a blessing in disguise.

This may give editors who have had a hard time keeping your attention the opportunity to converse with you on a more meaningful level (i.e., not rushed).

Why would we want to?

Because you are an expert on many aspects of Wikipedia.

This vacation gives you valuable time to share your expertise and experience with other Wikipedians.

Personally, I have many questions for you... – The Transhumanist 03:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I just took a look at your user page, to see if it provides any info on the types of questions you would be able to answer, and I noticed you're from London. Half my family tree lives around there.

I haven't been to London since 1997. Almost got killed jaywalking 3 times, due to looking the wrong way before crossing. I guess it's not "jaywalking" over there, because it's legal — for you it's just crossing the street. I think it's cool that you have the right to cross the street. Here we are subject to getting ticketed by the police if we cross anywhere other than at an intersection.

By the way, that you drive on the other side of the street over there makes it easy to spot foreigners. I noticed many of them looking the wrong way.

I also learned that clotted cream tea is not tea with clotted cream in it. :) The Transhumanist 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Mm, worth going to Devon and Cornwall just for the cream teas. They are good elsewhere but that is the home of the cream tea. Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Incidentally the Magna Carta had a provision for access to the highway I believe. Other rights, of course, have been eroded massively over the last 20-30 years. Notably extra-territoriality, retroactive legislation, double jeopardy, right to silence, the rights of the second chamber and just about anything that might be construed as "fundamental" has been thrown to the wolves of political opportunism. The few that have been saved have been as much as a result of the political opportunism of the opposition of the day as principled resistance by backbenchers. Of course historically it was ever thus, but the extremism of recent events, considering that we are not in the straitened circumstances of previous eras, is telling. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

What is the most advanced operation you've used AWB for?

And how did you do it? The Transhumanist 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well I did use it for checksum calculations and ISBN hyphenation. Basically I wrote a perl program to write a program to write the rulebase.The hyphenation was just a large number of rules, but the calculations involved implementing a partial arithmetic parser in regular expressions, including full addition and multiplication tables modulo 11 (and possibly 10 as well). Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

What do your bots consist of?

I.e., what are they made of (what languages, programs, etc.)? The Transhumanist 05:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I use perl and AWB. For example the main bot runs on perl (because I was being blocked for using AWB), but if I have a one-off job it is often quicker to use AWB. Even there though I use perl to write some of the rules. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Can AWB be used to remove redlinks from a list?

(For example, see: Outline of Mozambique)

How?   The Transhumanist 05:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kinda.

Use the list maker to make a list of "Links on page (redlinks only)".

Save the list to a text file.

Replace the carriage returns in the text file with "|". Copy the content.

Create a normal rule that replaces \[\[(<paste the contents here>)\]\] with $1

Run it against the page in question.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Do you have a perl script...

...that opens a file, does something to it, and then saves it under a new filename?

I need to see how that is done. The Transhumanist 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Er... so I think we covered this? Something like.

OPEN FILE, "<:utf-8" , "oldfile";
while (<FILE>){ $text .= $_}
CLOSE FILE

# do some stuff
$text =~ s/e/z/; #  replace e with z to even up letter usage across the universe a little

OPEN FILE, ">:utf-8" , "newfile";
print FILE $text;
CLOSE FILE

Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Ultimate Spider-Woman

Excuse me, does anyone know how to download the image Ultimate Jessica Drew? It would be good on the second picture was visible on her face, in the plot of the Ultimate Spider-Man.--Shawnee Smith (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the image? You can probably right click on it and select "save image" depending on your browser. But you can't upload it to Wikipedia if it is not a "free" image (with a few exceptions) - this means anything that belongs to Marvel, DC etc. should probably not be used.

An exception is made for fair use images, these are typically limited to one per page, they must meet certain conditions, although comics pages I notice often have two, one to illustrate the comic, and one to illustrate the character the comic is named for.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

I hate semicolons!

It took me over an hour to realize my script didn't work because a semicolon was missing from the end of a line. The Transhumanist 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had a shilling for every time I'd done that I'd be Rich! Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

And that, you are. – The Transhumanist 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I pull a file into a scalar?

I opened a file, and tried to define a variable to be the contents of the filehandle, like this:

open(LIST,      "list.txt") || die("can't open list.txt: $!");

$list = LIST;            #pull LIST into a scalar variable (doesn't work)

print "$list"            # to see if it worked, display contents of $list, which should be the file list.txt

But it just prints out the filehandle!

What am I doing wrong? The Transhumanist 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

<LIST>

this will pull the next record in scalar context. If you set the record separator appropriately you should get the whole file. (It's a special variable $/ and $\ are the input and output separators.)

It is not clear from what you've said how to use the record separators. What should the line look like? Like this...?

$list = $/<LIST>;$\            #pull LIST into a scalar variable using record separators (doesn't work)

I'm trying to be able to use the following line of code to search a file for a string. If it's in there, I want the program to run a subroutine. If it's not in there I want the program to run a different subroutine.

$list =~ m/stringcheckingfor/   #look for string in contents of list.txt

I'm kinda stuck. The Transhumanist 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, the angle brackets work, but it only prints out one line from the file. If what you meant was to put record separators in the file, then how do you search files without preprocessing every single file with the insertion of record separators? What if I want to search a file that's not a list and still be able to use the file for something else? The Transhumanist 22:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When perl reads the file, it uses \n or \r\n or \n\r as the file separator (depending on OS) - this is stored in the variable $/ . If you set $/ to the end of file marker (or some sting you will not encounter) I would expect it would read the whole file. Other methods are using binary mode, or reading a line at a time:

while (<FILE>) {$text .= $_}

Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

I found something called "local" that seems to do the trick:

local $/;                # I don't know what this does, but it works.

open(LIST,      "list.txt") || die("can't open list.txt: $!");
$list = <LIST>;            #pull LIST into a scalar variable (doesn't work)
close(LIST);
print "$list"            # to see if it worked, display contents of $list, which should be the file list.txt

Though I'm not exactly sure why this works. The Transhumanist 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It works because it makes the value of "$/" undefined -- a value that can never occur in a file. The "local" keyword does this as a side effect of its main purpose (controlling variable scope); you can get the same effect by assigning "undef" to the global copy of "$/", as in "$/ = undef;". --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The disadvantage of futzing with global, of course, is that you (may) have to remember to reset it for the next file. And indeed this can be a problem with the local version too, see my example in the next section. Creating a new block purely to limit the scope of local $/ is probably nicer than what I did. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Checking each item from one list against another list

I have two lists. list1.txt and list2.txt.

local $/;                                # I don't know what local does
open(LIST1,      'list1.txt') || die("Can't read file 'list1.txt': [$!]\n");
open(LIST2,      "list2.txt") || die("Can't read file 'list2.txt': [$!]\n");

$list2 = <LIST2>;          #pull LIST2 into a scalar variable

while (<LIST1>){       # start while loop on the first list (angle brackets take next line of input)

# Search $list2 using the current line of input from LIST1 as the search string (I don't know how to do this yet without making the script fail to compile).  I plan to write two subroutines, one for true and one for false.
}

close(LIST1);
close(LIST2);

I can't believe I'm still in the file IO. I haven't even gotten to the guts of the program yet. Frustrating!   The Transhumanist 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, local is creating a scoped version of $/ that is undefined. I haven't tried this but I suppose it works, and rather nicely in a way, since if you were using this in a block the default value of $/ would come back when you leave the block.

Now the problem you have is that you will slurp file 2 the same way you slurped file 1. So you need something like

local $/;                                # I don't know what local does
open(LIST1,      'list1.txt') || die("Can't read file 'list1.txt': [$!]\n");

$list2 = <LIST2>;          #pull LIST2 into a scalar variable
close(LIST2);#  close LIST 2 as early as we can
$/="\n"; # revert 

open(LIST2,      "list2.txt") || die("Can't read file 'list2.txt': [$!]\n");

while (<LIST1>){       # start while loop on the first list (angle brackets take next line of input)
   chomp; # Maybe?
   if ($list2 =~ /$_/){
       tru_sub();
   }
   else {
       false_sub();
   }
# Search $list2 using the current line of input from LIST1 as the search string (I don't know how to do this yet without making the script fail to compile).  I plan to write two subroutines, one for true and one for false.
}

close(LIST1);

ATB. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

With bare bones subroutines...

local $/;                                # I don't know what local does
open(LIST1,      'list1.txt') || die("Can't read file 'list1.txt': [$!]\n");

open(LIST2,      "list2.txt") || die("Can't read file 'list2.txt': [$!]\n");
$list2 = <LIST2>;          #pull LIST2 into a scalar variable
close(LIST2);#  close LIST 2 as early as we can
$/="\n"; # revert

while (<LIST1>){       # start while loop on the first list (angle brackets take next line of input)
   chomp; # Maybe? (seems to work OK)
   if ($list2 =~ /$_/){
       tru_sub();
   }
   else {
       false_sub();
   }
}

close(LIST1);
print "\n\n";
print "$list2";    # display contents of list2.txt (as a test)

sub tru_sub {
     print "$_";       # display it on the screen so you can see that it is working
     print "\n\n"
}

sub false_sub {
     print "This subroutine doesn't do anything yet (other than print this message)\n";
}

The print functions show that the program actually works.

Now I have the places to put the guts. Thank you!

By the way, what is this part of the program called, an IO skeleton?   The Transhumanist 06:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm not sure if there's a name, as such, "skeleton" is certainly widely used. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Installing Wikipedia locally

Is Wikipedia downloadable?

Do you have it installed on your computer? The Transhumanist 01:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You can download the content (see database dumps on my user page) and the software (www.mediawiki.org). I have both, but not the content loaded into the software. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

Cool. What does loading the content into the software entail?

I'm thinking that testing programs on a local copy of Wikipedia could be useful. Having access off-line would also be nice (my Internet access is sporadic).

I'm curious as to what use the database dump is without having it loaded into MediaWiki. What do you use it for? The Transhumanist 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's XML so you can write perl to scan it very easily. Also AWB has facilities to scan it. It's useful for identifying problem articles, making reports, doing statistics and extracting data. Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

• Interview: An introduction to movement roles

• Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

• News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

• Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

• Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Halo Burger

An editor has been trying to alter the founding year of Halo Burger which was founded in 1923. Period. Yes, the restaurant has changed over the years and was originally Kewpee, but Halo Burger considers its founding year to be 1923 as it says on its logo. Please monitor the Halo Burger article more closely. Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would love to help on this, currently can't. I do agree, though, that a logo is a perfectly valid source for a fouding year, though it would be better backed up with something else. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Toggling annotations

I'd like to be able to provide (to the entire world) the ability to look at Wikipedia outlines in more than one way.

One thing I'd like the user to be able to do is, with the press of a button, make the annotations disappear (to view a bare uncluttered list). And with another press of the button, reappear.

You mentioned CSS as a possibility. Can that be made to hide/show all of the annotations on the page, and just the annotations, at the same time? The annotations appear at the end of each entry, after an en dash.

I think it would be nicer to have it as a feature of the MediaWiki software or even the browser, so that the (annotations off) mode applies to all outlines being viewed, until reactivated. That way the user wouldn't have to press the toggle for each page.

What are the software development options for creating a toggle, and what would they entail? The Transhumanist 11:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's really into more CSS than I am used to dealing with. I should think this would involve reloading a CSS class with something set to hidden or not. Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

I thought classes are defined and set on a css page, which would preclude toggling the state locally? Though worth looking into. Thanks for the tip. The Transhumanist 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I say I am stunningly ignorant of these matters. Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rich Farmbrough. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what "When did you last participate in the following dispute resolution processes as an assistant? * means. Nor is "What dispute resolution forums do you use, and how frequently do you utilise them?" Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Hey Rick. I've fixed the first one to clarify it's meaning. The second one has a clarifying comment below it. I'm not so sure how I can make it clearer, but would welcome suggestions. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 04:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the expression "use/utilise". I am fairly sure that I have commented on or in most types of dispute resolution, and been "subject" of three (AN, AN/I and ARBCom) - although these were not actions designed to resolve disputes, but to get the "plaintiff's" preferred outcome. I have posted new threads to AN or AN/I a couple of times, but they were not dispute related. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

How do you write a bot?

I don't even know what one looks like.   The Transhumanist 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to define a bot. The typical bot has three things it does

1. Read some stuff
2. Think about it
3. Write some stuff.

If, for example, you are simply stress testing, then it would only do 1. A daily reminder bot might only do 3. A capture bot might just read a page and save a copy locally.

But if you are talking a typical 1-2-3 bot that reads WP pages, thinks about them and writes back an edited version, you could do worse than use the MediaWiki::API module. In pseudo-perl it would look something like this.

use MediaWiki::API;

# some initialisation and logging in code
my $mw = MediaWiki::API->new(); 
$mw->{config}->{api_url} = 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php';
$mw->login( {lgname="Sock-puppet", lgpassword => "drosswap" } ) || die  .....

# suppose we have a list of pages we made by some means...
open LIST, "<:utf8","list.txt";

while(<LIST>){ 
    $page=$_;
    my $ref= $mw->get_page ({title=>$page}); # reads the page and sets up the $ref structure
    my $timestamp = $ref->{timestamp};  # needed  to avoid (reduce) edit conflicts
    $text = $ref->{'*'};

    $text =~ s/e/q/gi; #replace e with q  throughout  

    $mw->edit({
         action        => 'edit',
         title         => $page,
         basetimestamp => $timestamp,
         test          => $text,
         summary       => "Q is better than E!"
    })
}
close LIST;

Perl resources

Can you recommend any good online Perl documentation that isn't perldoc? – The Transhumanist 16:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Er... depends what for. I am constantly looking up syntax on sites like Tizag. But if I actually want to understand something I prefer perlmonks - they can get a little Zen like sometimes. Some of the modules are simply not documented well enough. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Following your recommendation, I Looked at Perlmonks in more depth and found their library of 200+ tutorials. This will be very helpful, to me and many others – I added the link to the Outline of Perl. Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

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

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

Springtime means fresh tea leaves...

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

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. -- Sarah (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer questions that are key. Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Can AWB be run on a locally installed Wikipedia?

This could be useful for developing a set of pages offline. Can this be done? How fast do you think it would run? The Transhumanist 01:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It should run pretty fast, but not as fast as direct page access. Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

What do you mean by "direct page access"? The Transhumanist 07:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Default variable in a nested While loop

In a perl script I'm writing, I have a While loop nested inside another While loop. What's the default variable for the current line in the nested loop? Is the default variable in the outer loop unaffected? The Transhumanist 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the <> verb that populates the $_. $_ has global scope as far as I know. that's why one of the first things to do is often to assign it

while (<>) {
 my $title=$_;
 ....

This prevents "accidents" . Similarly it seem to be good practice to write

if (/([xyz])(abc)/){
     my $letter=$1;
     print "Found letter - $letter!\n";
}

instead of the simpler

if (/([xyz])(abc)/){
     print "Found letter - $1!\n";
}

so that if some other regex is used $letter will still have what we expect, while $1 can change in almost unexpected ways. Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

But I still need the global value in $_ for the outer While loop. Will reassigning it in the inner loop interfere with that? The Transhumanist 04:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it will. That's why I prefer to put it in a named variable. In theory stuff like $_ should be super-optimized and extra copying operations are expensive, but it really depends so much on what you are doing with them, if you are scanning a file then the overhead of copying a variable once per line should be small compared with the cost of reading the file. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rich Farmbrough. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Femto Bot

Rich, per Headbomb's and Newyorkbrad's responses at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop#All bots indefinitely blocked, I'd like to unblock Femto Bot; I agree that it performs useful tasks and shouldn't be blocked for the sake of being blocked. However, would it be possible to suspend its task 0 ("Creating needed monthly clean up categories") for the duration of the case? Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Femto Bot, it would appear that there are some technical problems with the task and I think it may fall within the scope of the concerns that instigated the case. If you would suspend that task, I'd be more comfortable with unblocking the bot and would do so first thing in the morning if possible. Cheers! — madman 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, it looks like no one notified you of the existence of that ANI thread. Sigh... — madman 03:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found the thread anyway. There are not technical problems, the issues are around slight problems in migrating from one set of categories to the other, probably due to minor errors by the mover. A parallel move just occurred in the parent categories, and I was able to fix all the problems, I didn't mention them to the mover, because I thought I could simply catch any similar errors in when these were moved. I hadn't reckoned with the current foolishness. There should be no issues now. Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

Please let me know if/when you intend to suspend the task; I believe it would be irresponsible to unblock the bot while it's performing such a task, technical problems or no. Thanks, — madman 01:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Madman. I have suspended that task. I wanted to write the code to allow individual tasks to be suspended from a config page, but I can't do this in my current state of limbo. Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for following up with me on this; as you've noticed, I'm more or less on Wikibreak due to medical/personal issues but I still usually do a better job of keeping up with my watchlist. I hate to vacillate on this after you've shown good faith by suspending the potentially controversial task, but I think I'm going to have to modify User:Femto Bot's block to expire on 23:21, 30 April 2012 (when Elen's block would have expired) rather than unblock it immediately. Having consulted with the blocking administrator and having read up on the ArbCom discussion, I think the discussion's escalated much more than I thought it would. While I'd have no hesitation normally to make such a unilateral decision and stand my ground whatever controversy may ensue, at the moment I'm too fatigued to engage in any potentially fast-paced and heated discussion; I'm sure you can empathize. I do hope to initiate discussion of the blocking policy when I come back, specifically "since the edits of a bot are considered to be, by extension, the edits of the editor responsible for the bot..." I don't think this is correct in all cases, specifically in the case of automated tasks which can run without input from their operator. I think there's an implicit assumption of bad faith in preemptive prevention of a bot account being used to disrupt the encyclopedia/evade blocks. I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this. Cheers, — madman 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I agree with what you say, and also that there is a fundamental problem with using a blunt tool like blocking, especially when the absurd situation here is that the operator is actually not blocked, so the only valid reason for blocking the bot is the somewhat convoluted "because we can trust the operator not to fix any problems". Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Well, I'm not sure that's the case, though the concern you cite is also valid; I think the justification here is that you are "de facto" blocked with an exemption for ArbCom pages. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that, but in that view the bot's block should expire when Elen's block would have expired. — madman 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course, that is the trouble with chain logic. I just removed the George Orwell quote "a therefore can become a wherefore" from the top of this page, but the point applies here doubly. The argument has run in the past, not as a bad faith one, but as "since the operator is blocked they cannot fix any problems" regardless of the rights or wrongs of the block. Implicit was "the things you are blocked to stop you doing, do not include resolving any problems with the bot, this is just technical fallout". But I'm sure you got this anyway. It's not a big deal, either the ARBcom will resolve satisfactorily or it won't. In either case I need to do a lot more work on community consensus, to make things explicit for those that have the eyes to see but choose not to use them. I think John Vandenburg was correct when he suggested (by implication) I was "very 2007". Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite DMPN

Template:Cite DMPN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

the reason to keep this template is to maintain compatibility with Italian WP. But <meh>. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

And so and so and so and so, it gets deleted with no discussion... Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Rich Farmbrough Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 716 words and 6 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

`Amran

Quite a "village" eh.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

• Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

• News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

• Discussion report: The future of pending changes

• WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

• Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your input requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Articles_for_Redirect, where your expertese is requested. Thanks again for your help with that project. Chrisrus (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The items had the refs from JPL added. You can create the list, in theory, by doing a diff on the two lists. I will see if I can do this presently. I cannot comment at the project right now since I am "not allowed".... Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Is that true? That is not good. Your not being able to answer questions there is disruptive to that project at a crucial juncture. Surely an exception can be made. Where may I register my concern? Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You could ask User:Elen of the Roads to consider formally unblocking me. Or indeed any admin can do it if they feel it appropriate (except me I suppose!). Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

I asked her on her talk page. Please do post the list diff, I don't have the chops to subtract one list from the other. When will you be unblocked? Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

She replied and so did I. I can't understand why an exception can't be made in this case. After all, who objects to allowing even serial killers to testify before a hearing if their testimony is called for. What they want is to generally understand the bot creation process, described in a general way. Also, there is the matter of the "JPL removed list", the list of the 363 asteroids that had a "reference" on the JPL Small-Body Database although the Harvard bot found none. I didn't understand when you said above "The items had the refs from JPL added". Please help a guy out, I don't know how to subtract one list from the other. Chrisrus (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh well. Clearly this is not something she wants to be flexible about, though taking a month out of my life, for something which seems not to have been a problem, does seem verging on an abuse of power. Flexibility is not a noted Wikiepdian virtue.

The JPL references were added to the articles for the minor planets they related to. These are the articles

1. 10443 van der Pol
2. 11027 Astaf'ev
3. 11072 Hiraoka
4. 11118 Modra
5. 11496 Grass
6. 11509 Thersilochos
7. 11836 Eileen
8. 11868 Kleinrichert
9. 11978 Makotomasako
10. 12016 Green
11. 12071 Davykim
12. 12238 Actor
13. 1233 Kobresia
14. 1242 Zambesia
15. 1243 Pamela
16. 1244 Deira
17. 1249 Rutherfordia
18. 1250 Galanthus
19. 12527 Anneraugh
20. 1255 Schilowa
21. 1261 Legia
22. 1267 Geertruida
23. 1281 Jeanne
24. 12845 Crick
25. 12895 Balbastre
26. 1291 Phryne
27. 13014 Hasslacher
28. 13154 Petermrva
29. 13260 Sabadell
30. 1328 Devota
31. 1337 Gerarda
32. 1340 Yvette
33. 1346 Gotha
34. 1347 Patria
35. 13482 Igorfedorov
36. 1349 Bechuana
37. 13533 Junili
38. 1354 Botha
39. 1356 Nyanza
40. 1364 Safara
41. 1366 Piccolo
42. 1368 Numidia
43. 13732 Woodall
44. 1378 Leonce
45. 1379 Lomonosowa
46. 13806 Darmstrong
47. 1382 Gerti
48. 1389 Onnie
49. 13906 Shunda
50. 1392 Pierre
51. 13921 Sgarbini
52. 1393 Sofala
53. 1397 Umtata
54. 13977 Frisch
55. 1405 Sibelius
56. 1409 Isko
57. 14141 Demeautis
58. 14164 Hennigar
59. 1419 Danzig
60. 1425 Tuorla
61. 1426 Riviera
62. 1429 Pemba
63. 1430 Somalia
64. 1431 Luanda
65. 14335 Alexosipov
66. 1434 Margot
67. 14342 Iglika
68. 1452 Hunnia
69. 1460 Haltia
70. 14643 Morata
71. 14659 Gregoriana
72. 1477 Bonsdorffia
73. 14835 Holdridge
74. 1496 Turku
75. 1504 Lappeenranta
76. 15107 Toepperwein
77. 1522 Kokkola
78. 1524 Joensuu
79. 1532 Inari
80. 1533 Saimaa
81. 15350 Naganuma
82. 15374 Teta
83. 1540 Kevola
84. 15415 Rika
85. 1543 Bourgeois
86. 1576 Fabiola
87. 1585 Union
88. 1609 Brenda
89. 1611 Beyer
90. 1628 Strobel
91. 1644 Rafita
92. 1646 Rosseland
93. 1648 Shajna
94. 1665 Gaby
95. 1669 Dagmar
96. 1672 Gezelle
97. 1682 Karel
98. 1688 Wilkens
99. 17035 Velichko
100. 1707 Chantal
101. 17079 Lavrovsky
102. 1709 Ukraina
103. 1710 Gothard
104. 1712 Angola
105. 1718 Namibia
106. 17198 Gorjup
107. 1720 Niels
108. 1722 Goffin
109. 1731 Smuts
110. 1735 ITA
111. 1753 Mieke
112. 1754 Cunningham
113. 1757 Porvoo
114. 1759 Kienle
115. 17683 Kanagawa
116. 1789 Dobrovolsky
117. 1800 Aguilar
118. 1801 Titicaca
119. 1803 Zwicky
120. 1804 Chebotarev
121. 1805 Dirikis
122. 1837 Osita
123. 1842 Hynek
124. 1873 Agenor
125. 1877 Marsden
126. 1879 Broederstroom
127. 18874 Raoulbehrend
128. 1897 Hind
129. 1902 Shaposhnikov
130. 1907 Rudneva
131. 1928 Summa
132. 1933 Tinchen
133. 19379 Labrecque
134. 1939 Loretta
135. 1941 Wild
136. 1946 Walraven
137. 1956 Artek
138. 1957 Angara
139. 1960 Guisan
140. 1961 Dufour
141. 19763 Klimesh
142. 1995 Hajek
143. 19982 Barbaradoore
144. 2003 Harding
145. 2013 Tucapel
146. 2017 Wesson
147. 2049 Grietje
148. 2054 Gawain
149. 20571 Tiamorrison
150. 2080 Jihlava
151. 2084 Okayama
152. 20898 Fountainhills
153. 2091 Sampo
154. 2109 Dhotel
155. 2111 Tselina
156. 2113 Ehrdni
157. 2139 Makharadze
158. 2140 Kemerovo
159. 21436 Chaoyichi
160. 2156 Kate
161. 21609 Williamcaleb
162. 21652 Vasishtha
163. 21705 Subinmin
164. 2175 Andrea Doria
165. 2186 Keldysh
166. 2187 La Silla
167. 2197 Shanghai
168. 22338 Janemojo
169. 2253 Espinette
170. 2259 Sofievka
171. 22603 Davidoconnor
172. 2274 Ehrsson
173. 2276 Warck
174. 22776 Matossian
175. 2285 Ron Helin
176. 2292 Seili
177. 2293 Guernica
178. 22988 Jimmyhom
179. 2301 Whitford
180. 2302 Florya
181. 2304 Slavia
182. 2323 Zverev
183. 2338 Bokhan
184. 2339 Anacreon
185. 2364 Seillier
186. 23712 Willpatrick
187. 2381 Landi
188. 2385 Mustel
189. 2398 Jilin
190. 24101 Cassini
191. 2415 Ganesa
192. 2416 Sharonov
193. 2422 Perovskaya
194. 2433 Sootiyo
195. 2442 Corbett
196. 2443 Tomeileen
197. 24643 MacCready
198. 2474 Ruby
199. 2477 Biryukov
200. 2480 Papanov
201. 2483 Guinevere
202. 2490 Bussolini
203. 2523 Ryba
204. 2524 Budovicium
205. 2529 Rockwell Kent
206. 2543 Machado
207. 2545 Verbiest
208. 2563 Boyarchuk
209. 2572 Annschnell
210. 2591 Dworetsky
211. 2624 Samitchell
212. 2637 Bobrovnikoff
213. 2649 Oongaq
214. 2669 Shostakovich
215. 2687 Tortali
216. 26879 Haines
217. 2713 Luxembourg
218. 2714 Matti
219. 2760 Kacha
220. 2774 Tenojoki
221. 2779 Mary
222. 2783 Chernyshevskij
223. 2785 Sedov
224. 2794 Kulik
225. 2796 Kron
226. 2832 Lada
227. 2862 Vavilov
228. 2880 Nihondaira
229. 2893 Peiroos
230. 2895 Memnon
231. 2896 Preiss
232. 2937 Gibbs
233. 2939 Coconino
234. 2942 Cordie
235. 2943 Heinrich
236. 2945 Zanstra
237. 2960 Ohtaki
238. 2981 Chagall
239. 2991 Bilbo
240. 2993 Wendy
241. 2995 Taratuta
242. 3005 Pervictoralex
243. 3025 Higson
244. 3052 Herzen
245. 3068 Khanina
246. 3076 Garber
247. 3080 Moisseiev
248. 3099 Hergenrother
249. 3101 Goldberger
250. 3109 Machin
251. 3111 Misuzu
252. 3116 Goodricke
253. 3133 Sendai
254. 3134 Kostinsky
255. 3141 Buchar
256. 3176 Paolicchi
257. 3178 Yoshitsune
258. 3186 Manuilova
259. 31956 Wald
260. 3212 Agricola
261. 3247 Di Martino
262. 3267 Glo
263. 3268 De Sanctis
264. 3284 Niebuhr
265. 3290 Azabu
266. 3300 McGlasson
267. 3332 Raksha
268. 3370 Kohsai
269. 3402 Wisdom
270. 3403 Tammy
271. 3444 Stepanian
272. 3485 Barucci
273. 35062 Sakuranosyou
274. 3514 Hooke
275. 3525 Paul
276. 3557 Sokolsky
277. 3590 Holst
278. 3597 Kakkuri
279. 3617 Eicher
280. 3631 Sigyn
281. 3637 O'Meara
282. 3638 Davis
283. 3651 Friedman
284. 3657 Ermolova
285. 3675 Kemstach
286. 3685 Derdenye
287. 3724 Annenskij
288. 3725 Valsecchi
289. 3729 Yangzhou
290. 3731 Hancock
291. 3761 Romanskaya
292. 3785 Kitami
293. 3790 Raywilson
294. 3794 Sthenelos
295. 3801 Thrasymedes
296. 3807 Pagels
297. 3811 Karma
298. 3843 OISCA
299. 3855 Pasasymphonia
300. 3872 Akirafujii
301. 3880 Kaiserman
302. 3888 Hoyt
303. 3906 Chao
304. 3918 Brel
305. 3923 Radzievskij
306. 3924 Birch
307. 3935 Toatenmongakkai
308. 3936 Elst
309. 3953 Perth
310. 3960 Chaliubieju
311. 3968 Koptelov
312. 39741 Komm
313. 3986 Rozhkovskij
314. 4007 Euryalos
315. 4008 Corbin
316. 4045 Lowengrub
317. 4057 Demophon
318. 4085 Weir
319. 4112 Hrabal
320. 4162 SAF
321. 4169 Celsius
322. 4172 Rochefort
323. 4174 Pikulia
324. 4190 Kvasnica
325. 4196 Shuya
326. 4201 Orosz
327. 4204 Barsig
328. 4214 Veralynn
329. 4224 Susa
330. 4226 Damiaan
331. 4255 Spacewatch
332. 4263 Abashiri
333. 4289 Biwako
334. 4294 Horatius
335. 4308 Magarach
336. 4317 Garibaldi
337. 4323 Hortulus
338. 4423 Golden
339. 4457 van Gogh
340. 4467 Kaidanovskij
341. 4498 Shinkoyama
342. 4502 Elizabethann
343. 4505 Okamura
344. 4509 Gorbatskij
345. 4703 Kagoshima
346. 4712 Iwaizumi
347. 4722 Agelaos
348. 4741 Leskov
349. 4754 Panthoos
350. 4773 Hayakawa
351. 4791 Iphidamas
352. 4792 Lykaon
353. 4806 Miho
354. 4816 Connelly
355. 4827 Dares
356. 4828 Misenus
357. 4832 Palinurus
358. 4833 Meges
359. 4836 Medon
360. 4863 Yasutani
361. 4867 Polites
362. 4894 Ask
363. 4946 Askalaphus

Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice, except of course I am not allowed to comment there. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

cleanup of categories

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Wikipedians_who_like_X. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You can G7 those with only Lady Aleena in them. I would of course do it myself but I'm sure someone would cry foul, or possibly fowl. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Please also be careful using expressions like "the author created them using an automated process" - this sort of thing, while technically (almost) correct, becomes "Rich runs unapproved bots on his account". Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration case

Relevant pages.

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough
   1. Statement by Hersfold
   2. Statement by Fram
   3. Statement by Elen of the Roads
   4. Statement by Headbomb
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Evidence
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop
4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision
5. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough - blank
6. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Evidence
7. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop
8. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision

Note also that Signpost has twice (at least) reported on the case, and there is no effective right of reply due to the somewhat crazy "blocking" situation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

OK 2 am, the rest can wait.

Evidence Phase

Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase has closed. If you would like to add evidence please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbs. Thanks, --Guerillero | My Talk 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be an improvement to the process if it were made clear at what time each phase closes. I was under the impression that this phase would run until 2012/04/18T23:59:59Z. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

I was under the impression that it ended at 2012/04/18T00:00:00Z. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

... I gathered... Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I was under the same impression as you and raised the issue here as I suspect this goes beyond just your case. Anyone should feel free to move it to a more suitable froum for discussion if one exists as I'm not very up with the working of arbcom and where the best place to post my concern is. Dpmuk (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions to the parties:

Your attention is requested here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ROFL

[This diff] is being cited as an example of my evility.... Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

New, inline 'update' template

Hi,

I've created {{Update-small}} (the name {{Update-inline}} being taken), which you might like to check over, please, and have your Bot recognise and date-stamp. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Update-inline has only a handful of namespace transclusions, which have been protected by AnomieBOT, you could consider using the "correct" name. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Nice new templates, I was searching for something like that recently and ended up using {{outofdate|section}} instead. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

• Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

• News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

• WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

• Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

Extended content

Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC). Why do I never explain stuff? I am unblocked to take part in an arbitration case, I am nominally blocked until 23:21, 30 April 2012. I am requesting either: Permission from any admin to specifically G7 some categories, which will save them having to go through CfD. Or a reduction of nominal block to time-served (terrible phrase). Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC). Hm, well everyone else refers to it as blocked. Silly me. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

The script is eating the file!

I'm preparing to use AWB's external processing feature. I'm trying to write a script to read a text file, process it, and then save it. My sample text file is "test.txt" and contains "xxxxxx This is a test page. xxxxxx"

The problem is, my script erases the contents of the file! What I want this test script to do is a simple regex substitution.

open FILETEXT, ">test.txt" or die $!;
my $slurped = <FILETEXT>;
$slurped =~ s/This is a test page/This is a test page that passed its test/;
# print "$slurped";
print FILETEXT $slurped;
close (FILETEXT);

Instead of modified content, I find that the content has been completely erased. What is causing the problem? What will make this work right? The Transhumanist 10:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm using strawberry perl, per your recommendation.

Found something that works, sort of...

open FILETEXT, "test.txt";
my $slurped = <FILETEXT>;
$slurped =~ s/This is a test page/This is a test page that passed its test/;
print "$slurped";
close (FILETEXT);
open FILETEXT, ">test.txt";
print FILETEXT $slurped;
close (FILETEXT);

Thinking that I found a solution, I increased the file to 3 lines, to discover that this script only processes the first line of the file, and replaces the file with that one line.

How can I fix that? The Transhumanist 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, now it slurps

I expanded the opening to this:

local $/ = undef;
open FILETEXT, "test.txt";
binmode FILETEXT;

And it seems to work, but where did the new lines go?

I changed the regex string in the script and used AWB to pass a page to text.txt, and the substitution worked, but the diff in AWB revealed that the article was now one big block of run-together text.

How can I fix that?

I figured out how argument passing works a few days ago, so once I learn how to slurp without stripping the linefeeds, I'll be ready to write the real guts for my script! Eventually, I may be able to write the External processing section of the AWB manual. Though I plan to put in some miles on this feature first before I do so. The Transhumanist 13:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. It works standalone perhaps it's to do with the type of line feed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

{
  local $/ = undef;
  open FILETEXT, 'C:\AWB\test\test.txt';
  $slurped = <FILETEXT>;
  $slurped =~ s/This is a test page/This is a test page that passed its test/;
  print $slurped;
  close FILETEXT;
}

open ANSWER, ">:", 'C:\AWB\test\test.txt';
print ANSWER $slurped;
close ANSWER;

This works for me. Because you have redefined $/ you don't need to use binmode. Reading the file in binmode and writing it in text means that the line-feeds are being read in one way and written in another, I think.

Note that I put a block "{...}" around the reading section to keep undef $/ local, though this should not matter in this example. (The output record separator is $\.)

Note also I split the file name and the ">:" bit up - this is not required but is good practice, if you have variables in the file name, they are less dangerous if they can't be interpreted as a the file type thingy.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

OK, I took out binmode, and it works even better! Thank you.

I don't know what an "output record separator" is. Why and how would one refer to $\. in a program?

Also, what is the colon after the greater than sign for?

By the way, I ran into a problem with block delimiters...

When I used a block, leaving the second filehandle sequence outside the block, AWB no longer showed a diff. It showed a messsage that no changes were made.

That is, this works fine:

{
   local $/ = undef;
   open FILETEXT, "test.txt";
   # binmode FILETEXT;
   my $slurped = <FILETEXT>;
   #$slurped =~ s/This is a test page/This is a test page that passed its test/;
   $slurped =~ s/the/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/;      # test substitution so something shows up in AWB diffs
   print "$slurped";
   close (FILETEXT);
   open ANSWER, ">test.txt";
   print ANSWER $slurped;
   close (ANSWER);
}

But this does not work:

{
   local $/ = undef;
   open FILETEXT, "test.txt";
   # binmode FILETEXT;
   my $slurped = <FILETEXT>;
   #$slurped =~ s/This is a test page/This is a test page that passed its test/;
   $slurped =~ s/the/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/;      # test substitution so something shows up in AWB diffs
   print "$slurped";
   close (FILETEXT);
}

open ANSWER, ">test.txt";
print ANSWER $slurped;
close (ANSWER);

When using AWB with the above script, the contents of test.txt gets completely erased. So I used the dir command to see what happened, and the filename shows up, but with zero bytes. The Transhumanist 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's because "my" gives" $slurped a local scope. The : is probably not necessary, I have always used it since I went "three argument" on file opens. You probably also need to make sure that the file is opened utf-8 where the cliche is

">:utf8"

Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

If you set "$\" then it would be output after every "print" so for example:

{
   local $\ = "\n";
   print "to be or not to be";
   print "that is the question";
}

is the same as

print "to be or not to be\n";
print "that is the question\n";

Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Page stats information

Re: Wikipedia:Scripts/Perl scripts/Pagestats. Thank you for putting in a CC licence. I must read up LWP, when I have some spare time. It is interesting to see the style in which other people write scripts. I have not tested it, but it looks like it will work to me. It looks like it will print to screen totals cumulating after it has read a page and finally prints the grand total. It reeds the whole page just to see one line high up on the stats web page. What have you used it for? Snowman (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested it, and Rich kindly whipped it up. From time to time I need to check how many views per month the entire collection of Portal:Contents/Outlines are getting. Then I multiply that by 12 to get an annual figure. The outlines are currently pulling over 6 million page views per year in traffic. Not including cache views, of course. The Transhumanist 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that stayed too long - Jamal Al-Gashey

I thought of your "things that stayed too long" section when I made this edit. Nearly two years ago, someone added a picture of Jordanian author Jamal Naji to the article and claimed that it was suspected terrorist Jamal Al-Gashey. When I came across the article, needless to say I was more than a bit surprised that a person who believes that Mossad is still trying to kill him would have such a clear picture freely available. Not that mistaken identity has ever hurt anyone, right? Canadian Paul 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good spot. And another reason for us to have a little humility about errors. Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Amazingly someone mentioned this on the talk page in November 2011. I am of Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Template:{{Year in topic}}

It doesn't look like this is being used, so I am going to send it to TfD. If there is a use for it, then we can obviously keep it. thank you. 64.216.106.24 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:User:Rich Farmbrough:Template:Category TOC exists

could you move this to your userspace? 64.216.106.24 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From SignPost

Approximately 3% of editors account for 85% of contributions to the project, according to the statistician, and participation among this group has declined "even more sharply" than the active registered userbase in toto.

Funny that. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Quote

User:Kotinski - for whom I have always had respect.

...find something more productive to do with my life than continually trying to present rational argument to people who aren't interested, in an environment where only the drama-mongers and edit-warriors are rewarded. ... I'm feeling a great sense of relief that I won't be spending tomorrow or the next day arguing with morons about trivia.

I know exactly what he means. The "real life" equivalent to how I feel, I suppose, would be an engineer who is working on various jobs and is constantly interrupted by a couple of guys with Home Depot tool-belts (and probably propeller caps) telling him the advantage of triangular slotted screws over hex drive, and occasionally emptying his boxes of screws in the gutter, replacing random screws with the preferred variety, and calling the police, saying "someone is vandalising safety structures with dodgy screws"... And the police believing them.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Blocked

I have blocked you for a period of one month. Period is probably moot - the talk at AN is of opening a request for arbitration. If this happens, I expect you will be unblocked to participate.

The automated sockpuppet category creation is a truly monstrous failure of end-user (ie the community) testing. The community neither needs nor wants those categories - mostly if it needed them, it created them as it went along. You have succeeded in badging editors as socks/masters who were actually cleared, and you are connecting IPs with sockmasters, which is in breach of the privacy policy...not to mention that since the cases are older than Noah, the IPs are almost certainly being used by some poor innocent by now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a severe case of bollocks. The user pages are in the categories regardless of whether text sits at the usercategory page. If the sock-tagging community is lackadasical in removing sock-tags, then that great big enormous huge carbuncle on their user page is the thing that is connecting the IPs with putative sockmasters in breach of hows-your-father. Good grief Charlie Brown! Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

I'm late to this thread, but I got to clean up one of these bot-generated Suspected Sockpuppets Of pages brought to my attention through an intermediary, who alerted me to the objections of a potentially litigious individual in California who found it with a Google search. I don't think I wear a propeller hat and I won't advise you about what kind of screws to use — but I know that you made a mess on this matter and I don't see a lot of contrition. Some engineers have to be kept out of the laboratory, otherwise society may well end up having an Ice-nine problem. I don't know if you're one of these or not, but I'm concerned, for sure. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well contrition is a "nice to have", resolving the problem is what's needed. And of course blocking me is not a great way to achieve that. If everyone who had claimed this was a "monstrous" "defaming authors" and so forth really believed it was that bad, they would surely have put some effort into resolving the issue. It's a 10 minute job, if done bluntly, and a few hours if done carefully. They might even have said (in a nice way) "please fix this problem you created". The only person the "potentially litigious individual in California" can sue for creating the page is me - and arguably whoever prevents me from correcting any errors.

I am sorry that you've been involved in this. Unfortunately there's not a lot I can do since any attempt to resolve the issues will bring the wolf down on the fold, and moreover the Wikimedia servers are giving me gateway errors, preventing even simple investigation. However if you let me know what steps you took, it would be useful in case they need to be replicated. Right now I'm not seeing the any user pages you removed the template from, or the empty/deleted cats, but as I say the servers are playing me up. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Request for Arbitration filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Rich Farmbrough and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked you so that you can participate in the aforementioned case. The Helpful One 00:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think.... Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Talk about taking things personally. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

• Rich, do not edit any page except WP:A/R/C and this talkpage. And, your statement is far longer than 500 words; please correct this. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Rich, your latest change to the statement contained a change in position (so far as I can gather) as well as a reduction in length. I'm not sure if this was precipitated by my note, but such a pointedly brief statement is unnecessary. My request was that you reduce the length of your statement, not that you give no account at all. If you prefer to retain your longer statement then please do so; I would rather the other arbitrators have a longer but full account than none at all. Regards, AGK [•] 13:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• It was precipitated by your note. But it was based on the belief that I had merely stated my position about the substantive matter, rather than on whether there should be a hearing. Of course I like to think that if I were an Arbitrator I would say (as some did last time an attempt at an arb case was attempted) "Don't be absurd", so from that point of view, and from the point of view of the amount of work and time involved (remember we are all volunteers here) I don't want an arb case. However I am thoroughly sick and tired of Fram, and to a lesser extent CBM, and I asked for mutual interaction ban years ago. As Coren remarked, it is quite possible that "the time drain will be higher all told (by bouncing back to the AN boards again and again) until we settle the matter one way or the other". So resolving the issue now (i.e. in a few months... ) is probably preferable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
  

• I have restored my summary, since the presence of a pre-opening statement is useful, Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
  

When shit gets crazy...

... it's best to only edit manually, I've found. Strictly manually. When things settle down again, automation can be brought back in. Best of luck in the upcoming case. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

hi

Too bad about the block. If you're not careful, you might slip into 2nd place – Koavf only has a 100,000 edits to go to catch up! (Like I'm anyone to talk – I spend way too much time here.) — kwami (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that would be cool, 100,000 more good edits would be a great contribution. Funnily enough I'm not currently blocked, since Arbfun is occurring - though I am instructed not to edit. The irony of trusting me not to edit when it suits, and yet physically blocking the account at other times is not lost on me. With a little luck it should resolve both the block and the ongoing history of harassment. Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

New Arbcom Case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 18, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | My Talk 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I already bagsed top bunk. Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

A Perl script library would be nice

You expressed interest in starting a library of Perl scripts.

You also mentioned Perl's usefulness for scanning the WP data dump.

Do you have any scripts for that? Example code for this would be extremely useful. They would give the rest of us an idea of what's possible. The Transhumanist 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In AWB, how does the External Program Processing work?

(I couldn't find any documentation on this). The Transhumanist 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't use this feature, though I played around with it once. Here's my set-up (possibly the default I don't know)

Program or script: perl

Arguments/Parameters: test.pl << test.txt >>test.txt

I/O file: test.txt

Presumably AWB saves the page to "test.txt" then runs "perl test.pl <<test.txt >> test.txt " (which might not work anyway) the reads text.txt into the page variable in AWB and carries on. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

The traffic to this page

I'm impressed. You typically get just under 2,000 hits per month on your talk page. Last month it was almost 3,000. And this month so far there have been over 550 hits (in just 4 days).

You have an audience. You have readership!

You might consider that your page is a de facto (Wikipedia-related) blog page. Have you considered writing to your students here? Like posts on a blog. It's obvious that many people are interested in what you say and do. You have your very own venue. The Transhumanist 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there have been a lot of talk page stalkers (in the nice sense of the word) and a few in the not-so-nice. I don't think that this is necessarily a prime venue, for my ideas and thoughts, though I have created a few of the thousands of threads, see for example the two at the top of this page, the second sadly prophetic. I am also not really a blogger, although perhaps that is a failing I should work on. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Rather than philosophical or political threads, I was thinking more along the lines of the technical and practical, your sharing your expertise and methods. You are the most prolific editor and bot operator on Wikipedia. Power flows through your fingertips. It's wiki-lightning. Other editors are genuinely interested in how you do it, and the tools you use. Wikipedia lacks intelligible documentation in this area of endeavor. But you have wiki-skills that you have honed and fine-tuned for 8 years. There is nobody more qualified than you to mentor the Wikipedia community on how it's done. How to spot a widespread problem. How to fix it on thousands of pages. How to effectively apply power tools. AWB. Regex. Perl. Bots. And only you know what else. Teach us! There are hundreds of us who have reached the limit of what we can do manually. Show us how to automate. Help us transcend as you have. It'll be fun, for everyone. Besides, a little bird told me you have a month of free time on your hands. – The Transhumanist 16:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have neither transcended, nor sublimed, nor am I illuminated. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Yep, you're the epitome of the technologically evolved, speeding toward the technological singularity, despite not being a singularitarian. On the other hand, someone passed you on the editcountitis list. :( That one month block really sucks! The Transhumanist 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Perl WikiProject

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Perl, to give you something to do after your block is lifted.   :)   By the way, I've started its talk page off with our Perl-related threads. Those might be useful or interesting to someone. The Transhumanist 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

• Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

• Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

• News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

• WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

• Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

• Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

• Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see they turned to you

I figured it was only a matter time till they turned their attention to you. The community is losing contributors at the cyclic rate. It seems as though the drama llamas are starting at the top of the list of editors with the most contributions and working down. You, Me(Kumioko), I see drama on Magioladitis's page, etc. Its truly sad to see what the place has devolved into. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone involved is generally sensible, so they'll work it out. Rich lost his patience and pissed some people off. He'll get his patience back, and they'll get over it. It's human nature. The Transhumanist 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly human nature. And it's true that I got a little irritated at years of low level sniping. However the rest of what you say is a little optimistic. See for example, User:Bishonen, User:Δ, User:Goldhat, User:Merovingian, User:Rlevse and many, many more. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Jumping Jehosephat! I thought this was a [bad] joke. Let's figure out how to fix this -- the underlying issue, not any specific case. – SJ + 00:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What a number of editors have tried to do is defend specific editors (including a significant number who have leapt to my defence in various situations relating to this particular imbroglio) this has a tendency to create a polarised argument. Recognising this people do tread more carefully, leading to praising with faint damns and damning with faint praise - or token accpetance of some of the "other side's" arguments. Nonetheless the polarisation still occurs, and the discussions are often not helpful, often leading to more bad feeling and raking up previous issues.

What is needed is a method of actually defusing the emotion without becoming unfeeling. These are the twin banes of Wikipedian intercourse, firstly over-investing emotionally in a position, and secondly lack of ability to relate socially. There is no doubt, for example, that Wikipedia attracts, and is indeed dependent on folk with ASD, which gives rise to problems in itself - we have discussed this briefly on Jimbo's talk page a few months ago. The difficulty here is that it is a spectrum, some people will have no difficulties and will fit right in. Of course editors have all sorts of other "RL" issues which can affect them editing, and the basic principle which seemed to prevail in the "early days" of everyone being extremely relaxed and keeping rules to a minimum s was perhaps more forgiving.

There are of course other on-wiki issues that lead to us loosing valuable editors, I saw a few earlier today dating back to 2006, that I had no idea had left, one due to "real life" threats. (Some here.)

I do think that as a group we are not very good at putting ourselves in other peoples shoes. There are at least two threads on ANI currently where (one calling for a de-sysop, because of a mistaken block, one verging towards a block for misunderstanding process) which are hardly community building. Of course there is sanity, there are "people people", in amongst this. Unfortunately most of them burn out, become victims themselves, or simply move on to other things. Process oriented fora tend to draw process oriented people, and, sadly, a small coterie of more or less vindictive people.

Of course arbitration and mediation and all the other "..ations" are attempts to solve these issues. I think though that there are problems finding people of sufficient quality and with sufficient time available to deal with the case load. I think there are a few minor improvements to process that can be made, but we really need specialists in dispute resolution who understand (or are at least capable of understanding) the technicalities. Because if, as so often happens, we fail to address the underlying issues, then all the resolutions, bans, blocks and enforcement actions in the world are just a waste of time and effort.

I'm not sure what other positive suggestions I can make, and I have been thinking about these issues for several years, but I'm sure that with a willingness to move forward some kind of progress can be achieved.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

YGM: WP article 'Edgar Steele' and WP editor "trojancowboy"

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gandsnut (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at this, but there's a limit on what I can do since, while I am technically not blocked, I am "legally" blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A big thanks

RF, I want to give you a big thanks for all the effort you with your bots put into Wikipedia and say your work is invaluable. As you may know I've got your talk page watched and post here occasionally - mainly to ask a question. When I've had reason to check your work (normally as someone moaning at your talk page or ANI), I've always found your work to be most beneficial for the encyclopedia. You make a huge lot of edits and because of that the most expediant method is sometimes to make mass changes then correct exceptions afterward that is the most effective use of time, a situation I shared in real life for many years as a db admin. Many on Wikipedia look for near perfection in bot edits and moan and groan whenever they see something that is a little off, without any idea of the bigger picture for data cleansing. I hope you are not put off by the drama of those who don't understand. Your work here is invaluable and a dropoff or an absence of your work would leave big holes in the cleanness and quality of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to be appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

It's safe to say that in the present tense; the dropoff of your work has left gaps in the cleanliness and quality of the project. Of course, while they say "cleanliness is next to godliness", it is all too often in the eye of the beholder... – SJ + 01:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that mixed metaphor a quote from me? Rings a lot of bells... Thanks for the message, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

I dunno

Is it all worth it? Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Probably not. I just tripped over the Farmbrough AR thing via the Signpost and was pretty surprised. Is all that vitriol really about BOTS? Makes my head swim, since I've observed your edits for years and have never gleaned anything untoward in any of them. In my mind, you're an asset. But don't do anything rash; remember, "All of our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last." (M. Proust) Cheers, --Seduisant (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very true! I have no intention of scrambling passwords or "vandalising all of the Wikipedia", rest assured! Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Richball, the greatest of wikiballs

Take this portrait as my little gift and my regards to you, Rich. You are my hero, and I take inspiration from you - seriously! And you inspire many other Wikipedians too, generations of them to come! GreyHood Talk 09:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Aussieball sends his regards to you too ;)

Also, you might like this cartoon. It is not meant as offense to anyone - I deeply respect all the editors involved. But the general situation is sad, and perhaps making a little fun of it could remind us all what we should be. This must be the most epic and romantic drama which I've seen on Wikipedia, and you've played the top role in there - I suppose it might be compared to those rare actors who play Hamlet. But the story may continue! Hope your case highlights for the people of Wikipedia what is the utter injustice and ridiculousness of barring good editors from editing and forcing them into time-consuming trials. Cheers and enjoy the fun of life! GreyHood ^Talk 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hah! That made me laugh out loud! Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

• I'm sad to hear that the dramafest continues, and that you're being hauled through Arbcom. Keep your chin up! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, but in fairness I supported the Arbcom in the hope that it would draw a line under all the nonsense. I still hope it will, though I am aware that previous Arbcom decisions (with different arbs) have been extremely wayward, and the leaked arbcom mailing list (not mentioned in Signpost) have not been wholly exculpatory. Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
  

@Greyhood; that cartoon is flippin' brilliant! Nicely done! I, too, laughed out loud! @Rich: Your optimism is seriously misplaced. Believing ArbCom will make a reasonable decision, not one motivated to obliterate the subject of the most heat, is a very Ponce de León-ian quest. There are windmills that need tilting at far more than a belief in ArbCom judicial purity. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well I think ArbCom need to do the right thing occasionally, just to keep up appearances? But more seriously I do think they always do their best, and if that sometimes is palpably wrong to the rest of us, we need to keep up the feedback to improve the situation. I have already remarked on some astounding weaknesses of procedure (I am not a fan of procedure for its own sake as many will know - but where a quasi-legal environment has been set up, really I think the functionaries should implement their work with extreme scruple - Hersefold's bot will doubtless help with some of this.) and I intend to write up the experience for Signpost, purely as a party, not referring to the case in anyway, and hopefully it can be made more user friendly. Arbitration, in RL, is usually a voluntary affair, and is used to resolve cases where discussion, negotiation and mediation has failed (all absent here, but not in typical Arbcom cases). Also Arbitration in RL is far more tightly bound as to scope. Here anything goes which is both good and bad. Anyway, be that as it may, let us hope that in this case a positive way forward can be found. Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Note on blocking

The blocking admin had said that she would block me for a day in the first instance. Instead she went for a month. I am now in a limbo where I should be unblocked and am unblocked but am "legally" blocked. If any admin would like to unblock me "legally" that would be very cool. Elen seems to think it's now down to Arbcom which is a serious misunderstanding. Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Evidence

I removed my evidence, my suggested remedies and my analysis of your evidence, since it's just a cat fight gone horribly wrong and wasn't resolved properly. Best of luck. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am interested in looking ate better ways to reduce and resolve disputes on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). Keep in touch. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

A big hullaballoo

Yikes Rich, I just wanted to say that I appreciate all the edits you've made to the encyclopedia as well (especially considering the very helpful work your bots have done.) I wasn't even aware of your newest ArbCom drama (and I'm not informed enough to comment on it), but I hope that you understand that there's no rivalry of any sort between you and me on my end. I have been overwhelmed by kind words and awards from across the globe, but I would hate for that to overshadow the good work that many, many Wikipedians have put into the project, yourself included. (cf.) I hope that all of issues you have with other editors get resolved swiftly and justly so that we can all get on with the bigger goal of freely spreading the world's knowledge. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's much appreciated, Justin. I have seen your work, and appreciate that too, and know that you have run up against some of the same problems I have. I'd have dropped by your talk page and offered congratulations if I were not "blocked" - it is a nice milestone. As you have succeeded in getting things done where I have become entangled in the mesh of process, I would like to invite you to join the Committee for getting things done. (And if friendly rivalry had spurred you on to achieve more that would be a great thing!) All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help with the asteroid redirection process! Chrisrus (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia 1.0

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team which organizes offline releases of Wikipedia. We're trying to identify which members are still active, so we can start to work on our next general offline release, Version 0.9, being discussed here. Please add your comments to the discussion, and let us know here if you would like to be involved - perhaps in article cleanup, which you mentioned as your interest. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE impressive!

Category:WikiProject Phineas and Ferb members

Category:WikiProject Phineas and Ferb members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

in perl script, regex not recognizing \n, $, /Z

I've been slurping a file, like this:

   open TEXTFILE, "text.txt";
   $content = <TEXTFILE>;                        # slurp text.txt into variable
   close(OUTLINE);

When I use regex to match or substitute in $content, the script simply does not recognize new line characters (\n) or the end of a line.

For example, this does not work:

   $content =~ s/\n\n/\n/;

What it going on? The Transhumanist 02:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Found it:

   $content =~ s/\n\n/\n/m;

Didn't know about that. Tricky. The Transhumanist 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You may want to consider

   $content =~ s/\n\n+/\n/mg;

this does 2,3,4, 5 etc. \n =in each subst, and the "g" means that it will do all the matches in the file, as a stand-alone s///.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 01:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 01:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Incomplete}}

Since you modified {{Incomplete}}, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_28#Template:Incomplete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 01:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 03:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 03:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 03:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
3. CBM at 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: Denied.. *

Edits by:

1. Snowolf at 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. Snowolf at 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
3. Beetstra at 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Snowolf at 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Beetstra at 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Beetstra at 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 52

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 scholarship

Hi Rich, I have contacted you recently by email about Wikimania 2012. It would be great if you could get in touch to discuss further - either talk page or email is fine. daria.cybulskawikimedia.org.uk Thank you! Daria Cybulska (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

BD2412

Can someone tell them that there's a dab problem with Ellis Bent‎. Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Diana Francis

• Should be restored as it's original redirect.
• The Ricardian Poets need a review, together with the associated works
• A Key to Uncle tom's Cabin needs italics.

Too trusting?

[15:10] <UserX> Hello, can a Administrator delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UserX/monobook.js [15:10] <AdminY> Done.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Chrisrus at 04:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Chrisrus at 04:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Chrisrus at 04:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

An outing

"Aunt Jane!" said Tom, hurrying to keep up, "Do you think that one day I could be an Arb Clerk like you?"

"You can be whatever you want, Tom, even an Arb if you put your mind to it." she replied, striding down broad gleaming template namespace.

Tom liked his Aunt Jane, she was never flustered, or too tired to play a game of quick-diff with him, as his father was after a long day at MfD. And today she had taken him out for some new headers and footers. He watched the other editors move out of her path, touching their hats or avoiding her gaze, even the bots making minor edits to the illumination system seemed in awe of her. He was sure the mean boys who had kept reverting him on the school trip to the Commons, every time he tried to stop them making incivil remarks about Mona Mumpkin's bandwidth from the back 16 bits of the bus, would have quailed had they known she was his aunt.

"In here." she said as they came to a very expensive looking templating shop - gnomes were overpainting the signage but Ludwigs and Co was still visible under some blanked versions. While his aunt discussed the finer points of hair shaping with the proprietor, Tom took in the array of meta-templates, each with the distinctive Spork imprint, the shiny CC-by-Sa 17.2 mirrors and the custom python scripts apparently asleep on the floor of their cage.

Tom's mind wandered as the matching headers and footers were attached with a touch of CCS adhesive, adjusted, revised and tweaked until both his aunt and proprietor were satisfied, then, after polite farewells and sigging, back into the busy namespace one more.

"Aunt stop!" he said suddenly realising.

His aunt turned brought her face down to his level "What's the matter?"

"You didn't pay the man..."

She smiled, "Oh no dear, he does my jobs as a favour. You see a few years ago he was caught eating yogurt, and I was able to pull a few strings... avoided a lot of unpleasantness, probably a 1RR at least... for templater that would have been his livelihood."

"Yoghurt" Tom looked puzzled, then remembered his history lessons. ".. oh yogurt.." he said quietly, then quickly reverted himself before anyone else could watch.

"Anyway we are nearly there." Tom brightened, his aunt had taken him on a number of unusual outings recently, so it seemed there was another destination this morning, and while he was proud of his new gear, he was a more practical boy then fashion conscious. There had been the Harvard Hall where editors known as referrers were sitting trance-like, their neural nets linked by superconducting mono-filaments to the world library, abstracting and cross referencing for portals and projects. The trip to the wreck of the Esperanza had been the best, but he knew that the riskiest had been the back rooms of the sock-puppet centre, where in a large factory millions of socks were being attached to the heads of animated camels. He had been puzzled, but his aunt had refused to explain, telling him to think about it, and not to breathe a word to anyone.

The boy and his mentor crossed through a small, unlit, and rather insalubrious sub-namespace labelled Bjaodnally, and to his surprise came out right next to the Bot Museum. "Never go that way without me" she said "there are all sorts hanging around there, survivors form the old times, revert warriors, truthers even maybe sangeristas." The boy nodded, a delicious chill passing through him at the forbidden words, but nonetheless a little disappointed to be at the Bot Museum, which he had visited so many times before, often on a Saturday morning when his parents gave him a few electro-groats and hung a merge tag outside their user page.

They wandered down the vast echoing halls, past the hulking Cydebot and SmackBot - twin behemoths dwarfed in their turn by thousand armed Siebot, the steam powered Rambot - due to be powered up for a day at Easter, the sleek darting forms of HagermanBot and SineBot, the serried ranks of the py-bots facing the rows of slightly more customised awb-bots, like armies of pawns across a gigantic chess board. Skipping the policy room, where talking headsets would guide you through the dry and convoluted history of the documents framed around the walls (an urban legend said that every millionth visitor was taken over by the headset and changed into a bot) they arrived at the hands-on-section.

Here children of all ages, but mostly younger than Tom, operated simple revert bots, played some messy games, while in the sandbox two older boys with obvious competence problems were building a massive history tower. Tom admitted to himself that, deep down, this was his favourite room. Despite his age he liked playing with the toys and making them go further than they were designed to, getting them to interact with each other, the younger children's disruptive games simply adding to the challenge of controlling the devices without upsetting them, and at the end of the session, he liked to operate the sandbox cleaner to reset the unoccupied parts of the room to their initial state or "pre-set" as the controls described it.

Tom moved, almost automatically towards the stub builder, seeing some spare space where he could lay down a nice pattern, but his aunt took his hand and turned him to face a small triangular man in a curator's uniform. "This is my nephew, Tom. Tom this is.." she paused a heartbeat "...old Nab." The man's mouth twitched as she introduced him, as if a smiley had almost occurred.

"Very pleased to met you Tom, this way" - Old Nab opened a door marked Project staff only rollbacking the lock quicker than Tom could follow. Down a short, brightly lit corridor was a workshop, one wall was a large one-way watchlist where the children could be seen playing in the hands-on centre "just in case" as Old Nab later explained, the rest of the room, apart from the two doors, was crammed with junk, all sorts of glorious junk. Everything from almost complete robot carcases, to big tubs of mis-matched parentheses were scattered across the floor, over the workbenches, on shelves, and the ceiling was festooned with templates and meta-templates - not the burnished Spork imprinted tools of the high street, but hand made, custom templates, some possibly made for one job, then never used again, or not without further customization. Tom gaped, staring around, then his eyes fell on a regular expression lying, disassembled, on the bench next to him.

Before he could stop himself, he had re-arranged a couple of greedy wild-cards, and had just picked up a glowing delimiter, when Old Nab gently said "Here, I'll take that, my lad" relieving him of the object, which he now saw had intricate involuted methods running through it. "You're right Jane, he certainly does have an eye for these things. And I have been keeping an eye on him, here, from time to time" Old Nab glanced up at the watchlist, and Tom blushed at the thought of Nab applying intricate filters to his childish experiments and games. "I've put together the items you wanted." Half turning to Tom, "You're a lucky boy, to have an aunt like that."

Tom nodded "I know sir." he said, a little confused, watching, his hand still tingling from the delimiter, as Old Nab zipped, compressed and tar'ed a collection of components into a package small enough for Tom to carry.

"You know how to unpack, boy?" Nab said, and without waiting for an answer linked the package, with dual calling conventions for safety, to Tom's back. "Now I have to get on... the exit is over there. Nice to see you again Jane, Tom." Nab sigged and turned back to the workbench, muttering about vowel shifts and serial verbs, apparently oblivious to them as they sigged and left through the talk page.

Once again Jane set her rapid pace back towards the Project where Tom lived. Tom, carrying his load and hurrying to keep up, still managed enough breath to ask "Aunt? Um.. what is it?"

His aunt smiled enigmatically "You'll know once you unpack it - or if you don't then it's not for you."

And so half an hour later Tom found himself in his freshly archived home, carefully opening and unpacking the somewhat convoluted module the old man had created so effortlessly. As he extracted the components he added them to the growing collection, his mind putting together the puzzle "This links here - maybe if I glued that on there - oh I didn't see he'd added one, no two of those!" until finally all that was left was some stub code which he G6'd.

Tom looked at the tangled pile of metal, conduits and rulebases in the corner of his sub page. A bot of his very own. One day, one day soon, he and his bot would visit a real article.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Comments welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

I shall be forced to set a quiz. Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC).

Quiz

1. List as many science fiction or fantasy references as you can. 5 points each.
2. List as many Wikipedia cultural or technical references as you can. 4 points each.
3. List as many referenced Wikipedia accounts as you can. 3 points each.
4. List as many technical or Internet references as you can. 2 points each.
5. List as many real-world (non-trivial) references as you can. 1 point each
6. List as many morals as you can. 12 points each

Target, at least 180 points. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 52

Template: Withdrawn by operator.. *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 12:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 12:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 12:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 12:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

• News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

• Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

• Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

• WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

• Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

• Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

• Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. I've left the request unclosed so that my colleagues can comment on the decision if they wish to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually disregard this and the section below, it's clear my understanding of the policy was incorrect and the closure has been self-reverted and the BRFA will proceed normally, sorry about the mess. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. If all I had to deal with was ephemeral mistakes life would be a breeze. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pixie bot is broken

Kindly fix Pixie bot to NOT interfere with clearly marked tags saying that they're undergoing major edits, such as Brabourne Stadium which was tagged with the {{Template:GOCEinuse}} template. I now need to unnecessarily merge my edits with that crappy bot's maintenance edits. Easwarno1 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone can rightfully claim a bot is broken because it didn't detect a template custom made for a particular wikiproject. How many other custom templates are out there for all the dozens or even hundreds of wikiprojects we have? To expect the bot to be aware of all of those is unreasonable, and calling the bot "crappy" because of that is improper. Perhaps you'd like to request Rich to modify the bot to be aware of Template:GOCEinuse in the future? I'm sure a polite request would be well received. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) As a member of GOCE this is quite embarrassing. Easwarno1 as Hammersoft suggest, a simple request will probably solve this issue for everyone. Cheers, Mlpearc (powwow) 03:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• P.S. You might also want to mention {{in use}} as it is pretty much the same template. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I do intend that the bot should skip these articles, so I will raise a bug.[99] In these cases (ongoing bot maintenance tasks) I would say a rule of thumb is to simply overwrite the bot's changes, it will be back in due course. Indeed it appears that this is what you did, so everything is (should be) cool. Rich Farmbrough, 04:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for your response. Cheers, Mlpearc (powwow) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The persecution continues

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's Award for Enterprise (mass nomination). Note:

1. Listed while I was blocked.
2. No message.
3. Fram joins in, 3 minutes after Headbomb finishes his nom.

Is this collegiate editing or someone being a WP:DICK? You decide. Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

In case you were having difficulty getting the answer the nominator said "You're blocked/banned from editing anything except your ARBCOM cases and own talk page. There's no point in notifying you." Nice! Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Wait, are you still blocked? I'll ask for the AFD to be put on hold if you are. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Welcome back. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug # 101

Bug number: 101 System: Component: perl source Blocks: none Blocked by: none
Resolution: {{#switch:fixed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Dating maintenance tags and associated clean up.

Example(s)

• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brabourne_Stadium&diff=490221375&oldid=490218626

Explanation

Should skip the article because it contains {{GOCEinuse}}.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Notes. What if the last edit was over 2 hours ago? Ask GOCE about that? Rich Farmbrough, 04:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Build KC.  Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 11:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 16:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 11:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: {{BAG assistance needed }}. *

Edits by:

1. CBM at 11:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
2. Rich Farmbrough at 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
3. CBM at 12:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 12:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
2. CBM at 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Snowolf at 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
2. Snowolf at 09:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
3. Beetstra at 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
4. Hellknowz at 09:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
5. Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 09:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: Withdrawn by operator.. *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: {{BAG assistance needed }}. *

Edits by:

1. Kumioko at 15:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 12:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kumioko at 15:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 15:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
2. Kumioko at 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kumioko at 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: Withdrawn by operator.. *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Chrisrus at 03:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Chrisrus at 03:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Chrisrus at 03:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Kumioko at 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Snowolf at 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kumioko at 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cattrack

Instead of adding this to hundreds of pages, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to add it to Template:Monthly clean-up category directly? Fram (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I did, it didn't work. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

THANKYOU Op47 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

WP:BOTACC

You should already be more than familiar with WP:BOTPOL, especially when there's an ongoing ARBCOM case about you and your bots. This is probably an accident, but in case you forgot, please read WP:BOTACC again and edit from your own account when making BRFAs, rather than from Femto Bot's account, as you did here. And also, while we're on the topic, please use the preview button / at least make sure the links you give work (WP:Bot requests#faulty names correction in HPB 52, http://www.orchidspecies.com [which, BTW, is not a link to a previous discussion] in HPB 51). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you forgot Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4? Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Welcome back!

I'm glad to see the shackles have been removed.

Given your years of faithful service to Wikipedia, I feel the decision to block for a whole month was excessive and made a bit hastily.

Your dedication to the project, indicated by your patience through all of this, I find inspiring.

Many under your circumstances would have simply quit. Thank you for not doing so.

I hope our arbitrators will allow you to continue applying your rare skill set to improving Wikipedia. The project will suffer otherwise.

Good luck. The Transhumanist 22:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Two more

Turns out Grutness left in 2011, and Fastily a few days back. Both cite persecution. Both were incredibly productive. Rich Farmbrough, 04:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Kind of a rhetoric question: 'Who cares?'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria

ISBN format please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Thanks. This is being typed manually. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a new offence of "hiding automation" is being created. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Incidentally if you add {{Pixie me}} to a page the bot will visit it in about 18 minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

(ISBN format, continued)

Today you revised hyphenation and inserted template at Silent to the Bone: | isbn = ISBN 1-68983-601-5 {{Please check ISBN|reason=Check digit (5) does not correspond to calculated figure.}}. Previously I have deleted the template request after "confirming" the flagged number (no hyphens) with some source. Now I infer that the algorithm is more reliable than the source ... Today in this case I revised initial '1' to '0' per LCC; that catalog entry does not hyphenate this one (0689836015) so I retained your hyphenation. Do you hyphenate reliably and in a way editors might do manually? I have been using 1-3-5-1. --P64 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the hyphenation algorithm is reliable. The way the numbers hyphenate is unfortunately not just something you can remember. The numbers have meaning, the first part is the "language area code" - clearly there are many languages so the "big" languages get a large range: 0- and 1- are English, 2- up to about 6- are French, German, Chinese ... (or similar) ... then the smaller language codes get the numbers starting with (say) 71- ... and smaller still 801- .. and then things like 9998. The same tactic is used with the next "chunk" which is the publisher code.

So if you want some ISBn's hyphenated and checked, simply add the (invisible) {{Pixie me}} template to the article and the bot will come along in 18 minutes or so, and fix them up/check them.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Thanks for the explanation and the assist. I'll try to remember {{Pixie me}}, which is reasonably memorable ;-)

I see that my correction of the leading digit to 0 led Pixie to restore my habitual 1-3-5-1 hyphenation. (For this publisher(?) and a few others, I think I recognize -689-). That is encouraging yet Pixie/ISBNs is all over my watchlist today :-( --P64 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBNs

Hello Rich, the current ISBN run is only picking up the first ISBN of consecutive pairs[100][101][102][103][104]. Hope it helps, —Sladen (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (BTW, the bot flag is not set too.)

Yes it does. I should do something about that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Done... BTW Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Spinningspark at 14:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Spinningspark at 14:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Spinningspark at 14:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

my userpage

thank you. i will behave. :D -badmachine 03:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Correct typo" includes a minor typo

You are changing "deos" to "does " instead of to "does", as far as I can see. Not really a major issue of course... Fram (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Three hares

FYI, Missed an isbn. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And it's one of my favourite articles! Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Thank you. I worked my arse off on it, and its good that somebody else is entranced by the subject as I. It is (I think) the kind of article on an obscure subject that doesn't exist in other encyclopaedias, and makes Wikipedia particularly useful. But I have an WP:COI, and my objectivity is unquestionably compromised at this point. So my opinion is discounted, if not entirely worthless (as I now know more about this subject than all but a select few).

FYI, I was just admonished by User:LadyofShalott, as apparently on at least 2 articles I summoned your help where you had recently been. I apologize for the imposition on your resources. It was an unintentional human error and I will try to be more attentive in the future. Thanks for all of your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot bug 102

Bug number: 102 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: perl 642/643 Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:fixed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

ISBN hyphentation

Example(s)

Three hares

Explanation

Skips one ISBN

Resolution

Fixed in build 644.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

St. Florian Church (Hamtramck, Michigan)‎

Rich, I have repeatedly googled the Gozdak book and keep coming up with the ISBN 0738507972. This is the number that is in the article, and which pixiebot thinks is wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK I used the ISBN Amazon gave. Rich Farmbrough, 04:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Commons cat

Edits like [105] (and the similar ones you have made today) are technically a violation of your editing restriction (they don't change anything in the output of the page, nor in how it works) and are very unlikely to ever make a difference (e.g. in this case only if the page Ford Mustang would be moved would it possibly make any difference). If you take the trouble of explicitly changing this, wouldn't it be more useful to put the actual destination in, instead of a redirect like here? Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does the same as this edit: it takes away a maintenance category. I do agree that it would be good if the mechanism would check whether the Commons Category is a redirect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed (thanks, I hadn't noticed it), but the difference is of course that that "maintenance category" was created yesterday by Rich Farmbrough... Do we really need new maintenance categories for things that in reality don't need maintenance? It was "discussed" less than a day, i.e. one edit made to the talk page of the template, no response, and implemented in the fully protected template, creating a maintenance cat with over 50,000 pages... Seems like serious overkill and a rather hasty implementation to me. Fram (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction of your initial post. It does indeed change the situation quite a bit - it does make sense on one side, but on the other side .. Maybe more discussion is needed at the template talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

• News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

• In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

• WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

• Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

• Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich

I notice you've put back the ISBN hyphens I've been leaving out, I didn't think it mattered but I'll start adding them now. Thanks, Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Kay Martin (technologist)

Hi, Don't forget that if you create an article like this which needs a disambiguation, you need to provide an access route via a dab page entry or a hatnote. I've done the hatnote while stub-sorting, but please do it yourself another time! Thanks. PamD 17:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever, Pam. Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Slow down

Rich, please slow down. Going at it like John Henry taking on the steam shovel is resulting in you making errors at an even faster rate. All you are doing is nailing down your own coffin lid at this rate. For Pete's sake stop for a bit, and show that you understand the concerns that people are raising. If the task doesn't get done, it doesn't get done, but if you keep this up they are going to decide that you'll never abide by any editing restriction, and they'll just ban you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Must say I'm getting a bit pissed off with half my watchlist being full of HPV correcting a fairly irrelevant hyphen. These edits make it harder to spot the edit which actually matter.--Salix (talk): 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It will be up to date shortly, meanwhile you might find WP:HIDEBOT helpful. Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

I've yet to see a tool which can show the last non-bot edit on the watchlist, as opposed to just hiding the page if the last edit was from a bot. (You see how that creates a problem in terms of tracking real changes, don't you?) Does the HIDEBOT script do this? (bugzilla:9790, as you know). Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Uncle Douggie's code does that. But, looking at this image it seems it does.

Implying that it is "not a real change" to fix the ISBN isn't helpful. As well as detecting some 10,000 incorrect ISBNs, correcting the format of others is a good thing, and there have been a number of discussions endorsing it.

Given that, the rate of corrections is irrelevant, up to a first order smallness. (I.E. we can wait and if articles to have more errors added before we fix them we reduce the number of fixes - but this does not make sense in the real world.) The only difference is seeing the 100 fixes in your watchlist for 4 days instead of 4 fixes in your watchlist for 100 days. The amount of other changes "hidden" is exactly the same.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

I wasn't implying anything... but now you say it, yes, fixing the formatting of an ISBN is not a very important thing, and I'd rather not have it cover up a substantive human edit (maybe vandalism or unsourced BLP vio) too often. (Detecting incorrect ISBNs is different.) If bug 9790 were fixed, this wouldn't be an issue. Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we had better ban typo fixing, stub sorting and categorization then? Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

"look before you cross the road" - "oh, perhaps I'd better glue my eyes open!". Yeah. Rd232 ^talk 21:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While you play Beethoven’s 9th symphony, no thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Crushing a statistical shibboleth

While "The Rise of Warnings to New Editors on English Wikipedia" caused consternation back in May 2011 - "40% of all initial edits to new user talk pages in our sample were negative templates" - but the previous research blog "How much do new editors actually improve Wikipedia?" showed that over 40% (42.6%) of first edits were either vandalism (about 25%) or unacceptably low quality. The level of warning therefore, seems pretty much on the nail. Why was this not picked up in the blog? I suspect it is because the "take out" from the previous research was

The key thing to note in comparing the two samples is that the percent of acceptable edits made by newbies did not dramatically decrease from 2004 to 2011.

This is a strange item to identify as key, since the changes are far more important than what remained the same. The percent of excellent edits fell roughly from 25% to 10%, while vandalism rose from a couple of percent to about a quarter of all new user edits.

Given this analysis, we need to look harder for the reasons for lower new editor retention, and certainly not assume that there is good evidence that templating is the cause, at least at present. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Now that you are back, here's an invitation...

I would feel honored if you joined the Perl WikiProject. The Transhumanist 22:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Kumioko at 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kumioko at 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

I feel that I should inform you that it looks like you will be facing a one year minimum ban, administrator rights revoked for a minimum of one year, and indefinitely restricted from using any automation tool including assistance scripts and bots.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to be kidding. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

Not according to ArbCom. I don't see you around that often so I don't know you well enough to judge you. As a result, I'm neutral about this and Wish you the best.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for the wishes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

ArbCom hasn't fully voted yet on this but it may interest you to look at this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Does seem rather one sided and extreme. Even the guy who brought the case said de-sysopping was "too harsh". Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

The rest of the community has yet to decide so hope for the best. At this point it can still be overturned.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately I am an optimist, so I can deal with things that might happen. Unfortunately I'm also a chronic depressive, so I'm not so good with things that will definitely happen or have happened. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

Where did I say that desysopping would be too harsh? That was the main reason I requested the case. I may have said a ban was unnecessary, although I can understand why it's been proposed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I obviously thought too well of you. You only said that banning would be too harsh - that was probably in the withdrawn section of the workshop. I find it curious that, when the case was ostensibly brought for creation of categories you would even consider desysopping relevant. Perhaps you could explain that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

I've explained my reasons for this elsewhere, but the reasons for wanting you desysopped were twofold - first, because your persistent violation of your restrictions and conduct were unbecoming of being an administrator, and second, because removing your admin rights would at least hamper your efforts to use AWB, preventing you from continuing to cause problems. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, conduct unbecoming - I've seen worse from all concerned. And the AWB thing is crazy. If BAG or ArbCom asked the AWB devs would code a special exception to exclude me. Rich Farmbrough, 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

(Rich, there's a pattern. Please, please, try to break the cycle. —Sladen (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

Looks like you're losing your adminstrator privileges and rights to automation so, enjoy them while you still got them. You are also 2 votes away from being banned for a minimum of one year. At this point I would get ready to expect the worst to come and already start doing necessary before leaving Wikipedia in my honest opinion.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the comment above may come across as heartless. I just want to let you know that I feel what you are going through. If you need me, you know where to find me.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no I took it in the spirit it was meant. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

WikiProject rename Help!

Help Rich! We have a consensus to rename WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. However, moving and renaming everything is getting complicated, especially the template that is on 1000s of articles. Froggerlaura did the basics and then I took a shot at some of the technical stuff, but may have screwed up everything, so could you be so kind as o help us all out and make everything that now is part of the TB racing into just "horse racing" instead? Help! (talk on project talk page) Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, have one more question about un-redlinking some additional stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, nothing like going in and screwing up everything to get proper attention! Yipes! I will keep this in mind next time, though. Hope no one gave you any blowback. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it seemed a pretty good start to the process. And no "blowback" apart form one sarky edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Automation

Is every post you make partially automated? If so, how? Are you perhaps an artificially intelligent robot? ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a bundle of Javascript going on. Not to mention the edit filters, post save transforms, spelling checkers, etc. Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Can you show me?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Rich_Farmbrough/monobook.js is the javascript. The edit filters and post save transforms are built into WikiMedia. Spell checkers are browser embedded client side, of course. If you want to get fancy you can use Scriptish but I have only played with that. Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Jesus!!! Did you write all of that?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The bit that does units is borrowed from User:Lightmouse, and the original skeleton was from somewhere else, but most of the rest, yes. Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

So let me get this straight. You hit the save button when performing an edit and it goes through all of that first?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not all of it. Most of it is triggered by extra tabs on the edited page. Even the function described as "always" doesn't happen outside article space. Oh there's also a whole chunk to deal with closing AfDs, that's borrowed too. Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

There's so much code that I don't think I'm going to be able to grasp what does what. I think I'm going to go to bed now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too! (To both statements!) Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Chrisrus at 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 16:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Chrisrus at 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Chrisrus at 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Spinningspark at 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Spinningspark at 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Spinningspark at 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Template question

Could you look at template:Monthly clean up category as used inc categories like Category:Articles needing cleanup from February 2008, please? It is displaying oddly and seems to be adding a redlink category at the bottom. Is it just that an update hasn't taken affect yet due to a backed up queue? RJFJR (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - I self reverted and went back too far. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

The Black Twig Pickers

I'm having a reference format problem. See the discography. If I try to put the label as publisher it is invisible. If I include it in title, it ends up in quotes (see first two examples) Can you tell me what my error is and how to correct? Cheers, --Beth Wellington (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing!--Beth Wellington (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, see the following from my Talk page where you were referenced--Beth Wellington (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Saw your note at User talk:Rich Farmbrough. I do not see any error. Have you spotted that the first two <ref>s are not in the Selected discography section? (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 16:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• HairyWombat, You see no error because Rich Farmbrough has fixed that problem as well as some others. (Check the history of the article.) The first two references are not to the discography, but to the box and the intro...If you'd like to work on the discography or the rest of the article, let me know. Otherwise I'll work on the article a bit at a time after I get back from WV. Cheers, --Beth Wellington (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 107 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: hyphenation tables Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:fixed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Checking for invalid ISBNs

Example(s)

diff

Explanation

The ISBN here has been marked for checking, with the reason that it was invalidly hyphenated. The problem is that not only does the ISBN match the one given on the first three pages I checked from a Google search, but while two of them don't hyphenate the ISBN, the third one is on the publisher's website and does - giving precisely the hyphenation that Helpful Pixie Bot is querying.

This may, of course, not be a bug. Even Springer is presumably capable of not only wrongly hyphenating their own ISBNs, but then including them in the URL for the page for the book concerned - and one can't criticise an editor who assumes that a publisher would know how to hyphenate their own ISBNs. But it might be worth double-checking this one. PWilkinson (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is interesting. Springer are usually pretty good on detail like this, but the number itself is rather odd. The book is in English, and Springer usually dual-code their Lecture Notes in Mathematics and similar with an English (0- or 1-) and a German-area (3-) ISBN. ISBNs starting with 9.. are generally small language groups, the bot is saying that it does not know about numbers starting with 94007, they are not in its hyphenation tables, which probably means an error. The hyphenation tables are updated form time to time, but not for English or German. Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

There may be a clue here "Language: English, German, Latin, Greek" Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Looks like 978-94 was assigned to the Netherlands. I'll update my tables. Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

 Fixed A working nicely now, thanks for the notification. Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

HPB

Just a heads up: HPB has been blocked by Elen of the Roads (Special:Log/Elen_of_the_Roads). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm. What would you call an admin who blocks someone she's in an ArbCom with? A rogue admin? So would I. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Indeed, so would I. But I just temporarily stopped your bot, in the hopes that you might avoid trying to cram your third foot in your mouth - I assume that the bot does so much stuff that it's hard to keep track of the items it doesn't actually have approval for. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I have unblocked it. It is up to you what you do with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's something of an apology here, and as noted she's unblocked the bot. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. I would have been totally ignorant of the block. Rich Farmbrough, 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Teahouse

Hi Rich! Thanks so much for participating in the Teahouse - it's always great when experienced editors come by and help out. I encourage you to consider being an "official" (for lack of a better word!) Teahouse host! If you'd like to learn more about that, and the basics about how the Teahouse is proceeding during this pilot period, then I encourage you to take a look at this page! It has tips and can inform interested participants seeking to help new (and experienced!) editors on how the Teahouse works differently than other help places on Wikipedia. Thanks Rich, and see you at the Teahouse :) Sarah (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 109 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:closed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

At the moment ISBN fixes.

Example(s)

The bot contribs page

Explanation

Howdy. I wasn't sure if this was the right place to put this, but your bot appears to be editing quite fast. For example, at the 0257 time, there were 33 edits. The number does appear to fluctuate a bit minute to minute, but 33 edits seems a bit much. The bot policy shows 1 edit every ten seconds for non-urgent tasks. If I'm missing something, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is quite fast, typically around 12 edits per minute (though it was much slower for a few hours). The reason I'm going fast is that there are four years of backlog of ISBN cleaning to do, and possibly a limited time to get it all done (so there is some urgency). The reasons that I'm not too concerned even when the speed peaks are based on experience: 1) many accounts have edited much faster with no ill effect 2) PixieBot respects maxlag 3) I have monitored [106] as many of the server parameters as I can, and while I see interesting anomalous events, these have never tied into pattens in bot activity, even when it hs been much higher 4) respect for the database designers suggests that a dated consumer desktop on a domestic Internet connection is unlikely to be able to have a significant accidental impact on a 6278 CPU system. Thanks for the bug report. Rich Farmbrough, 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for replying. You definitely make some valid points. Thanks for explaining them.--Rockfang (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor planet redirects

Bug number: 110 System: AWB Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:fixed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with one or some of your recent edits:

Example(s)

[107] [108]

Explanation

These redirects are incorrect (the part between the @signs is the problem, probably). Furthermore, a minor problem with as far as I have checked all the redirects you created is that the section element of it (the part after the "#") doesn't work, because the page doesn't have sections but is composed from transcluded subpages (which I tried to get rid off but which was rejected by you...). Fram (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the 49000s needed special measures. The sections are out by one, and do actually work.Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

By the way, any reason why you delete the other, informative categories from these redirects? Wouldn't it be more useful to let things like Category:Asteroids named for people, Category:Discoveries by Eugene Merle Shoemaker, Category:Discoveries by Carolyn S. Shoemaker and Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1988 (all from 48416 Carmelita) stand? It seems like useful information, even for a redirect. Fram (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be consensus to do so. Personally I would prefer to keep the stubs, as you know. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Any link for that consensus? It seems strange. I don't have a problem with the redirects as such though, they don't seem to contain much (if anything) not included in the lists; but I don't see a reason why a category like Category:Discoveries by Carolyn S. Shoemaker should be nearly-emptied because of the creation of these redirects. Fram (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was my feeling, but take a look at this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUSP23cmAE you can see the scale of the discoveries. The transient illuminated patches are indicative of studies, you can even see "fingers" representing something more fine-grained (not days, I think) later in the video. Were we to go down this road we would need to maintain the addition of new redirects for new discoveries. Discussion, mainly between HEADBOMB and RJH here. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the link to the discussion, I hadn't seen that one yet (it is all rather fragmented). Again, I can find no one there advocating clearly for the removal of the categories, and RJH in doubt about what to do. I would personally prefer letting them stay (as it doesn't seem useful to remove this information), but getting a more clear consensus for the removal of them is also an option of course. Fram (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note in particular that only about half of the C Shoemaker items are listed in the category as are listed at Carolyn S. Shoemaker#Asteroids_discovered. An I suspect this list is outdated. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Looking further, I can find no reference to anyone asking to remove or agreeing with the removal of the categories, I can find User:Headbomb at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50 asking "Also should categories be preserved on the redirects, or can they be scrapped without any great loss?", to which no reply was given as far as I can see. According to Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, I see no problem (and a few advantages) in keeping those categories, which can not be introduced in the main lists. Can you please get consensus about the removal (or not) of these categories before continuing with this task? Fram (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have additional search suggestions at User talk:Tedder's talk page. Maile66 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation/core

You were WP:INVOLVED as the proposer for the change, so you should not have taken administrative action. Please reverse yourself. Imzadi 1979 → 02:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 02:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Addition of templates

Hi Rich. When HelpfulPixieBot is adding {{Please check ISBN}} templates, I think the template needs to added outside the {{Cite book}} template, to avoid corrupting the display of the ISBN, as occurred here (look at the second book listed in the References section). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be a good idea, although it makes parseing much harder (I have to avoid adding another template if I edit the article again). OTOH I'm thinking about the way the cite template does it (and have been for some time) and I'm not sure that's the best. If you look at Nye and Alan, which use the old syntax "id = ISBN 0-905138-37-6" the ISBN is linked in one hit, as per the rest of WP. Where we have transitioned to the ISBN = 0-905138-37-6 we get two linked entities. Given that cite templates are the friction in the wheels of WP rendering, the simpler method may be better. I'll raise a bug, anyway, unless someone else wants to do it? Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

OK plan is to separate the template with a | and maybe a dummy parameter name. Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Of course this doesn't work since the template is not rendered... Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Note this is User:Rich Farmbrough/bugs/103. Rich Farmbrough, 03:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Alexander Turgenev

I noticed that you unreffed tagged my new translation. The ref, which I've inlined, states that the text is based on (taken from) the Brockhaus-Efron pd dictionary. On the ru.wiki page for Alexander Turgenev at the bottom the tag

"При написании этой статьи использовался материал из Энциклопедического словаря Брокгауза и Ефрона (1890—1907)"

indicates this. Do you know where I can find the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary tag or template for the bottom of the Alexander Turgenev page to indicate pd here in this translation? INeverCry 00:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, it may be a generic attribution tag. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Category:Attribution templates is the appropriate category,I can't see anything immediately apparent, you might be best to use {{Cite encyclopedia}}. Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. I used that and bulleted it under the translation ref. INeverCry 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 53

Template: . *

Edits by:

1. Rich Farmbrough at 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 103 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:closed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

ISBNs (Build J9)

Example(s)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loratadine&diff=next&oldid=481941483
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insulin_glulisine&diff=490877261&oldid=488506409

Explanation

Adding {{Please check ISBN}} inside a {{cite book}} seems to break the latter – see refs 4 and 5 in the first of the example links. And there's a typo in the output, "deos" instead of "does". BTW, the ISBN the bot flagged is actually in the book. What should be done in such cases? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for logging a bug.

• Looking into the best solution.
• The typo is corrected a few builds back.
• Amazon gives 3-85200-183-8 although being 2007 and later the 13 digit number 978-3-85200-183-8 should be used.

Rich Farmbrough, 07:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

OK I had a think and maybe ISBN 3-85200-181-1 / ISBN 978-3-85200-181-4 volume 1 (A-C) and ISBN 3-85200-183-8 / ISBN 978-3-85200-183-8 is the complete work or vice versa. I'm guessing that ISBN 978-3-85200-181-4 got converted to the invalid ISBN 3-85200-181-4 somewhere along the line. So I'm going to put ISBN 978-3-85200-181-4. Do, of course, change it if I'm wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 08:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

I suppose ISBN 978-3-85200-181-4 is correct; the 183 number is the Stoffliste = "List of substances", an index to accompany the Austria-Codex. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought that was a subtitle for the whole work. Good, all cleared up then. Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

I am also fixing the remaining mis-spellings. I have to do this slowly, though. Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

 Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the help :-) ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bug closed since I am "automation banned". Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Green stars?

Why on my watchlist are there green stars beside articles you have recently edited? No objections, I'm just curious. Smallchief (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious too. Maybe they are WP:Autopatrolled? Wikipedia:VPT#Seeing_stars for discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

From WP:WATCHLIST

When viewing a page, click the star sign between the 'View history' tab and the search box at the very top of the page (for the default appearance: in some other versions, click on the "watch" or "unwatch" tab), to respectively add or remove the page from your watchlist

Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) It's nothing special about Rich's edits (sorry Rich). It's also nothing to do with the white or blue star which forms the "watch" tab on Vector skin. It's due to this edit (which has since been reverted): the green star was intended to indicate in a watchlist that the page had been amended since the last time you visited it. The boldface page names (suppressed on en.wikipedia but default at commons) have the same meaning. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So that helpful bot...

Rich, you mentioned a couple weeks ago that it might be possible to bot-tag a series of articles, yes? Say, for example, the swimming event pages for Swimming at the 1996 Summer Olympics (i.e. men's 50 free, women's 50 free, men's 100 free... women's 4x100 Medley Relay): all 32 event pages are missing the preliminary results for those that made it back for finals. Each page has a "Non-Qualifiers" section, that could/should have an expand list tag inserted (and maybe even a note about the finalist prelims times are missing?). Is that something a bot could do? -- Hooperswim (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, once I overcome the "little local difficulty" of an Arbcom case and a month's block.... Rich Farmbrough, 03:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Cool, cool. Thanks. -- Hooperswim (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ernest Sutherland Bates

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ernest Sutherland Bates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about Helpful Pixie Bot

Hello,

I have a couple questions about Helpful Pixie Bot in regards to this edit. Why does it change "Image:..." to "File:..."? When it makes this change along side an ISBN change, why does it only mention the ISBN change in the edit summary? Bender2k14 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see my second question is the topic of the section directly above. Still curious about the answer to my first question. Bender2k14 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Image is an alias of File, we changed the name of the namespace many years ago. Migrating to the new name without extra edits is a good thing. Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, are you able to point to a policy that supports such an a change as being "a good thing" AFAICR, Wikipedia:Image namespace#Image_syntax states The "File:" prefix may be used interchangeably with "Image:":. —Sladen (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as you can remember? Technically it's identical, but operationally it helps to have one syntax instead of two, and all the documentation for the last four years has used File:. Of course since that sounds like an objection I shall remove it from the coding (Build KH and onwards). Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Given Bender2k14's raising of the topic, I think it would be wise. —Sladen (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see references to "Build KH" (aswell as KE, KG, …) in the log. Could you clarify the versioning scheme works and how you use it. Understanding this version would help in the reporting of errors, and explaining how you edit to others. Looking at the latest set of page edits to hit my watchlist, "KH" is in the wild, yet Bender2k14's highlighted issue of File:↔Image: conversion is happening. Please could you share and clarify how exactly the build version numbering scheme works, and how you deploy it? —Sladen (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes sure, basically the parent entity creates drones to execute the actual work. These will be initiated with the current version of (build and sub-build) of the main software, and the associated extra-somatic information. Due to the transient nature of these entities the majority of configuration items will be static through their life, though not necessarily tied to a version number, whereas other configuration items have a tiered cached structure, and are effectively dynamic, reflecting changes in the real world, although not necessarily in real time. Therefore anyone wishing to report an error, bug or issue should cite an example. Since the version number is recorded in the edit summary it is available to me if needed. The value of a third party attempting to analyze which version a problem applies to is only to their own intellectual satisfaction. On the other hand, if I say "fixed in build X" it is an indication that for build X and later the issue should not occur. This avoids the issue being brought up again while it is actually fixed, and conversely makes regressions identifiable. The fact that the fix may not actually be in the version X software, but be in another piece of minor software, a correction in a table, or even a template fix on WP is relatively irrelevant. The component will, however, be logged in the bug record if one is raised. Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. For how long does one of the transient ('drone') sub-processes stay around? (eg. is it 1,000 edits per thread, or 24 hours per thread, or something else?). What causes the re-spawning of updated threads, is that a manual process? —Sladen (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS, is it, isn't it

Here is an example from 19:48 UTC, after your last post [109]. If there are previous versions running (e.g. that edit is labeled KG), they ought to be stopped... — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I support Rich on this edit. We changed the entire namespace from image to File about 3 yers ago. There is no reason in the world why we need to continue to leave image: lying all over the Wiki when the entire namespace has changed. I sort of agree that it doesn't need to be done as a standalone edit, or rather I don't care to do it as a lone edit, but we shouldn't be bickering about this. Unless there is some rational reason why we should continue to have multiple variants of a renamed namespace lingering for the next 20 years. I often do this edit too. It again seems like some users are finding any reason to pick at Rich's edits. This to me isn't worth the time to argue about. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sladen linked to the relevant MOS page which explicitly says that "Image" and "File" are both acceptable - even for newly added images! The reason that the namespace title was changed is that some files are not images. But most of them are, and for those there's no reason not to use 'Image'. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I understand that the MOS says that either will work and is ok. It works in much the way as a redirect does. But, it is confusing for new editors. I have seen and participated in several discussions over the last several months where some new editor asked what the difference was and then asked why we didn't replace it with the new one. In every case someone had to tell the editor that due to wikipolitics we cannot get rid of an outdated system of identifying images and files. Will it work, sure, but do should we be continuing to perpetuate a cycle of outdated crap, absolutely not. Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The way to solve that is to change the MOS, not to randmoly decide as a bot operator that your judgment takes priority over the MOS. This is not just existing articles; the MOS lets me make a new article using 'Image', that usage is not in any way deprecated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course! The point is we don't want to restrict editors. Hedging people in with rules is anti-wiki. all we do is gently replace the obsolescent version with the shiny new version. Soon people stop using the old version. If one or two continue it's not a big deal, a bot will change them at some point. This is about culture not law. As I have said before if you care about rules more than the project and the community, then go play gnomic. If you care about the community and project then buck your ideas up.Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

It's very clear that this is for backwards compatibility. And you are missing the basic point, something can be acceptable without being ideal. All the guidance pages use File. But if people are going to be obsessive about it, fine. Continue to break all of the Wikipedia by being an obstacle to progress. Eventually progress will happen whether you and I like it or not, so it seems foolish to me to fight over this stuff, but whatever floats your boat. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Kumioko makes the point eloquently, how this sort of obsessive otiose obduracy brings the project into disrepute. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

It is false that "all the guidance pages use file". The MOS linked above explictly says that "Image" is interchangable with "File". Using "Image" does not "break" anything, nor does it bring the project into "disrepute". It's just a stylistic variation, like using "Notes" or "References" as a section title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a stylistic variation, its outdated. And of course using "Image" doesn't bring the project into disrepute. "In every case someone had to tell the editor that due to wikipolitics we cannot get rid of an outdated system of identifying images and files." They think "what idiots" - and so would I. If they knew that an established admin had reported such a thing to the highest court in the land, they wouldn't just think "idiots" they'd know it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

I also agree it isn't just a syle variation its a change in methodology and an update to the Wikiframework. The fact that we made it backward compatible was simply for ease of use and so that the change didn't break anything. There is no reason why we need to keep using the old outdated style. Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The MOS does not say it is outdated; the MOS simply says the two styles can be used interchangeably. Neither is preferred over the other because they both have exactly the same effect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Carl I understand what your saying, I really do but the MOS is a guideline, not the ten commandments. Its not meant to be a rigid inflexible set of rules that are all powerful and unyielding. Yes technically image and file do have the same effect but its stuff like this that makes articles messy and inconsistent and confusing. I have a lot of crap in my garage i need to throw out too, I admit that, but I am not using the excuse that I'm keeping it because its perfectly useful. Its junk I just haven't gotten around to going through and getting rid of yet. This is that kind of junk. It doesn't hurt anything per sey where its at but it sure is a hassle when you are working on something and you keep having to step around this little crap cause you haven't bothered to clean it up yet. Kumioko (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing to do surely (in all of these cases) is to change policy by consensus, and link to that updated unambiguous policy in the bot edit summary. —Sladen (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that CBM believes everything that is not compulsory is forbidden. Whereas I believe everything that is not forbidden is allowed. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Again I say that the MOS is a guideline, not law. I think there are times when we should deviate from it but I don't think this is one of those times. I also don't think that we need to change it just to do a simple edit. Anyone who's been around here for any amount of time knows that it is notoriously hard to change anything related to a guideline or policy. I would also agree that at times Rich does changes that are controversial. I do not believe that this is or should be one of them. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Rich: The lede of WP:MOS is where the community has documented that editors should not change articles from one optional style to another. This is a longstanding community rule, it isn't something I have simply made up. Moreover, this is not bot-specific, it is an expectation for human editors as well.

Re Kumioko: you realize that Rich is deviating from the MOS, right? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Carl I have read the MOS and contrary to popular belief I understand what it says. I merely interpret its meaning differently. For example, In the very beginning the MOS says that its a Guideline. Its in a shaded box at the very top. If you click on the blue link for Guideline and read that (which is a policy, not a Guideline) If you read that it says "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules." of course in true Wiki style that then contradicts itself by continuing "Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken." So we are left with a conundrum, do we employ common sense and gradually eliminate the Image and go to File. Or do we we continue to perpetuate the cycle of having outdated crap until the end of time. Kumioko (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We are going to have outdated crap until the end of time, and still discuss about it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would like to add my opinion. I eventually figured out on my own through examples that "File" and "Image" are exactly the same. I prefer "Image" when the file is an image because it makes the source more readable. I don't have a problem using "File" instead of "Image" if the that is either required or recommended by official policy. However, Carl and Sladen have made it clear that neither is the case. By the way, bots should only be making edits that are CLEARLY supported by the community (otherwise we have to have discussions like this!). I agree with Carl and Sladen that these edits need to be officially justified in the MOS simply because they APPEAR stylistic, even if one thinks and tries to argue that they are improvements since they replace "outdated crap". Rich and Kumioko, don't you think there will be less uses of "Image" if you say in the MOS that using "File" is better and why? Kumioko, since the "MOS is a guideline, not the ten commandments", what is stopping someone from making a bot that goes around changing uses of "File" to "Image"? The way I see it, many of your own arguments could be used to justify this. Rich and Kumioko, all Carl, Sladen, and myself are requesting is that the MOS be changed to say "File" is preferable to "Image", then we would agree with you. Is this not an acceptable compromise? Bender2k14 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to diffs from dates on clean-up tags

Would it be possible to link the date to a diff showing the edit that tagged an article. Something like This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: See talk page. Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (2007) As far as I can tell Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs) adds the dates to these tags, so I was hoping it could link to the diffs at the same time. There was a discussion started at the clean-up tag talk page about doing this for that tag, but it could possible be useful on all all the tags in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. As you run Pixiebot I was hoping you would have some ideas on how this could be implimented (it would be good if it could be added to old tags as well as new ones, but even just new tags would be a start) and steps needed to achieve it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be possible. Generally it is the edit before HPB or another bot dates the tag. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. I put a note at WP:Bot requests#Link to a diff when clean-up tags are applied to try and get the ball rolling. AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi I was wondering if you could code something to copy the lists of municipalities and communes into the articles by Provinces of Morocco from Italian wikipedia like this. Basically its the same format, same source, but just copying the lists?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm looks doable. Did you notice there are four Morrocan flags on that stub? (BTW I am currently sorta-blocked and at arbitration, so I will not be able to implement until the block expires on the 31st, unless I get an unblock earlier.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

BTW if you want to do that later, you should check out the charts I already made at User:Calliopejen1/WIP/Morocco communes on the doctor's behalf, which is pretty duplicative. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ref expand

Hi I created this as I believed we needed a template like Bare URLs to encourage editors to add full citations not to just the websites. Can you improve this properly and sort out the documentation and take care of adding it to some articles where the refs need filling out like Alogia (band)? I'm thinking of organizing a bot to add this tag to all articles on wikipedia which needs refs filling out properly as in browsing it makes a big difference if sources are adequately filled out with details consistently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well??♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Template looks fine. I think the bot should have a go at filling the detritus out, several successful bots have done just that. It's somehting I am interested in, but since I am about to be blocked, banned, de-botted and de-sysopped, I am not likely to be doing it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

230 page moves

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke. There are about 230 page moves that have to be reversed. Is there a way to [semi]automate page moves? -- PBS (talk:ye4s) 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it can be simplified, into a three/four click process using a browser, or a script could be used. Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Astrobots

If I may; one question for you about the articles slated for redirection to List of minor planets:

Speaking totally theoretically now, let's take no action yet, would it be possible to somehow swipe the infoboxes from all those articles, and then somehow store the infoboxes into List of minor planets, and how difficult or complicated would that be?

I ask because have a hunch if we did that, it would help to overcome resistence to Helpful Pixie Bot 50.

So whaddaya think? Would it entail a long and tendious overhaul of the entire List of minor planetsto get it ready to accept the infobox information? Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I have been thinking about that, since it's a shame to loose information. The only complicating factor is that the LOMPs would then have more data, and we would have to be careful of their size. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

(Of course I would prefer to see each stub made into an article, but the worry is that at some point they will just get swept away, as is being tried with some of my skeleton articles, where there is known information to fill them). Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure I understood what you said about the only complicating factor, but I think you are saying it would make LOMP too big, somehow, and that's bad for some reason. All I care about, and if I may just at this point use a visual aid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw, that these be dealt with individually in someway other than an article for each. It's three minutes long, that video, so if you'd rather please skip to the middle where we start using new automated searches, and then to the two-thirds point or so, and then to the end, which was more that two years ago, so keep in mind how many more they may have found since. There is no way very many of these (though some can, will, and do) have articles without calling into question certain fundemental principles of Wikipedia, not to mention what such articles would even say, other than just that each was detected moving in a certain way, because there's nothing to say about most of them. There is no end to them, because there is no low end to their size. The only limit to their numbers on Wikipedia is the maximum sensitivity of our instruments in the future, or limits of the human ability to care about finding more, whichever maxes out first. We must limit article status to only those with notablity as per WP:NASTRO.

Anyway, back to my main point, although they mustn't have articles, they may be dealt with on lists or charts, and if my idea doesn't work, then perhaps you or another has some idea what, if anything, to do with all those infoboxes. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikibook? 64.160.39.217 (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. But I don't understand exactly something you said about the LOMP. Why do we have to be careful about "their" size? Did you mean "its" size, i.e.: LOMP? The way it's done, you can't open up the whole list at once, you open a subsection of a much, much smaller size.

But about the Wikibook idea, I don't see any reason you shouldn't go ahead and store them there if that's what you want to do. It could be at least a place to store the infoboxes and then later place them into LOMP or whatever, so I like that idea. My eye is on getting those articles converted to redirects, so if creating an asteroid infobox storage book if it's easy to do or otherwise the best way to get that done then I'm ok with that and don't understand how anyone could object to taking that step at this point again if that's what you'd like to do, as far as I'm concerned I encourage it.

But just one more time about LOMP, why is it important that it not be too big? It's not as if the user opens the entire document. Would it be lighter to make a bunch of collumns for each fact in the infobox? Then you'd lose the infox formatting making it lighter. I'd imagine.

Before signing off, I just want to remind everyone that this is going WAY over and above what WP:NASTRO or even WP:GNG say we should have to do. There is no reason we have to save these infoboxes, we have full authority to convert them all into redirects without saving the infoboxes. We're just being extra nice and careful, but if it turns out that this isn't worth doing it shouldn't block the redirection bot going ahead because the referents of these articles are clearly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, we can get the data from JPL or a number of other sources. I do have a slightly long term view that each of the significant sized hunks of rock will be notable, indeed very important, as we start to get serious in space in the next few decades. But for now they probably need to be listified, as planned. A careful approach might make later de-listifying easier. For example the data can be stored in templates which can be re-purposed for a short article or a list entry.

The LOMP parts are still fairly large and the size selection is based on the amount of data for each item. But no biggy.

The Wikibooks suggestion is an IP, not me editing logged out. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Ok, you sound ("Absolutely...") optimistic, but what exactly about? I think you are opitimistic about the wikibook idea. But the "no biggie" sounds like you are optimistic about using LOMP idea. I have no idea about "..is an IP, not me editing logging out". Chrisrus (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich was just indicating that he thought you interpreted the wikibooks suggestion as coming from him while logged out. It actually came from me (an unregistered user who is not Rich). The LOMP entries without the stuff from the infoboxes (orbital elements etc). look pretty useless to me. If the infoboxes were produced from JPL data, then maybe a wikibook that's an expanded version of LOMP could be made the same way. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I understand better now..

Question for the both of you, is there a way to store orbit infobox data off articles such as 4445 Jimstratton so it would be more useful to futurebots to make graphic interfaces, like maybe like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw but could project future orbits and be interactive and such? Because you seem to be saying that JPL is exactly that database now, and I don't know anything about bots so I don't know if putting the orbits into a Wikidatabase is at worth doing; at all improving furturebot access to this orbit information, given that JPL exists already, but maybe with your backgrounds, you might know something I don't about how doing this would be helpful to such futurebots. It seems they would surely just prefer to use the JPL than our database but maybe you know of a way to store it so they can later be assembled and stored in mass more easily or in some superior way than JPL does it now.

Also, how many in the category "Minor planet" even have orbitboxes? I had to poke around quite a bit just now to find one that had an orbitbox. Chrisrus (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There's stuff at Wolfram that creates graphic interfaces. Right now it's more sense to link there, but we could create 150,000 animations.... maybe Lua will give us more capabilities, I'm not sure that the community would welcome "interactivity" though, and I'm not sure the technology is up to doing it in decent way yet, for the purposes of a general encyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Can we please just put them somewhere for now? If any on the proposed list have orbitboxes, let's have the redirection box set the orbitboxes aside for now in such a way that they'd be accessable later. It doesn't matter if it's LOMP or a Wikibook or whatever. We just want to preserve that stuff for anyone who wants it preserved thereby clearing the way for the redirection to move ahead. Chrisrus (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Yobot is blocked again. Check User_talk:Yobot#Blocked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Favour

Hi Rich. I hope you remember me... ;) Would you please take a look at the question I filed at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:As of and let me know whether there's anything preventing a merge of these two templates? Kind regards, Osiris (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. I don't think that thread is likely to garner any other responses. Would you do the honours? I'm not sure whether you'd like to sort to both categories or just the one {{when}} generates. Osiris (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I just noticed that a user who complained about your bot has not bothered to notify you about it (see WP:BON). It seems that the ISBN fixing code may be editing at an excessively high rate, so could that perhaps be slowed down to once every 5-10 seconds? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I noticed. It's operating more slowly now. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

language templates

Hi Rich,

Are you still willing to bot the language templates? I've removed the request for a ref section, which was the sticking point.

Hope things go well with ArbCom. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'd be happy to. Unfortunately ArbCom looks pretty grim right now. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Yeah, I just took a look. Doesn't look good. Well, I've never had a problem with your edits. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, may I ask you to reflect that to the ArbCom? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a place for outside/community comment there? — kwami (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There are the respective talkpages (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision), and the Workshop is technically still open. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pages with missing references list

It looks like Helpful Pixie Bot has not run Category:Pages with missing references list in quite a while. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's true. I'll try and schedule a run before I get banned from running bots. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Thanks! ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

1. Chrisrus at 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Chrisrus at 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Chrisrus at 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 104 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:not a bug |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

(ISBNs (Build KE))

Example(s)

Matthew Hopkins in popular cultureas well as Mathew Hopkins are two examples.

Explanation

it queries the zero at the start if the isbn but [110] shows that it does start with a zero - 0 - Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks logging a bug. The check digit is the last digit, that should be 5. Someone copied the last 10 digits of the 13 digit ISBN, which doesn't give the right check digit. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 105 System: Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch: |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Checking for invalid ISBNs.

Example(s)

An example is the last edit in this bunch.

Explanation

This is only a minor bug, but the bot destroyed the existing hyphernation in the ISBN. That is to say, it replaced "|isbn=978-0-670-02053" with "|isbn=978067002053". The problem with this particular ISBN (now fixed) was a missing check digit. The hyphenation information was therefore good, and it would have been better had the bot preserved it. I appreciate that another task of the bot is to add hyphenation so that, eventually, this loss will be corrected. This is why the bug is only a minor bug. HairyWombat 17:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, good point. There might indeed be clues to help the ISBN detectives. I'll look at this one when I get back tonight. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Example(s)

diff

Explanation

You're placing a template to check the ISBN number ... inside a template which is not going to show the template at all. See the output. This is the third time this bot has done this... needs fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And another here ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to resolve this one later today (about 8 hours). Will update then. Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Here's another for your pile to fix diff. Doesn't look like it happens that often, thankfully. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Seems like people "converting" from 13 to 10 is the new most common problem. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Still doing it ... just now here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's not supposed to produce anything visible at the point of transclusion... instead, it puts the article into WP:HIDDENCAT Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs, and that categorisation works whether or not the {{Please check ISBN}} is inside a {{cite book}} or outside. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he's right that there is a slight problem, I was hoping that the proposal at Template:Citation/core#ISBN woudl fix this as a side effect, but there is not consensus so I'm coding a fix now. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

ISBNs

How does HelpfulPixieBot know how to parse ISBNs? -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how the bot does it, but see [111] and [112] for some possible answers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It has a full set of (slightly optimised) hyphenation tables, if that's what you mean. It knows the checksum algorithms, and the un-assigned ranges. It is smart to 10 and 13 digits, and to most ways of laying them out. It could be smarter, for example, converting 10 digit post 2007 to 13 digit, doing lookups to check against titles, publisher, language and so forth. Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

As far as converting 10 to 13 goes, given that many sites still don't deal with ISBN-13 very well (I don't know why), especially when both are present on a book, I've generally found it far better to stick with ISBN-10 so that links to external book sites continue to work properly. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some books now have only 13 digit (979-) numbers. It was interesting when we fixed everything up for the switch over to see how slow major sites were in switching. Most have both systems now, because the software suppliers have caught up, and it is central to their business. I'd be interested to know which sites are still behind. Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

As it stands I'm not sure how accurate corrections to ISBN-13 code formatting made using HelpfulPixieBot can be? Of the five elements, (Prefix, Registration Group, Registrant, Publication and Check Digit), only the first and last elements are of fixed length while the other three are variable. The Registration Group can be up to five digits. The Registrant element can be up to 7 digits and the Publication element up to 6 digits, both varying in direct relationship to the anticipated output of the publisher. Consequently for elements two to four, surely the Bot can only really be used to check that the upper limits for each of them and the sum total of the number of digits used for all of them aren't exceeded. I've seen examples of the Bot re-formatting ISBN-13 codes which were already 'legal' in terms of permissible element length, to produce a result other than that found in catalogs and printed on the publication itself. I'm not sure that's helpful. 85.210.176.104 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBN error ignored

Hi, re this edit - there are two invalid ISBNs there, but only the first one was marked as invalid (ISBN 0-86095-050-5 should have been ISBN 0-86093-050-5). The second one, ISBN 090288-12-9, was one digit short (it should have been ISBN 0-90288-812-9) but Pixie didn't give it a {{Please check ISBN|reason=Invalid length.}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to check the code, but I suspect I am being cautious, since 9 digit numbers can possibly be SBNs. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

There's a fairly simple test to see if a 9-digit number is a valid SBN: prefix it with 0- and then run your standard ISBN-10 test on it. The check digit calc is definitely the same; but I believe that the hyphen pattern differs. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the hyphenation is the same too. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 108 System: templates Component: Wikipedia documentation Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:fixed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Changed "|3=date=May 2012" to "|3=date=May 2012|date=May 2012"

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Dated Expand section. (Build KF)

Example(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Get_Your_Gun_-_1986_London_Cast&curid=35769188&diff=491660573&oldid=491657455

Explanation

The bot changed "|3=date=May 2012" to "|3=date=May 2012|date=May 2012". i.e it added a date when there was already one present. There are three valid date formats in the Template:Expand section documentation. I suspect that the bot does not yet know about the second date format.

I wonder what the article would look like in a few year's time. (:-)> Peter Loader (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the bug report. This is actually Jarry1250 messing up the documentation. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Listed invalid ISBNs

Will Helpful Pixie Bot recognize and ignore ISBNs tagged with {{Listed Invalid ISBN}}, as I have done at D.M. Ananda (diff)? Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they should not get re-tagged. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Great. Thanks.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WomensHistory searchresult

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Maile66's talk page.
Message added 17:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Commons category template with no category set

You should know that I added a Table of Contents template to your Category:Commons category template with no category set. That way it'll make it easier for users to fix the commons tags. ----DanTD (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Adding the phrase "and other fixes" to edit summaries

Hi. When you have Helpful Pixie Bot make edits like this one please don't forget to have the bot add the phrase "and other fixes" to the edit summary. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll see what I can do. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Another question about Helpful Pixie Bot

Purely out of idle curiosity, how does the bot determine what order to deal with articles in? In my watchlist recently, it's done Appleby Frodingham Railway, Lad in the Lane‎, Pye Hill and Somercotes railway station and Malton railway station in that order. It doesn't seem to be alphabetical, or by category, so how are they picked? Or is it simply jumping to random article? Whatever it is, keep up the good work!  An optimist on the run! 21:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For ISBN numbers it has analysed the March data dump, and for the purposes of the exercise, identified the likely candidates for ISBN fixing, these are being processed in chunks, almost at random but with a slight preference to going backwards (most recent articles first) so that any problems manifest in the backwaters rather than the key articles. Meanwhile it continues to perform other tasks dynamically, and will fix ISBNs on these articles as it goes. The main "catchup" task is virtually complete, and in future it may use the same strategy, or may move to a dynamic process. And thanks, we will! Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

ISBN bot problems

In this edit, your bot converted two ISBNs that were followed by years into invalid ISBNs. Could you fix the problem, and go back through your bot's edits to find and fix other places where it made the same mistake? --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

All other instances fixed, I'll rescan presently. Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Suggestion for Helpful Pixie Bot

Hi Rich. I was wondering if it would be possible for Helpful Pixie Bot to indicate in the edit summary whether it found any problems when checking the ISBNs. At the moment, I need to visually inspect each change the bot makes to see if there was a bad ISBN that I could possibly fix. If the edit summary said something like "ISBN check-no problems found" when all it needed to do was reformatting, but something like "ISBN check-issues detected" when problems were found, then I could safely ignore all the "no problems found" edits and only examine the "issues detected" ones. Just an idea, anyway. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll look into it. Meanwhile the articles you are most likely to be interested in, with apparent errors, are:

• 1962 Australian Touring Car Championship
• 1982 Commonwealth Games
• Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca
• Chess endgame
• Chess middlegame
• Culture of Australia
• Dentition
• Erich von Manstein
• Gretel Killeen
• Jacques Burtin
• Lamborghini
• Lincoln-Zephyr
• List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft before 1925
• List of C-130 Hercules crashes
• List of common misconceptions
• List of Jews in sports
• Michael Walker (knifemaker)
• Michele Alboreto
• Mika Salo
• Savoia-Marchetti SM.79
• Scuderia Ferrari
• Skins (TV series)
• Supermarine Spitfire

Rich Farmbrough, 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks! DH85868993 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Me again - have just spotted this. I go by the increase in page size: if we assume that |reason= might be absent from {{Please check ISBN}}, then detection of any error will cause an increase of 21 characters at the very least. Thus, I assume that where the increase is 20 or less, it's merely a reformatting. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hats off! Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Video "ISBN"

Hi Rich. Several articles use the 1995 Formula One season review video as a reference, specifying an ISBN of "5-017559-034955", which matches the information specified here. Helpful Pixie Bot identifies this number as an invalid ISBN, as it did here. If it's not an ISBN, do you happen to know what kind of number it is? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My guess is that it's the EAN-13 uniquely identifying the product. You can confirm this by looking at the barcode on the back: if you see the figures "5 017559 034955" below this, with some of the bars extending into the spaces between the three groups of figures, it's definitely an EAN-13.

All ISBN-13s are also EAN-13s, but not all EAN-13s are ISBNs. They both have a 13-digit form, and the last digit is a check digit calculated in the same way. However, an ISBN-13 always begins 978 or 979; if the EAN-13 begins with any other figures (in this case 501), it's not an ISBN.

Since the {{cite video}} template supports the |id= parameter, my suggestion is to use that instead, i.e. replace |isbn=5017559034955 {{Please check ISBN|reason=13 digit ISBN should start with 978 or 979.}} with |id=[[EAN-13]] 5 017559 034955 --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info/advice Redrose64. (And thanks Rich for hosting the discussion). DH85868993 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WHS. There's a place you can check EANs too, it's not so great. However there is also an international moving picture number(?), which we don't use as far as I know. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 111 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: perl source Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:fixed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

ISBNs (Build KH)

Example(s)

Diff 1; diff 2; diff 3.

Explanation

When validating ISBNs, the bot changed {{Closed_stations_Northamptonshire}} (with two underscores) into {{Closed_stations Northamptonshire}} (with one underscore and one space). The bot should either have changed both into spaces, or left both alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a curious one, a fix is coded and will be released soon. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 112 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:closed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Example(s)

[113]

Explanation

Adding a duplicate second 'please check this ISBN' notice immediately before an existing one, previously and only seven weeks ago added by HPB: [114]. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the bug report. HPB avoids adding duplicate notices, but this one had been moved. I have found the correct ISBN and removed the notices.

Germans

This photo?

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

This photo? I don't see Copper Knickers in it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot bug

Bug number: 113 System: Helpful Pixie Bot Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch:closed |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with Helpful Pixie Bot:

Task

Example(s)

Explanation

In the edit of British boys' magazines‎ the ISBN number has been altered to extend the publisher/series part by one digit so that the book number is now -4 instead of -44. I have checked the actual printed book and it is definitely -44. In addition the second reference (The 30's Scrapbook) refers to it both by title & ISBN

DonJay (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

Hi, piglobal are a small publisher, either is possible, and publishers do sometimes get the hyphenation wrong. On the other hand I converted the hyphenation tables to regular expressions by hand, so mistakes are possible. I'll check the hyphenation tables and Amazon. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

IS Robert Opie related to Iona and Peter Opie, by the way? Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Table

Here's the hyphenation table for the English area codes:

Area code	Publisher range	Digit 2nd hyphen comes after
0	00-19	3rd
0	200-699	4th
0	7000-8499	5th
0	85000-89999	6th
0	900000-949999	7th
0	9500000-9999999	8th
1	55000-86979	6th
1	869800-998999	7th
1	9990000-9999999	8th

Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Conclusion

ISBN 0-9547954-4-X falls under the 9500000-9999999 range, and hence should be hyphenated as shown. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Template bug

Bug number: 114 (Duplicates 103 System: templates Component: Blocks: Blocked by:
Resolution: {{#switch: |fixed= Fixed |not a bug= Not a bug |closed=Closed |outdated=Outdated ||pending=pending

Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with a template:

Template name

{{Please check ISBN}}

Example(s)

This HPB change introduced it: [115]; the change looks OK but it broke the rendering of Death#References, No. 6.

Explanation

The 1-4495-9420-6 appears as [[Special:BookSources/1-4495-9420-6|1-4495-9420-6]], i.e. as if it's no longer interpreting it as a link. It was working fine in the version before HPB's change. I've tried purging the page to no effect.

JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a tricky problem, there's a number of possible fixes that will solve it. Thanks for the notification. Rich Farmbrough, 17:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Incidentally I fixed that ISBN. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

And again [116]. I've fixed the ISBN this time but this is 2 for 2 of ones I've checked inside templates that it's broken. Can it either be fixed, as you write is possible, or disabled until it is? --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I'll get on to it, once I've grabbed a few hours sleep. Rich Farmbrough, 03:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Continued over at Tedder's house of bot talk

Talk re our efforts over there.Maile66 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBN proposal

Hi Rich, Thanks for asking about this. The proposal did not receive any comments. It is now archived here. I was a bit discouraged, so I haven't yet done anything to follow up on it. Should we try to take it to Bugzilla anyway or just let it drop? --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes we should. It's a good idea, so it should be part of the core software, or part of the ISBN magic module. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Fempto bot

This may have been mentioned already, but Fempto bot does not seem to be using a bot flag; all the other bots on my watchlist do, buut femptobot does not.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll put this on my todo list, after I have been banned/not banned. Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Bade Achhe Lagte Hain

You added the plot template to Bade Achhe Lagte Hain but Wikiproject Soap Opera says that the plot may be just 700-800 words and in the mentioned article it is so. So I think that the template is not needed. Please give a reason that why do you think that it is too long, as it is not so. When you are replying please leave me a Tb template. --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This was added by someone else https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bade_Achhe_Lagte_Hain&diff=492482490&oldid=492475319. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Some words of advice

The case against you is about to close, with you losing your sysop bit and being prevented from using automation. There's quite a bit of talk on the PD page along the lines of last chance, being on the edge of a cliff, etc.

There are people out there who will look for whatever means they can to find a way to nudge you off of that cliff. You can't give them even a millimeter of rope with which to hang you. I strongly, strongly urge you to shut down any and all bots you have, any sort of automation you have, any sort of edit assisting scripts RIGHT NOW, before the final decision is posted. Do everything (and I mean everything) manually, by hand. Delete any .js subpages you have in your userspace. Wipe it all out. If this means you go from a million edits a week to 1 edit a month, so be it. If you want to be part of this project for the foreseeable future, you have got to do this. Otherwise, you will be shoved off of that cliff.

Decisions in this community are hate based. If enough heat is generated, it doesn't matter one iota if the target of the heat has done absolutely nothing wrong. It doesn't matter if the target is perfectly, 10000000000% in line with policy, with prior consensus supporting them. Generate enough heat, and a target will go down. That is how 'justice' works around here. I'll give you a speculative example; people have been criticizing you for changing the capitalization of templates in use on an article. If, from this day forward, you do that again...even if you use one finger to hunt and peck around the keyboard to conduct every detail of the edit...you will be found at fault for doing it. It does not matter that plenty of people are doing exactly the same thing, without anyone saying peep. It does not matter that changing the case is right, or wrong, or indifferent. If you do it, you will be found at fault for it. People will demand you link them to the consensus that permits you to do this. People will insist you are using some undeclared tool to assist you in making the edit. People will insist you are doing it to bait the people watching your every twitch, and are thus being disruptive. Since you are the subject of the heat, it will be you who is found at fault.

You are going to have to change the entire nature and style of the editor you are on this project in order to remain here. It is a monumental, probably impossible task. I wish you the best of luck, and hope for the best. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Do be careful Rich. As is said in the legal profession. What happened is not justice, it is the law. Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, all that advice is not going to be enough. Wikipedia is broken. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that I will continue my level of input to Wikipedia after this case. I already have invitations to a number of other projects, but regardless of that I may restrict myself to manual editing at Teahouse and Policy areas. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

I really doubt if thát is going to be enough, but it is a good start. I can only hope that the community sees how much they are shooting themselves in their feet. Your not the first to leave because of this - you'll not be the last, and for sure, you'll not be the only one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh - not because I am worried that there will be another attack. Because given the dysfunctional nature of the encyclopaedia, the important thing is to fix the processes, reduce the rules, and encourage fresh blood. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

One bad thing about new blood...it attracts sharks and there are too many sharks in the waters here already. Good Luck. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And you think that this will 'attract fresh blood'? Nah. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I also think that you withdrawing from editing is exactly what the Arbcom wants. They couldn't get enough support to ban you from the pedia so the next best thing is to tell you that you can't edit. Kumioko (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

RF is not banned from editing, or even unwelcomed on Wikipedia. RF is simply banned from using automation, because he can't be trusted with it. There's a difference, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well your right he's not banned but his restriction says that if he makes any edits that give the appearance of automation then they'll come after him. What does appearance mean? No one knows. Not me, you or Rich and certainly not Arbcom. It is an open door for someone to come running back to Arbcom saying he violated the conditions of his restriction. Not that it will matter cause in all likelihood he will take the hint that Arbcom has given him and take his skills elsewhere. A terrible loss for the pedia and a pretty big increase in workload for the other bot operators if they even bother with picking up the tasks at all. Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather obvious thing to determine. That you can't distinguish between someone going through a category and making tiny changes, vs. someone expanding an article is your problem, not ours. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• During the case it was rather blatantly proven that "appearance" of automation was ridiculously vague, and that a human could easily maintain a rapidity of editing that at least one person thought was proof of bot operations. It's completely vague, and leaves the door wide open for people to hang Rich, unless he makes less than one edit a minute on average, or something absurdly low. Even then, if he does a few dozen edits that perform the same type of operation, he'll be accused of automation. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's very possible to have high editing rates. But all such cases mentioned were done with semi-automation and scripts, which RF is also banned from using. Solution, don't use scripts, don't use AWB, and don't behave like a WP:MEATBOT. It's rather easy to see e.g. The Bushranger edits very differently than from a bot, and there is no reason why it's will not be equally easy to distinguish between a restriction-compliant RF and bots. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Umm, no. I can maintain a rate well in excess of 10 edits per minute for quite some time, most especially if they are repetitive tasks, and do it all manually. I noted this on the case. In fact, I've been able to produce more than 40 edits in a minute in short bursts. Under this abortion of an arbcom decision, if I were subject to such sanctions I would be blocked for using automated tools. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Me too. I guess we'll see what happens. Maybe I'm just being dramatic but we'll see how the next few weeks/months progress. Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Headbomb if you still have a problem with me that's on you and you'll eventually need to deal with that. But the bottom line is this decision by Arbcom is going to have a lot of consequences for the community. But judging by the discussion at the Bot noticeboards you already know that. I am guessing that hundreds or more hours are going to be spent recreating Rich's bot tasks, if the tasks get done at all. I also think that its unlikely that these new bots are going to do the amount of work that Rich and his bots were doing. Whether you like it or not this decision is going to cost Wikipedia dearly. If Rich continues editing at all its only a matter of time before someone comes running screaming foul play. Kumioko (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Response

Hi, Rich. :) You have a response at my talk page on Meta. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib

Good tigings to you from a believer in One Creator of the Heavens and the Earth!

i see that you have edited the page Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib on Wikipedia, i must say to you that in Islam it is not allowed to put nor draw nor see the picture of a man

i strongly encourage you o remove the picture from the page of Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib

if you have any queries or questions on that please e-mail me asap, my email is saken_k@hotmail.com

With warmest regards, Saken ibn Amankeldi

Hello Saken. I am aware of this interpretation of Islam, also prohibitions on depicting any living thing, or indeed depictions at all. I had brought this matter up already, when we were discussing Image Filters, but was told that I was being foolish.

I suggest you investigate your browser settings and turn off "images".

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

How many categories are there?

(Not including redirects). The Transhumanist 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot! It depends partly on whether you include empty categories and red-linked categories. There are approximately 15,419 soft redirected categories. I'll have a look at the stats by namespace later. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Unfortunately we don't have a dump for all page titles, only all main-space titles which currently runs at about 9.3 million. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC).

Namespace	Count
Main	9,375,576
Talk	4,540,406
User	1,457,343
User talk	7,775,605
Wikipedia	721,450
Wikipedia talk	144,174
File	810,359
File talk	138,924
MediaWiki	1,608
MediaWiki talk	937
Template	424,551
Template talk	177,834
Help	956
Help talk	463
Category	852,775
Category talk	587,880
Portal	109,930
Portal talk	25,669
Book	3,113
Book talk	2,904
Total	27,152,457

Articles become less important over time

Basically a tad over 1/3 of Wikipedia is actual article pages, and more than half of those are redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#How can I find this out?, User:Fram reported "850,875 categories on the English Wikipedia" at 12:43, 5 March 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a graphical representation of the change of emphasis as the encyclopedia has grown. The namespaces are numbered from the bottom. Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Where is the legend to interpret the colors?

—Wavelength (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know that we need one. All we need to know is the bottom solid blue is articles. Less than 40% of the project is actual articles. We're here to write articles. We have absolutely no other reason for being here. That's it. Yet, almost 2/3rds of the project is non-articles. In the corporate world, this would be called corporate bloat. Virtually by definition, it's heinously inefficient, top-heavy, failure prone, and severely handicapped in terms of progress. Nicely done graphic Rich! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Namespace, the colored bands in order from the bottom are:

0 = Main (blue)

1 = Talk (green)

2 = User (red)

3 = User talk (light blue)

4 = Wikipedia (purple)

5 = Wikipedia talk (brown)

I am not convinced that the large number of non-article pages are evidence of bloat. According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, there are 16.8 million named accounts. Yet the above chart (and table) shows there are 7.8 million user talk pages. So fewer than half the registered accounts have a user talk. Also, if there were one talk page per article, the green and blue areas would be the same width. To justify 'bloat' you would probably want to count edits rather than pages. - EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be worthwhile,as would looking at size and splitting out redirects, dabs and stubs. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. My first effort in marrying Octave and Perl (and a tiny bit of The Gimp). A key would be nice, but would be a fair amount of work, even as a separate plot. I think there is more work needed on the main plot before that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

The percentage share of the namespaces measured in bytes.

The same general trends, user talk is the growth area, the big difference here is Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk - substantial, and the category and template namespaces become very small components. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Teahouse talkbacks

Hey Rich! Thanks for helping out at the Teahouse. Just an FYI, we created a lovely little talkback template that is Teahouse specific. You can find a link to it here. It's pretty valuable when letting folks know that you answered their question, since not everyone watches the Teahouse question page. Thanks again for all your contributions - Teahouse and beyond! Sarah (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nice template. I made some suggestions on the templates talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for helping me improve Generation time Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

If WP bans you its a case of them shooting themselves in the foot. I really mean that.

...William 20:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Women's History redux

Do you have time to do some adjusting at User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistory? It's better, but still needs to be narrowed. And most of the articles this time don't seem to be about women.Maile66 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough - "Closed"?

An arbitration case regarding Rich Farmbrough has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.
2. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
3. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 19:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Truly a sad day on Wikipedia. I for one am truly disappointed at this decision. Good luck Rich regardless of whether you decide to stay and edit or not. Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If at some point you are brave/stupid enough to Rfa again I'd support your candidacy. Nobody Ent 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Rich. At least you're not banned. I will support your RfA sometime in the future.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. Dsp13 (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I believe you've badly misused automation, I'd support your RfA. I really can't think of anything disruptive you've done with the mop, except possibly (temporarily) breaking the vast majority of article tagging templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, count me in too. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This is a shame. :( Acalamari 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not heartening to be part of project whose highest body is malfunctioning to the extent that Arbcom is so obviously doing. On the brighter side Richard it's clear you're not the problem but an Arbcom that would be out of depth in a puddle. Obviously would support your RfA anytime. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would support an RfA as well, though I caution that standing for RfA any time before at least six months has passed will almost certainly not succeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a very black moment in Wikipedia. The community has broken Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would say "community" in this context, but more that a highly vocal bully-like minority within our community stood upon its pulpit and hoodwinked a marginally larger portion of the community into somehow believing that Rich Farmbrough had somehow truly done something horribly evil.

  Anyone who had made tens of thousands of edits is always going to have a few edits that someone, somewhere won't agree with or like, just as they will have also made a number of edits that someone else will really, really like. It is the balance that is important here, and it seems that a minority within the community seems to think that everything must be perfect and be in accordance with their own personal preferences.

  Any edits that certain people don't like will always become a major focus during any sort of community discussion or ArbCom case simply because every editor has at some point attracted the attention of someone who doesn't like something they've done, and what better way to "get back at" someone then try to dig up any dirt they can find during such a discussion? This often results in collateral damage to other parts of the project however when such individuals take things even further.

  My own message to the larger community is thus: Take what a highly vocal minority within our community has to say with a grain of salt, but do not ignore them entirely, otherwise they will grow even louder and their party will gain even more dissenters. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rich .. to be honest- I don't know enough to say what is right or wrong here. What I do know is that you have dedicated a lot of time and heart to the project; and I personally do appreciate that very much. I can't imagine how difficult it was to endure an AC case, but you do have my sympathies, as well as my appreciation for all you have done (and hopefully will do in the future) for the project. All my best. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's closed unless we re-open. This case should be re-opened again but this time the committee should be instructed to give appropriate weight to testimony from RF supporters. A full investigation into the other side of the coin, his achievements and important ongoing activities, should be presented. Have them weigh the both sides properly before a final decision is made. Re-open the case and let supporters be heard in full this time. Save PixieBot! Chrisrus (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the support. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

• I too would support an RFA if Rich should decide to re-run, and this is coming from someone who tries to avoid RFA like the plague.

  Clearly quite a number of people have absolutely no idea what it takes to make regular expressions and substitutions work. I give it two to three weeks tops before the backlog piles up and questions begin to arise as to "What happened to Helpful Pixie Bot and Femto Bot?" and "How do we now handle all the housekeeping work that these two bots previously took care of?"

  I personally see this similarly to what would happen if we were to shut down ClueBot.

  While there have been edits Rich has made that I've not agreed with, Rich appears to have always had Wikipedia's best interests in mind when he made changes, and I do not feel that this was considered at all during his ArbCom case. It would have been far far different if Rich had a history of attempting to cause problems, was a known troll, vandal, etc, but this is far from the case.

  From my own point of view, it was clearly wrong of ArbCom to go full-out and heavy handed sanction a long term valued contributor who has been instrumental in standardizing and automating so many tedious and pain-in-the-ass tasks as Rich has. The very idea that Rich should be indefinitely banned from using any sort of automation is simply absurd. It could also be that ArbCom doesn't really know what all Rich has done for us here on the English Wikipedia since so much of his work has involved changes to things that work behind the scenes, yet have a very widely felt effect. For that fact, perhaps a large portion of the community doesn't know either.

  The way I see it, Wikipedia is just about at a fork in the road. Many of the people with the technical know-how and knowledge of how and why things work the way they work have become disillusioned with the direction the English Wikipedia has been heading. Many of these individuals have left or slowed down in terms of their contributions, and/or have ended up sanctioned like Rich has. If things continue in this direction, the English Wikipedia is going to find itself without the technical backing that has allowed it to grow in the first place, and it's growth will stop and/or it will begin to regress (we are already beginning to see signs of both such scenarios).

  From that point, if people don't decide to step up and work towards changing these trends, one or two things will ultimately happen. The first is that Wikipedia will begin to be seen as irrelevant in the eyes of the general public. The other is that those technical minded individuals who have felt alienated will organize, possibly leading to either a fracture within the community or even a new form of "Wikipedia" that will make the current "Wikipedia" entirely irrelevant and obsolete.

  For those who don't think what has happened to Rich here can't happen to you or really has little long term impact on Wikipedia itself, think again. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You would have my support at RfA as well. A dark day for Wikipedia.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A cold one

You need this more than I do – Lionel (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jovan Despotović

Thanks for the comments. I checked and it is these ISBN numbers are in the publications.--Despotović (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am grateful for improving the text and for cleanup article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It is obvious that English is not my first language and that for any help are welcome because of all necessary changes by some editors which are modifying the article.--Despotović (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A pleasure. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

--

It's My Birthday

	My B'day Cake
	Hi!! Today is my b'day and I though of sharing this sweet gift with you!! Arnesh(২০১২) 16:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Women's History New Articles

	The We Couldn't-A-Done-It-Without-Ya Award
	Thanks for stepping up to the plate and helping get this off the ground. Good luck with that you have on your shoulders right now. Maile66 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The procedure was a success, but the patient died

I'm glad you're still here It's a silly accident that you and I have been mentioned in the same breath a lot lately and the two of us have hardly interacted in the past, but once I found out about your ArbCom issues I started to pay attention. Everyone on the English-language Wikipedia has benefited from your work and although it might be prudent for you to have a break in your administrator and bot-running responsibilities, you have doubtlessly been a real asset to the project and I'm glad that the members of ArbCom did not see fit to block or ban you outright. This tacitly acknowledges that your years of service have made this a better encyclopedia and I think that's inarguable, irrespective of any further issues with your methods or style.

I look forward to the time when you've proven to all your accusers and interlocutors that you're a responsible user, having made irrefutably good edits for several months, then apply again at RfA, make new bot requests, and get back to doing what you've been doing but without any associated drama.

For what it's worth, I'd like to ask you to reconsider whether or not you want someone else to run or curate User:Helpful Pixie Bot and User:Femto Bot.

By the way, welcome to the club (2,308 edits ago.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I had forgotten that was going to happen. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

I've already asked Rich about that but I think he is having a tough time thinking about this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't blame him. I would be wrestling with it too frankly. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You are handling this situation very well. Don't let this get you down. —cyberpower ChatOnline 21:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The arbfail award.

		The Arbfail Award
		For being one of the most helpful (former) bot-ops, and then fucked by Arbcom, I award you the Arbfail award.

Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 23:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. You are the only one who took up my translation-template-linking bot task after multiple requests, and now the bot is dead. :( Thanks for at least generating the links for the ones that existed previously... I'll have to figure out what to do going forward. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It does seem like the people who go out of their way to help others are the first in line to face the firing squad. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Torch and Pitchfork award.

		The Torch and pitchfork Award
		As someone who has also been pursued by the mob (in this case also sometimes referred to as "the Community" and/or "Arbcom") I present you with this time honored Torch and Pitchfork award. “ A torch and pitchfork, tools traditionally wielded by large groups on a Witch hunt or those attempting to get rid of an editor they don't like, have been used for centuries. Whether pursuing an Evil wizard, mad scientist or Bot operator, the mob ends up coming after the good guys, for one reason or another, eventually (like if we are providing aid to a Renegade Wikipedian). In these cases the best defense is to Shame The Mob. The next time Arbcom or the community mob comes after a Wikipedian, just do what any Wiki-hero would do...give a speech, and the mob is ashamed. Dejected, they turn and leave. ” --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on making the millionaires club

I also just wanted to say congrats on making the millionaires club. Only 2 editors in the history of Wikipedia have hit a million edits, you being the second. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

support

I found out on reddit that you had your privileges taken. I wasn't aware of the situation. Anyway, you have my support, so if there is anything I can do to help you, let me know. Be well. Greg Bard (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I made it to reddit. Shame it wasn't about something good. Thanks for your support, Greg. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

No good deed goes unpunished. Here is the link to the Reddit discussion. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Think Fast! Records albums

Category:Think Fast! Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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☯ 04:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

After recent times...

Are you going to stay with us? Wether you have your tools and bots or not, you're still a valuable asset to this project. I hope you stay. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am still editing, because I still use Wikipedia, so I still see things that need fixing. What I have been able to contribute in the past, where there is a shortfall, is template wrangling, automation, and having the patience to fix long runs of pages, together with, I hope, a little insight into how things can be arranged to improve over the longer term without breaking stuff now. So all that has been removed, and one of the arbitrators has protected 7,000 more templates, effectively removing them from the area where I can contribute. Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

That's great to hear. I look forward to working with you on the project in the future. And, even if you do not wish to, I will support your RfA if you choose to run again. Again, you are a valued asset to this project. Keep up the good (even if manual) work :) MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what is this about protecting 7000 templates? Someone did that unilaterally? There was a huge ANI about something like that a year or two ago, that I did a lot of work to clean up,[117] so it's not good if someone did that again. Re RFA: I can't !vote but I'm fine with your staying on as an admin / becoming one again, as I said in the arb case. I have a much different view than yours about the proper role of automation on Wikipedia, but I respect your dedication. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was AGK, the arb that said he wouldn't be voting on the case, but did. I am aware of the previous mess-up with protecting then unprotecting all "high use" templates. I just find this now typical, even without any ill will Arbs seem to consistently mess up. I am told some of them have a legal background. Maybe that means they had a parking ticket once, I don't know. Maybe the arb-com workload is too great (though there was only one case running). We all screw up from time to time, but when someone's reputation (and more) is at stake, it would expect more care to be given and taken. Thank you for your kind comments. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. I found some mention of the protections on the PD talk page but I'm amazed nobody has kicked up a fuss if that many templates were affected. I've been meaning to leave AGK a note but I've been 1) busy IRL; 2) feeling near-total apathy about Wikipedia at the moment. Even WT:HRT hasn't noticed these protections despite a few earlier posts complaining that there was already too much protection. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

mass creation of stubs with errors

Hi Rich, you were involved in this conversation a few months ago, so may be you want to take a look at the updates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.27Jaguar.2FSandbox.2F3.27_edits Azylber (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I also need to notify you of this AN discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Rich Farmbrough. It's not too bad, just wondering why you had the edit filter manager flag taken away as well when ArbCom just said revoke the admin bit. You can contribute if you want. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar (or two) for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For being only the second ever person to get to a million edits, especially under the circumstances. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Brilliantly Weathered Barnstar
	A real-world barnstar that has seen countless seasons, complete with barn, for a brilliant milestone and for braving the weather in style. – SJ + 06:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Heads up

An editor trying to abide by an ArbCom decision?

I see you've been given the rollbacker userright, but I would advise you not to use it (just asked at the AC talk page and apparently that counts as automation). On a more important note, hope the decision hasn't hit you too hard – btw, your self-control is amazing, if it were me I think I would have absolutely lost it at some of the arbs who clearly hadn't even bothered to read all the information. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it since the arbs included it in their view of automation and in hopes that a misclick will not result in you being blocked. If you have any questions or want it back anyways, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or an email. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you should also expect File mover to go soon too because I suspect its only a matter of time before someone presents th argument that its automtion as well. I think its compleltey absurd and outside the scope and bounds of arbcoms power to make the decision that these are considered automation but who can tell them no right? Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have to agree with this. Rich, if I were you, I'd strip any and all rights classes from your account. I have none, and it has served me well. If they have nothing to take away from you left except to ban you from the site, they have no power. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• See Rich? This is just one of innumerable ways in which traps will be set, whether inadvertently or not, to trip you up. You won't even know you're doing something wrong. You won't have anything that says "don't do this", but you will be retroactively found at fault for doing it. The ArbCom decision failing to identify the Rollbacker right as part of the ArbCom decision is just one of many pitfalls. At the noticeboard thread, one arb (SilkTork) thinks using rollback would be automation, so your rights to that are removed by Guerillero. Then Elen and Silk can't seem to agree as to what counts as automation. Granted, Elen wasn't sitting the case (as a named party) but it's obvious there's no consensus from ArbCom, or any indication that SilkTork is speaking on behalf of all of ArbCom in stating that rollback counts as automation. Then Courcelles chimes in and agrees with SilkTork, again without stating if it is personal opinion or the opinion of all of ArbCom. Not to worry, your rights are stripped anyway, and can not be restored on pain of ArbCom.
• ArbCom can't screw their heads on straight, but it's not them that is at fault, it's you. Isn't this fun? Not to worry though; ArbCom are professionals who are vetted for their skills in arbitration.
• I can readily imagine what someone's going to come after you with next; you're using the edit summary "Copyedit." quite a bit in your mainspace edits since the close of the case. In fact, this edit summary comprises 25% of your mainspace edits since the case was closed. Nevermind that the edits are spread out over days. It's "slow automation". Get it? That'll be one of the things they come after you with. Slow automation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• "that counts as automation" - hm, maybe using browser or computer also counts as automation Bulwersator (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• It can easily be argued. See, rollback requires you to click a link. If you click "Save page" you are likewise clicking a link. In the rollback case, it undoes an edit. In the save page case, it applies changes to a database. Both are, to an extent, automated. Rich, I think you're going to have to request direct database access so you can make changes to articles without having to click the automating "Save page" button! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And direct access to database, as using internet is also automation. But unfortunately database is also automated :) Bulwersator (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. Wikipedia-by-mail? Oh wait, the postal service uses automatic sorters, and Rich would know that, so he'd be taking advantage of automation. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, you can't escape automation, can you? I think they meant automation without human intervention. AWB bots do it automatically by themselves, but RF will have to click the save button on a normal edit. They're not going to pick holes quite that far down, or everyone they've automation-banned would be under this situation. Nice to have a joke after the stress of the case, I expect for you, Rich. Rcsprinter (lecture) 20:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I will take the same approach I have always taken, that if something cannot be objected to by a reasonable person I will do it. The fact that there are unreasonable people on Wikipedia has rarely mattered, because 99 times out of 100 the reasonable folk tell them they are being unreasonable. I pointed out in a previous discussion that statistically I was likely to eventually run into this sort of problem, even if my "behaviour" was average or above average. I am not always proved right, but on this occasion I was.

As to editing by sending carrier pigeons to the server room, I had already run through those possibilities as rhetorical devices to use on ArbCom, but decided against using them. The final decision (which I have not read - even the proposed decision I was still working on detail) I imagine is worded in a nonsensical way, of necessity, since both the sentiment and logic that underlie it are nonsensical. That doesn't bother me much.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

• I can't help but wonder if this "no automation" bit means no regular expression text substitutions in an external editor? [Not that anyone could technically enforce this...but still...] Or even the very "automated" task of cut-and-pasting text to and from an external editor? While I said my bit above in a much more verbose manner, this whole concept of "no automation" is quite silly. This is ironically coming from someone who makes almost no automated edits here on the English Wikipedia, with the exception of the very very occasional use of HotCat. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rich .. many editors on the Workshop and Proposed decision talkpage said things were unreasonable. Most of them telling that seemed quite reasonable (corroborating your 99 times out of 100') .. nonetheless .. you are restricted and desysopped. I am surprised that you still are considering that you will be saved by reasonable people - especially when people tell you that you will be caught in unreasonable situations, they will take you down, 3 typos repaired over 3 different days in a spree of 1000 edits .. AU-TO-MA-TION - 4 times the same edit summary. Do you really think that YOU can type those by hand - of course not.

@Tothwolf: does your browser have red wiggly lines under words it considers misspelled? Do you repair those typos? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dirk — Depending on the text input mode, yes it underlines things it considers misspellings, clicking on the underlined text would allow me to change it (I wonder if this too would be considered automation?), but 99.9% of the time it is wrong, especially when I'm editing technical stuff. I generally do all of my major editing in an external editor though, which with a simple hotkey can spell check everything with a custom dictionary. Another hotkey allows me to reformat/preformat wiki markup. I can't imagine going back to using the normal edit box for anything but small edits. Say...what about web browsers that save frequently used text for text input boxes such as the edit summary box? That too could technically be considered automation, and I suspect the majority of editors have used this browser feature at least once.

Rich — Dirk and the others are correct, your detractors are going to try to find absolutely anything they can to use against you. Having had that done to me while under a different sort of edit restriction (that the individuals involved attempted to game over and over again while trying desperately to have me banned), the best advice I can give you is to refocus the majority of your time on something else (even a different wiki-project) until you can get this mess resolved. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well using the same edit summary has been cited as "proof of automation" by Xeno, using different exit summaries has been cited as "proof of automation" by Hrsefold. "Too funny", as we say in on-line parlance. Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

• Rich has been given advice, all of it unsolicited :), by a great many of us. A very significant portion of that advice has essentially said "don't trust the system". Despite this, Rich has maintained a sense of optimism, of belief in his fellow wikipedian that the masses will see the day through and reason and intellect will prevail. I find that refreshing and laudable, even though I maintain a great deal of cynicism. Thank you Rich. You epitomize why Wikipedia has and can work. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Warmly seconded. Rich, you are certainly an inspiration, optimistically, statistically and otherwise. Thank you. – SJ + 05:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• So you're aware, your rollbacker right has been restored. Though, that doesn't mean using the right will not be without controversy. Be careful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD confusion

Please see here I think you mixed up two separate CfDs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. It came up with the incorrect section once and I did something different... got it wrong it seems. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Humour

Shakespearean Tales

I happened across this in the archives! —Sladen (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hilarious isn't it. maybe we should ask for a second episode. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Template:Celan-up listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Celan-up. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Celan-up redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bulwersator (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll let someone else celan that up. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

A cup of coffee for you!

You were recently removed from the administrator class. I do not know enough about that situation to be able to comment on it, but I am familiar enough with your non-controversial work to be able to thank you for everything non-controversial you have done for the Wikipedia project. I am sorry to have to qualify my thanks, but I simply do not understand enough to be able to say more. I appreciate what seems to be your stated intent to continue to support the Wikipedia project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can assure you the case is very boring and could have been done in 10 lines and 15 minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi Rich Farmbrough, I just noted that your Helpful Pixie Bot was blocked. Whenever I noticed this bot on my watchlist, I found these edits indeed helpful and want to thank you for that. I find that gratitude is often missing in this project and your Arbcom case appears to confirm that. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I hope we can fix ArbCom into something more constructive in future. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

arbcom amendment filed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Rich_Farmbrough Nobody Ent 15:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting response. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

I have also made a request in the same thread - see Amendment 2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Badmachine

You recently unprotected the page User:Badmachine. That page now reads "FOREVER DEATH TO TH3J35T3R", a reference to The Jester, who, although unidentified, is a living person. The comment was added on 17 May. This is only the latest in a series of incidents relating to the user page - perhaps it is time to say enough? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that Rich was desysopped by ArbCom? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I knew there was a case involving him, but I wasn't really following it. Sorry, Rich, I'll take this elsewhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

wow. -badmachine 20:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Toynbee tiles, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? He filled in a citation where one was asked for and you template a regular? A regular discussion asking him what his intent with that citation change might get you results more in line with what you're looking for? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have templated a regular. At first glance of this talk page, there is no obvious indication ze's a regular. Sorry if that's problematic, but I really can't poke around much to figure that out.

Yes, ze added a source. The text in question connects a work of fiction (that does not mention the tiles) with the tiles. The cite to the work of fiction merely serves to cloud the issue. Whomever added the text may have had a source. The edit I reverted, however, changes this from an unsourced statement to original research. (This would be similar to running across a claim that the Declaration of Independence contains elements in common with the Bible and mentions God several times and adding a cite to the Declaration of Independence.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution would be to add a {{Citation needed}} to the uncited part of the sentence, not to remove the cite for the second part. And you can also use the template {{Ze}} if you wish, it will render gender according to the editor upon who's page it is used, or the user name given as an argument. So it refers to me as "ze" for instance, but Elen of the Roads as "she" and you as "ze". I have even set my gender preferences so that this works. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

What is wrong with 'they'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"They" as a singular fell out of use until recently. On Wikipedia it might be taken as implying a role account for example. Most people are able to infer my gender from my first name, though I am sure there have been female Richards they were probably mostly mediaeval nuns. Had I wanted to conceal or obfuscate my gender I would have registered as R Farmbrough, if I wanted to proclaim some QUILTBAG status then I would do so clearly and unequivocally. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

I still like it more than 'ze' .. however, I did think you were a medieval nun, but I never had a chance to look under your tunic to check. You should stop impersonating, people have been banned for less. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia??? One of the dumbest messages I've ever seen on wikipedia..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Templating a regular is "one of the dumbest messages" you've seen? Wow. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hmm I'm not sure it's the template that does the trick. Penyulap ☏ 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver

Rich, can any of your former bot work be ported to the toolserver? Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm thinking about alternative strategies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

That's good to hear. I see someone has offered to run Femto Bot, which is great news. When you have some free time, I would like to discuss some ideas with you about how we can track statistics for DYK/GA/FA and other types of projects, specifically user statistics. Right now, TTBOMK, this is done manaully, which frankly is ridiculous. After all, it is now 2012 (going on 2013), and we should be able to see what types of work users have done, whether it is nominating DYK's, nominating and reviewing GA's, or participating in peer reviews and FA nominations and reviews. This information is not only valuable for telling us about a user (how many DYK's did they nominate vs. how many were declined, etc.) but most importantly, for giving us insight into which parts of the project need improving. For example, there is a huge backlog in the GAN review process (459 listed with 368 waiting to be reviewed). Since we have topic categories already in place, it would be helpful to see which topic areas are reviewed first and last, which have more passes than fails, and the length of time for reviews, etc. I think you see where I'm going with this, and I'm wondering how we can collect this data, or if it is already being collected. So there are two parts to this query: how do we collect data about user contributions to the article nomination and review process for display (like this), and how do we use that data to improve Wikipedia? No hurry on this, so take your time. If other areas of the project are already working on this, then let me know and feel free to disregard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's time to start rebuilding your rep, and transcend...

There are those of us (many) who would like to see you get your adminship and bot status back.

Once the concerns in the ArbCom case have been remedied by you, and you have reformed your ways (in the eyes of those critical of your previous approach) for a healthy period of time, restoration of your bot privileges should take place in due course.

My guess is that a year would be enough. I think you can and should go for it.

But how? I have some suggestions...

First, swallow your pride and lose the attitude. Drop the defiant demeanor. Stop arguing. Avoid making snide or cynical remarks.

Second, publicly take responsibility for your actions and openly dedicate yourself to mending your ways. Post apologies to individuals. Post an apology to the community in general (in closing remarks of or as an amendment to your Arbcom case, so that everyone can see it in context).

Third, throw yourself into the project, into the very areas that have caused concern. You'll have to be creative, since you can't engage in bot tasks yourself...

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Join who? The bot department for one. The AWB team for another. Participate in the discussions there.

Many areas concerning Wikipedia automation have been neglected...

You could help with programming bots. And making code examples available to help others learn how to program bots.

Wikipedia should have an army of expert AWB users, but as of yet, it does not. You could help build and lead a corps of AWB volunteers.

Currently nobody reaches out to welcome and offer guidance to new AWB registrants.

The documentation on AWB leaves something to be desired. There are a lot of features that have no support documentation whatsoever. The AWB manual needs a programming-savvy editor to drive its completion.

You could provide further guidance at The AWB Task Page. Who knows better than you what needs to be done with AWB? Post (uncontroversial) tasks. You can also help by providing suggestions there on how to use AWB to accomplish the tasks posted by others.

You could help build Wikipedia's script resources:

There is almost a complete lack of Wikipedia-focused Perl scripts available. Wikipedia:Scripts/Perl scripts has a single script in it, and that was provided by you. How else can you help us here? My guess is there are a lot of editors besides me who would love to see the scripts you have used over the years.

The rest of the script department is in disarray. It needs someone to make sense of the chaos.

Many editors would like to make suggestions for MediaWiki features, but they do not understand Bugzilla. My guess is that most feature suggestions made at the Village Pump never find their way to Bugzilla, despite the referrals. How can you remedy these situations?

You are the expert on Wikipedia automation. Share your expertise. Help others get automated. And most importantly, help them avoid making the same mistakes you did.

If you can do this, productively in a cheerful and cordial manner, over the next year, I would be very surprised if ArbCom did not overcome its nervousness concerning you and welcome you back with open arms.

Wikipedia needs you. I look forward to seeing you rise to the occasion.

Good luck.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You know the plan was to deal with the backlog at requests for bot assistance then do some serious work. What I am interested in is applying serious AI concepts to Wikipedia (and in I have just finished doing some academic research, using some of these types of tools for analysis) and actually making a significant and substantive difference. Unfortunately there are too many people active on Wikipedia who would not just rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic if it was sinking, but argue about the colour they should be, and even form a subcommittee to ensure that the spelling of the colours was doen in an even handed manner, to make any serious progress.

Your support has been appreciated throughout this process, as has that of many folk.

It's important though to understand other people's motivation. My motivation here is mixed, primarily I'm interested in improving the actual articles. In doing so I have found many other tasks that it actually makes sense to take on, in order to achieve that. Of course I get a sense of satisfaction in fixing 932 articles that broke GFDL, even though I had to do it manually. My motivation is not, however, to make Arbcom or the community think of me as a great guy, yes barnstars are nice, yes acknowledgement from established figures is nice, and from fresh starters sometimes even more so. But if the options open to me were effectively to continue improving the encyclopaedia until someone stopped me, or stop myself, my choice was to continue. There was always a chance that ArbCom would see sense, though with the case being effectively brought by two arbs, it may have seemed slim.

There seems to be considerable feeling that the ArbCom result is at best dubious, and at worst downright wrong. Apart from the actual flaws in the process and the evidence, which all seem to have been ignored by Arbcom (except one, which I received an email apology for) there is no recognition that I put in place three systems to deal with the alleged problems, in response to NewYorkBrad's questions (NewYorkBrad was the only Arb to get involved positively, as far as I can see- as drafting arb):

1. A log of current work
2. A full bug tracking system
3. A bot control panel

This is all more wasted work, to throw after a month working on the Arb case that was supposed to be contributed to the project.

Given all this, and while I'm sure it is meant well, I do not intend to "throw myself into the project" to try and "regain the respect" of those that ran this case.

I do other voluntary work, I have my own life to lead, there are other projects out there (such as the Singularity Institute) that I am interested in.

Bear in mind also that Arbcom refused me time to draft my defence, despite prohibiting me from doing so during the majority of the case.

They did not reply to my enquiry as to how many hours a day I should be expected to donate to the case.

So I will continue to edit Wikipedia, and maybe work at the Teahouse, and do some policy stuff. When and if I return as bot-op and/or admin, is not something I am worried about.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

AI? Sounds interesting. What were you planning to try on Wikipedia with AI? The Transhumanist 08:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically the sky's the limit. There are no reasons that an AI cannot understand the majority of information in WP articles and from RS (NLP). Then it's simply a matter of data verification, re-purposing to other languages and the like (the construction of a "simple" for each language for example). The next step would be customiɀed articles. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

• "All your articles belong to us" :) Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, as the number of contributors to Wikipedia inexorably declines, routine maintenance work must be taken on by bots. This has already happened. It needs to become more and more pervasive if the resource is to be maintained. One of the greatest threats to the project is the ever reducing lack of human contributions. We have to counter that somehow, else the project is doomed. That's my take on AI type stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite that bad. The possibility exists for en:WP to continue run by a skeleton staff, covering a limited (albeit large by previous standards) amount of knowledge, and with timely updates in the major areas (new countries, disasters, deaths, sporting events, majhor scientific breakthroughs). Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration

Sorry about that mate "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship." Just when you think the atmosphere is improving things happen all at once which makes you seriously question others users on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Boo, hisssss... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth Arbcom is taking a lot of heat over the decision too. Too many aspects of the case are dodgy, poorly written based on incorrect assumptions and generally just not sitting well. Kumioko (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• And they've already shown how the community is going to screw this up. They themselves have been in a disagreement as to whether rollback counts as automation or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I thought your bots were making a constructive contribution. I guess some people just did not like the large number of edits showing up on their watch lists over and over. If you had just put in something to check before you saved the edit that it would affect the reader-visible article, that might have reduced the complaints against you. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there any "invisible" bot edits for a very long time (years). Mainly one user made ongoing complaints about tiny fixes done at the same time as other fixes - that person has reverted over 1000 such changes, not just by me but by a significant number of editors. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, please could you expand on what you mean by '"invisible" bot edits'? Are you describing wikicode changes, or running without a bot flag, or undeclared automation, or something else? AFAICS, Helpful_Pixie_Bot has been recapitalising templates[118] right until the very last edit[119] (and without a WP:BOTFLAG in sight). —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a perception, repeated even as far afield as Reddit, that I make edits solely for the purpose of deleting white=space. This has never been the case. There were technical reasons when SmackBot was running under AWB that some tiny percentage, less than 2-3 per thousand were like that. FUD, however has a life of its own. Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Yes, there is a perception, and yes, it will be hard to supersede that perception. The percentage (even if "tiny") was presumably large enough to be noticed, and to bring the perception into being. That will be extremely hard to tackle; although overtime I hope it will be possible to demonstrate that it is no longer the case. Manual review before saving, more personalised/encompassing edit summaries, and avoiding "hot potatoes" are probably a good route to being able to demonstrate that the perception is no longer the case. That probably means no template case changing, no white-space removal (or anything you can recall remember as ever having been controversial). After 10–12 months of that I hope that it should be possible to point to a track record more easily disprove the perception (whether it was right, or wrong in the first place). —Sladen (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been the case for some 2+ years. Edit summaries are a route to blocking, that has been made quite clear. I am pretty much only editing articles I am reading. On Wikipedia everything is controversial. Dating maintenance tags was when we started out, and even now there are people who disagree with it - in fact there are people who actively try and get maintenance tags deleted, causing massive damage to the encyclopaedia for no benefit. "All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost." Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Archiving

Hi Rich. I saw your request to let Femto Bot continue to archive your talk page. I know you'd rather run it yourself, but if you're willing to send me the code I'd be happy to drop that into my bot's task list. If you'd rather not, no worries, I understand, but the offer's there if you're interested. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I am scratching my head over the various ways forward. Maybe the simplest is to re-submit the amendment. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

No worries. Let me know if I can be of service. 28bytes (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich, it might be wise to accept the assistance offered by 28bytes. Doing so would help demonstrate that you are genuinely interested in the end the end-goal of archiving, and not simply after "I can haz automation". —Sladen (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points.

1. Firstly if you think that Arbcom are paying any attention to this, when they can't even count votes properly, you are a starry eyed dreamer.
2. Secondly there are technical problems, my bots are developed to have the required functionality and no more, and are constantly being improved in line with the principles of Kaizen. This task is designed to run from my desktop, it will need re-purposing to run on the tool-server, and will need extra functionality that is currently extrinsic.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Can you not use User:MiszaBot III to archive your talk page as many users do? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I could, I used to use it but it archives stuff I want to keep , and keeps stuff I want to archive. Also it does not move stuff to my to-do list (though of course I am not allowed to do anything much now, so that could be moot). Rich Farmbrough, 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I do my own archiving manually which gives me total control. However, I have configured some other talk pages for archiving bots, so if you want to use MiszaBot III but are afraid that doing it yourself might get you in trouble (considering the ban on your use of automation), then I would be willing to configure your talk page for you to use MiszaBot III. Just ask and specify what parameters you would like. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Femto Bot has the benefits of manual archiving and automatic archiving. I simply mark a section, and it gets archived to the appropriate place. Generally this is the archive, but it may also be to my to-do list. Future enhancements would have dealt with bur reports differently. Miza-bot also inserts un-needed spaces in headers which I find a bit ironic, since doing that automatically would have me hung drawn and quartered.

Many thanks for the offer.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Lake Washington (Melbourne)

They are trying to delete Lake Washington (Melbourne) article. Can you help? Student7 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Helped Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Unsigned comment templates

Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:Unsigned and thought you might be able to help with this. Thanks. --xensyria^T 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have an admin bit at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry to hear it. I just read a comment below that said how much of a better place you've made WP; I agree completely, and wish you all the best. --xensyria^T 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

replacing references temporarily

Using Perl, I've slurped an article.

I need to match the first sentence of the article, but intervening references with a period in them create an ambiguity so the script does not find the period at end of the sentence (it finds the period in the embedded reference instead).

So, I'd like to be able to save references off, and put them back again into the first sentence after I've extracted and processed it.

How can this be done?

This message is a copy. Please reply to the original at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#replacing references temporarily. Thank you.   The Transhumanist 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Rich, I'd like to shove all the references in the article off into an array or something, replace the references with XXXXX or some other code, and then after processing, substitute the codes with the original references. Those references not in or trailing the first sentence can just go bye-bye. The Transhumanist 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I've run into problems having regex strings inside array elements, as they don't seem to be interpreted literally in the regex. Unescaped special characters seem to be wreaking havoc. The Transhumanist 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have answered in general at VP(T). Since I know the background I can answer more specifically here.

/^(([^\.]|<ref[^>]*\/\s*>|<ref[^>]*[^<]*<\/\s*ref>|)*\.)/

will probably match what you want. Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks

Hey, Rich, I haven't been following that Arbcom stuff closely (certainly not enough to express an opinion either way about its justness), but I've heard of it a few times. I just wanted to say thanks that, despite all the negativity and assorted crap you seem to be going through, you can still find the time to complete my answer at the Teahouse a bit. So, thanks! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome. I like Teahouse. Tea is a civilising influence, that's why the role of Lord High Teaboy is most coveted at the WP:Committee for getting things done - which you are cordially invited to join. Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Dev changes

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Kaldari's talk page.
Message added 05:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied on my talk page. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hi Rich. I don't think we've ever interacted, but I've seen you around for years. I've always found you to be thoughtful, considerate and helpful. My perception has always been that you've gone out of your way to help others. At least that's what I've seen. And your generous help is all over the template namespace, which I am very thankful for. I followed the ArbCom case and was disappointed with the result. I'm sure it's not fun, but you've hung in there and that's commendable. I just wanted to let you know that there are a lot of people that appreciate all you've done for the project. I personally want to thank you for all your template work, but even more for hanging in there and staying with the project. It's actually an inspiration to me. So thanks for everything. Best of luck to you. 64.40.54.186 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a nice high note on which to log off and attend to some Real Life matters for a while. Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 09:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Checkuser

Hi Rich, just a small clarification: I'm no longer a clerk. I stepped down when I was appointed to the AUSC. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. I had got somewhat confused. Rich Farmbrough, 13:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

If you're interested

As I see you have a 'Things that stayed too long' section on your userpage: Evan Schwenger (and subsequently Mr. E) was a Captain Regent of San Marino (replacing Orbello di Vita Giannini) for a considerable amount of time due to this edit [120] from December 2010. The articles could do with a bit of work, but this is hilarious nonetheless. RoyalMate1 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a reply...

I've replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#replacing references temporarily.     The Transhumanist 11:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request rejected

This is a courtesy notification that the request for amendment you are involved in or are a named party to has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Slander

Your recent edits to WT:AC/N could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Making this edit in light of the previous counsel about Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived legal threats is inappropriate. Please do not reintroduce terms that assert or imply legal wrongdoing unless you intend it as a legal threat. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I second that! Templating the regulars...grr.MONGO 20:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote WP:DTTR, "However using a pre-existing template as a guide, re-wording it or adding a personal message to it, is allowed." In the case where the notification could lead to a block, an outcome undesirable to everyone, I added a personal note to the attention-getting and explicit boilerplate verbiage--not as an insult to Rich, but to make the gravity of the situation as clear as possible. It appears to have been effective, but if my message was overkill in making it effective, you have my apologies for the excessive precision with which it was delivered. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you choose to publish false statements giving a negative impression of me, and, knowing them to be false do not retract them. You then want to hide behind NLT. It simply won't wash. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

furry

hello, i will look and see what i can do. would you mind linking me to them plz?

by the way, i didn't know you were interested in that wikiproject. i have serious concerns about the logo used in the furry wikiproject and portal, and have started a discussion here. i hope my asking you about this is not canvassing, but nobody else seems to give a shit about subtle advertising on wikipedia, or perhaps i posted my concerns in the wrong place, and i couldnt help but notice that you have 983,000+ edits, so you know the place better than i do. -badmachine 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in everything, for my sins. It's a quiet project I think. I saw your post (I was looking at my watchlist to help one of the people who have just desysopped me - what a nice guy I am) - that's why I dropped the note to your page. I'll have a quick look. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

The logo was used because it was available under a free license, and because an upright blue paw has commonly been used to indicate furry informational sites; for example, the favicon of PeterCat's Furry Infopage. badmachine is welcome to raise the issue at WikiProject Furry, which seems to me to be the appropriate venue. GreenReaper (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I saw your username when I was checking the facts at WikiFur. It's interesting how a whole bunch of wikis peeled off from Wikia when they changed the skins. Something that the WMF should take into account when pushing cosmetic upgrades through. Doubtless the discussion can be moved there, to advantage. Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

i was visiting my mom in ohio, and travel back to sacramento tomorrow. i will try to remember to do that when i get back to my home ip, to keep my IP usage low. if anyone else is inclined to open it for me, id appreciate it, and if not, i can take care of it on Thursday. many thanks, -badmachine 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My word

I'm bored. I shall have to go to sleep. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

If you are looking for something to do, perhaps you feel like adding turtle species or subspecies synonym to the infobox?

• Open the following cited pdf {{cite journal | journal = Verterbrate zoology | title = Checklist of chelonians of the world | year = 2007 | first = Uwe | last = Fritz | coauthors = Havaš, Peter | volume = 57 | issue = 2 | pages = | id = | url = http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/851.pdf | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5v20ztMND | archivedate = 2010-12-17}}
• Move down the pdf past contents and higher taxa to about page 186 or higher. Find a species(two word binomial name subheading in bold italics) or subspecies(three word trinomial name subheading in italics), find the corresponding article on wiki(search for binomial name/trinomial name), the synonyms are the listed items in the pdf, add the synonyms to the infobox in the format, *''synonym'' -<small> person(s), year<small> for each one, add the synonym_ref(cite the pdf above with page number) and optionally add the binomial/trinomial name reference.
• See example diff of one I just did.
• There are about 305 turtle species/subspecies of which about 280 articles still require the synonyms adding.
• It takes a lot of time(5-25 minutes per article) to extract the names precisely and format the display nicely, but writing skills aren't required, nor is researching as the pdf has the information. Any questions please ask. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms was on my to do list. I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

In the edits you have made you are missing a close for the small text </small>. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Furthermore, the binomial name and first synonym are the same in Escambia map turtle, the "ex errore" is located at the wrong synonym in Yellow-blotched map turtle, and the synonym "Emys megacephala" has the name instead of the year in Northern map turtle. Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Having the binomial/trinomial name and the synonym the same is not a problem. I know it confuses me also. If Fritz lists it in the pdf, then it's good enough for me. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny how all these biologists are either called "Ann" or have a first name beginning with J. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

They should either all have the binomial name in the synonyms list, or none of them. To include it with some but not with others is not the best solution. I prefer to exclude them, no need to duplicate this immediately, but that is less important than having some consistency. Fram (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that, I'll take your word for it. There are a number of advantages including it, clearly, which is doubtless why they do so. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

I have been a little distracted, but at some point it will be turtles all the way down. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

You forgot the "|synonyms" parameter here, with a poor layout of theinfobox as a result. Fram (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A consequence of manual editing. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Turtles all the way down, Turtles All the Way Down, Turtles all the way down. Rich the redlink ex errore is not going to be notable, it seems to be a concept of the pdf your using, made up on page 169(If a genus-group name was misspelled, it is indicated by adding the epithet “ex errore"). The lower case use of the reference title "Checklist of chelonians of the world", rather then the journal case was derived from an FA discussion -"At the moment it's higgeldy-piggeldy with title case. The original case is irrelevant." - User:Tony1. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a glossary, I'm just looking at the best place for that, and to see if one already exists. Ex errore is also used by Reptile Database. The case, I think is fairly clear from the MoS, so no worries, I also have picked up the typo in Verterbrate. Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

But the Reptile Database is using the Fritz reference as a source, so I think it's only being recycled. Is there a none turtle use of "ex errore"? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mountain Salamanders of the Genus Ranodon, Volume 6 uses it, along with number of other volumes and papers. Maybe they all derive from work by Fritz, it seems very much reptiles and amphibians, but certainly they go back as far as the 1980s . Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Typos and stuff

At Spiny turtle, you changed the correct bluelink Testudines to the incorrect redlink Testudinesa([121]). And here ninteenth should be nineteenth. Please check your edits more carefully. Fram (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you see an mistake, hit edit and make a correction. Wikipedia isn't about making perfect edits. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But if the errors give the impression of being errors in a script, then we have a problem, no? In the next edit at that page, he makes the exact same error, changing "19th" to "ninteenth" again. If you make that many errors, you aren't being careful enough; and if you make the exact same error a few times in a row, things get suspicious. And I am quite busy correcting other mistakes he made, so please don't tell me what to do with these further errors. Fram (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about typos, I've checked around 1/4 million articles myself and had to stop when a database list got finished. So when new typos are made some of us are pleased to correct them! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fram, your being an edit stalker and these mistakes are petty. May I suggest you walk away and maybe edit something else for a while. You are clearly watching Rich's every edit waiting to drop a comment and start a new discussion and maybe even try to get him banned. Thats the only way you would have found these. Its getting a little old. Everyone makes errors and no one likes a tattle tail. Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making his errors automatically, he now makes them manually (one hopes). My posts above have helped him find errors in the template he uses to edit the turtle articles, and made him aware (if necessary) that his century edits aren't supposed to be done. meanwhile, I'm still correcting hundreds of errors made by Helpful Pixie Bot at the end of March. As usual, some people are quick to defend RF, but very slow in actually doing anything about the problems he created. Fram (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I can say for certainty that if his bot was still running he would have fixed the errors himself if they were really errors. If you can provide an example of the types of errors you are correcting I might be willing to help fix them. Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, any reason that you changed all instances of 6th century, 5th century, 19th century, ... to sixth century, fifth century, nineteenth century, ...? According to WP:ORDINAL, both are acceptable, and the general rule on Wikipedia is that when two methods are acceptable, we shouldn't change articles from one system to the other without good reason. Of course, if there is such a reason in this case, no problem, but otherwise such edits can best be avoided. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference

• Fritz, Uwe (2007). "Checklist of Chelonians of the World". Vertebrate Zoology. 57 (2). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-17. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Concerned Wikipedian

Rich, I don't think we've ever crossed paths on Wikipedia before, but I have noticed a great many contributions of yours pop up on my watchlist in the past few hours. While I understand that you feel hurt and wronged by what has happened to you in the recent past, I am concerned that your present actions will not lead to the resolution you desire, but rather to further sanction and further hurt. Good luck and take care. N419BH 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. However it seemed that presenting the facts to the committee would, if they were honourable, cause them to change their opinion. Of course people are very reluctant to change their opinions, so I may be onto a looser. As to the other matters, they mainly concern things I have uncovered as a result of being on the receiving end of the process, and the committee is already taking steps to rectify some of them, which is most gratifying, and even a little encouraging. Rich Farmbrough, 03:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps the rest will come with time once cooler heads prevail. Everyone is dug into their trenches right now, which is not particularly conducive to the process of constructive dialogue. N419BH 03:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. Had they left me my admin bit (loosing which is worse than being banned, though of course they don't understand that) I could at least do "clever template stuff" while things cooled down. As it is they removed my four main fields of activity, bots, clean up, templates and vandal fighting. Rich Farmbrough, 04:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

There are always other wikis where Arbcom does not have jurisdiction. A history of positive contributions there subsequent to an enwiki sanction has in the past been used as evidence to re-welcome users back into the fold here. N419BH 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The writ of Arbcom is very narrow. But unfortunately my language skills are also very limited. I also have a naive faith in human nature, and hope triumphs over experience time and again. (Also escaping en:wiki is hard, since I inevitably want to look something up, and that means I am going to be editing.) But I am really off to bed now. Thanks for your support. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

All roads lead to Rome

Emotion is not in the equation, I compute the logical outcome and it is always the same regardless.

I like bot armies :), I only have one, and his hamster doesn't count for anything really, not even a 1/2, and doesn't annoy but a few people. (I guess loading him into some kind of mechanism that uses him as a projectile would change that, bah!)

So are you interested in making the changeover to the replacement when it arrives ? It is important to try to collect everyone, just to stay in touch for that new bright morning which inevitably follows the night. A new site would be fresh air to suffocating lungs.

Hey, are any of your dead bots easy enough for a moron like me to operate in the meantime ? I can't imagine for a moment that operating a bot to improve wikipedia completely within guidelines and community expectations wouldn't shit the living daylights out of some of your critics, and I'm just the editor to do it too. I lost all heart to turn wikigreen, but making positive edits solely out of spite seems right up my alley right now. Penyulap ☏ 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm ready to breathe space and a lot of people are, most hoping that it won't be necessary. There are many downsides to such a move, notably that, for example, if ArbCom did not exist it would be necessary to invent them.

As far as running the bots, there have been several offers, for which I am grateful, but I am looking at other strategies.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

breathe space. I know the real crew up there have considered killing each other before, but I wonder if it ever came to blows like that in zero-g (only read that far). I think I will finish this one.

I can't see the need for arbcomm in all of the successful models I have considered, which are all closer to existing schemes and boards, it was the wrong answer when it was created. Ha, I like those boards where they give the positions made up names, like king jackass and overlord. Penyulap ☏ 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you should consider joining the WP:Committee for getting things done. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

reminiscent the movement to end all movements which began with itself, I'm not criticising implosions mind you, I like them, I just worried for a moment it was a diabolical plot to shut me up, but you're not the oracle of the equation, so that can't be. hmmm. So you really want to get things done? Penyulap ☏ 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was historically the advantage of Wikipedia. Provided you weren't doing something stupid people got out of your way, and even facilitated each other. Of course we have always had the rules lawyers and what Elen so prettily describes as the "anal retentive obsessive compulsives" but up til now they didn't run the show and were merely tolerated. Rich Farmbrough, 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

sounds like my old userpage. pawning wikipedia is a snap, there is no avoiding that reality, no limit to the resources available to do so, any Neanderthal could write a mask to sort the good from the bad, retentive is to think it can be saved.the party crashers can't be shown the door when the deed was signed over to them at the very start. Starting again isn't starting from square one, everything has already been done. Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally oracles are the most crazy branch of mathematics going. But who knows, with quantum computing they may becme relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

my own 'beautiful mind' is more akin to Nash in the practical applications (not the other stuff). Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And of course the problem with space flight is that these puny ships kill you pretty fast. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Ha! Puny American! the Soyuz 18a lads, including one who designed the craft and was screaming at GC to hit the abort button after the craft lost it (they didn't have one at that time), they show you how it's done, barrelling out of control into what would be oblivion for the nasa shuttle. Anything you can walk away from. Still, taking out ejector seats (from the nasa shuttle), now there is a novel idea to improve safety, from the inventors of the facepalm. Penyulap ☏ 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When seat belts became compulsory in the UK the number of accidents went up. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

The only thing that matters

Re: this But what happens when we get to a billion, Rich? Keep your chin up, mate. Be seeing you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Odometer long}} - but even then I will not be a number. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

For anyone half-following this sorry tale, the current situation is:

• ArbCom is stone-walling any amendments supportive of me, while approving any that make the case look worse.
• ArbCom and the Aduit subcommittee is ignoring all communication from me
• Some small steps to ArbCom reform have been taken as a result of things that have been pointed out as a result of the case.
• Individual Arbs continue (at least until recently) to publish untruths about me in various fora.
• One Arb says I can have an apology or re-litigation.

So much for independent committee of trusted and wise users.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Speaking only personally, though as a member of the AUSC, I'd like to point out that we are not ignoring your e-mails; we are discussing your request, but we have informed you we have received your email (28.05.12, 21.32 UTC). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I only have the automated response. Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Apologies, I have received a we have received your email email. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

But the important fact, of course, is that you are discussing it. Thank you for letting me know. (See how I nearly got trapped in the game of "form over substance" there?) Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

• Like (I don't like what's happening, but like your summary of what's happening) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I was hoping we could take baby steps back to sanity. But refusal to discuss is rearing it's head. Presumably a deep seated fear of being proved wrong is coming into play. Where is Lord Denning when you need him? Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Probably losing his head at Tyburn. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Amusing update. I just came across a 2009 conversation where two of today's arbs were having a pipedream about s system that would deliver what it was they banned me for. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
  

• !!! Link? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You want life easy! I'll give you a clue, it's Kirill Lokshin and Roger Davies.

I stated looking at the arbcom election statements to see if any of them had promised to be be impartial or anything, but they are too boring to read. I was slapped in the face by this:

“ I'm in the process of answering all my questions, and setting aside about an hour per day to do so. I submitted my candidature early in the election, so I am not attempting to answer them all at once; as a result, there may be a small delay. If you have posted a question, I will respond soon, and thank you for your patience. ”

This from the arb that said:

“ For my own part, I cannot agree that it could reasonably take you a fortnight to respond to the past few days' edits to the proposed decision. Frankly, I am at something of a loss as to why you have been regularly participating at the proposed decision talk page, but only now have much more to say. Perhaps you might explain this to me. Perhaps my colleagues will look less dimly on your request, in which case we will be in touch. ”

Funny that they never replied to my question about how many hours a day I should set aside for the Arbcom case. Incidentally AGK never did reply to all his questions, although he said he did. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

The previous page mentioned is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 24#Infobox capitalisation. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Amendment requests declined

This is a courtesy notification that two amendment requests filed by you have been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also be aware that two arbitrators have now said you are abusing the process because you (1) made a request for fembot, (2) made a reconsider attempt because ArbCom's information was wrong, and (3) asked for a wording on an unrelated (to 1 and 2) finding that was favorable to you. This apparently counts as abuse of process. This is ArbCom. When they speak, they are right. When they are wrong, you're abusing the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • By their fruits shall ye know them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Well, not so much evil, me thinks. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving evidence to workshop (WP:RFAR/Fae)

Hey Rich,

I just wanted to let you know I have moved yours, as well as Isarra's in a moment or two, evidence submission to the workshop page. Given the lack of diff's or supplementary links to evidence, the workshop page is a more appropriate place for what you posted.

Many Thanks
Seddon ^talk 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to add diffs and then subsequently re-add then you are free to. As much trust as the arbs may have in you, I have to be fair in my judgement on this page and want one rule applying to all. Seddon ^talk 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• A workshop page. A page even some ArbCom members admit they never read. Where were the dutiful clerks when false evidence was applied against Rich? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of non-cromulent evidence was raised at the time. At that point it was all "we are pretty relaxed about this stuff". Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

I need to look in more detail. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Bot request

Commons I just spent several minutes doing this at Commons--it seems like something that would be perfect work for a bot. Are you interested in it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussions above on this talk page, Rich is no longer allowed to run bots. Are you asking him to write one and send it to you for you to run? Obviously you would have to debug and maintain it yourself. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Koavf wrote Commons several times. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it did not occur to me that the ban did not extend to Commons. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• By policy, ArbCom's jurisdiction does not extend to Commons. Though, they've ignored that jurisdiction policy before. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are a number of other projects such as Commons where Rich could do a lot of good work. Just because some of the folks in the English Wikipedia doesn't want his help there are plenty of others who would. Simple Wikipedia is another possibility. Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. However, ArbCom has and will consider the actions of an editor off of en.wikipedia. They can't stop Rich from doing it, but they could permanently ban him from this project if he does something off this project which they do not like. I would think this is a good moment for requesting clarification from ArbCom about their intentions vis-a-vis Rich's use of bots on other Foundation projects. However, two arbitrators have made threats against him, should he request another clarification. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite has happened in the past...a user has been sanctioned on enwiki, gone off to other projects, and their good work there has led to reduction/elimination of restrictions here. N419BH 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Which further goes to show the inconsistency of ArbCom. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well basically it seems the group culture (W.R.Bion, 1938, et seq) of the committee is such that once they have made a decison they are bound to it. Weakening is seen as "against the group". Even where they have admitted error they have not seen fit to change the ruling. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

This is just my simple minded opinion but I would postulate that Arbcom has no authority outside En-wiki other than to refer the issue to whatever Arbom would apply to that Wiki (like Commons). It could be argued that if that Wiki didn't have an Arbcom that their authority is inherited but I would argue that since the Arbcom members are voted in by the "community" the community of the applicable Wiki would have to at least vote to agree that an Arbcom decision would have cross jusrisdictional authority. With that said the Arbcom has made some pretty broad and vague decisions of late so they might well think that their decisions apply to Facebook or twitter feeds. I would also like to state clearly and in no uncertain terms that the members of Arbcom should not be threatening Rich for asking for clarifications of their decisions. If they would have written them clearly and understandably, which they did not, clarification would not be needed. As it is they are written in such a way that they are almost unintelligable. Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been decided and is pretty clear...what you and I know as "Arbcom" is really the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Their dispute resolution jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia only. They have no jurisdiction in this area over any other wiki, hence their remedies apply to English Wikipedia only. However, they can and do take known behavior, positive or negative, on other wikis (and other sites for that matter) into account when making decisions. For Rich, this means that he is free to operate a bot on any wiki he desires (obviously excluding English Wikipedia) provided of course he complies with that wiki's local bot policy. If he performs this task well, it can be presented as evidence to Arbcom as to why an automation restriction is no longer necessary. N419BH 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with above) Just to make it perfectly clear, Rich is welcome to run bots anywhere that will have him, just not currently on the English Wikipedia, which is the only place Arbcom's jurisdiction runs. This would mean any crosswiki bots would be out if they made edits here. Evidence that he can run bots elsewhere to spec, without drama, and with an effective system for managing errors would count in his favour if he were requesting automated editing back here at any time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence that I could do it here for 4 million edits, with drama from only two users, doesn't count then. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
    

We've noticed you've been editing Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's great that you're having a go at editing but we notice that you've made a few edits that have angered the crosspatches here at Wikipedia. As you've only been here eight years, perhaps if you'd like to try the Wikipedia paddling pool you can experiment all you want without actually making improvements. We feel this would be best for all concerned.

Congratulations on your million! I would give you a barn star if I knew what one was. In the meantime, please accept this satirical patronising message as a reward for your hard work :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW I was sent here because the stats from one of my pictures showed 1638 views, some of which were courtesy of your user page [122] DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes the cinemas, theatres and dance halls of England have an interesting history and some curators here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, since some have become night-clubs, folk have sometimes assumed that articles can only exist for promotional purposes. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

OIC. BTW Am I the only person who thinks that directing newbies (and oldbies!) to the "sand box" which is American for sand pit is a very patronising way to treat someone? I bet a few people don't bother to do anything else after being sent there. Couldn't they call it "test page" or something? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's a term from computing, but probably is less welcoming than intended. It also has less savoury connotations. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict)It's not even a 'Sandbox', it's a sandbox page. A sand box is, at least in my experience outside Wikipedia is a full test copy, although often outdated and already messed/tested on by others. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure. Many people here in the USA say things to me which have no meaning outside computing and innuendo...but to them they're quite normal things. eg people here talk of a "bulletin board", well they mean a noticeboard, but to us, the only bulletin board we know is an electronic one. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are 10 types of people who understand Wikipedia; those who do, and those who don't. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

After just renaming an user (I have requested for mine) will all my edit counts and contributions be moved in the new account? And, what will happen to my signature? After renaming I may be able to log in with my new username and old password..right?--Jagadhatri(২০১২) 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits will all be attributed to the new name. You can edit your sig in "My preferences" but the places you have already signed will have the old sig. You can request to have them changed at WP:BOTREQ though historically people have not been very receptive, there is some sign this attitude is changing. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

So I will not need to start from beginning as my edit and contributions will automatically me transferred. But what do you mean by "this attitude is changing"? --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a few years ago a user suffering form Real Life Stalking requested their sigs changing - no one took it up. I changed some when I was doing other edits, and some senior bot people bitched to each other on a talk page about it. A more recent request received a more favourable reception, though I can't remember if it was actually actioned. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

What is real life stalking? --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalking. I.E. not just following your edits whining about typos, complaining on noticeboards, interfering in processes you are involved with, making snide remarks and so forth, but extending that to often physical presence, phone calls, legal attacks, smear sites and so forth. Some of us just think that's part of life, but it's not a very nice part. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

This quote sums it up well: "Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom they have no relationship (or no longer have). Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)." Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping out by adding turtle synonyms! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've scarcely started. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Getting things done , -my ass

I'd like to, I really would, but considering that some of my inclusions add like 1GB for every 1k of article space, are you like looking at this the right way? I have serious doubts if I'd be the right person to do anything but set off avalanches.

Mmmmm the snow-covered mountain of stupidity Penyulap ☏ 19:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1G! that's a good multiplier! How did you figue it out. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

The multiplier being 8 million I suppose. If k=kb. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Same way you calculate interest in banking. I took into account compound stupidity. Penyulap ☏ 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

KC

Hi
I've arrived here via the 'talk' bit for 'Helpful Pixie Bot' on the 'Rowhedge' page. The reason I am here is its edit summary, i.e."ISBNs Build KC". I know what an 'ISBN' is, but what does 'KC' mean? The nearest I have come is "Knights Cross", but I don't think that is the answer. And what does 'Build' in this context mean? Do you know?

Thanks in advance.

RASAM (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the build number of the bot source code. It enables me to explain to people, in the event of a problem, at what version the problem was cured, so that we can work together in, on the one hand, avoiding duplicate reports of the same problem, and on the other, being aware if a problem has recurred. The majority of builds either address obscure issues or add new functionality. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Nicholas Savin

Hey, Rich, I'm wondering what happened in this edit and which tools, if any, you used to make that edit. Thanks. Courcelles 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here it comes... --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I used an Apricot keyboard, that replaced the Dell one where the characters were worn off the key-caps from editing Wikipedia and an irreplaceable Logitech TrackMan Marble Wheel trackball. Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

It's the hand that presses Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V in the moment the mouse moves the selected text that people don't understand. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

PS Also, with Firefox and a dozen tabs perhaps? I've done that in the past but then been accused of things, so I don't that anymore. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what-all Coucelles is thinking, but doubtless it will become clear in due course. Should and Arb wish he can see what browser I am using, and which URLs I am hitting, so the obvious implications don't stand up. OTOH Courcelles only discovered what a "Hello World!" program was relatively recently, so who knows what is crossing his mind. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Well, I think it's wise to be clear. Few editors looking at the diff may realise it's a simply cut/paste duplicating much of the article, perhaps thinking you wrote three new sections all in the time from your last edit. I know it sounds crazy but this is how misconceptions start and on Wikipedia due to the current climate, what should be a trival nothing instead grows into a huge unstopable snowball. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

AGK is claiming that I am using AWB. He has not told me which edits he refers to, so I have no defence obviously. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Basically there's four possilbities

1. He's making it up (unlikely)
2. There's a technical problem at the server end (very unlikely)
3. There's a technical problem with AWB (slim but not completely impossible)
4. I did something by mistake. (Meh.. pretty unlikely I think. Wait til I get the alleged diffs before I judge.)
5. Someone is faking edits - could that be related to the web bug I reported on VP(T) (again pretty unlikely)

I suppose I'll have to wait for more information. This sucks big time. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
(Note I knew there were 5 possibilities, I forgot to write down mistake.)

Ah.. I can I think relax. He is not claiming that I have edited with AWB - well he is, becasue he assumes I am faking the user agent - but he has no evidence for that, since it is untrue. He is just claiming that I have used AWB to make lists and the like, which I would have thought is perfectly OK. I will have to wait for confirmation of this. Of course the edits he is claiming are "masked AWB" will turn up clean because they were made by browser, and therefore will show up with a normal URL, whereas an AWB edit would show up with an api URl.

The gotchas are if:

1. ArbCom doesn't care and bans anyway (2%)
2. ArbCom can't understand the evidence and bans anyway (1%)
3. ArbCom decides that even "assisted looking" is evil and bans anyway (5%)
4. One of the above 4 has happened (8%)
5. I have heart attack before the motion is defeated. (15%)

Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Also an edit which fixed a typo was referred to as "only changing white-space" when I asked for details it was "apart for the typo, only fixing white-space". Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Hm, looks like I may have saved an two AWB edits, bugger. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

You have e-mail

I've sent you an e-mail. AGK [•] 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. My email client is frozen at the moment, but I expect I'll be able to read it soon. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

You could try re-booting, or I could post the e-mail here. Its nature is not particularly private; I simply wanted you to save face. AGK [•] 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to ban Rich Farmbrough. AGK [•] 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm.. not sure how that saves any face. Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

In fact mail a query then move for banning, seems pretty damn odd. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Abide With Me

Is a great song for funerals. Either that or The Day Thou Gavest. Stay Another Day might be more honest though. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Cricket

Rich - still trying to create separate page for ODI and T20I cricket. Don't know how this is done but won't give up yet as important reference. Hambantota hosted first T20I today and Compton made another ton (and 1,000 runs a day too late). Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaSR (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Category:Smile Records albums

Category:Smile Records 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☯ 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Twenty20 International cricket grounds

Did you create List of Twenty20 International cricket grounds deliberately or was it a mistake, as there are no content other than a restate of the article title? -- KTC (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It was created for User talk:PatriciaSR, who being a none auto-confirmed new could not create a new page herself. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncategorized articles

Just a reminder that the monthly maintenance categories for uncategorized articles are titled in the format Category:Uncategorized from June 2012, not Category:Category needed from June 2012 — so if you want to get ahead of the bots by creating it before they do, you'd probably be better off creating the version that's actually going to have articles placed in it by the uncat template. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just filling in the (apparent) gaps. It's a shame that that anomaly survived, but there were people (usually just one) opposing everything I did by the time it was on the schedule for tidying. Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Some tasks for Perl

Do you have any thoughts or comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Semi-automated_tasks? Snowman (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. Can you tell me a bit more about BRFA and where to find it? Snowman (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRFA Basically you fill in a form, and unless dramah ensues, you simply show consensus for your request, and get the go-ahead to trial it. After successful trials you get authorisation. What could possibly go wrong? Rich Farmbrough, 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Apologies

Turtles all the way down

It appears that I inadvertently made two spelling corrections using AWB. While the majority of the corrections identified with AWB were made using a standard browser, these two edits are, nonetheless, in breach of the Arbcom ruling, therefore it is inevitable that I shall be banned from the project.

I apologise to ArbCom for that, and more particularly to those who have supported me over the last two months, for blowing it through such a stupid error. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Very sweet swansong, going down for two spelling mistakes at the hands of those who elevate the letter of the law to a deity. +1

WP:DAR Deify all rules.Penyulap ☏ 01:46, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• If they do ban you for that, it will be proof of the absurdity of it all. Kinda like blocking someone who is vandalizing their own userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I just stated on the Arbcom page it was only a matter of time before they found a reason to block you, this just presented the opportunity for them to do what they have been trying, and unable to do, since the case opened. I am a little curious about how AWB even allowed you to edit since your not on the AWB checkwiki page and why the Arbs felt it necessary to check your edits with the checkwiki tool unless they had some reason to do so other than sheer curiousity. That seems like a blatant abuse of the tool to me unless they had some evidence to suspect you were socking or violating your ban before they did so and from you edit history I can't see anything that would clearly indicate that. Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is trivial to mod AWB, this was something that I tested before stating it at the ArbCase. Courcelles was querying a cut-and-paste error - asking me what tools I was using, so AGK decided to do a check. I both agree and disagree that this is abuse of the tool. Right now it is perfectly legitimate, but the way I see it a case should have to be made - that is not the current situation though. And of course I have nothing to hide, so I'm not concerned. AGK sent me the line from the log, so I have clarity about that at least, though there are several matters which still confuse me. I would share the line form the log here, but it says nothing I have not already covered, and could impact on the efficacy of checkuser in the future. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

(Per /Editnotice) Is my following/understanding correct? (a) that the trigger edits in question are [123][124] + [125][126] and that (b) in addition (you are concerned about) exposing the inner working of CheckUser? —Sladen (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Although archiving Elen's talk page for her was mentioned somewhere, I thought I was doing her a favour, and she hasn't said otherwise. As to AGK not getting round to answering all his candidacy questions, that has not been mentioned. I only brought it up in an attempt to show that we all have time constraints. The two content edits you mention have not been drawn to my attention, the ones that I assume are at fault (one I have been told about the other I am extrapolating) are the only ones marked "minor" in the last 15 days that are not moves or adding a link. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

So 2x 'Verterbrate'→'Vertebrate' in [127] & [128] (one definite, one inferred)? —Sladen (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

• I said before after this case closed, Rich would have to be perfect. All too prophetic. So his AWB somehow was able to make two edits, edits which should have been impossible. He made a mistake that he didn't think it was even possible to make because it should have been impossible. Kumioko, you raise an excellent point. Someone, most likely one of the arbs, went on a fishing expedition to see if Rich was doing something nefarious. This appears to be blatant abuse of the checkuser right. Wikipedia:CHECKUSER#Complaints_and_misuse. Rich, I think it's time you approached the Foundation about this. ArbCom is on a witch hunt. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did think it was possible, I just thought I was being careful enough not to do it. See above for why it was only half a fishing expedition. I have no objection to being check-usered in this scenario. In fact I virtually asked to be checkusered when Courcelles raised his issues. In other cases I have been, at least basically, at least in principle, right. But in this case I am not, and I hold myself to higher standards than that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

• Rich, if one or more arbcom members were using checkuser on fishing expeditions in an attempt to find evidence with which to hang you, that is a serious breach of trust on their part, and a serious breach of privacy. The issue of whether or not you were using automation has never been sorted out, and is an absolute pale shadow to the checkuser abuse that may have occurred. If they used checkuser prior to having any evidence with which to suspect you were using automation (however the heck they define it, and they never have), their breach of the community's trust is immense. I am impressed that you want to hold yourself to a higher standard. But, your case is about you. It's not about the entire community. If they abused checkuser, it is extremely serious and effects the entire community. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Rich, came here because of your post on my talkpage. Do I gather AGK has now directed you to whatever he picked up? I'm not going to say you're an idjit - I think you've figured this out already. Making these edits seems to have become compulsive. Basically, any editing that looked automated was going to be looked at some more - I've looked at your edits and you're still resolutely fannying with whitespace and capitalisations and doing it at some speed. I think that was bound to cause problems, without finding out that you're running some hacked form of AWB by the back door. Given the concerns about enforcement, and that you put your word on the line over this, I hope you escape a ban (because I don't think you do this stuff mendaciously), but .... I don't know what to suggest here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No he hasn't. He has identified one edit, and made lots of implications. I am a little more satisfied having had time to think things through. I will email you. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
    

Responded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaint to the Audit Subcommittee

Per the wording of the motion, it appears ArbCom may have been using checkuser to observe Rich's editing behaviors over "recent days", whereas the two edits they are concerned about apparently happened today. I believe one or more members of ArbCom has exceeded their remit in the use of the checkuser tool. I think it's time for the Audit Subcommittee to be contacted, specifically to ask when checkuser has been used in regards to Rich's account, and who performed the checkuser. Instructions are located at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Procedure. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I already enquired of the AUSC, whether I had been checkusered, as much to see how the system worked as anything. AGK replied on their behalf that I had never been checkusered. (Basically I trust AGK in this respect - but here is an example of why separation of functions would be good.) So I don't think there is an issue here. Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

I have seen the checkuser logs and the tool is far from perfect and not very easy to read or use. With that said I think all of us know that it was only a matter of time anyway. There are still a lot of aspects about the case that agitate and worry me but some are already being addressed in Arbcom motions. I hope you consider working in commons or other areas besides Enwiki where the Arbcom ban/decision does not have authority. Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I advised AGK that there are obvious improvements needed to the tool, which I won't mention here. I have some WMF projects lined up that have been put on hold due partly to en:WP work and partly to the drama. They might get attended to. And a lot of off-Wiki stuff too. Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

• Ah right, the watchers watch the watchers. I would submit a new request to someone who is not currently sitting on ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

breadcrumbs are such an important ingredient in some recipes. Penyulap ☏ 03:41, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how far removed from the origin the fix has travelled and so fast. A gazillion edits, and if one percent were erroneous, yeah, 10,000 problems right there. So wiping out the gazillion, to silence the complaints isn't enough, it's the edit that cannot be seen in public, the edit that is secret and can't be found, the one hidden in the forbidden place, THAT is the edit that in the end becomes the crux, better to crush out the last beat of the cyborg's heart to protect the eyes of the innocent, like on that edit.

I shall turn off the light, close the window, bar the door, retreat to my closet, cover myself in a blanket, turn around and then and only then shall I make a gesture with my hand in the general direction of this authority, that shall be the measure of my defiance today. Penyulap ☏ 08:59, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That is a piece of nonsense, you do realise that. Rich is rather in the situation of the person topic banned from - say the Israel/Palestine topic - who is found to be back making edits to Six-day War. At that point it doesn't matter that his edits were only minor tweaking. He's banned from editing that article. Rich had the whole of the encyclopaedia to edit in - why on earth was he continuing to fiddle with whitespace and capitalisation, things that were bound to draw attention to him, and why on earth did he use that hacked AWB installation. It surely hasn't become sentient and turned itself on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Because there was an error "Verterbrate" instead of "Vertebrate" in a bunch of turtle articles and AWB is the efficient way to find them. Rich Farmbrough, 11:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Using the search function of Wikipedia works quite well, I just tested it and rapidly corrected four instances of "verterbrate" without any automation at all, neither to find them nor to correct them. AWB doeesn't yield any other results in this case. Fram (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense is trying to explain the innocent prisoner's dilemma or anything else in a system where mob mentality is the epitome of government. Penyulap ☏ 11:39, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to search for "Verterbrate" now will get the same four hits. Given that I did not want to edit all the articles I had already fixed, that would have not been a good choice of tools. Using AWB properly will avoid that problem. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Elen, the cyborg is Rich, not the bot. the path that he took has changed him in a manner you can't appreciate because you have to experience it to understand, the reflexes, the computational power, the extension of one's consciousness into the code, don't you see wikipedia when you blink or sleep ? can you switch it out of your consciousness any more than you can stop yourself from picturing a pink elephant right now ? That sucker just pops right in there and you can't help it, it's the manner of the mind. Wrapped into the editing is not something you can just stop seeing when you blink, not when he sits at that same familiar computer. You figure he should just walk off to cure the problem of the last 0.001 %, leave the computer at someone else's house. That is the only way you know, I know, he knows, but the problem is not the wrong sentence, the problem is not the automated ban rather than a full block, the problem is everyone failing to accept that last 0.0001 %, to overlook and accept it and just move on to some more important task. Who is obsessed here, and who doesn't recognise their obsessive behaviour and the detriment it has to the project ? (I'm not having a go, I'm asking everyone to question themselves and ask is this the best we can do to exert self-control ? relax for the good of the project and relax for our own good)

In the long term, is applying the full efforts of those involved going to have any positive impact on the project, or is such a narrow focus and misapplication of resource going to put everyone at the mercy of the real trends. The problems hinted at in those graphs on this page's archives, wikipedia is changing, turning, and it's not going in a good direction. If we all do our part and uphold the letter of the law, if we all keep doing our best as we have done in the past, as surely as the sun rises wikipedia will set. When things are so clearly heading down the wrong path, as wikipedia is, then clearly continuing in the same direction is fundamentally the wrong direction.

Anyhow, just shake off this idea that anything is amiss and return to the job you were doing before, we all have to uphold the letter of the law, otherwise the future won't unfold as it is destined to do. Penyulap ☏ 12:21, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Except that someone banned from those areas for disruption has probably caused harm to Wikipedia. Other than that, the analogy holds. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

False analogy. Shoplifting is a crime, and murder is a crime. Other than the fact that a law has been broken, they don't equate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That and the punishment for breaking said crime is not the same. A notion which seems to be lost on Arbcom these days. One punishment fits all. Kumioko (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear one arbcom member tell how Wikipedia is going to be better without Rich. Something tells me we're in for a long wait....William 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

pour encourager les autres maybe... Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

William, I think it's the smell. You know like sharks and a drop of blood 50 miles away or whatever it is. The smell of automation you see, even if you can't see it, they can. I should work on smells, at the moment there is only the smell of doom that I could spread to mask the smell of automation, I need to make something else, something almost socially acceptable. Can't think of anything right now. Penyulap ☏ 20:34, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that one day disruption could be qualified like this "disruption is something that regular editors are able to detect" Penyulap ☏ 22:29, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Follow on

Greetings Rich Farmbrough, I noticed your comment where you expressed a possible interest in improving Wikipedia coverage of articles related to record production. It would be great having your collaborative input on how best to achieve this goal. Review links associated with WP:RECP and P:RECP, and know that you are considerably welcome to help forge the path forward. My76Strat (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a distinct pleasure to welcome you to this project. I agree wholeheartedly with your stated motivations and stand ready to collaborate unto this needed end. Be bold with your ideas, for I am keen. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Another e-mail

Hi Rich. You have another e-mail. I understand you don't often use your Wikipedia mail account, which is why I'm leaving another courtesy note, but if you don't require one in future I will of course comply. AGK [•] 23:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed the word "mail" there "I understand you don't often use your Wikipedia account" ... My WP mail account is my mail account. You will get me faster on my talk page than by email generally. Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Rich Farmbrough, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours, although I don't think it would make good vintage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar I made for you (with help from my bot)

		The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
		I wanted to acknowledge the sacrifice made and the changes that so much editing brings to the way you think and dream. When I play the computer games too much, then it shades everything else I do, so after a million edits I can only imaging what differences there must be from people who do just a little bit of editing. I wonder if it is like Neo in the Matrix, where vision merges into code and everything normal dissappears, maybe it doesn't go that far, but I prefer to think it can, life is more interesting that way. Penyulap ☏04:41, 22 Nov 2024 (UTC)_

1. That is rather amazing.
2. As far as I know I don't dream WP, I don't see it when I close my eyes. That latter has happened when I have done something intensively for 48 hours.
3. The integration is simply a matter of experience. Of course, my typing skills are beginning to fail, and my reactions slowing, but most things I have already seen and done many times.
4. Everything normal does disappear, just the same as reading a book, watching a film, or doing a hard problem. Someone I know called it "all interrupts disabled".
5. Thanks for the barnstar.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Thank you, you're welcome, oh, and don't forget Jaguar, I just posted to his page. Penyulap ☏ 23:34, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

The way forward ...

Hi Rich: I know AGK has been conversing with you via email. We're trying to fashion terms for something short of a long term site ban. While this is not (yet) a formal offer, we need to know if this type of thing would be acceptable to you, obviously, if not, then we're back where we started. This is the outline of what several members of the Committee were discussing:

A) 30 day block from Wikipedia for violating the restriction on automated editing

B) The ban on using automation will be maintained. (and we strongly suggest you rip out your monobook.js to prevent inadvertent violations of this restriction)

C) Just to make things clear: this ban explicitly includes preparing edits using anything similar to AWB and copying them into a normal browser. Anything more than what someone new to Wikipedia would get when they hit the edit button and type in the changes in the window that popped up (ie, COMPLETELY manual) will be considered automation. I'd suggest since most AWB-style scripts or the like do Capitalization/spelling/white space automatically, that you refrain from this kind of edit (so as to not give your edits the appearance of automatic editing.

D) The Committee will have checkusers regularly checking up on you via the use of the Checkuser tool to ensure that you are complying with these terms. if they find you have violated these terms they will report so to us publicly (without revealing details publicly that would violate the privacy policy)

E) If you violate this restriction again, you will likely be banned indefinitely with no right of appeal for one year after the commencement of the ban.

F) The restriction on automation will remain until lifted by the Committee.. since six months puts us RIGHT in the election period, and the transition that any election brings, let's say the first appeal on loosening the restriction on automation will be 15 January, 2013.

If the Committee can come to a consensus to extend you this kind of offer in lieu of a full site ban, would you accept this? SirFozzie (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I had already said as much. Please note I have blanked my monobook.js page some time since. Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Ok, good. I'll report to the Committee, and you should be hearing from us, one way or the other. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For the confirmation of others that Rich has done this, the blanking edit to monobook.js is [129]. —Sladen (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have re-voted to oppose the site-ban motions, in light of your agreement to move away from any type of contributions that are even reminiscent of automated editing. I would re-emphasise point C) of Fozzie's e-mail, which I interpret to mean "If it looks like automation, it will be treated as automation—and therefore as a breach". I also consider this to be the last lap, and if this working agreement is not successful I must emphasise that I will consider everything else to have failed and there to be no recourse but a site-ban. AGK [•] 15:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Now a lot of work won't get done so others will have a chance to help out, too. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

hacked script

Is this accurate? It was my understanding you were using AWB in read mode and pooched up 2x. Nobody Ent 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the two statements are the same. (Although I am still looking for other explanations than a layer 8 error, it is by far the most likely.) Some of the committee ascribe more or less malfeasance, and for those who ascribe more I really don't feel like putting a massive amount of energy into trying to change their minds, as it is unlikely to be successful, and they have already removed 99% of my ability to contribute, plus made the second most damning indictment possible. Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Help another wiki?

Hi Rich. I occasionally edit at another wiki. It was set up by a person who was tired of all the BS here. They're running a relatively recent version of MediaWiki. I've tried to help them with some template stuff over the last year, but haven't been very sucessful. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over there. I know you've given a lot of your life to this project and might be loyal to it, so if the answer is "no", that's fine. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Best regards. 64.40.57.10 (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the only wiki where I have a million edits!^{[Citation needed]} And sure I'd help with some templating as long as it's not something against my principles. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Thank you very kindly, Rich. You truly are a courteous and generous individual and I'm very thankful for your help. The problems I'm having are over at en.wikialpha.org where I'm registered as Web. Ive left the details at my talk page over there. I didn't link to the site because the guys there got dinged at AN/I for spamming their site here last summer Thank you so much. 64.40.57.10 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.57.10 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to do as I did and avoid getting this distributed each week. At first, I transcluded it. Now I just have a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost on my talk page and check it on Tuesday or Wednesday. If you are going to be banned or blocked for a while, it might be better not to keep subscribing because you might have trouble archiving or removing it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's a month I should only get 4 delivered, and generally talk page access is not disabled. Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Subatomic particle/link

Template:Subatomic particle/link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Subatomic particle/symbol

Template:Subatomic particle/symbol has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing award

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		I can't thank you enough for all the turtle content and improvements you've been making the last few days. If I was adding the synonyms myself it would of taken me months. Exceptionally great work Richard! Thank you! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be quicker but I have one hand and both feet immobilised. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Could you please go round all the pages which mix turtles and tortoises up and correct them? If you're not busy, that is :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I will also correct the pages that say penguins are fish and not biscuits, and that tadpoles turn into butterflies, when they are not insects, as they have eight legs. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, sorry to bother you. Is missing this synonym a human error or is there some logic to why this might not be added. It's on the original Fritz 2007 pdf, page 303, right at the bottom. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there are a bunch of things I need to go over and fix, of which that is one. In terms of pages most of the main job is done, but I think the end has more sp. per page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for what you have done, it's a HUGE improvement! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally Three-striped roofed turtle has synonyms listed for 1889 and 1879. I suspect 1879 is a transcription error in Fritz, maybe someone could check. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

The Kachuga dhongoka Fritz entry that is out of year sequence does look strange. I have not been able to track down Anderson, Zool. Res. Yunnan, 1878: 732. For now I will assume it's correct information but out of sequence. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Hi, I have put a section on Sun's page to explain how synonymies work a bit, please ask if you need more help. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles with invalid ISBNs

Hi Rich; please see Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs#Placement of this template? where I'm stuck for a reply to GoingBatty. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

Nomenclature and dashes

I see you have been making additions to the nomenclature of turtles on Wikipedia. A number of your additions have included dashes between the binomina and the authorities. While this is acceptable (although Wikipedia style is for an en-dash, not an em-dash), the dashes carry meaning, and they should not be added or removed. (It's a zoological tradition to indicate that the author after the dash was the first to make that combination of an existing name, whereas without the dash, the author erected the name. Getting it wrong is therefore quite a serious error.) For example, at Mesoclemmys nasuta, which I have just cleaned up, nine of the names shouldn't have a dash, and weren't given one in the source you were using. Please be careful about this in future, and it would be very helpful if you could fix some of the articles affected; there are quite a lot, I fear. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I had noticed the disparity, and foolishly put it down to two people creating the list. I shall certainly avoid this issue,and see what can be done about the ones I have already added. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

Make technical articles understandable. Discussion may continue on WikiProject Turtles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Scanning

Hi, I am wondering about scanning parts of the Wiki (without doing any editing while scanning) to make some data files. I have been using a Perl script with AWB. Do you have any experience of scanning the Wiki using a internet module with Perl without AWB? Snowman (talk)

Yes, some. You can use LWP quite effectively, but you have to set the User Agent String to anything (almost) other than LWP. Alternatively you can use MediaWiki::API, which is also available from CPAN, and I think Anomie has something available. Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

Use of talk page

fyi Nobody Ent 22:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

AWB

Rich do you know a good link or could you show me how to use AWB to search for and correct occurrences of some defined parameter across a large group of articles? My76Strat (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Something like

({{[_ \n]*(?:<canonical name>|<redirect 1>|...)[_ \n]*(?:\|(?:[^{]*|{{[^{]*}}))*)(?:\|[_ \n]*<parameter name>[_ \n]*=[_ \n]*))

will match upto the value where

<canonical name> := <first letter case insensitive><rest of name with space substitution>

so "Infobox cat tray" => 2[Ii]nfobox[ _]+cat[ _]+tray"

and the same applies to redirects.

This is not a perfect regex, matching only one level of sub-templates, but it will do for most things,and can be modified. It's also off the top of my head so may contain errors, but the principle is sound. Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

Recommend googling "online regex tester" for the language of your choice -- assume AWB would use C# syntax? (talk page stalker) Nobody Ent 14:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there seems to be a .NET Microsoft slightly screwed version, but not so as you'd usually notice. There's a regex tester built into AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

I do appreciate the feedback, yet realize it appears to exceed my technical ability by far. I don't suppose I'll be doing much automated editing any time soon. My76Strat (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW I was going to search for <br> and replace it with <br /> a rather full proof improvement I would think. My76Strat (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you new to AWB? On the options tab is a "Find and replace" section, enable it, click "Normal setting" set find <br> and replace with <br />, enable regex. Should be good to go. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks SunCreator, I think I can do that. I've had AWB a while, just couldn't really figure out how to use it. Will it be clear how to set up the edit summary I want left behind? My76Strat (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary will say "replaced: <br> → <br /> (n) using AWB" when the (n) will be the number of replacements. You may like to add a reason to edit summary found on the start tab, whatever you put goes at the front of the edit summary. Maybe something like "HTML cleanup", so an edit summary would then read "HTML cleanup, replaced: <br> → <br /> (n) using AWB". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend if replacing <br> → <br /> that you only do so when you are making a more significant change. Although I agree we should do this (although I prefer it without the space of <br/> some other editors feel this change isn't worth doing alone because it will work either way. If your looking for parameter help could you give another example of what you are trying to do? Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever is agreed wants to be build into the general fixes. Manually checking to see if it is the only change and then skipping seems rather tiresome. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kumioko, I just used the wrong word apparently. It was the find and replace option I would have asked about had I known what I was talking about in the first place. My76Strat (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The space is good XHTML I think which is one of the things we try to be compliant with.

For the parameter replacement you can adopt something much simpler, but it risks false positives and even rare negatives

Suppose we want to change "surname = Smith" to "surname = Psmtith"

s/(\bsurname *= *)Smith *(\n|\|)/$1Psmith$2/

The false positives will mainly occur where there is another template with "surname" as parameter, or something like "previous surname = " and the negatives with stuff like

surname
= Smith

The benefit of AWB is that you can watch for this kind of stuff.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

Your barnstar

Δ This user has endured a wide breadth of the institutional ignorance that darkens this organization, yet loves it still. Δ

I lament that you've earned this "Black barnstar of institutional shame" aside from seeing your strength of character, the only good thing about this award is that so very few are entitled to display it. Highlight the award as if to copy and the massage becomes clear. My76Strat (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

It comes with a massage? Cool. Nobody Ent 18:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I had missed your warm hand over my contributions. Thanks. Mesfushor (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice barnstar Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

		The Purple Barnstar
		for equanimity under the harrassment now enforced by arbcom. i will now be moving more DNB content over in your name. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

The following was resolved by motion:

It is not in dispute that, despite being indefinitely prohibited from doing so, Rich Farmbrough made automated edits in breach of the sanction on 31 May 2012.

1. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for thirty days from the date of enactment of this motion.
2. To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is directed:
   1. to blank userspace js pages associated with his account/s;
   2. to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;
   3. to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);
   4. to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.
3. Further, Rich Farmbrough is advised that:
   1. The prohibition on using automation will remain in place and in full force until modified or removed by the Committee;
   2. The earliest date on which Rich Farmbrough may request that the Committee reconsider the automation prohibition is 15 January 2013;
   3. The Checkuser tool will be used to verify Rich Farmbrough's future compliance with the prohibition;
   4. If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider.

By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have enacted the 30 day block. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well someone had to. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

See you in a month Rich....I hope. Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC

This is an absolute disgrace. Anyone out there good at making userboxes or something so we support Rich can put it on our user pages....William 23:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich. I just stopped by to say hello and see how you're doing. Wishing you the best. 64.40.57.127 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes from myself, Rich. Hope to see you back in thirty days - don't feel disheartened. Get involved in some chapter stuff, perhaps? The Cavalry (Message me) 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least you now are clearer that semi-automation was included in the "any" automation prohibition. In your defense, I would have argued that any of the 1,000+ admins could have blocked you but chose not to. On the other hand, Arbcom reaching down and grabbing your case AND acting acting where no individual admin chose to act shows the seriousness of the sitiation. Personally, I think you could be hooked on the automation juice and these 30 days might help you get back to your editing roots. 'member this edit? Your first on Wikipedia and you didn't need automation to make it. Perhaps use this time to look over your 2004 edits and remember what it was like for you to contribute to Wikipedia back then. Take care. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would any admin have blocked him? I wouldn't ever block someone for fixing spelling mistakes. I gotta say I admire Rich's ability to stay cool when people keep writing stuff like "I think you could be hooked on the automation juice and these 30 days might help you". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone would have done it eventually and I have no hard feelings against Alex for doing it but personally I would have let Arbcom do it themselves. Of course my critcism of Arbcom is common knowledge these days so that will likely come as no surprise. Kumioko (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, in blocking, I did so in my role as one of the Arbitration Committee clerks. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

II had forgotten you were a clerk sorry. Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It did strike me that it would be amusing if no-one did implement the block. But having timescales is important, else the block could be implemented at any time. As to the manual edits, most of what I do, well by definition, all of what I do is manual. Automation is like a lever, it magnifies the effect. The fact that some people work the system to their ends, and to the detriment of the common good is nothing new - in fact you will see it going on everywhere. The mills of truth grind slow, however they grind exceeding small. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks after being warned by User:Mishae. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, unfortunately I am currently blocked or I would be able to do more to attempt to calm this situation. Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

@My76Strat Mishae refusing to promise is very wise. It is better to ask him to do his best to avoid the behaviour, rather than expecting him to give an undertaking, which most people would blithely do, then break. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

I'm glad that Dennis Brown's cool head prevailed. Mishae is editing productively and things should be fine if he seeks mentorship from Koavf. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen Dennis around a fair bit, recently. Sound fellow, by the looks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four

Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!

• Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!

• What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
• ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
• Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement

• 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
• Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
• New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.

• Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
• New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:

• Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
• Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
• Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
• Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

• Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

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. Sarah (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

!vote

What did you mean to convey with your comment in response to my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma? causa sui (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(stalker) To me, his comment meant that you, causa sui, intended to say 'keep, there is no more to be said' but that's my impression alone. I am only mentioning it as I figure you may be curious about what was conveyed as well. Penyulap ☏ 02:32, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deleted template

Template:Deleted template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 scholarship

Hi Richard, As per the emails I have sent you, would you be able to contact me urgently re: your scholarship? I would be very keen to assist you so that you can attend, but if you don't reply by the end of today I am afraid we will have to let your scholarship go. You can also call me till 5pm today, the number should be included in my emails. Thanks. Daria Cybulska (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

writing backwards

It does make it hard to read, it's not backwards, but it is so very strange for it to be out of place, like, even when the lyrics of one song are sung to the melody of another song it's more pleasing. But I expect that will pass in time. One moral, which is my favourite, would be that careless curiosity is destroying all the best ideas, because there is no top shelf to put things on. That's my favourite moral, and the bane of my existence.

My own moral is that maths is not all it's cracked up to be, because so many good things don't fit inside mathematics. What's needed is a place to put all those good things, and there are a LOT of good things, so the best place to put things is inside big fat heads, take mine for example, it's basically empty, and lots of real estate, of course we need extra big fat heads, because good things keep getting produced, you know, like stupid ideas, good ideas are endless. Right now, good things and people go to the same place. Penyulap ☏ 09:43, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Astrobots

Can we talk about the astrobot situation? I don't know where to go from here. Chrisrus (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the settings to WP:AWB/scripts, it includes the article list, so anyone with AWB access should be able to run it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Yep, that's the one... Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks! So, should I put in another botreq? How should it be worded? What's the best thing to do with the orbitboxes for those that have orbitboxes? How many on the list even have orbitboxes, anyway? How can I identify someone with "WP:AWB access"? Chrisrus (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Al admins, me and everyone on the list at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage can technically use AWB. Anyone else can request access. Rich Farmbrough, 19:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Ok! So where should I put in the request, what should it say, and what in your opinion is the best way to save the orbitbox data, if, in your opinion, should it be saved? Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ask at WP:AWB/tasks and/or bot requests. I wouldn't worry about the orbitbox data, it's all available from JPL etc., and if it is wanted it would be better to re-generate it en-bloc.

If you would, please follow Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Helpful_Pixie_Bot and comment as you would. Chrisrus (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would, please follow Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_needed_to_count_infoboxes_on_a_very_long_list. I'm confused. Are you allowed to comment there? Please advise, I'm trying to figure out what to do next. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bots

Hi Rich. Have you considered that your bots may have developed a superior form of artificial intelligence and caused your demise on purpose? It won't have been the first time. benzband (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for that stupid comment. I just noticed your "quote of the day" displayed at the top of this page. So i thought, maybe you would be interested in Wikipedia's Motto of the day project, which provides a new quote every day? benzband (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Vendor-created ISBNs

Do you have any suggestions for the treatment of what appear to be ad hoc ISBNs created by booksellers (Amazon, perhaps?) for publications issued without an ISBN, as in this case? These numbers are useful for users who wish to find the book, but should a bot (yours or someone else's--I know yours are blocked for the forseeable future) that vets for hyphenation rules ever run again, these purpose-made ISBNs will get re-tagged. Is the template {{Listed Invalid ISBN}} appropriate for these cases, even though there is no problem with the math? Any other ideas? Thanks--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is unlikely to be created by the bookseller. Amazon use an ASIN for un-numbered publications. The number should probably have one less "9" and start 978-0- or 978-1- . I have emailed the ADL for more information. Note that there is a system for numbering books after publication, which may be what happened in this case, or it may be a second impression got an ISBN, even if the first was un-numbered. As for the error tag being removed, next time around the block I will have to simply create a list and fix them all myself. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC).

So in the meantime I should go ahead and remove the check-isbn tag if the number is useful for finding the book? I'd be happy to keep track of these as I run across them, if that would be worthwhile. Best,--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you can make the tag invisible, by changing isbn = 012345679 to id = ISBN 0123456789. We should still keep track of invalid ISBNs. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC).

Will do.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs) 14:44 28 June 2012

Category:User htz

Category:User htz, 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. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

G7 it. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC).

lets hope

you get unblocked soon and do better edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows.dll (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The account unblocks on 6 July, and the damage done by the Arbitration Committee means that my contributions will be far less. Quite how the restrictions and blocks create benefit for anyone apart from a few malcontents has never been proposed, much less demonstrated. Rich Farmbrough, 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC).

straight punishment, all things considered. Penyulap ☏ 16:40, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Three or four more articles today went uncorrected - this is just through my general use of WP. How this punishes me is a mystery, it actually saves me time. Other readers of those articles, however are punished. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC).

bot tutorial

Hi Rich,

Would you be willing to tutor me in creating a bot to run this task? I've requested it several times, but I think you're the only one who'd ever be likely to take it on, so I'd probably better do it myself. I've never created a bot before, and my background is just basic generic programming.

— kwami (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the task, but I don't see why not. Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Searching a website

Hi. Re: IUCN. They have a search facility and I think the results are handed out by a php or something similar. It is not essential, but I think it would be handy to search the webstie with a script, but I have not been able to find a suitable expression for "get" in Perl LWP. The code in the redlist html indicates a "post" method is used. Otherwise, I can use urls directly to the species pages and the "get" works. Just for scanning purposes of the wiki mark-up code, I have just found out that "get" does not work with the url "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White-crowned_Parrot&action=edit", probably for similar reasons. Do you have any comments? Snowman (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi Rich, thanks for helping at the Teahouse. One more thing you can do - because many of the vistors are new editors we try to put talkback notices on their talk pages when their question is answered (detailed here). I found a script that does this semi-automatically if you're interested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a complete idiot. I forgot about your restriction. Truly sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am interested, though I am forbidden from using such dark magiks. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Incidentally I made a quicker verison {{Teahouse talkback}} some time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

It's here: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseTalkbackLink.js. It adds a TB link to every signature. Click the one besides the questioner, add the section title, and it will place a TB notice on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Currently laptopping from Heathrow, on my way to Wikimania, so can't do much sophisticated stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

• You understand of course that you are forbidden from using an eTicket, automated pre-boarding, inflight semi-automated service requests, and must claim your baggage by physically walking to the plane and rummaging around in the boot for your bag rather than depend on any automated or semi-automated baggage system, yes? Also be aware that you must eschew any pre-printed name tag while at Wikimania. Please take one of the blanks provided and physically write your name on the tag. If you choose to ignore this warning, you will be flogged, and forced to walk the gang plank at flight level 10,000 on your return journey. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nononono. It's clear that flying is an assisted way of travelling so Rich will have to get to Washington using his own two feet (we'll allow the use of a rowboat). Given that there's approximately 5,900 kms between London and Washington, doing 30 kms/day will get him to Wikimania on January 22, 2013. Hope he's packed his longjohns! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. You know, Google Maps says he can use a kayak to go from Tokyo to Seattle [130]. But, no such boating option is available for crossing the Atlantic [131]. I'm afraid he'll have to walk on water. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I got to Washington by a number of forms of transport:

1. foot (Walking and running)
2. travelator
3. escalator
4. lift
5. tram
6. bus
7. underground
8. railway
9. car
10. plane

Despite realising the opportunity I restrained myself from travelling on the luggage carousel. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Javascript in categories

Template:Javascript in categories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

• Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

• News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

• Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

• Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

• Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich

That's me ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 06:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Help me install AWB on my laptop, and then help me do some talk page template updates. I can show you what I do by hand, and you a can show me how to automate it. Perhaps I may want to put in requests instead of doing some complex things myself.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

Enjoy your stay It was a pleasure to meet my fellow millionaire—I hope you had an excellent stay and please let me know if you think we can collaborate in the future. Cheers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a new message on your Meta-Wiki talk page

Hello Rich, you have got a new message here. — T. 05:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Please accept this virtual cookie as a thank-you for the irl cookie you were kind enough to dig up for me when I mentioned my Wikimania lunch hadn't come with one. A truly gallant gesture! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Rich

It's Daniel Nasaw with the BBC - we met Thursday at Wikimania. Thanks for your time and your help - the piece should be up on the website tomorrow Sunday 15 July. Meanwhile, I'm hoping I might talk to you briefly on another Wiki related topic. I don't know where on the planet you'll be but if you're happy to talk early in the upcoming week, would you please give me a shout at daniel dot nasaw at bbc.co.uk and we can set something up? Thanks so much. Dnasaw (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I just read the BBC story (Wikipedia: Meet the men and women who write the articles). Congratulations! - Pointillist (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am relieved to hear that Richard is not a piece of cow luggage either ! this is NOT Richard. :) Penyulap

WooHoo! I'm glad to know my friend Richard is a good looking guy, it's a bit of a worry online, you never know what your friends look like. I've only ever been seen by one wikipedia editor (mental note: organise a hit).

Penyulap ☏ 09:01, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on making the news - and it wasn't for riding the baggage carousel (you can only do that if you look like cow luggage, or even cow luggage). BTW - you look like my hubby, only hubby is rather greyer. I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wowow! It was awesome meeting you at the conference! I stopped by to congratulate you on getting your face on the main page of BBC's US News website! Thanks for fixing all the articles on mixed martial arts. You really are a Wikipedia ninja. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania!

It was great to meet you IRL this past week! And congrats on being featured in that BBC article - as I believe the youth are putting it these days, you're a rock star :) Accedie^{talk to me} 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

• Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

• News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

• Featured content: Taking flight

• Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

• Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hey Rich - Just wanted to drop you a note to say it was a pleasure to meet you at Wikimania, and put a face to a name I've seen all over the project. Hope you are well and enjoyed yourself in D.C. --David Shankbone 05:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portal frameless

Template:Portal frameless has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July

Note that I am travelling without a permanent Internet connexion until the beginning of August. Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Which is hardly going to help me get the quick tip I asked you about in an email just then. oh well, I hope you're having fun. Yer lucky butt. Penyulap ☏ 08:51, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Ramadan

I have been doing some good things with the Ramadan article. At least, that is my opinion. There seems to be one editor who disagrees, see the talkpage. In any case, do you think I'll get to pick my virgins myself? Debresser (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

By pick do you mean "choose" or "pluck"? It is somewhat in dispute, I understand, as to the correct translation of that phrase anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

I pluck my chickens and choose my chicks, thank you very much. 07:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Illegal activities"

Accusing the Arbitration Committee of "illegal activities" in my book, is definitely not OK. Please explain why you posted that and why it is not an actionable violation of our conduct policies. NW (Talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Egregious copyright violations for a start. In the deeper past there are other events. The critical point, which has been missed I think, is that quite apart from systemic errors and groupthink, it is extremely naive to assume that all functionaries now and in the future will be deserving of the trust placed in them by the community. We have empirical evidence to the contrary. For this reason, if no other, we should design our processes and procedures in such a way as to maximize good governance, by providing a reasonable set of checks and balances. While being an admin is no big deal, being a functionary (specifically Arbitrator, Checkuser or OTRS) is a big deal. Clearly making herculean efforts to ensure the quality of the post holders is of limited values, we may cite national, corporate and religious leaders. It is a shame that comments I have made to this effect appear to have been interpreted by some as attacking current postholders either individually or collectively, whereas, whilst I have expressed serious concerns about specific actions of postholders, primarily as a group, these are not of the type or nature relating to basic trustworthiness. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps a large part of this is the reader's (my) fault, but when I read your comment, I took the third sentence to be a simple continuation of the second sentence, making it seem like you were accusing all fifteen Arbitrators of being criminals. I would deeply appreciate it if you could go back and clarify your statement, if only to make it clear to others like me who might misread your point. NW (Talk) 22:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Or invent something amusing about the 15 that we can all enjoy. Penyulap ☏ 22:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

If it were necessary to invent things for there to be a problem, there wouldn't be a problem. I am surprised at the emails I have received from those who read that comment. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

I did read it as accusing us all of some criminal activity (then I thought - but how does he know I ran that red light?) - would I be right in guessing you were intending a reference to Rlevse and his copyright problems? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on which country you live in as to which ridiculous laws you'd be breaking at all times, like possessing a lobster is actually a felony in the United States. Penyulap ☏ 23:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know it was a felony but I did know that possessing any living creature is considered rude and somewhat creepy. Movies have been made about it...usually children and attractive young women...but not a lobster that I am aware of. Might make a good spongebob episode though! Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Only if it is loaded, I think. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

It's a felony all right, it was in a lecture video I saw, I'm away from home to see doctors right now, but when I return later I'll find it for you, it's a good video. Penyulap ☏ 02:17, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't resist, I was referring to a different kind of possession that usually involves a catholic priest, a crucifix and rotating head. Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

as opposed to the freezedried lobster crushed and portioned into small plastic bags and sold by the gram. Penyulap ☏ 02:31, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Pen, you know I often type a smart comment, then hit the back button rather than the save button. I find that little voice that asks "is this really witty/helpful/erudite, or am I just going to come across like Mister Nigel-murray" is very helpful sometimes.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Elen, sometimes I think that we should all remember that we are just a bunch of people with not a lot else to do except get on our computers and work together at trying to make the world a better place, I think sometimes we get so tied up in the details of the processes that we use that we lose sight of the big picture, so sometimes I do try to say "hey come on now, we're just people, let's lighten up a bit and not be too serious as stress can be pretty bad for our health" I'm not saying there isn't a blance and a time to be serious there is,. but all work and no play makes us all Grumpy. And look at poor Andy ! I do everything I can to cheer him up, and he never gives me a secret smile or a gruff 'go away' and I think it's better that way actually. I picture him sitting at his computer frowning at the ambulance I gave him. I think he has a frown for every occasion, and every activity he does around the house. I think when he was little, and skipping down the street, he'd do it with a frown. He'd be like "La la la la lah" skipping and frowning at the same time. It works for Andy, it's the thing I like best about Andy the Grump. Oh, and I've tried to start humour eradication drives before to make this place more serious, oh how I have tried, but I got little support in my endeavours. Jokes and humour are a menace to society and need to be stamped out I agree, but who's with me ? I think too many people like a little bit of stress relief now and then, and gosh darn it, I think occasionally, not very often, I can raise a smile, and I don't think that's all bad for our health and wellbeing and the community as a whole.

That said, I do put my foot in my own mouth sometimes, I just got uninvited from someones talkpage for something I wish I hadn't said, and can't exactly go back and apologise where I'm not welcome to comment. So yes, I am human and have regrets too often for my liking. Penyulap ☏ 02:13, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Should have explained myself better. The lobster comment was funny - especially Kumioko's addition. But your previous comment.....why would Rich want to make up stories about how I was involved in criminal activity? In Bones, Vincent Nigel-murray was so nervous around people that he talked all the time, and a proportion of everything he said was inappropriate or offensive even though he never intended it that way. A fun character in a tv series, but not a great role model. When I don't manage to stop myself, I have a habit of making "humorous" quips that are actually inappropriate. Rich can confirm this, because I've done it to him before now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I did make up a humorous SF story, indirectly featuring the committee, to try and demonstrate the dangerous waters we find ourselves in, in a less threatening manner than spelling it out to those currently nurturing the cute baby alligators. Unfortunately my dystopian tale was largely ignored, as far as I can tell, so it's not a path I am likely to tread again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

I must have missed that. Did it feature me as an ass-kicking hot babe. No such luck I expect - I was probably the grumpy old bat in the cardi who kept rambling on about the good old days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2012May#An_outing. The last page of archives before ArbCom broke that, appropriately. And no, you are not a grumpy old bat in a cardi, this is fiction remember? Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

I loved that story, however, not being familiar with Arbcom, I missed some of it's tales. Penyulap ☏ 16:06, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I would add a clarifying word or two, however the page is now protected. Once again discussion is being stifled. I note some absurd points on the talk page, doubtless there were also absurd points in the case, since I was prevented from commenting on it, I have not followed it in detail, nonetheless from what I have seen the standard of the case seems to be barely above the sophomoric, and it can be accounted no more than an accident if some of the proposed remedies appear to coincide with the decisions a more mature and deliberative body might have made. Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Page unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Federal offence in the United States, possession of a lobster.

here it is. Sorry it is a not a felony it is a "Federal CRIMINAL statute" to possess a lobster. Clearly I do not spend enough time studying US Federal criminal statutes to remember clearly the difference. The video is very good for people who live in the USA it includes a lot of real expert advice, and from what I do understand about the USA it's a place where, like en wikipedia (which is based too much on that same culture), mistakes are permanent (deadly or indef). Innocent people are put to death in Texas, USA as explained here in the same way as people are indeffed here on wikipedia. Basically it's not relevant if the editor or the person is 'factually innocent' as was the case with my last block, the fact that I was innocent was considered irrelevant by the reviewing admin. Strange case in the video, it mentions a (mentally ill) man who was tricked into confessing to 'assist the police to catch the real killer', and he was convicted instantly by a jury and spent 20 years in prison until DNA evidence proved him innocent. The judge stated he would have indeff penaltied (executed) him if Michigan had the indeff penalty bit at that time. I'm not saying that I was blocked because I was acting strange, I'm saying innocence has nothing at all to do with some block reviews on wikipedia, and in the case of my last block appeal it is fundamentally and patently true that innocence as I was, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the (I have to stop myself here from calling him an idiot) the admin's decision. Anyhow, there is of course the lesson to come out of it all, or the victory, which is my talkpage is babysitting a prototype template which allows the community to both back up our admins, or point out to them the problem to them. At the moment it's rough, it needs the third section 'unclear' as well) Penyulap ☏ 16:03, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

When people are executed, they lose their life. When editors are indeff'ed, they have another opportunity to get a life. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess when you get put to death in the USA, you don't have to live there anymore. Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that you wield your power thoughtlessly if that is what you believe. On a mundane level the blocks imposed by Elen and Arbcom made me ineligible for a number of Wikipedia related jobs for which I would otherwise have been well suited. On a more severe level ostracism and isolation are correlated with suicide and violence. (Volkart 1983) Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Some people were telling me at ANI that I can't mentor a newbie because of my last two blocks, what a crock of s*** right there. But hey, it's as good an excuse as any pointless excuse. Many countries have strange laws that say speeding ticket this no running for office that or whatever, interesting is Julian Assange is going to run for a seat in the Senate of Australia (government) and apparently he may well be able to do it from a jail cell anywhere along the way from England ? through Switzerland to death row in America, all while picking up the Nobel prizes and what have you along the way. I think it's brilliant. Penyulap ☏ 17:29, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, by Wikipedia related jobs I mean real jobs paying real money, not on-wiki roles, badges or hats. But arguably that too, apparently I was eligible to re-stand as an admin immediately, but do ArbCom seriously think anyone could weather the kind of event that would be? Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Again someone said they'd like to see me be an admin on my talkpage, so yeah, I have ideas on how to weather such an event :) but in my case I don't actually care to. Penyulap ☏ 17:45, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Wishing you well

I hope you culminate your travels safely and profit greatly for the endeavor. Assuming Godspeed, it would be great if when you are more available if you could directly assist a few tasks ongoing at WP:RECP. I know you have skills that would greatly enhance some immediate efforts. Sincerely 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Nu gaze for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nu gaze 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/AfD discussion title 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

• Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

• Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

• Featured content: When is an island not an island?

• Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Astrobots

Good news! Astrobotster User:Merovingian seems to have become active again recently. Please if you would watch User_talk:Merovingian#List_of_MInor_Planets and comment as you would. You seem to understand him better than I. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ramona Quimby merger proposal

Hello. There's a merger proposal relating to an article or articles you've contributed to, relating to the Ramona Quimby books. You are invited to read about and discuss it here: Talk:Ramona (novel series)#Merger Proposal. Thank you. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Helping the Welsh Language Wiki

Hi Rich, I've left a message here for your attention. It basically asks which bot should I approve for the new coordinates on Welsh language Wiki. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Before I can authorise your Bot, don't you have to pop in to Wiki-cy? Otherwise I can't see you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please log in to Wikipedia-cy and make a bot request here. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got permission, so when you have the time, let's do it! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been busy! Anything I can do to help? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Whawww! You've done some great work on the Welsh Wikipedia: great coo-ordinates and geotagging stuff on Welsh Mountain Peaks - brilliant!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all the technical problems you solved on the Welsh Wikipedia - ARDDERCHOG! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Is it too much to ask whether you could help us a second time? I've uploaded / written around 2,000 articles - by hand! - based on Scottish peaks. Could we do the same with those, and get a map to show their location in Scotland? What you did on the Welsh one was fantastic, and it would greatly improve the Scottish articles, just as much. Diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed this one Rich? Or is it too much of a climb this time?! 2,000 Welsh articles on Scottish Peaks above 610 m; and no map in sight! Take a look here please. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This one too much of a mountain to climb, Richard? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Wikimania Hi Rich Farmbrough! It was a pleasure meeting you at Wikimania 2012! Hope to see you again next year! —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion problem

Hi Rich, would you know where a vandal could have gotten in the templates such that it links back to his user page? These links shouldn't be and it would be good to remove them per DENY. I can't find the link. It pertains to this thread and there is this archived SPI case. He has been using open proxies and likes to taunt. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are currently no transclusions - lots of links but they seem to be legitimate, as far as I have looked. Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Check again. Something really weird happening imo. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the evidence for the first assertion. Is there an example of a linked to page that seems odd you could provide? Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Looks like it's fixed now. Yesterday a huge number or articles and Wikipedia core pages linked to that user page. No longer, maybe I missed some initial vandalism and when I looked at the pages that link here some sort of propagation was going on? Either way it's now okay. So no problem. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK cool. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Linking pages

Apart from pages in his sockpuppet categories I see the following linked to. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Earth Exploding Live User talk:115.118.195.23 User talk:171.98.154.2 User talk:95.143.115.77 User talk:Casliber User:Hopiakuta/ You do keep accusing me of malware User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox User:Moste Helpful Assistante User:Pigman/Admin toolbox Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762 Wikipedia:Help desk Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live/Archive (I would turn these into links buut that would require automation.) Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Not sure if it was intended, but I found the above extremely funny. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Riicchhhhh

...you should add yourself to the host page damnit! WP:Teahouse/Hosts :) You know you want tooooooooooo ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Did YOU know

I liked the quote of the day, and it's nearly the same thing as a Sam Cooke song, "A Change Is Gonna Come"-- the second stanza is "It's been too hard living but I'm afraid to die 'Cause I don't know what's up there beyond the sky It's been a long, a long time coming, but I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will". It is truly a great song covered by a lot of the early sixties soul singers and many others since then, and worth hearing and seeing the track here: [132] (Copied from MetroLyrics.com) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There was another song from that era - "Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die." Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Talk:Institute of Mathematics and its Applications#Merging in The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications

You may be interested in Talk:Institute of Mathematics and its Applications#Merging in The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, which relates to merging a stub you started a while ago. Yaris678 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, commented there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Re: Arybhata Pi

Hello,
You have one new message here: User_talk:Titodutta#Aryabhata.27s_Calculation_of_Pi --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Regex

Is it okay to ask you about Regex? I'm trying to learn and read about it but some things I've tried don't work as intended so I'm a little stuck. It's okay if your not interested I can't try the help desk. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Starting with the AWB typo rule of <Typo word="Manufacture" find="\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" replace="$1anufactur$2" />

The above rule works but I encountered some spelling "manuafracture" and "Manuafacture" that this rule is doesn't detect. So I tried extending the comparison by adding "|[ua]fa" thus ending up with \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" but this didn't work.

Now I figure the problem is that it's only comparing to one character 'u', so how to I extend the rule to match the two letter 'ua'? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To allow for two crudely

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[ua][ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

One or two you can use

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[ua]{1,2}fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

But this replicates the next [au]fa

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]{1,2}fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

We can include missing vowel "Manfacture"

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]{0,2}fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

And multiples giving a simpler (looking) rule

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]*fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

Note though that we are still not matching everything we probably want because of the [ct].

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]|[au]*)fa[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

This fixes that problem. But the (?:[ai]|[au]*) is notw a little redundant

\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]|[au]*)fa[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

This deals with that problem without, probably matching stuff we don't want.

\b([Mm])an[aiu]*fa[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"

Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

None of those work on Manuafracture. Maybe it's the regex tester in AWB? Anyway, have to sleep. Will check through this another time. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

\b([Mm])an[aiu]*fr?a[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

• The early rules above say [ai] but it should say [aiu], then they work on the start 'manauf'.
• I can NOT use the * as AWB/T says "Don't use the quantifiers * and + with anything but a single character. Avoid them entirely, if possible, as they put extra strain on CPU and are apt to do other than what you expect."
• I'm not sure what the {1,3} (1-of-3) applies to. Does that mean 1-of-3 of the 'fact' or just the 'ct'? I'm confused by that at the moment.
• Here is my first revised version \b([Mm])an(?:[aiu]{0,2}fr?ac?|[ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b
• Next I'm going to add (Re) at the beginning and check (in a dictionary) for different possible endings. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Added the start (Re) and (Un) and ending able/ability, plus "man'o'facture" is covered.
• \b(M|m|[Rr]em|[Uu]nm)[au]n(?:[aiou]{0,2}fr?ac?|[ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing|e?able|e?ability)\b Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK that's cool.
• {x,y} matches x, x+1 ... y-1, y occurrences.
• [au] and [ua] are the same, they both match a or u.
• The instructions about not using * and + are sage, but not wholly valid. Certainly the CPU comment depends very much on the actual regex. Consider for example vowel matching "[aeiou]+" vs "[aeiou]{1,2}". (Maybe [eaiou]+ for speed...) This will generally be matching a one vowel string, and sometimes 2 - there will be almost no 3 vowel matches. Let us suppose that 25% of characters are vowels and that we have a uniform random distribution of letters.

No vowels	%	Operations method 1 [aeiou]+	Operations method 2 [aeiou]{1,2}	Expected cost of using method 2
0	75	match (1)	check count (1) match (1)	.75 * 1
1	17.25	match (2)	check count (2) match (2)	.1725 * 2
2	4.57	match (3)	check count (3) match (3)	.0457 * 3
3	1.26	match (4)	check count (3) match (3)	.0126 * 0.5
4	0.32	match (5)	check count (3) match (3)	- .0032 *2

As you can see not until we get to four vowels in a row does the {1,2} method become cheaper than + — and that is at the expense of missing 6.25 % of the items we want to match.

• I would replace (M|m|[Rr]em|[Uu]nm) with ((?:[Uu]n|[Rr]e|)[Mm]) - this is - to me at least - clearer in function. It does of course match UnM and leave it mis-capitaliɀed
• [ct]ur only matches "cur" or "tur" - it is relying on the "c?" of "fr?ac?" to match "factur".

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks! I don't understand the CPU maths and at this point it is of little use on rocking the previous consensus. It's really cool what you've done with the rule. It's given me a lot more understanding and ability when using regex. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!

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

• Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
• More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
• Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
• New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
• Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

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. Sarah (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ibid

In this edit you use name = {{{name|Ibid}}}. Why not use simply name = Ibid, as I have seen it done in (so far) all other maintenance templates? Debresser (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It allows wrapper templates to pass their names, using the same paradigm. Rich Farmbrough, 01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC).

Antonio Diego Voci

Hello, I'd just like to thank you for the improvements you're in the process of making to the Antonio Diego Voci page, they are very helpful. Is there any way I can be of assistance to you? Ahjkl67435 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Football box header

Hi Rich. Is Template:Football box header, which you created in September last year, still required? It's not transcluded anywhere and it's only referenced as a "See also" from the docpage for Template:Football box. If it's no longer required, I'll propose it for deletion (or you can, if you prefer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the template for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates and sockpuppets and categories and if tests and OH GOD THE HORROR

Hi Rich, I ended up staring at Template:Sockpuppet category for a while (for something minor and already fixed), and I think I spied an error in the template. Check out this diff in Template:Sockpuppet category/sandbox please and let me know if you agree. From what I can tell, namespace errors are being silently unreported because the if tests are not closing properly. The closing brace in that diff change should fix it but I'm not confident enough to just slap on a {{protected edit}} request and call it a day. BigNate37_(T) 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You were right about the error. I changed the sandbox and made a testcase. I think that is better, I used classic code indentation, so it need a little testing, but looks OK. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

Nearly forgot- re: session musicians

Hey. when I want to add a more subcategory rather than just session musicians to American session musicians there's normally no problem. But I tried to do so for those from New Zealand, and I think I screwed it up. And-- today, I find that there are some Czech session players which could use a similar category.. but, you see my dilemma? I mean, first I screw up the New Zealand one- check and see! I wanted to add Bruce Lynch and Neil Finn to the NZ session players at the least. I'd appreciate your help. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should all be good now. Let me know if there are problems. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Many thanks, as usual! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-work

Cheers Rich, I think you should have an email, let me know if this is not the case. Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Skip if contains .{2000}

Greetings Rich, I just wanted to clarify something. The Skip if contains .{2000} statement you made. Is that greater than 2000 or less than? Also, does that include things like infoboxes and categories? I assume it does but not sure. Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It would match 2000 or more characters. I would assume a hard and fast rule would not be needed, but you could craft a regex to do a reasonable job of excluding infoboxes and categories, with a little work. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, is there a way to say something like 0 to 500? Its fine if it includes categories and templates that small, it'll still be a stub. Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, .{0,500} Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

Awesome thanks I'll give that a go. Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I am doing it right. When I put in .{0,1000} under doesn't contain (assuming that anything with more would still have that many) with the regex box checked, it still doesn't catch some that I know are less than 1000 characters. Is there something else that I am missing? Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So they are being skipped, what is the reason in the skip field in the log? Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

As much as I have used AWB I didn't even know there was a skip log. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On the right hand side next to the edit summaries is a "Logs" tab, click on Logs and at the bottom is a scroll list of article you've skipped for the session with a skip reason column. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well what do ya know there it is..lol. Learn something new everyday. Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The message on the log says "Page does not contain .{2000}". Kumioko (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But the skip is supposed to be set to .{0,1000} .... Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

Makes sure the Regex is ticked in the skip tab. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried it a few different ways. Contains/Not contains, with and without regex, .{2000}, .{0,2000} and various other combinations. I just can't seem to get it to work right. Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll try to test tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

Problem with ".{0,1000}" is that it matches everything as every article has at least 0 characters. What I got to work was Skip - If contains .{1000,} this will skip if there is more then 1000 characters in the none excluded part of an article. If instead you want smaller articles skipped just put and tick it in the not contains option instead. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That's where we started I think and we got lost on the highways and byways of the regex. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks guys its working now. I restarted my computer and then reopened AWB and it started working. Something must have been locked up somewhere. Kumioko (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Mr. Farmbrough,

Thank you for your time and expertise in clean-up execution on Antonio Diego Voci. We have addressed, with your assistance both issues of capital letter inconsistency as well as toning down of bolding. Plus we restored the two 1957 paintings that inadvertently disappeared upon your edit. By the way, “clientage” is a legitimate word, “a body of clients; clientele; customers, but we like your word “patrons”. And in “USA” we write “color” without the “u”; and “traveling” without the extra “l”. Also we had not realized Wikipedia used the European system for dates, the day first then the month, which we actually prefer.

Are you British? Even though the USA is no longer a colony, we celebrated the Queen’s birthday right along with you folks on Facebook and Twitter. And watched the Olympics every day. London is probably now suffering aftershock.Ahjkl67435 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. The regional spelling does not greatly matter either way - I would not object if you change it. I used the date system associated with Europe, since Voci is associated primarily with Europe - Wikipedia uses both systems, but consistently within articles, and subject to geographic usage. It is best to avoid obscure words, all else being equal, so that the articles can be read by the widest possible audience. I think the article is interesting, and, although I can see parts might be objected to by some editors, useful.

Indeed I am British, although I was in the US for the opening ceremonies... Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Respond

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. Please, listen to me. I need you help. Please, help me. I am at the very end of good faith, so please, please, read this and this, following your logical conclusion. Help me to understand am i wrong, or something else is wrong here. Dont ignore me, i saw that you are very neutral and quite familial with wiki rules. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

TfD for new Cite_web/smart

I am contacting you, per wp:CANVAS, after contacting mostly negative or neutral editors, as a user known to be supportive about quick, fast citation templates, in considering the latest TfD discussion. In this case, the template {Cite_web/smart} is finally the big upgrade to entirely replace {Cite_web} with a faster version that carefully checks the parameters to only invoke {Citation/core} for any rare parameters, else quickly formats a cite plus COinS data. Now, {cite_web/smart} is a massive extension of your October 2011 Template:Cite_book_quick, as a hybrid with {cite_web} and new {cite_quick}. See TfD of 11 August 2012:

• WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_11#Template:Cite_web.2Fsmart

This notice is only an FYI, as announcing the discussion under way. Feel free to oppose the template, support the template, ignore the discussion, or even delete this message. The TfD just started, so there should be, at least, 4 days (18 August 2012) to consider the issues.

With that formality stated, I want to thank you for creating Template:Cite_book_quick, which inspired me to create a hybrid template that handles all {cite_web} parameters, only invoking {Citation/core} to format the rare parameters. Currently, major article "Arab Spring" hits the include-size limit, but {cite_web/smart} could reduce the template expansion size in all 1.1 million articles using {cite_web}. -Wikid77 (talk) Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Burton's Biscuit Company - changes

Hi Rich, I noticed you have been changing some text on the Burton's article. When amendment you made that is incorrect is Cadbury brands licensed by Cadbury UK. This should really state Kraft Foods as the official owner of the brand. Please can you undo. Thanks Mrs biskit (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation needed cheap

Template:Citation needed cheap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Beland (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much!

Thank you very, very much for the fantastic list of orphaned American artists you generated for me - that's really some service! I'd love to know more about how you managed it but perhaps will wait until I've done some reading and have sensible questions to ask. In the meantime, many thanks! Mfbjr (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Helping out at The Teahouse

Thanks a bunch for helping out at the Teahouse. Many of your answers have been very helpful! One little thing, since many new users are asking question, some may not know about watchlists or realize they need to check in once in a while to see if their question is answered. For that reason, when you do answer a question, please use the talkback template located here on their user talk page so that they know their question has been answered. There is also a script which you can install that will leave the template automatically when you answer a question. Toodles. --Jayron32 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for stalking but whats the script and does it work outside the teahouse? Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a few different scripts located here and they only work in the Teahouse; though someone with some coding skill (read: not me) could likely adapt them for other purposes. There are likely also other scripts in existence which do what you want, but the teahouse scripts only do teahouse tasks. --Jayron32 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Green.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mdann52 (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Er... lol? Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Upgrading status of The Little Sister

Hi Rich. I noticed you changed The Little Sister from Stub to Start. I'm a new editor so still not familiar with the review process. I've made a lot of changes to The Little Sister over the last month and I put it in the queue for a formal re-assessment on the Project Novels/Assessment page. When I checked that page it seems to me that the assessment hasn't been completed yet (there is still one page ahead of Little Sister and its not struck through yet). I'm assuming you just noticed the amazingly awesome work I've done ;) and made the change in status? I wanted to check because the text (I assume from a template) that says the page has no references is still there and it clearly does have references now. Can/should I just remove that and if so can you give me a hint how? Or should I just wait for the assessment and let them remove the bit about no references? thanks! Mdebellis (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, while some of the projects have formal assessment systems, I felt sure that promotion to at least "Start" was warranted, after seeing your comments at Teahouse. Yes you can/should remove the unreferenced tag, except that I have done that. In general these tags should be removed when they have served their purpose, but naturally people are a little reticent to do so. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Great. Thanks! Mdebellis (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

{{WikiProject OWS}}

You recently moved this template to {{WikiProject Occupy Wall Street}}. While that did make it clearer what it was about, I've reverted it back to the current title, as the name of the WikiProject actually is WikiProject OWS (WP:WikiProject Occupy Wall Street is a redlink). I'm inclined to think that WikiProject should probably be renamed, but as long as it's under that title, the accompanying template should be too. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Rich Farmbrough. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested at the Village Pump

Hi Rich. I have a proposal at the village pump about introducing a color scheme to the text editor so it is easier for newer editors to differentiate between different kinds of syntax, particularly references. I'd welcome your feedback at the village pump. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hi. In case you're not watching meta: m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine#Conference call. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Trucks Act and coal scrip

Many thanks for the comment on the coal scrip article. I agree, 100%, yes, the truck acts were an outcome. My only contention, as one who has been through the usage of scrip first hand, is to define it and then, yes, by all means, show the social issues associated wih its use. I wanted to present a pro and con synopsis and will of course keep this as neutral as possible.Coal town guy (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

save police time, shoot yourself

I certainly didn't mean for it to sound like that. I think if he had responded at ANI with an "oh, I did not kno that, i will not do it again" it would have died down. It's the "I'm doing nothing wrong" response, followed by the "they're all out to get me" defense that doesn't help. I only followed up on the hand in the tools thing because he doesn't use them a right lot, and he's actually said somewhere before this that he's not finding adminning fun. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• This heading is rather shocking! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)